Top Law Schools

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.

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.

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.

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.

L’Étranger wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

AAJD2B wrote:

biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

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:

biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

Uh you think we never end up suing over what's in a CA?

Thanks for sharing the story.

L’Étranger wrote:The above quote is not true.

AAJD2B wrote:This can't be right.

I can't believe these are the responses to the OP.

NYC-WVU wrote:

AAJD2B wrote:

biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

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?

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.

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.

NYC-WVU wrote:

AAJD2B wrote:

biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

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?

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.

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 wrote:

NYC-WVU wrote:

AAJD2B wrote:

biglawbust wrote:I really can't bring myself to care about a credit agreement. And this is litigation.

This can't be right. Credit Agreements are strictly corporate, most likely in bank finance. It's not an aspect of litigation.

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?

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.

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.

Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?

exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?

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.

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.

^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^

MidwestLifer wrote:^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^

It would be in your best interest to know I was not attempting same.

AAJD2B wrote:

MidwestLifer wrote:^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^

It would be in your best interest to know I was not attempting same.

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: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.

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:

exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?

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.

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.

That wasn't your point. Your point was

AAJD2B wrote: Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation.

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.

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.

lol AAJD2B is such an aggressively bad poster

MidwestLifer wrote:^ You're not impressing anyone here. ^

+1

AAJD2B wrote:
It would be in your best interest to know I was not attempting same.

What?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

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.

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.

After which OP said "this is litigation". It is not. That is my gripe, and it makes me question his experience.

exitoptions wrote:

AAJD2B wrote:

exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?

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.

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.

That wasn't your point. Your point was

AAJD2B wrote: Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation.

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.

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.

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.

patogordo wrote:lol AAJD2B is such an aggressively bad poster

Pot calling kettle black?

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?

AAJD2B wrote:

exitoptions wrote:

AAJD2B wrote:

exitoptions wrote:Never heard of bankruptcy, huh?

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.

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.

That wasn't your point. Your point was

AAJD2B wrote: Like I said, CAs are not a part of litigation.

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.

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.

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.

http://[link redacted]/a56lnh

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?

AAJD2B wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

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.

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.

After which OP said "this is litigation". It is not. That is my gripe, and it makes me question his experience.

You're reading too much into it.