<p>My point is that there are good, ethical people doing socially useful things in both BigLaw and the plaintiffs bar and there are bloodsucking scum in both communities.</p>
<p>Ok, what “socially useful” things does Big Law do, other than the required of all Lawyers? I’m serious here. Maybe you can educate me?</p>
<p>Well, one thing that Big Law lawyers do is to explain to their (admittedly wealthy and powerful) clients what they need to do to comply with their sometimes complex obligations under the law. At times, they also reduce the cost of dealing with the strike suits that are sometimes initiated by unscrupulous plaintiffs lawyers.</p>
<p>BTW, I am the farthest thing from a BigLaw guy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The amount, quality and value of pro bono work provided by lawyers at large firms would blow your mind. You can do your own research.</p>
<p>
Said the pot to the kettle . . .</p>
<p>i’m amused as to how the discussion has suddenly turned to how socially useful big law is (or isn’t).</p>
<p>emm1, I would hope these lawyers are giving their clients advice on how to deal with governmental regulations and requirements. That of course is their job. Not sure what you mean “they also reduce the cost of dealing with the strike suits that are sometimes initiated by unscrupulous plaintiffs lawyers.” Are you talking about a class action suit, or simply a suit seeking a minor settlement so that the defendant avoids litigation? </p>
<p>If big law gets involved in these type of issues, I would think they are increasing the costs, not decreasing the costs. But of course, if the suit has no justification, as a matter of policy, it should be challenged. I would think though most of these types of suits would have some merit to them. Its just a question of perspective. And yes, any plaintiff’s lawyer that shakes down a defendant without good cause should be disbarred imho.</p>
<p>All lawyers do Pro-Bono work zoo. Its generally required by the various Bars. I would bet that the pro-bono done by Big law is simply to enhance their reputation and is likely given to one of the lesser valued attorneys. These guys don’t believe in the little guy. Its just not their nature.</p>
<p>i’m confused as to what you’re getting at, david.</p>
<p>lawyers provide a service, regardless of whether it’s big law, mid law, small law, plaintiffs firms, PI, etc. </p>
<p>determining how socially useful something is will always be subjective. there is no higher moral ground for a person to stand on that is dependent on their legal career, despite the fact you clearly think there is.</p>
<p>^^^ right, suppose it depends on the definition of socially useful. For me, that means assisting David against Goliath. To each their own.</p>
<p>Do some research Davidg. You might actually learn something, rather than wallowing in ignorance and stereotype.</p>
<p>Okay Zooser, read the article by the Judge and tell me where he is wrong, and give us the basis for your opinion. I sure hope you are or were a big firm lawyer and can give an opinion based on knowledge and experience. Otherwise, your opinions aren’t worth a whole lot…</p>
<p>You’ve never practiced in a “biglaw” practice, so how is it that you feel so qualified to dismiss people you’ve never met as sociopaths? You’ve stated as much, with your small town practice and a history of having never worked for a big law firm. Your arrogance is breathtaking.</p>
<p>As a lawyer who worked for big firms in the past, my opinion is that if anything, the horrible “reviews” of working for a big law firm are if anything, UNDERSTATED.</p>
<p>I could give you 1000 stories, but I won’t.</p>
<p>Just walk away. Take another route.</p>
<p>This advice is not based simply on my own experiences, but on the experiences of others far more talented than myself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since you mentioned it, how much more understated can biglaw horror stories really be? LOL.</p>
<p>davidg, you know, you could have provided very useful information here to prospective students who might be interested in the type of practice you have chosen. You could have described your educational background, how you secured the job you seem to love so much, what that job entails on a daily basis, the type of pro and con analysis that every student interested in law should do. You could have talked about the hours involved, the actual mechanics of preparing a case for trial, the difficulties faced with representing different types of clients, the practical aspects of gaining clients, how retainers work, how difficult it is at times to collect fees. You could have discussed how best to develop the skills required to be an effective litigator, and let the students here know about the comeraderie of the courthouse, the often fine balance between respect/competition that adversaries face.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you have done none of those things. What you have done is to come on to a friendly and helpful forum and proceeded to insult and denigrate not only one area of the law and its lawyers, but also some prospective students here and many longstanding members who have been nothing but helpful here for years. I have to wonder if you are equally obnoxious to people when you’re talking to them in person rather than hiding behind a computer keyboard. You clearly have a history with a biglaw firm. It’s evident in the vitriol that you have spread. It’s very sad to me that you can’t see how you are treating people.</p>
