Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw Forum
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
The point of this post is to offer some insight to law school applicants while selfishly allowing myself an avenue to vent. A little about me: I'm a graduate from a top 14 school working as a junior associate in a V50 biglaw firm. I do litigation, or at least what passes for it in biglaw.
Think strategically about where you apply and what you intend to pursue as a career. I say this not to dissuade anyone from law school. I actually like being a lawyer. I say this because we too often follow what is echoed on law school message boards, by prelaw undergrad advisors, by friends, or whoever: go to the best school you can because it will open more doors. Many lifetimes ago, I wanted to go to law school because I wanted to be a plaintiffs' trial lawyer. I didn't know much about corporate law or biglaw. I wanted to try plaintiffs' cases. Then, when I began applying, I did plenty of research and fell into the prestige trap. I needed a good school because I thought I needed biglaw or "prestige."
When deciding on a school, I had a few choices. Ultimately, I was between a top 14 school with a small scholarship, or a second tier school nearly for free. I chose the T14 school because everyone made the same vague reference to better career opportunities. I considered the opportunities it might foreclose. Because of the cost of attending, I now needed to land biglaw, unless I wanted to be in debt for 25 years. Plus, the prestige chase didn't end with enrollment. The attitude perpetuated by the school was that if you didn't land biglaw, you weren't successful.
Now I'm in biglaw and the irony is that I'll likely never be a trial lawyer. I also likely won't last in biglaw for more than a few years, after which I'm not sure what I'll do. I'll try to lateral to a decent plaintiffs' trial firm, but I doubt I'll be able to because they all want attorneys with significant trial experience -- something you I won't get in biglaw. The skills I'll learn here will not transfer.
I generally like my firm and the people I work with. I dislike the work. I'm unlikely to appear in a courtroom for the first three years, and even after that, trials are few and far between. I may get to argue some motions after 3-4 years. I review a lot of documents and make a lot of spreadsheets. To the extent that I do research, it's for footnotes in briefs. The cases are not the type that are exciting to me. I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation. Being in the corporate department would put me to sleep. Somewhere along the way, I forgot that I went to law school because I wanted to be a lawyer.
The point of this rambling post is this: the reason I originally wanted to go to law school was lost somewhere along the way by following the orthodox advice without thinking too much about its long term implications. If I had gone to the lesser-ranked school on a scholarship, I would have had less debt and had more freedom to pursue the type of firm and career I wanted.
Some people don't want to try cases, and that's good. Some people dream of being corporate lawyers and papering deals for the businesspeople that make them happen. I don't necessarily understand why, but if that's your dream, biglaw is a good fit. I just hope that this post gives some perspective to applicants. I'm fortunate to have my job, because I'm paid well and without it I would die in debt. But think about your real career goals before falling into the prestige trap. Unfortunately for me, I'll never get to be the lawyer I wanted, and I won't get to forge the career I wanted.
Think strategically about where you apply and what you intend to pursue as a career. I say this not to dissuade anyone from law school. I actually like being a lawyer. I say this because we too often follow what is echoed on law school message boards, by prelaw undergrad advisors, by friends, or whoever: go to the best school you can because it will open more doors. Many lifetimes ago, I wanted to go to law school because I wanted to be a plaintiffs' trial lawyer. I didn't know much about corporate law or biglaw. I wanted to try plaintiffs' cases. Then, when I began applying, I did plenty of research and fell into the prestige trap. I needed a good school because I thought I needed biglaw or "prestige."
When deciding on a school, I had a few choices. Ultimately, I was between a top 14 school with a small scholarship, or a second tier school nearly for free. I chose the T14 school because everyone made the same vague reference to better career opportunities. I considered the opportunities it might foreclose. Because of the cost of attending, I now needed to land biglaw, unless I wanted to be in debt for 25 years. Plus, the prestige chase didn't end with enrollment. The attitude perpetuated by the school was that if you didn't land biglaw, you weren't successful.
