Is biglaw litigation dying out? Forum

[Anonymous User]

1L here. Was at an "informational interview" with a biglaw litigation partner in a secondary market. He said litigation is slowly dying in biglaw and strongly suggested I don't express a firm preference for it going into OCI. Says big firms' needs are like 70 percent transactional nowadays and that's where the bodies are needed.

IDK if I will take the advice, especially since I like reading cases and doing legal research and writing, and corporate stuff is terra incognita for this humanities major. But what he said really took me aback so I wonder if biglaw attorneys had any input on whether this is real or fake news.

[esther0123]

I'm not sure if the litigation is "dying out" but it has always been the case that most law firms derive their profit from deals, not really litigation. Positioning yourself as a litigator during recruitment has always been a tougher sell than positioning yourself as a corporate attorney, because there is usually a lower demand and litigation has always been pickier about law school performance and traditional markers of "prestige," like clerkships and law review.

[Wild Card]

It's true. If you want to get and do litigation for sure, you'll need to aim V10ish.

[QContinuum]

I'm not sure if the litigation is "dying out" but it has always been the case that most law firms derive their profit from deals, not really litigation. Positioning yourself as a litigator during recruitment has always been a tougher sell than positioning yourself as a corporate attorney, because there is usually a lower demand and litigation has always been pickier about law school performance and traditional markers of "prestige," like clerkships and law review.

Also there is almost always a higher supply for litigation as well, because law school classes are so litigation-oriented. Transactional law school classes are pretty rare.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure if the litigation is "dying out" but it has always been the case that most law firms derive their profit from deals, not really litigation. Positioning yourself as a litigator during recruitment has always been a tougher sell than positioning yourself as a corporate attorney, because there is usually a lower demand and litigation has always been pickier about law school performance and traditional markers of "prestige," like clerkships and law review.

Also there is almost always a higher supply for litigation as well, because law school classes are so litigation-oriented. Transactional law school classes are pretty rare.

This is OP, so is he right that I should say I'm open to either during OCI? I always thought that makes one sound indecisive, but what do I know compared with a V20 partner lol

[esther0123]

I'm not sure if the litigation is "dying out" but it has always been the case that most law firms derive their profit from deals, not really litigation. Positioning yourself as a litigator during recruitment has always been a tougher sell than positioning yourself as a corporate attorney, because there is usually a lower demand and litigation has always been pickier about law school performance and traditional markers of "prestige," like clerkships and law review.

Also there is almost always a higher supply for litigation as well, because law school classes are so litigation-oriented. Transactional law school classes are pretty rare.

This is OP, so is he right that I should say I'm open to either during OCI? I always thought that makes one sound indecisive, but what do I know compared with a V20 partner lol

I do think it sounds indecisive and I have seen new recruits being all-in on corporate, even though, let's face it, they probably had no idea what they were saying when they said wanted to do corporate work. Do you want to do corporate at all? Or you just haven't given it a serious thought? I think it's worthwhile to talk to some transactional attorneys about what their work is like. I don't think saying you'd like to try both is a deal breaker, if you're a good candidate, but it is a little bit of a buzzkill. You not only sound indecisive, but you also sound like you didn't do proper research. Again, good grades, good school, good personality can overcome this said "buzzkill".

[QContinuum]

I'm not sure if the litigation is "dying out" but it has always been the case that most law firms derive their profit from deals, not really litigation. Positioning yourself as a litigator during recruitment has always been a tougher sell than positioning yourself as a corporate attorney, because there is usually a lower demand and litigation has always been pickier about law school performance and traditional markers of "prestige," like clerkships and law review.

Also there is almost always a higher supply for litigation as well, because law school classes are so litigation-oriented. Transactional law school classes are pretty rare.

