Chasing Paper
September 18, 2007 1:21 PM Subscribe
Law student needs job advice.
I'll try to keep this short, but I'm a 2nd year law student in the process of trying to figure out my career. I'm interested in litigation, like to write and argue, and don't like working weekends. I'm eying the DC and Denver markets. Top 1/4 of class, top 25 school.
My current plan is to go to a bigger firm, work for 4-5 yrs, and then go prosecute, molding myself into an ace trial lawyer. When I'm done with that, I can write my own ticket and do what I'd like.
Is this realistic? Advisable? I'm trying to find "lifestyle" firms where I'll get interesting work and humane hours; is there anything else I should be considering?
I'll try to keep this short, but I'm a 2nd year law student in the process of trying to figure out my career. I'm interested in litigation, like to write and argue, and don't like working weekends. I'm eying the DC and Denver markets. Top 1/4 of class, top 25 school.
My current plan is to go to a bigger firm, work for 4-5 yrs, and then go prosecute, molding myself into an ace trial lawyer. When I'm done with that, I can write my own ticket and do what I'd like.
Is this realistic? Advisable? I'm trying to find "lifestyle" firms where I'll get interesting work and humane hours; is there anything else I should be considering?
If you're interested in being a prosecutor at some point, I'd do that fresh out of law school.
This will enable you to go to BigLaw with real trial experience, which will make you a much more attractive candidate than the opposite. Instead of taking a major paycut to go from a firm to a DA or AUSA position, you'll take advantage of having first-rate trial experience and be able to command a higher salary as a mid-level associate.
posted by andrewraff at 2:27 PM on September 18, 2007
This will enable you to go to BigLaw with real trial experience, which will make you a much more attractive candidate than the opposite. Instead of taking a major paycut to go from a firm to a DA or AUSA position, you'll take advantage of having first-rate trial experience and be able to command a higher salary as a mid-level associate.
posted by andrewraff at 2:27 PM on September 18, 2007
If you go from Big Law to prosecution, you will have to deal with going from a $100k+ salary back down to around $40k, because the state won't want to hire you at anything but entry-level salary since thats the work you will be doing. If you do prosecution for a few years, you can probably move laterally to a firm and bypass the grunt work. Doing prosecution first will be financially painful, but at least your co-workers will be in the same boat. I'm sure others will have different views on this, however.
posted by gatorae at 2:27 PM on September 18, 2007
posted by gatorae at 2:27 PM on September 18, 2007
I agree wholeheartedly with the prior responses. I would go to a trial firm if that's what you want to do. It's my understanding that you will not get meaningful trial argument experience at a large firm. Also agree it's a great idea to start out at the AG or PD's office to get experience. In fact, I think you should probably already be doing that on an internship basis while in school.
FWIW, it's been my experience that people who start out in big firms and then transfer to the state to prosecute are more interested in a political career than in becoming a trial lawyer. I could be wrong.
posted by ubu at 2:42 PM on September 18, 2007
FWIW, it's been my experience that people who start out in big firms and then transfer to the state to prosecute are more interested in a political career than in becoming a trial lawyer. I could be wrong.
posted by ubu at 2:42 PM on September 18, 2007
Best answer: If you do prosecution for a few years, you can probably move laterally to a firm and bypass the grunt work.
I disagree with this. Prosecution experience will provide virtually no training transferable to big firm work, other than basic courtroom skills and an off-the-cuff grasp of the rules of evidence that come up in criminal cases. You are likely to be treated as an entry-level associate if you go from prosecuting into big firm work, because you won't be bringing much to the table from your prosecution work.
A problem with your plan, to the extent that you are contemplating being a prosecutor in state court, is that, for several years, a state prosecutor's work is very mundane. Yes, you get some trial experience, but it's often bench trials, not jury trials, and it's more likely to involve little things like assaults and DUIs. Most of your day will be spent negotiating plea agreements, announcing plea agreements, and doing paperwork. I've seen prosecutors come into the jobs very excited, and by six months into it they can't stand the tedium. In my experience, prosecutors don't start doing jury trial until at least a couple of years into the prosecution career. Maybe in some jurisdictions you get that experience more quickly, but be careful about what you sign up for.
Being a federal prosecutor is a different story, I think. Federal criminal law is a different ballgame; I get the feeling that federal prosecutors get a lot more trial experience than state prosecutors. Federal defendants are usually facing felony charges, are generally facing more "exposure" (in terms of potential jail time, and the fact that federal inmates serve a much higher percentage of their sentences) and thus the stakes are higher, resulting in more cases going to trial. The cases tend to be more complex, there's more white-collar prosecution, so the skills federal prosecutors pick up may be more useful in big-firm work. These are just my impressions about federal criminal practice, based only on my limited exposure to that area.