Now I'm in biglaw and the irony is that I'll likely never be a trial lawyer. I also likely won't last in biglaw for more than a few years, after which I'm not sure what I'll do. I'll try to lateral to a decent plaintiffs' trial firm, but I doubt I'll be able to because they all want attorneys with significant trial experience -- something you I won't get in biglaw. The skills I'll learn here will not transfer.
I generally like my firm and the people I work with. I dislike the work. I'm unlikely to appear in a courtroom for the first three years, and even after that, trials are few and far between. I may get to argue some motions after 3-4 years. I review a lot of documents and make a lot of spreadsheets. To the extent that I do research, it's for footnotes in briefs. The cases are not the type that are exciting to me. I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation. Being in the corporate department would put me to sleep. Somewhere along the way, I forgot that I went to law school because I wanted to be a lawyer.
The point of this rambling post is this: the reason I originally wanted to go to law school was lost somewhere along the way by following the orthodox advice without thinking too much about its long term implications. If I had gone to the lesser-ranked school on a scholarship, I would have had less debt and had more freedom to pursue the type of firm and career I wanted.
Some people don't want to try cases, and that's good. Some people dream of being corporate lawyers and papering deals for the businesspeople that make them happen. I don't necessarily understand why, but if that's your dream, biglaw is a good fit. I just hope that this post gives some perspective to applicants. I'm fortunate to have my job, because I'm paid well and without it I would die in debt. But think about your real career goals before falling into the prestige trap. Unfortunately for me, I'll never get to be the lawyer I wanted, and I won't get to forge the career I wanted.
- L’Étranger
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:27 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
The above quote is not true. A lesser ranked school would likely have given you way fewer opportunities than your T14, which after all helped you land a biglaw job.biglawbust wrote:If I had gone to the lesser-ranked school on a scholarship, I would have had less debt and had more freedom to pursue the type of firm and career I wanted.
Your post smushed a couple of issues together. Going to a T14 will give you a better opportunity to land a biglaw job and more opportunities in general, but going to a T14 does not guarantee that you will like the biglaw job that you land.
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:38 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Are you serious? Did you even read the OPs post? It's pretty clearly explained how (i) he didn't want biglaw to begin with, (ii) but he followed prestige because he was influenced by people like you who act as though prestige and biglaw are the be-all and end-all of all things law, (iii) he ended up buried under a mountain of debt so he felt like biglaw was his only viable option to get out from under the mountain, and (iv) biglaw won't help him to pursue his original goal of being a trial lawyer. Your post, which seems to read "Your wrong, T-14 helped you get biglaw," seems to miss the point entirely.L’Étranger wrote:The above quote is not true. A lesser ranked school would likely have given you way fewer opportunities than your T14, which after all helped you land a biglaw job.biglawbust wrote:If I had gone to the lesser-ranked school on a scholarship, I would have had less debt and had more freedom to pursue the type of firm and career I wanted.
Your post smushed a couple of issues together. Going to a T14 will give you a better opportunity to land a biglaw job and more opportunities in general, but going to a T14 does not guarantee that you will like the biglaw job that you land.
I think there are a few things in OPs post that are a bit "smushed" together, as you say. But I can't find fault with the quote that you say is not true. I think the lesson is: while T-14 may open more doors, the debt associated with sticker at T-14 might close some doors too, so make sure the debt at T-14 doesn't end up closing the doors you really wanted to walk through to begin with. I don't think the OP would argue that a free education at T-14 provides more opportunities than a free education somewhere else. But that's usually not the option people are choosing between.
- AAJD2B
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:38 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
I really don't know anything about this subject. But perhaps the terms of a credit agreement are part of the litigation, or maybe the entire litigation is about the credit agreement? Isn't that possible?AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- IAFG
- Posts: 6641
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Uh you think we never end up suing over what's in a CA?AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
- ggocat
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Thanks for sharing the story.
L’Étranger wrote:The above quote is not true.
I can't believe these are the responses to the OP.AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right.