This is OP, so is he right that I should say I'm open to either during OCI? I always thought that makes one sound indecisive, but what do I know compared with a V20 partner lol

I do think it sounds indecisive and I have seen new recruits being all-in on corporate, even though, let's face it, they probably had no idea what they were saying when they said wanted to do corporate work. Do you want to do corporate at all? Or you just haven't given it a serious thought? I think it's worthwhile to talk to some transactional attorneys about what their work is like. I don't think saying you'd like to try both is a deal breaker, if you're a good candidate, but it is a little bit of a buzzkill. You not only sound indecisive, but you also sound like you didn't do proper research. Again, good grades, good school, good personality can overcome this said "buzzkill".

At my T14 it was common for my classmates to say they wanted to try both corporate and litigation. So not a dealbreaker, but definitely advantageous if you know which one you want and have an articulable reason for your preference.

I second Esther's advice to talk to transactional attorneys to get a better sense of what corporate practice entails. There's really no other way of doing it - 1L classes certainly don't give anyone the faintest clue.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure if the litigation is "dying out" but it has always been the case that most law firms derive their profit from deals, not really litigation. Positioning yourself as a litigator during recruitment has always been a tougher sell than positioning yourself as a corporate attorney, because there is usually a lower demand and litigation has always been pickier about law school performance and traditional markers of "prestige," like clerkships and law review.

Also there is almost always a higher supply for litigation as well, because law school classes are so litigation-oriented. Transactional law school classes are pretty rare.

This is OP, so is he right that I should say I'm open to either during OCI? I always thought that makes one sound indecisive, but what do I know compared with a V20 partner lol

I do think it sounds indecisive and I have seen new recruits being all-in on corporate, even though, let's face it, they probably had no idea what they were saying when they said wanted to do corporate work. Do you want to do corporate at all? Or you just haven't given it a serious thought? I think it's worthwhile to talk to some transactional attorneys about what their work is like. I don't think saying you'd like to try both is a deal breaker, if you're a good candidate, but it is a little bit of a buzzkill. You not only sound indecisive, but you also sound like you didn't do proper research. Again, good grades, good school, good personality can overcome this said "buzzkill".

At my T14 it was common for my classmates to say they wanted to try both corporate and litigation. So not a dealbreaker, but definitely advantageous if you know which one you want and have an articulable reason for your preference.

I second Esther's advice to talk to transactional attorneys to get a better sense of what corporate practice entails. There's really no other way of doing it - 1L classes certainly don't give anyone the faintest clue.

This is OP, like you said I don't have a frame of reference so IDK if I "want" to do something I don't know anything about. When I talk to corp people at firm receptions they just talk a lot about "deals" and very little about actual law. They sound like businesspeople but I don't know anything about the business world either.

I like litigation-type things (particularly the research+writing) but I'm 22 years old and never had a professional job before so how am I supposed to decide this in six months time?

[PMan99]

It isn't really fair to make you decide now, but it's how the system is. FWIW, I do think biglaw litigation has a dimmer future than transactional, at least in the long term (in the shorter term, market fluctuations will outweigh any longer term trend). And that view is shared by a large number of my fellow litigators.

That said, if you want to litigate, pick litigation. What you actually want to do with your career should outweigh long term biglaw market prospects. There are plenty of non-biglaw litigation jobs out there (small/medium sized firms, government, etc.). If it's the career you want, go for it.

If you're more interested in maximizing your biglaw chances, period, or don't want to stay in a firm forever, pick transactional. If you don't know what you really want to do with your career, I'd pick transactional (litigation is significantly more constraining). But it's in your best interest to think about where you want to be in 5-7 years, and then work backwards to pick the practice group (and subgroup) that will set you best on that path.

[QContinuum]

It isn't really fair to make you decide now, but it's how the system is. FWIW, I do think biglaw litigation has a dimmer future than transactional, at least in the long term (in the shorter term, market fluctuations will outweigh any longer term trend). And that view is shared by a large number of my fellow litigators.

That said, if you want to litigate, pick litigation. What you actually want to do with your career should outweigh long term biglaw market prospects. There are plenty of non-biglaw litigation jobs out there (small/medium sized firms, government, etc.). If it's the career you want, go for it.

