What area of law should I go into? Forum

[pianolesspianist]

Hey all!

I'm a 0L looking at T10-T14 schools, and am hoping for some career advice. I have a pretty good idea of the general criteria id be looking for in a job, but no solid concept for what kind of job that would be. Figured maybe some of the more experienced folks on here could offer some guidance based on what I'm looking for:

A. Intellectual stimulation. I've taken courses in law before, and I love jurisprudential thinking so I'd really like to find a job that involves a lot of this.

B. Fuzziness. I want to feel like I'm helping people or 'making a difference' (yes, i also want to throw up in my mouth a little when i hear myself say it, but it's true). I don't think it will matter to me so much if I can actually see the effect of my helpfulness directly - I'd be okay with helping people I never meet, so long as I genuinely believe I'm contributing something meaningful.

C. Work/Life balance. If I enjoy my job and my career gives me meaning, I'd be cool with working a fair amount, but not anywhere near biglaw-level time. 65 hours a week is the max I think I could comfortably handle long-term, and only if the work meets points A and B well. Otherwise, I'll take time over $$$ any day.

D. Financial comfort. For me, I think this would look like around 80k per year (though I'd be okay with starting with less). More is great, but 80k seems pretty solid to me.

Obviously, I understand that I may need to trade some degree of one criterion in favor of another, but these are, generally, what I want to get out of a law career.

Anyone have any suggestions? Anecdotes? Things to look into?

Thanks!!

[pianolesspianist]

PS - In case it could be relevant, I also wouldn't have a problem relocating to (most) other countries for work, and generally love to travel.

[nixy]

Not trying to be condescending, but it’s very very very hard to answer A for someone else. What does jurisprudential thinking mean to you? Do you want to go to court and arguing things, or do you want to work with people creating legal documents that solve their problems? Will the content matter to you (e.g. would you find working on construction matters just as interesting as working on family law matters or criminal matters?). As for B, would helping a company merge with another company count as helping people, or do you mean something more social-policy-esque?

[Vursz]

Honestly, it sounds like what you’re looking for is something along the lines of clerkship + impact litigation. Not all PI pays $80K+, but the large organizations compensate their attorneys pretty well (esp. if your politics are right-of-center).

[pianolesspianist]

Not trying to be condescending, but it’s very very very hard to answer A for someone else. What does jurisprudential thinking mean to you? Do you want to go to court and arguing things, or do you want to work with people creating legal documents that solve their problems? Will the content matter to you (e.g. would you find working on construction matters just as interesting as working on family law matters or criminal matters?). As for B, would helping a company merge with another company count as helping people, or do you mean something more social-policy-esque?

You didn't come off as condescending at all

What I mean generally is having to think. Not necessarily to argue in front of court, though that's certainly a possibility from where I stand right now.
I do like finding and applying precendents, making clever/nuanced distinctions to reject an application of a precedent to a given case, advocating for one interpretation over another based on textual/logical/contextual support, etc.

Writing documents might be interesting if it would involve finding ingenious solutions to legal constraints, but I'm a 0L - I don't know exactly what this entails.


Not sure exactly how to clarify this further (but happy to try again if it helps you help me), but basically, if I get to strategize and use my intellect to solve problems for a living, i think that'd meet A.

As for B, yeah, more social policy esque. Though not necessarily human rights/social justice stuff. Anything that would be beneficial to humans in terms of education, health, or environment would also be great.

[pianolesspianist]

Honestly, it sounds like what you’re looking for is something along the lines of clerkship + impact litigation. Not all PI pays $80K+, but the large organizations compensate their attorneys pretty well (esp. if your politics are right-of-center).

Thanks! My politics are pretty center of center haha

Are there any particular organizations you can recommend for me to look into?

[cavalier1138]

Though not necessarily human rights/social justice stuff. Anything that would be beneficial to humans in terms of education, health, or environment would also be great.

Those are kind of contradictory ideas, though. Human rights/social justice are pretty tied up in educational, health, and environmental policy. But I guess it depends on what your definition of "beneficial to humans" means in terms of your policy leanings.

What do you envision doing on a daily basis in your practice outside of the vaguer goals of thinking about hard issues and impacting people's lives? Do you envision writing briefs in cases before the Supreme Court? Representing a specific client from trial through all appeals? Working for a federal agency and writing policy guidance?

If I'm reading your posts correctly, it sounds like you're sort of interested in appellate litigation, which very few people actually get to do. But are you actually passionate about particular policy areas outside of the intellectual exercise of thinking about legal doctrine?

[pianolesspianist]

Though not necessarily human rights/social justice stuff. Anything that would be beneficial to humans in terms of education, health, or environment would also be great.

Those are kind of contradictory ideas, though. Human rights/social justice are pretty tied up in educational, health, and environmental policy. But I guess it depends on what your definition of "beneficial to humans" means in terms of your policy leanings.