- downinDtown
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:01 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Absolutely possible. If not for the corporate department screwing something up or one of the parties breaching [fill in the type of document], litigation would not exist.NYC-WVU wrote:I really don't know anything about this subject. But perhaps the terms of a credit agreement are part of the litigation, or maybe the entire litigation is about the credit agreement? Isn't that possible?AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:13 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
I can appreciate the OP. I myself got caught up in the prestige talk that goes around TLS and had to take a step back and evaluate my own goals.
OP, did you happen to take time off between undergrad and law school? I ask bc throughout undergrad I was convinced I would be willing to take on any amount of debt for a prestigious degree. However, after working for a couple years I shudder at the thought of borrowing 100k for school.
OP, did you happen to take time off between undergrad and law school? I ask bc throughout undergrad I was convinced I would be willing to take on any amount of debt for a prestigious degree. However, after working for a couple years I shudder at the thought of borrowing 100k for school.
- AAJD2B
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Terms are negotiated and agreed upon before any deal is closed (ie executed) by all parties involved. There is seldom reasons for a suit as most credit agreements are entered into and perfected with security interest in the form of equity, real property (UCCs) or equipment, amongst other things.NYC-WVU wrote:I really don't know anything about this subject. But perhaps the terms of a credit agreement are part of the litigation, or maybe the entire litigation is about the credit agreement? Isn't that possible?AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
The only reason where a suit might occur is if the terms of a credit agreement, usually in the form of an amendment to, were altered without the knowledge of the parties involved (ie investors, borrowers or at times participating lenders, separate from the Admin Agent who often stands to gain the most in such matters).
Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation. The OP worded it in such a way where his/her statements were open to interpretation.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:58 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?AAJD2B wrote:Terms are negotiated and agreed upon before any deal is closed (ie executed) by all parties involved. There is seldom reasons for a suit as most credit agreements are entered into and perfected with security interest in the form of equity, real property (UCCs) or equipment, amongst other things.NYC-WVU wrote:I really don't know anything about this subject. But perhaps the terms of a credit agreement are part of the litigation, or maybe the entire litigation is about the credit agreement? Isn't that possible?AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.
The only reason where a suit might occur is if the terms of a credit agreement, usually in the form of an amendment to, were altered without the knowledge of the parties involved (ie investors, borrowers or at times participating lenders, separate from the Admin Agent who often stands to gain the most in such matters).
Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation. The OP worded it in such a way where his/her statements were open to interpretation.
- AAJD2B
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
I have more than heard of it, but in such instances you're interpreting the CA to see what rights lenders may have with respect to remedies for tranches of debt in event of a default and a lender's ability to vote, if any, on the defaulted party's Chapter 11 plans. Not to mention how to decide which lender has first lien/second lien priority and if subordinated lenders may have similar recourse.exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?
My point remains. Interpretation of a CA for litigation purposes is not the same as negotiating the terms thereto. The OP left it open to interpretation.
- MidwestLifer
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:13 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- AAJD2B
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
It would be in your best interest to know I was not attempting same.MidwestLifer wrote:^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^
- MidwestLifer
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:13 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Then why pick such a minor detail apart? It serves no purpose for interpretation of what the OP said, and it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.AAJD2B wrote:It would be in your best interest to know I was not attempting same.MidwestLifer wrote:^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
But the OP never said they were negotiating the terms of a credit agreement....just that they couldn't care about a credit agreement. You're arguing with your own creation.AAJD2B wrote:My point remains. Interpretation of a CA for litigation purposes is not the same as negotiating the terms thereto. The OP left it open to interpretation.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:58 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
That wasn't your point. Your point wasAAJD2B wrote:I have more than heard of it, but in such instances you're interpreting the CA to see what rights lenders may have with respect to remedies for tranches of debt in event of a default and a lender's ability to vote, if any, on the defaulted party's Chapter 11 plans. Not to mention how to decide which lender has first lien/second lien priority and if subordinated lenders may have similar recourse.exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?
My point remains. Interpretation of a CA for litigation purposes is not the same as negotiating the terms thereto. The OP left it open to interpretation.