If you're more interested in maximizing your biglaw chances, period, or don't want to stay in a firm forever, pick transactional. If you don't know what you really want to do with your career, I'd pick transactional (litigation is significantly more constraining). But it's in your best interest to think about where you want to be in 5-7 years, and then work backwards to pick the practice group (and subgroup) that will set you best on that path.

Does the idea of being up on your feet, cross-examining a witness or delivering oral argument before a judge, appeal to you? Personality-wise, do you relish the idea of being in the spotlight, the focus of a hushed courtroom, performing for a jury? If yes, it sounds like you ought to be a litigator. If the idea is unappealing, then you should go do transactional work.

(Of course, there are other niches outside of litigation and transactional work, like patent prosecution or tax law or estates & personal, but the vast majority of students don't go into those areas and unless OP has a special interest in those areas, I wouldn't recommend diving in.)

[Anonymous User]

It isn't really fair to make you decide now, but it's how the system is. FWIW, I do think biglaw litigation has a dimmer future than transactional, at least in the long term (in the shorter term, market fluctuations will outweigh any longer term trend). And that view is shared by a large number of my fellow litigators.

That said, if you want to litigate, pick litigation. What you actually want to do with your career should outweigh long term biglaw market prospects. There are plenty of non-biglaw litigation jobs out there (small/medium sized firms, government, etc.). If it's the career you want, go for it.

If you're more interested in maximizing your biglaw chances, period, or don't want to stay in a firm forever, pick transactional. If you don't know what you really want to do with your career, I'd pick transactional (litigation is significantly more constraining). But it's in your best interest to think about where you want to be in 5-7 years, and then work backwards to pick the practice group (and subgroup) that will set you best on that path.

Does the idea of being up on your feet, cross-examining a witness or delivering oral argument before a judge, appeal to you? Personality-wise, do you relish the idea of being in the spotlight, the focus of a hushed courtroom, performing for a jury? If yes, it sounds like you ought to be a litigator. If the idea is unappealing, then you should go do transactional work.

(Of course, there are other niches outside of litigation and transactional work, like patent prosecution or tax law or estates & personal, but the vast majority of students don't go into those areas and unless OP has a special interest in those areas, I wouldn't recommend diving in.)

I like public speaking and mock trial/moot court type stuff. But as I understand it litigators in biglaw don't touch the courtroom until third or fourth year if that.

I'm in a good spot from a numbers perspective though. Above median at T6. So maybe I can just do what I want, be honest about it, and hope my academic pedigree is good enough to mitigate any adverse effects my present choices may have on my career down the line.

[QContinuum]

I like public speaking and mock trial/moot court type stuff. But as I understand it litigators in biglaw don't touch the courtroom until third or fourth year if that.

That's true, but you'd at least want to aspire to speak and argue in court. That's why I think it's helpful to think about it. It'll take a while before you first get to speak in court, but once you get to that point you'll be arguing in court for the rest of your career (whether you stay on in BigLaw long-term or decamp to PI or FedGov).

I'm in a good spot from a numbers perspective though. Above median at T6. So maybe I can just do what I want, be honest about it, and hope my academic pedigree is good enough to mitigate any adverse effects my present choices may have on my career down the line.

You'll be fine coming from a T6. But I don't understand why you seem to be resistant to the idea of speaking with transactional lawyers to learn more about the practice. You have plenty of time before OCI to do some informational interviewing. You can attend talks and lunch events held by transactional lawyers, you can go to firm receptions for 1Ls and ask questions to your heart's content (no lawyer will expect 1Ls to know anything about transactional practice - or, for that matter, anything about BigLaw litigation - so don't be afraid to ask any questions that come to mind), you can have Career Services help connect you with recent grads working in transactional BigLaw. More knowledge can only benefit you.