What do you envision doing on a daily basis in your practice outside of the vaguer goals of thinking about hard issues and impacting people's lives? Do you envision writing briefs in cases before the Supreme Court? Representing a specific client from trial through all appeals? Working for a federal agency and writing policy guidance?

If I'm reading your posts correctly, it sounds like you're sort of interested in appellate litigation, which very few people actually get to do. But are you actually passionate about particular policy areas outside of the intellectual exercise of thinking about legal doctrine?

Thanks for the reply. In order of your paragraphs:

1. Agreed. I just wanted to clarify that I'm okay with human-rightsy-social justice-stuff as well as environment/health/education stuff, since there might be a distinction between those things in some people's minds.

2. I don't know. Which is exactly why I created this thread
I know what I want to get out of my job, but I'm trying to get a better idea of what the day-to-day elements might look like.

3. Yes.

Could you say more about appellate litigation? What does it look like? Why do very few get to do it? How does one increase their chances of getting to do it?

Thanks!

[cavalier1138]

Appellate litigation is basically what it sounds like: you're litigating appeals. So you're only litigating issues of law before judges (no trials, no fact-finding, etc.). It's usually practiced at large firms or by heavy-hitting public interest outfits. At the latter, despite the allure of getting to litigate the next Roe v. Wade, a large portion of NGO resources goes into deciding which cases are worth focusing on. You'll often turn down a very large number of cases worth fighting in order to find the case you can win (even if it's a much less impressive victory).

It's very difficult to get into the field because there are (for obvious reasons) fewer cases being heard at the appellate level than at the trial level. The people practicing at this level often clerked in federal appeals courts, so they prefer people with the same pedigree. So one of the only ways to increase your chances of doing that kind of work is to clerk for a federal court of appeals. To get into that position, you not only need to graduate from a top school, you need to perform well there (and maybe get a district court clerkship/a few years of practice under your belt first). Judges in the D.C. Circuit, for example, often don't go outside the top 10% of the class at HYSCCN and won't hire outside the T13; many of them are now refusing to hire clerks without a year or two of experience.

[pianolesspianist]

Appellate litigation is basically what it sounds like: you're litigating appeals. So you're only litigating issues of law before judges (no trials, no fact-finding, etc.). It's usually practiced at large firms or by heavy-hitting public interest outfits. At the latter, despite the allure of getting to litigate the next Roe v. Wade, a large portion of NGO resources goes into deciding which cases are worth focusing on. You'll often turn down a very large number of cases worth fighting in order to find the case you can win (even if it's a much less impressive victory).

It's very difficult to get into the field because there are (for obvious reasons) fewer cases being heard at the appellate level than at the trial level. The people practicing at this level often clerked in federal appeals courts, so they prefer people with the same pedigree. So one of the only ways to increase your chances of doing that kind of work is to clerk for a federal court of appeals. To get into that position, you not only need to graduate from a top school, you need to perform well there (and maybe get a district court clerkship/a few years of practice under your belt first). Judges in the D.C. Circuit, for example, often don't go outside the top 10% of the class at HYSCCN and won't hire outside the T13; many of them are now refusing to hire clerks without a year or two of experience.

Thanks for the info!

Why do you think that might be a better fit than impact litigation? Is it just because you get to skip steps and just go straight to advocating before a judge? Or....?

Assuming I end up in T10-T14 schools (cuz there aint no way im going 250k in debt to go to a T6 school), would there be any advantage to going to GULC since it's in DC?

Thanks again. The time/insight is greatly appreciated

[Queeg]

Do you have any prior experience in any law-related job? Did you work as a legal assistant or shadow a lawyer? I’ve found this helpful as a first step in deciding what you like or don’t like.

[cavalier1138]

Appellate litigation is basically what it sounds like: you're litigating appeals. So you're only litigating issues of law before judges (no trials, no fact-finding, etc.). It's usually practiced at large firms or by heavy-hitting public interest outfits. At the latter, despite the allure of getting to litigate the next Roe v. Wade, a large portion of NGO resources goes into deciding which cases are worth focusing on. You'll often turn down a very large number of cases worth fighting in order to find the case you can win (even if it's a much less impressive victory).

It's very difficult to get into the field because there are (for obvious reasons) fewer cases being heard at the appellate level than at the trial level. The people practicing at this level often clerked in federal appeals courts, so they prefer people with the same pedigree. So one of the only ways to increase your chances of doing that kind of work is to clerk for a federal court of appeals. To get into that position, you not only need to graduate from a top school, you need to perform well there (and maybe get a district court clerkship/a few years of practice under your belt first). Judges in the D.C. Circuit, for example, often don't go outside the top 10% of the class at HYSCCN and won't hire outside the T13; many of them are now refusing to hire clerks without a year or two of experience.

Thanks for the info!

Why do you think that might be a better fit than impact litigation? Is it just because you get to skip steps and just go straight to advocating before a judge? Or....?

Assuming I end up in T10-T14 schools (cuz there aint no way im going 250k in debt to go to a T6 school), would there be any advantage to going to GULC since it's in DC?