If you want to be a killer trial attorney, I would suggest going with a mid-sized firm that does a lot of medical malpractice and insurance defense. (I define mid-sized firm as twenty or thirty partners; I realize in some cities that would be a tiny firm). Those attorneys, in my observation, spend a lot of time in court. I know attorneys at these mid-sized firms who are in court constantly, even in their first year out of law school. Some attorneys, who do a lot of insurance defense work for big companies like Allstate, do tons of jury trials, a lot more than most prosecutors. If you're really looking to hone your trial skills, you might be best off staying in civil work, and picking your job very carefully.
posted by jayder at 3:09 PM on September 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
I disagree with this. Prosecution experience will provide virtually no training transferable to big firm work, other than basic courtroom skills and an off-the-cuff grasp of the rules of evidence that come up in criminal cases. You are likely to be treated as an entry-level associate if you go from prosecuting into big firm work, because you won't be bringing much to the table from your prosecution work.
A problem with your plan, to the extent that you are contemplating being a prosecutor in state court, is that, for several years, a state prosecutor's work is very mundane. Yes, you get some trial experience, but it's often bench trials, not jury trials, and it's more likely to involve little things like assaults and DUIs. Most of your day will be spent negotiating plea agreements, announcing plea agreements, and doing paperwork. I've seen prosecutors come into the jobs very excited, and by six months into it they can't stand the tedium. In my experience, prosecutors don't start doing jury trial until at least a couple of years into the prosecution career. Maybe in some jurisdictions you get that experience more quickly, but be careful about what you sign up for.
Being a federal prosecutor is a different story, I think. Federal criminal law is a different ballgame; I get the feeling that federal prosecutors get a lot more trial experience than state prosecutors. Federal defendants are usually facing felony charges, are generally facing more "exposure" (in terms of potential jail time, and the fact that federal inmates serve a much higher percentage of their sentences) and thus the stakes are higher, resulting in more cases going to trial. The cases tend to be more complex, there's more white-collar prosecution, so the skills federal prosecutors pick up may be more useful in big-firm work. These are just my impressions about federal criminal practice, based only on my limited exposure to that area.
If you want to be a killer trial attorney, I would suggest going with a mid-sized firm that does a lot of medical malpractice and insurance defense. (I define mid-sized firm as twenty or thirty partners; I realize in some cities that would be a tiny firm). Those attorneys, in my observation, spend a lot of time in court. I know attorneys at these mid-sized firms who are in court constantly, even in their first year out of law school. Some attorneys, who do a lot of insurance defense work for big companies like Allstate, do tons of jury trials, a lot more than most prosecutors. If you're really looking to hone your trial skills, you might be best off staying in civil work, and picking your job very carefully.
posted by jayder at 3:09 PM on September 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't pass up the chance to start off at a big firm. While it sucks and you get no practical experience whatsoever, it will basically write your ticket (as illogical as that sounds). I've seen 2nd year associates who basically couldn't cut it at their prestigious big firm, get top jobs in government, that people who had been at the same place for 4 or 5 years would kill for. I feel it is very hard to do things the other way around, unless you are in the federal government, then it isn't too hard to transition into Biglaw.
However, take this advice with a grain of salt, for every hard and fast rule I hear about working as a lawyer, I feel it is always eventually proved wrong.
Also, the best prosecutors I've ever seen have come out of the US Attorney's Office, so I'd consider that if you are serious about it.
posted by whoaali at 4:26 PM on September 18, 2007
However, take this advice with a grain of salt, for every hard and fast rule I hear about working as a lawyer, I feel it is always eventually proved wrong.
Also, the best prosecutors I've ever seen have come out of the US Attorney's Office, so I'd consider that if you are serious about it.
posted by whoaali at 4:26 PM on September 18, 2007
I don't think your original plan was all that bad. For one thing, the big firm work will help you pay off any loans you might have. It will also make you a more attractive candidate to lateral out to somewhere different.
Some previous posters are correct to point out that you won't get much actual trial experience, although you can finesse that a little bit by being aggressive and proactive about what partners you work with/what kinds of projects you take on. A midsize firm, especially one with a good reputation or a speciality in complex or high stakes litigation, will get you to the same place as a big firm. If you're planning on leaving, and the firm is just going to be a stepping stone, I would focus more on what skills you will acquire and who you'll meet than on whether the hours will be good or the people will be nice.