And that point is not open to interpretation. It's just wrong, totally and completely. More inane litigation has started because of poorly draft credit agreements than many other types of disputes.AAJD2B wrote: Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation.
I can't imagine an interpretation of OP's statement that he thought negotiating credit agreements was part of litigation. That's dumb. Your critique of his comments was just stupid. You should own that and move on. It will help your credibility.
Last edited by exitoptions on Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- patogordo
- Posts: 4826
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
lol AAJD2B is such an aggressively bad poster
- Carter1901
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:32 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
+1MidwestLifer wrote:^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^
What?AAJD2B wrote:
It would be in your best interest to know I was not attempting same.
- AAJD2B
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
After which OP said "this is litigation". It is not. That is my gripe, and it makes me question his experience.A. Nony Mouse wrote:But the OP never said they were negotiating the terms of a credit agreement....just that they couldn't care about a credit agreement. You're arguing with your own creation.AAJD2B wrote:My point remains. Interpretation of a CA for litigation purposes is not the same as negotiating the terms thereto. The OP left it open to interpretation.
- AAJD2B
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Just LOL, especially at poorly drafted CAs. Show me a actual case where there was litigation due to "poorly drafted CAs" and I will get off my point.exitoptions wrote:That wasn't your point. Your point wasAAJD2B wrote:I have more than heard of it, but in such instances you're interpreting the CA to see what rights lenders may have with respect to remedies for tranches of debt in event of a default and a lender's ability to vote, if any, on the defaulted party's Chapter 11 plans. Not to mention how to decide which lender has first lien/second lien priority and if subordinated lenders may have similar recourse.exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?
My point remains. Interpretation of a CA for litigation purposes is not the same as negotiating the terms thereto. The OP left it open to interpretation.And that point is not open to interpretation. It's just wrong, totally and completely. More inane litigation has started because of poorly draft credit agreements than many other types of disputes.AAJD2B wrote: Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation.
I can't imagine an interpretation of OP's statement that he thought negotiating credit agreements was part of litigation. That's dumb. Your critique of his comments was just stupid. You should own that and move on. It will help your credibility.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- AAJD2B
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
patogordo wrote:lol AAJD2B is such an aggressively bad poster
Pot calling kettle black?
- toshiroh
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:58 pm
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
Thanks OP for this perspective. I appreciate it. I would like to hear more about the lateral movement from Big Law. Is it really that bad?
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:58 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
http://[link redacted]/a56lnhAAJD2B wrote:Just LOL, especially at poorly drafted CAs. Show me a actual case where there was litigation due to "poorly drafted CAs" and I will get off my point.exitoptions wrote:That wasn't your point. Your point wasAAJD2B wrote:I have more than heard of it, but in such instances you're interpreting the CA to see what rights lenders may have with respect to remedies for tranches of debt in event of a default and a lender's ability to vote, if any, on the defaulted party's Chapter 11 plans. Not to mention how to decide which lender has first lien/second lien priority and if subordinated lenders may have similar recourse.exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?
My point remains. Interpretation of a CA for litigation purposes is not the same as negotiating the terms thereto. The OP left it open to interpretation.And that point is not open to interpretation. It's just wrong, totally and completely. More inane litigation has started because of poorly draft credit agreements than many other types of disputes.AAJD2B wrote: Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation.
I can't imagine an interpretation of OP's statement that he thought negotiating credit agreements was part of litigation. That's dumb. Your critique of his comments was just stupid. You should own that and move on. It will help your credibility.
Your profile says you're applying for schools this year, so why are you pretending to know what you're talking about? Also, why are you so bad at it?
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Deciding where to attend? My perspective from biglaw
You're reading too much into it.AAJD2B wrote:After which OP said "this is litigation". It is not. That is my gripe, and it makes me question his experience.A. Nony Mouse wrote:But the OP never said they were negotiating the terms of a credit agreement....just that they couldn't care about a credit agreement. You're arguing with your own creation.AAJD2B wrote:My point remains. Interpretation of a CA for litigation purposes is not the same as negotiating the terms thereto. The OP left it open to interpretation.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login