<p>I loathe the idea of going to a white-shoe firm or any other law firm for that matter. In addition, the idea of doing a judical clerkship is unappealing.</p>
<p>Q's:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>What are the typical prospects of fresh law grads going in-house right away?</p></li>
<li><p>Many blogs/forums talk about BigLaw/law firms all the time but they hardly ever talk about the alternatives. They use vague terms like "prestigious public sector jobs". Can someone kindly name a few of these public sector attorney jobs that are transactional? Like #1 can fresh law grads get them?</p></li>
<li><p>I want to live, work and die in NYC (as you may have deduced from my screen name...lol). Hence, I really do not see the point of studying outside of NYC unless it is Harvard. (I am neither enthralled by Yale's #1 status nor the glorious sunlight at Stanford). If I can't get into Columbia/NYU (t5), I would readily settle with Fordham (t30), hopefully with full scholarship. (Btw: I'm not interested in studying at Ithaca either) Do you believe this would be wise? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks! ;-)</p>
<p>PS: Kindly excuse the typo in the title. The site is not allowing me to edit it. :-(</p>
<p>“Prestigious” public sector jobs might be the District Attorney jobs and various divisions of the Corporation Counsel. The economic development division of corp. counsel is transactional. Also public interest groups like the ACLU. Consider Brooklyn Law School which has a big contingent of very committed public interest/government students and alums. If you are willing to consider Chicago or D.C., you would have a bigger range of schools to fall back on if you don’t get Columbia and NYU. (George Washington, Northwestern etc.) Some people might go “in-house” to a real estate developer or other corporation as a first job. It’s not unheard of.</p>
<p>going in-house right away is fairly uncommon. they usually hire after 3-4 yrs of transactional practice in a large law firm. you need to put in your time before you reach the greener pastures :)</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of it happening, but there may be a few companies who hire folks straight out of law school. If you go that route, you can expect to be in a very junior position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would say “no.” In law, you usually have to pay your dues. Either by working at an unleasant job; a low paying job; or some combination of both. To make matters worse, the best jobs in terms of prestige, money, and lifestyle are quite competitive.</p>
<p>It seems you want to skip the dues-paying step in your career. Which is a reasonable thing to want, but it’s probably a bit unrealistic. Especially since you can expect there to be lots of other attorneys who want the same thing as you.</p>
<p>At the same time, law school has become extremely expensive. Quite possibly you will graduate with $200k in non-dischargeable debt. In deciding whether to go to law school, you should (in my opinion) assume that you will have a below-average outcome. In other words, don’t look at what the most succesful kids in your law school do. Look more at the folks towards the bottom and figure there is a good chance that will be you in a few years.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the feedback. Very helpful :-)</p>
<p>My reason for law school:</p>
<p>Many say you should pursue a career which you are “passionate” about. But in reality many people go into a career/advanced educational study in a field because they simply find it interesting and they feel they would be good at it. I am one of them.
I am leaning heavily towards a JD but to be 100% sure I’ve decided to reach out to you folks (plus, I’ve doing my research at the side as well: articles, papers, various blogs/forums etc etc).
Yes, cost is big issue in going to law school. Hence, if I don’t get into t5, hopefully, I can get a full ride at Fordham (as I mentioned in Q3).</p>
<p>By any chance, can anyone speak about working as a transactional lawyer for a regulator such as SEC, FDIC, FTC, Fed or Comptroller of the Currency?</p>
<p>Government agencies that have procurement budgets have transactional attorneys. I’m sure every federal agency does a few purchases. But I don’t think of the SEC, FDIC, FTC, Fed or Comptroller of the Currency as employing a significant number of transactional attorneys.</p>
<p>Lol, I would like to think I’m more of a realist than a pessimist but I guess you have a point.</p>
<p>The thing is, aspiring law students have a strong tendency to overestimate their likelihood of academic success in law school and career success afterwards.</p>
<p>For one thing, if you are smart enough to get in to law school, you probaby did pretty well in high school and college. So it’s natural to assume that your success will continue. </p>
<p>For another, going to law school allows you to put off your entry into the real world for a few years. So it’s natural to try to convince yourself it’s a good decision.</p>
<p>The procurements may often be handled by the GSA rather than by the agencies themselves. Agency lawyers usually aren’t involved in transactions to which their agency is a party. But the agencies often employ people with a transactional background, since they review transactions and related filings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe, but it’s something that prospective law students desperately need to hear. Too many of them overestimate their ability, underestimate the odds and the impact of massive debt and end up making ill-advised decisions they really regret later. It doesn’t help that law schools tend to publish badly misleading employment information, something the ABA is doing nothing about.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Fresh out of law school, your chances to get hired as an attorney in a corporation is just about zero. Corporations want attorneys with experience. Typically, corporations take people who do not make partner, or who are of that seniority. Sometimes, a bit more junior.</p></li>