Are you currently doing interviews/callbacks? If not, you might already be a bit late for the big firm route, especially in DC. If you are doing that process, use it as an opportunity to ask midlevel/senior associates what their friends who have left the firm are doing. Are people going into prosecutorial jobs? With the state or with DOJ? This will help you gague whether your expectations are realistic. Perhaps wait until you have an offer to ask those kinds of questions, though. Most associates, especially if you clicked with them in your interview, will be happy to answer those kinds of questions. They don't really care that you'll be moving on.
Have you looked into the DOJ honors program? If you can get in, that might be the answer to all your problems.
posted by ohio at 4:34 PM on September 18, 2007
Some previous posters are correct to point out that you won't get much actual trial experience, although you can finesse that a little bit by being aggressive and proactive about what partners you work with/what kinds of projects you take on. A midsize firm, especially one with a good reputation or a speciality in complex or high stakes litigation, will get you to the same place as a big firm. If you're planning on leaving, and the firm is just going to be a stepping stone, I would focus more on what skills you will acquire and who you'll meet than on whether the hours will be good or the people will be nice.
Are you currently doing interviews/callbacks? If not, you might already be a bit late for the big firm route, especially in DC. If you are doing that process, use it as an opportunity to ask midlevel/senior associates what their friends who have left the firm are doing. Are people going into prosecutorial jobs? With the state or with DOJ? This will help you gague whether your expectations are realistic. Perhaps wait until you have an offer to ask those kinds of questions, though. Most associates, especially if you clicked with them in your interview, will be happy to answer those kinds of questions. They don't really care that you'll be moving on.
Have you looked into the DOJ honors program? If you can get in, that might be the answer to all your problems.
posted by ohio at 4:34 PM on September 18, 2007
From the original question:
then go prosecute, molding myself into an ace trial lawyer. When I'm done with that, I can write my own ticket and do what I'd like.
This led me to believe that the questioner is seeking to become the best trial lawyer he/she can be, not a long-term career in prosecution.
posted by jayder at 4:36 PM on September 18, 2007
then go prosecute, molding myself into an ace trial lawyer. When I'm done with that, I can write my own ticket and do what I'd like.
This led me to believe that the questioner is seeking to become the best trial lawyer he/she can be, not a long-term career in prosecution.
posted by jayder at 4:36 PM on September 18, 2007
Not to burst your bubble, but even if you do nothing but litigation in a big firm, chances are you won't so much as 2nd chair a trial. Firms like Skadden actually let 5th and 6th year associates do 6 month rotations with various govt. agencies, pro bono, just so they get the chance to do depositions and possibly trials.
I mean big firms are very good for two things: money and prestige on the resume. There is nothing wrong with doing it for those two reasons, I would if I could.
posted by whoaali at 4:37 PM on September 18, 2007
I mean big firms are very good for two things: money and prestige on the resume. There is nothing wrong with doing it for those two reasons, I would if I could.
posted by whoaali at 4:37 PM on September 18, 2007
You have good grades and school and you want to be an ace litigator, then you want to be a US attorney. Try getting a clerkship with a Federal judge first. Then off to the Justice Department as an assistant DA. There is no better experience for a litigator. The quality of your peers is top notch, you are in court your first year, etc. After you have proven yourself in this arena you will be quite desirable to big firms. If you are more interested in $ than in being the best litigator possible then start in the big firm and do everything you can to make partner. You will be selling your soul though, and weekends.
posted by caddis at 6:18 PM on September 18, 2007
posted by caddis at 6:18 PM on September 18, 2007
A quick coda on what caddis just said: you can't just whisk "off to the Justice Department as an assistant DA." First, there aren't any DAs in the Justice Department. You want to be an AUSA. And yes, this may well be the best place to get top notch trial experience.
But it is also a damn hard nut to crack. As I mentioned upthread, the Honors Program is your best bet right out of law school. If you can't do that, the second best bet is federal judicial clerkship + prestigious firm + some specialization in that firm. Ever thought about tax litigation?
Unless you're willing to work in Fargo or some other godforsaken place, then it may be a little easier.
posted by ohio at 6:30 PM on September 18, 2007
But it is also a damn hard nut to crack. As I mentioned upthread, the Honors Program is your best bet right out of law school. If you can't do that, the second best bet is federal judicial clerkship + prestigious firm + some specialization in that firm. Ever thought about tax litigation?
Unless you're willing to work in Fargo or some other godforsaken place, then it may be a little easier.
posted by ohio at 6:30 PM on September 18, 2007
I have a friend who's a public defender -- she's been getting a lot of trial experience! (That's all I know.)
posted by salvia at 6:33 PM on September 18, 2007
posted by salvia at 6:33 PM on September 18, 2007
Yeah, I was about to say I didn't think there were DAs at the DOJ.... That's not to say there aren't a lot of interesting (and not so interesting, god knows it varies SO much by department) opportunities at the DOJ. Also, if you don't make the honors program, I've heard lateralling in after a couple years in private practice isn't that hard.