<p>“All lawyers do Pro-Bono work zoo. Its generally required by the various Bars. I would bet that the pro-bono done by Big law is simply to enhance their reputation and is likely given to one of the lesser valued attorneys. These guys don’t believe in the little guy. Its just not their nature.”</p>
<p>You know, it’s awfully interesting to me when those who squeal the most about “fighting for the little guy” are the ones who are also raking in the biggest bucks doing it. Or, as with Liz Warren, people claim to fight for the little guy but are actually fighting against the little guy.</p>
<p>Or people don’t understand that “fighting for the little guy” can have huge repercussions. Notice how hard it is sometimes to find an OB-GYN? They don’t want to deal with the “lawsuits on behalf of the little guy” that make trial lawyers rich.</p>
<p>Wow, some of you just don’t like the message. When I tell prospective students to avoid big law, I believe I am doing them a service. What you have here are people who actually believe that unless you graduate from a top lawschool and land a big law job, that you should avoid law all together. Absolutely incredible. You are not in control here and I will offer any content on this board I think appropriate to the subject matter. </p>
<p>Prospective students should never give up on their legal aspirations because some cranky old guy tells them they should, and should consider the source of all of the negative messages they are getting out there. As for working in big law, these prospective associates need to ask themselves if they want subjugate themselves to the will and domination of many of those egotistical, arrogant, full of themself lawyers who will exploit them as much as possible. Some will choose to go that path, but they should do so with their eyes wide open. And to the poster above, yea, I have dealt with “big law” lawyers on several cases. Seeing these people in action is part of what has soured me on working for these types.</p>
<p>ariesathena, we just went through a period where the economy almost imploded because of the actions of the sociopaths at the top of the food chain. It was in fact the “little guy” who took it on the chin and are still paying the consequences for the actions of those “business leaders” When Romney essentially wrote off 47% of the population as takers, he offended every “little guy” out there. Yes the little guys need people who will champion their causes, whether it be in defense of the fraud perpetrated on them by the banking industry (with the assistance of big firm lawyers), the doctor who commits malpractice, or the credit reporting agency who makes errors in 40% of the credit files out there . . . and on and on and on. Believe me, you will never make me feel guilty working for the little guy. But I did feel guilty the years I spent working for the big guy. Live and learn.</p>
<p>And yea, if I can make a nice living representing the little guy, so much the better rather than it going to feed the extravagant lifestyles of the “big firm” lawyers who live for the sole purpose of accumulating as many assets as possible.</p>
<p>Davidg, the point of trolling is to incite a flame war by using **less **effort and time than the people you want to ■■■■■. Long responses are counter-productive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, Hanna:</p>
<p>Is it relativey easy to move from a clerkship (federal?) to biglaw work? Is it considered a lateral move? I know that biglaw firms recruit from 1L classes, but how did you get into biglaw from your clerkship position? Do you just apply as a lateral or do they also come and recruit you out of your clerkship? </p>
<p>Thanks very much!</p>
<p>Clerking is a one-year job (or sometimes two consecutive one-year jobs). You typically obtain a biglaw position FIRST, which you then defer to take a year (or two) clerking. If for some reason you didn’t do this, folks coming out of federal clerkships are very popular with firms.</p>
<p>Occasionally some folks even work in biglaw for a year or two, go do a clekrship, and then return, sometimes to a different firm.</p>
<p>brownug, my impression is that certain, if not most, Biglaw firms encourage the summer associates to whom they extend fulltime offers to do clerkships. The associate’s job is held open while the law grad does the one- or two-year clerkship, and there is often a nice cash bonus for having done one. And for the ultra-elite few who attain a Supreme Court clerkship, there are insanely nice bonuses: [High</a> Court Law Clerks Attract Hiring Frenzy - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443720204578000202789898248.html]High”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443720204578000202789898248.html)
One DC Biglaw firm I’m aware of says, “We reward judicial clerks who come directly to the firm following their clerkship with credit for purposes of both salary and partnership consideration, together with a $50,000 bonus for those who have clerked for a federal judge, or for the highest court in any state or the District of Columbia.”</p>
<p>I can think of a number of reasons other than sheer greed :rolleyes: to do work for a Biglaw firm. One is the attraction of living in a big city, where I suspect it is difficult to carve out a living as a small-town lawyer. Another is the ability to move into government jobs after some experience in a Biglaw firm, which is touted as an advantage on some Biglaw firms’ career websites. I don’t know how often this happens …</p>