<li><p>If you want to work in NYC, and for a for-profit corporation, there are very few such opportunities in NYC. (I’d take it if I could find it!) Few corporations can afford, or are willing to pay, the very high rent to have offices in NYC. Sure, maybe some financial institutions, insurance companies, and Pfizer. Other than those, most are outside of NYC, either in Westchester, New Jersey or Connecticut. Salaries at corporations are significantly less than at law firms.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>NYC law firms hire graduates of all law schools. So location of law school is ultimately unimportant. However, location of law school is important if you are thinking of working a part time job during the school year in a law office of some kind.</p>
<p>If you can get into Yale or Stanford law school, you’d be an idiot to pass them up in favor of Fordham.</p>
<p>Really? You mean other than Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Bank of NY Mellon, American Express, MetLife, NY Life, Travelers, TIAA-CREF, News Corp, Viacom, Time Warner, Verizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb and most of the largest hedge funds in the world? What city has more opportunities to work for a corporation than NYC?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Within the T14, no, location probably won’t make a difference. But someone at Iowa is probably going to have a much tougher time getting a job at an NYC firm than somebody with roughly equivalent grades at Fordham.</p>
<p>I think, in this economy, even T14s are becoming increasingly more regional. I really believe Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are the only schools that can claim to be truly national, for the time being.</p>
<p>Only companies with very large - law firm like - legal departments do much hiring of entry level attorneys. If you are going to join one of these big legal staffs, you may as well join a law firm where you can usually made more money. The most sought after in house positions usually go to those with a mix of law firm and in house experience. The law firm experience is sought after because that is where the best training is and the in house experience is sought after because the companies want to know that you can adjust to the in house culture - the culture of not being the profit center. </p>
<p>flowerhead - I hate to tell you but litigation is not the best practice area if your goal is to go in house. Many more opportunities will exist for non-litigation practices. </p>
<p>With regard to government positions, the Division of Corporation Finance of the SEC is a good choice. The Division of Investment Management is another. I am looking at your version of “transactional” as anything other than litigation so I am including regulatory work. There is not a lot of truly transaction, in terms of deal making, work with government agencies. </p>
<p>If you get a chance to do a federal clerkship, take it.</p>
<p>Well, the good thing is in-house isn’t my goal. I’d love to gun for partner, but given that it’s not likely I’ll reach it, I guess I don’t know what I’ll do with myself. I know I can’t do deal-work. M&A is already a snoozefest.</p>
<p>I can tell you as a former litigator with a large firm that sitting in the middle of a room with boxes stacked over your head as you prepare for discovery requests can be a snooze fest too. Large commercial litigation cases can be as exciting as watching snow melt. Actually, that was pretty exciting around here this year. Go for health care law or software contracting and licensing.</p>
[/quote]
What city has more opportunities to work for a corporation than NYC?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many corporations (other than imost nvestment banks) actually house their attorneys and other “support” personnel at offices outside of the City. </p>
<p>If you do want to go in house at an investment bank, I would highly recommend working at one of the top few law firms in the City (i.e. Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, etc.), since that is where a solid majority of the folks in the law departments at most investment banks come from).</p>
<p>One of the blessings of middle age is that with the accretion of experience, things that strike appear to be mind-numbingly dull to to one’s younger self can reveal themselves to be possessed of a kind of beauty.</p>
<p>Robert Pirsig once wrote that “[t]he Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower.” There’s a kind of enchantment in well-drafted contract, in a well-considered regulation, or in a compelling argument that can sustain one’s interest in practicing a profession from day to day, from month to month, and from decade to decade.</p>
<p>I wrote: “Few corporations can afford, or are willing to pay, the very high rent to have offices in NYC. Sure, maybe some financial institutions, insurance companies, and Pfizer. Other than those, most are outside of NYC, either in Westchester, New Jersey or Connecticut. Salaries at corporations are significantly less than at law firms.”</p>
<p>Since everyone quickly pounced on me for that statement, I should have written, “few corporations that actually make things …” The NYC corporations are non-manufacturing companies, not real corporations in my mind.</p>
<p>Does that make you happy Americanski?</p>
<p>Litigation is definitely NOT the best speciality to go in house. Having been in litigation for 25+ years, I know corporations are not interested in hiring litigators. Litigation work is farmed out to law firms. From my experience, corporations want attorneys who have had a broad range of experience, which litigation does not provide. Few corporations have litigation departments and do not need attorneys to write briefs, take depositions and review documents, smart though those attorneys may be. The corporations want attorneys who know about corporate law, employment law, contracts, licensing, IP law generally, real estate, tax, etc. The best corporate candidate is someone who has had experiences in all.</p>