I don't know whether this is a plus or minus for you, but I had a good and highly qualified friend go through to the final rounds at the US Attorneys a little while ago only to be shot down. A big part of getting the job is the interview and mock opening (and closing?) they have you do. So it isn't just your resume at all that's gets you in.
posted by whoaali at 6:37 PM on September 18, 2007
I don't know whether this is a plus or minus for you, but I had a good and highly qualified friend go through to the final rounds at the US Attorneys a little while ago only to be shot down. A big part of getting the job is the interview and mock opening (and closing?) they have you do. So it isn't just your resume at all that's gets you in.
posted by whoaali at 6:37 PM on September 18, 2007
Best answer: I have to disagree with the idea that big firm experience is of no value for people who want to go into prosecution. First of all, in some districts, the AUSA will only hire people with 4-5 years of experience, and they like law firm candidates. Most of the AUSAs in my district were clerks for federal courts, then worked in law firms, and then went AUSA. Many federal public defenders' offices have similar requirements. And other than the DOJ honors program mentioned above, the US Attorney's office does not, to my knowledge, hire directly out of law school. So if you ultimately want to be an AUSA, and you are now choosing between local prosecution and big firm practice for your immediate next step, big firm practice will serve you better.
Being a federal prosecutor/AUSA will, in most cases, pay better than being a local district attorney, but the hiring process is fiercely competitive.
Hiring requirements aside, I also disagree with the notion that you can't get worthwhile litigation experience in a large law firm. This will vary significantly from firm to firm, office to office, and partner to partner. I know a lot of jr. associates at AmLaw 100 firms who are taking depositions and getting time in court. In my first year and a half at a large firm, I worked on a trial in federal court, drafted dispositive motions, and took depositions. I'd have gotten my first oral argument too if the court didn't decide the motion on the briefs submitted. You can make this happen if you want it.
Whether or not your plan is sound depends in part on whether you have any interest in criminal law, other than the trial and litigation experience it would offer you. If you just want to be a litigator, you can get the experience you need at a big or medium-sized firm.
When I read your plan, what jumps out the most is not how you're going to go about getting litigation skills. Rather it is the notion that you want to work for a lifestyle firm but want big firm experience for 4-5 years. Those 4-5 years are much, much longer than they sound, particularly if you are concerned about lifestyle. Being aggressive enough to get the experience you want in a big firm will likely have a negative effect on your lifestyle. The big firms that are paying the ridiculous salaries you read about on AboveTheLaw and law.com will not pay you that money for you to work 9-5. It's not for everyone. You may or may not know yet if it's for you, which is perfectly reasonable. If it's not, 4-5 years will be an eternity.
posted by jewishbuddha at 7:04 PM on September 18, 2007
Being a federal prosecutor/AUSA will, in most cases, pay better than being a local district attorney, but the hiring process is fiercely competitive.
Hiring requirements aside, I also disagree with the notion that you can't get worthwhile litigation experience in a large law firm. This will vary significantly from firm to firm, office to office, and partner to partner. I know a lot of jr. associates at AmLaw 100 firms who are taking depositions and getting time in court. In my first year and a half at a large firm, I worked on a trial in federal court, drafted dispositive motions, and took depositions. I'd have gotten my first oral argument too if the court didn't decide the motion on the briefs submitted. You can make this happen if you want it.
Whether or not your plan is sound depends in part on whether you have any interest in criminal law, other than the trial and litigation experience it would offer you. If you just want to be a litigator, you can get the experience you need at a big or medium-sized firm.
When I read your plan, what jumps out the most is not how you're going to go about getting litigation skills. Rather it is the notion that you want to work for a lifestyle firm but want big firm experience for 4-5 years. Those 4-5 years are much, much longer than they sound, particularly if you are concerned about lifestyle. Being aggressive enough to get the experience you want in a big firm will likely have a negative effect on your lifestyle. The big firms that are paying the ridiculous salaries you read about on AboveTheLaw and law.com will not pay you that money for you to work 9-5. It's not for everyone. You may or may not know yet if it's for you, which is perfectly reasonable. If it's not, 4-5 years will be an eternity.
posted by jewishbuddha at 7:04 PM on September 18, 2007
Concur on straight to prosecution. Thinking on your feet requires repetition. You are going to trim your nails for at $250 an hour or more for the big boys.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:40 PM on September 18, 2007
posted by Ironmouth at 7:40 PM on September 18, 2007
I worked 10-12 hour days at a small firm, so lifestyle may be out at first. You do learn to have your fun in the nooks and crannies though.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:42 PM on September 18, 2007
posted by Ironmouth at 7:42 PM on September 18, 2007
Sorry to ask my own question, in your question, but I think you'll find it relevant. What do people think of going from being a DA for like 3 years (like bottom of the heap DA, not federal) to one day lateraling to a big firm (or at least a job making 100k)?