Thanks again. The time/insight is greatly appreciated

Because you've emphasized arguing legal issues over advocating for people directly. Appellate litigation is all legal issues. Litigation at the trial-court level includes that kind of argument, but it also includes fact development, client management, etc. You get to advocate before a judge in both instances, but the kind of advocacy is different.

And no, there's no advantage to going to Georgetown. The D.C. Circuit was just an example of a competitive appellate clerkship. Excessive debt at any school can be avoided with a high enough LSAT, so if you really want to gun for this (and you should be prepared to not get it), you should consider delaying law school for a retake.

[pianolesspianist]

Appellate litigation is basically what it sounds like: you're litigating appeals. So you're only litigating issues of law before judges (no trials, no fact-finding, etc.). It's usually practiced at large firms or by heavy-hitting public interest outfits. At the latter, despite the allure of getting to litigate the next Roe v. Wade, a large portion of NGO resources goes into deciding which cases are worth focusing on. You'll often turn down a very large number of cases worth fighting in order to find the case you can win (even if it's a much less impressive victory).

It's very difficult to get into the field because there are (for obvious reasons) fewer cases being heard at the appellate level than at the trial level. The people practicing at this level often clerked in federal appeals courts, so they prefer people with the same pedigree. So one of the only ways to increase your chances of doing that kind of work is to clerk for a federal court of appeals. To get into that position, you not only need to graduate from a top school, you need to perform well there (and maybe get a district court clerkship/a few years of practice under your belt first). Judges in the D.C. Circuit, for example, often don't go outside the top 10% of the class at HYSCCN and won't hire outside the T13; many of them are now refusing to hire clerks without a year or two of experience.

Thanks for the info!

Why do you think that might be a better fit than impact litigation? Is it just because you get to skip steps and just go straight to advocating before a judge? Or....?

Assuming I end up in T10-T14 schools (cuz there aint no way im going 250k in debt to go to a T6 school), would there be any advantage to going to GULC since it's in DC?

Thanks again. The time/insight is greatly appreciated

Because you've emphasized arguing legal issues over advocating for people directly. Appellate litigation is all legal issues. Litigation at the trial-court level includes that kind of argument, but it also includes fact development, client management, etc. You get to advocate before a judge in both instances, but the kind of advocacy is different.

And no, there's no advantage to going to Georgetown. The D.C. Circuit was just an example of a competitive appellate clerkship. Excessive debt at any school can be avoided with a high enough LSAT, so if you really want to gun for this (and you should be prepared to not get it), you should consider delaying law school for a retake.

Thanks!

I've thought about retaking, and while I know I could do better than 173 (highest PT was 176), I feel I also run the risk of scoring lower.......Would there be a significant difference in debt with a 176 vs a 173?

[pianolesspianist]

Appellate litigation is basically what it sounds like: you're litigating appeals. So you're only litigating issues of law before judges (no trials, no fact-finding, etc.). It's usually practiced at large firms or by heavy-hitting public interest outfits. At the latter, despite the allure of getting to litigate the next Roe v. Wade, a large portion of NGO resources goes into deciding which cases are worth focusing on. You'll often turn down a very large number of cases worth fighting in order to find the case you can win (even if it's a much less impressive victory).

It's very difficult to get into the field because there are (for obvious reasons) fewer cases being heard at the appellate level than at the trial level. The people practicing at this level often clerked in federal appeals courts, so they prefer people with the same pedigree. So one of the only ways to increase your chances of doing that kind of work is to clerk for a federal court of appeals. To get into that position, you not only need to graduate from a top school, you need to perform well there (and maybe get a district court clerkship/a few years of practice under your belt first). Judges in the D.C. Circuit, for example, often don't go outside the top 10% of the class at HYSCCN and won't hire outside the T13; many of them are now refusing to hire clerks without a year or two of experience.

Thanks for the info!

Why do you think that might be a better fit than impact litigation? Is it just because you get to skip steps and just go straight to advocating before a judge? Or....?

Assuming I end up in T10-T14 schools (cuz there aint no way im going 250k in debt to go to a T6 school), would there be any advantage to going to GULC since it's in DC?

Thanks again. The time/insight is greatly appreciated

Because you've emphasized arguing legal issues over advocating for people directly. Appellate litigation is all legal issues. Litigation at the trial-court level includes that kind of argument, but it also includes fact development, client management, etc. You get to advocate before a judge in both instances, but the kind of advocacy is different.

And no, there's no advantage to going to Georgetown. The D.C. Circuit was just an example of a competitive appellate clerkship. Excessive debt at any school can be avoided with a high enough LSAT, so if you really want to gun for this (and you should be prepared to not get it), you should consider delaying law school for a retake.

Thanks very much.

I've thought about retaking, and while I know I could do better than 173 (highest PT was 176), I feel I also run the risk of scoring lower.......Would there be a significant difference in debt with a 176 vs a 173?