Litigation or Corporate? Advice for Law Students:
Jeff Lipshaw has a terrific post for law students considering big firm practice on how to choose between litigation work and transactional work. Via ATL.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
But one thing that I think they missed is that it is likely much easier to jump from a transactional practice into an in-house position. Why would you want to do that? For one thing, it allows you to get away from the pressure of billing hours.
Another thing that distinguishes the two practices some is that a lot of transactional work involves keeping a lot of balls in the air at any one time. On the other hand, litigation, esp. when cases go to trial, can be stressful and require extremely long hours.
I am one who does badly at multitasking, and so no matter how much I enjoy interpreting and negotiating contracts, my experiences with much transactional work has been more stressful than litigation has been for me. So, I think it important to go where you are stronger.
Note though that I have not worked in either facet in a big firm. Right now, I am working as a patent attorney in a regional firm, and finding that an awkward transition from a small IP firm (which was acquired by the regional firm). Patent work is overall less stressful than either transactional or litigation work. But it often doesn't seem to fit well into large firms, primarily I think due to the fact that billing targets and how clients are billed are set up for the transactional and litigation attorneys, and often don't work for us. Because of this, it is probably harder overall to make partner vertically.
I say that as a patent prosecutor who spent two years at a big firm. Trying to bill 2000 hours of patent prosecution was miserable.
After I close a transaction, I have usually made new friends with the lawyers and the clients on the other side. In addition, on most deals, following the closing everyone is happy. The seller got a big pile of money and the buyer got a new company. Litigators don't do closing dinners.
Similarly, I am interning at the U.S. Attorney's office and the repeat players (AUSAs and PDs) remain on good terms so they can keep credibility with one another down the line.
But when litigation is Bet the Company and you won't see opposing counsel again, that isn't as true.
Not just smaller cases, but also those in smaller towns and rural areas. When you keep litigating against the same people, courtesy is a must.
But I'm just a tech guy, and my legal experience is limited to writing software for the legal field, so I'm really just speculating.
On the other hand, a litigation lawyer who is retained to handle a claim that will survive a summary judgment motion can expect to live with that case for much longer absent the willingness of one party or the other to trade cash for a release.
Yes, it's considerably more painful to bill 2200 hours in corporate than in litigation. You have much less control over your schedule, much tighter deadlines and many more ups and downs.
As for law schools, my guess is that litigators are way, way overrepresented on law faculties, perhaps because smart people sometimes get bored with a litigation practice after a few years. Students mostly see themselves as future litigators, perhaps because they watch too much TV.
Hours are much easier to bill in transactional. Each hour requires less thought than a litigation hour. Reasoning, crafting arguments, and drafting briefs is a lot harder than cutting and pasting documents together and "conference calling" all day.
It's true that transactional attorneys have better post-firm opportunities. But that's obvious. Litigators are lawyers; they belong in a law firm. Transactional attorneys are business people and belong in business.
One thing to consider is the hours issue. As a litigator, you have more luxury to plan your life around filing deadlines. Transactional deals have lots of ASAP-type assignments with no deadlines in sight. Though, transactional deals have more finite endings, whereas litigation drags on for years.
Right, but a litigation hour can also be spent photocopying, drafting conflict waiver agreements, writing discovery objections, drafting stupid letters that stop barely short of calling opposing counsel a liar, reviewing documents, cooling your heels for an hour in a deposition while opposing counsel asks your client where s/he went to college...
If you got in law for the white-knuckles brain-on-brain clashes, you have no choice but litigation. That's where I am and I wouldn't go transactional for the world.
Second, you should go into litigation if you suspect that conflicts of interests just might possibly exist, somewhere. Most of the transactional lawyers I know have never seen a conflict of interest anywhere, ever, and probably think they are fictional. :)
To me, it is a big mistake to do something you hate just based on what might happen in the future. Either type of law is hard enough if you like what you are doing; it becomes soul killing if you don't. Further, the world is a strange and uncertain place. When I was an AUSA I would never have predicted that I would wind up in house and loving it.
I did both and after a couple times waking up thinking of a brilliant retort I should have used in court the previous day I decided litigation wasn't my forte. Now I write law books and set up businesses and trusts.