Related Posts
Does PWC retain employees on notice period ?
::Sad WMATA Noises::
I live in canada and want to move to usa for job in insurance underwriting. I have 5 years of work experience both in broker side and insurer side. Do i keep on applying until i hear back? Is there any strategic approach for canadians as i have to get employer to sponsor me? Liberty Mutual Insurance Marsh McLennan Progressive Insurance Allstate
Additional Posts in Law
Leadership advice for young associates?
Anyone hearing any crazy bar exam stories?
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Transactional attorney here.
First, unless you are joining a firm that has a general corporate practice wherein associates practice across many different sub-specialties (M&A (private equity M&A being a particular species thereof), securities, finance (which can be further broken down into many areas, such as commercial lending, acquisition finance, project finance, RE finance), capital markets, EC/VC, fund work, etc.), the transactional group in which you land will make all the difference. I don’t think there are many firms left that give associates the opportunity to have a diverse practice after the first few years—maybe one or two prominent firms still have this as an option but your large international firms do not.
Generally, each of these groups have their own patterns of work, and tend to have you working for certain types of clients. Working for a private equity team on a big acquisition is completely different than, say, working for a bank setting up a credit facility for a large corporate borrower. While you’re likely to end up billing the same amount of hours over the course of a year, what group you work with will likely determine the week-to-week variance (i.e., some groups are sprinters, with shorter and more intense periods, but also rest periods, whereas others are marathoners, keeping somewhat busy all the time). It isn’t the same everywhere).
You should also consider how you conceive of your work and your impact more generally. Although I am admittedly biased, I enjoy being a part of a transaction when the legal work is just one piece of (and is subservient to) the deal. The point is not to negotiate an asset purchase agreement—the point is to purchase assets. The agreement is a means to that end, and the business folks run the show. In litigation, the lawsuit *is* the thing, so lawyers (both in-house and outside counsel) run the show. At the end of a deal, both sides are better off. In litigation, there are clear winners and losers. While litigation may create value for one side (or preserve system-wide value vis-a-vis its knock-on effects), it is also destructive and can sometimes feel like lighting money on fire just for the *chance* to play a high-stakes game of poker. Deals would not happen if there was no value created, so as a transactional lawyer—while legal is undoubtedly a cost—you are a part of a collaborative process that creates value for both sides. [The above describes a dichotomy in biglaw and does not address all of the very good and very important work that all manner of litigators (and other legal professionals) do outside of that context, but to the extent you are considering your choice, focus on the context before you.]
Transactional work and litigation are very different, and it is also worth considering the day-to-day tasks that you’ll encounter in each sphere. Although the joke that the only legal writing deal lawyers do is “ctrl+f” is unfair, it is true that you’d be doing far less formal writing (never mind research) than you would in litigation. You won’t spent much time on Westlaw (I don’t know my credentials). If you liked those aspects of your legal education, think long and hard before choosing a path that will move you away from them.
The exit options are also very different, both in terms of going in-house and in terms of leaving practice in general. Considering your ambitions (or even just what you’re open to) can be instructive.
Good luck!
Edit: one thing I forgot to mention—I am often frustrated by my limited ability to contribute to various types of pro bono work. Not a deciding factor, but if that’s important to you, you should price that in, too.
In my experience, litigation requires certain personality traits that I do not have, and I am very happy with my choice to do transactional work. Id rather stay up all night drafting, waiting on comments, closing deals and pouring over documents than set foot in a court room much less speak in front of others. Also I am not into confrontation beyond passive aggressiveness. Whatever fits your personality
Litigation = Relativity
Transactional = Merrill Datasite One
You get to choose where you’ll spend 12 hours of your day for the next year
Are the people nice and normal? If not then it’s going to be hard.
The people that I’ve worked with in both departments are nice and normal, and I get along with both teams (which makes it more difficult to decide)
How do you feel about the work? Are these general corporate or litigation practice groups or are you looking at specific teams within those groups?
Litigation and corporate are different worlds in terms of work, so if the people won’t be the deciding factor for you because everyone seems to be nice, it should be the work (and what you can see yourself wanting to do) that should drive your decision making
Corporate is general M&A work and litigation is general contentious work, including arbitration. I think it’s too early to specialize in a certain team. Are there any mid to long term (5-10+ years) factors that I should consider?