I think it would be awesome to be a DA for a few years, but want to leave open the possibility of paying off my loans before I'm 40 and going to a biggish firm.
posted by whoaali at 9:08 PM on September 18, 2007
I think it would be awesome to be a DA for a few years, but want to leave open the possibility of paying off my loans before I'm 40 and going to a biggish firm.
posted by whoaali at 9:08 PM on September 18, 2007
Response by poster: Are you currently doing interviews/callbacks?
I've done 3 callbacks so far, and I've got 3 more in the hopper, evenly split between Denver and DC. Especially in Denver, it looks like the associates get closer to depos and trials than they do in DC; I talked to a lit associate who had defended a depo and 2nd chaired a jury trial within his first year at my current 1st pick firm.
In response to Jayder, I'm not sure if crim or civ interests me more; I don't know if I'm far enough along yet. Litigation is definitely more interesting to me than transactional work though.
Jewishbudda hit on one of my bigger reasons for going firm --> prosecution; the AUSA's don't hire out of law school. Hopefully the arc will be BIGLAW --> AUSA --> ??? --> PROFIT/LITIGATOR!
As a bit of a follow-up, is it possible to be in biglaw/midlaw, work 10-12 during the week, and keep my weekends to myself?
Thanks all.
posted by craven_morhead at 8:48 AM on September 19, 2007
I've done 3 callbacks so far, and I've got 3 more in the hopper, evenly split between Denver and DC. Especially in Denver, it looks like the associates get closer to depos and trials than they do in DC; I talked to a lit associate who had defended a depo and 2nd chaired a jury trial within his first year at my current 1st pick firm.
In response to Jayder, I'm not sure if crim or civ interests me more; I don't know if I'm far enough along yet. Litigation is definitely more interesting to me than transactional work though.
Jewishbudda hit on one of my bigger reasons for going firm --> prosecution; the AUSA's don't hire out of law school. Hopefully the arc will be BIGLAW --> AUSA --> ??? --> PROFIT/LITIGATOR!
As a bit of a follow-up, is it possible to be in biglaw/midlaw, work 10-12 during the week, and keep my weekends to myself?
Thanks all.
posted by craven_morhead at 8:48 AM on September 19, 2007
is it possible to be in biglaw/midlaw, work 10-12 during the week, and keep my weekends to myself?
Yes. Emphatically yes. The good news for you is that litigation associates tend to work more normal hours than transactional associates. I know litigation associates at Amlaw 100 firms who work 50 hour weeks. A lot of transactional lawyers, health lawyers, real estate lawyers, etc., really resent how the litigators in their firms get to go home at 5:30 or 6. Of course, the flip side of that is that litigators have trials that consume all their waking hours --- but that's an aberration in an otherwise pretty reasonable schedule.
As you advance through the ranks of a big law firm, your hours will become more and more insane. When I did civil litigation, I would get e-mails from a partner that were sent at 3:30 in the morning; and then he would be on the phone with you at 7 a.m. the next morning barking more orders.
posted by jayder at 12:02 PM on September 19, 2007
Yes. Emphatically yes. The good news for you is that litigation associates tend to work more normal hours than transactional associates. I know litigation associates at Amlaw 100 firms who work 50 hour weeks. A lot of transactional lawyers, health lawyers, real estate lawyers, etc., really resent how the litigators in their firms get to go home at 5:30 or 6. Of course, the flip side of that is that litigators have trials that consume all their waking hours --- but that's an aberration in an otherwise pretty reasonable schedule.
As you advance through the ranks of a big law firm, your hours will become more and more insane. When I did civil litigation, I would get e-mails from a partner that were sent at 3:30 in the morning; and then he would be on the phone with you at 7 a.m. the next morning barking more orders.
posted by jayder at 12:02 PM on September 19, 2007
« Older Does taking on mysql after 10 years of Oracle make... | how much money can I save by turning off... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I have some thoughts on midmarket (Denver) vs. bigmarket (DC), but don't have time right now to get them down. Send me an email if you'd like.
posted by dpx.mfx at 2:11 PM on September 18, 2007