Obviously, I'm not saying you should go into transactional work. I'm only saying you ought to make an informed choice, instead of sticking with litigation by default because it's the only kind of legal practice you can conceive of.

[Yea All Right]

IMO there's nothing wrong with saying you are open to both transactional and litigation. Lawyers generally won't fault a rising 2L for not knowing which group they want. It could be as simple as saying you enjoyed your first-year classes which tend to be more litigation-focused, but you are also intrigued by the transactional side and want to try it as well in order to make an informed decision for your future career.

Caveat that if the firm/office you're interviewing with heavily leans one way, then say you're interested in that area. E.g., during OCI I sabotaged myself at a firm by saying I was heavily interested in corporate when it turned out that office focused on litigation.

[Bllljd115]

I doubt it is dying out so much as fragmenting. Among the top/elite firms, you are starting to see more specialization and focus on certain types of high margin, high dollar matters - M+A, securities, bankruptcy, antitrust, consumer class action, and IP. A lot of what is "litigation" is now investigations and white collar work which can create specialization within the departments. I think where you might see a movement away from the bigger firms is on general commercial actions, gone are the days when a F500 company will just hire their preferred biglaw firm to handle every case that comes their way even third-party subpoenas.

The other issue is conflicts. Firms with huge M+A practices often (for both ethical and reputational reasons) don't want to be adverse to current or even potential clients in a single industry or even a single type (banks, F500 corporations). As a result, a lot of litigation at those firms ends of being derivative of corporate relationships. That does not mean the work is low-dollar or not sophisticated but it can result in a firm turning away interesting matters. Quinn is a prime example of a biglaw firm that benefits a lot from not having a huge corporate practice that creates conflicts.

I think what you will start seeing is further migration of those areas away from big firms and to boutique type firms that specialize in one thing or do not have the conflicts that come with a major corporate practice.

[Anonymous User]

I like public speaking and mock trial/moot court type stuff. But as I understand it litigators in biglaw don't touch the courtroom until third or fourth year if that.

That's true, but you'd at least want to aspire to speak and argue in court. That's why I think it's helpful to think about it. It'll take a while before you first get to speak in court, but once you get to that point you'll be arguing in court for the rest of your career (whether you stay on in BigLaw long-term or decamp to PI or FedGov).

I'm in a good spot from a numbers perspective though. Above median at T6. So maybe I can just do what I want, be honest about it, and hope my academic pedigree is good enough to mitigate any adverse effects my present choices may have on my career down the line.

You'll be fine coming from a T6. But I don't understand why you seem to be resistant to the idea of speaking with transactional lawyers to learn more about the practice. You have plenty of time before OCI to do some informational interviewing. You can attend talks and lunch events held by transactional lawyers, you can go to firm receptions for 1Ls and ask questions to your heart's content (no lawyer will expect 1Ls to know anything about transactional practice - or, for that matter, anything about BigLaw litigation - so don't be afraid to ask any questions that come to mind), you can have Career Services help connect you with recent grads working in transactional BigLaw. More knowledge can only benefit you.

Obviously, I'm not saying you should go into transactional work. I'm only saying you ought to make an informed choice, instead of sticking with litigation by default because it's the only kind of legal practice you can conceive of.

This is OP. I will definitely do more research into transactional. You're right that picking one side without knowing anything about what the other side does isn't setting a good foundation for a career. Is real estate a high-demand area? I don't think I'd want to do M&A from the little I've heard of it.

[Anonymous User]

Perhaps a more practical observation, but it is certainly true that at least the NYC BigLaw lit market is in a quasi-panic state. There are layoffs occurring across many firms, and hiring projections are being revised and reduced. And many clerks aren't getting offers to return to biglaw after taking a year off for what was once considered a no-risk reputation booster. Doesn't mean they aren't getting jobs -- boutiques are actually hiring a lot now -- but BigLaw, itself, seems to be contracting. Many reasons for this -- technology, conflicts (as noticed above), new boutiques, sophisticated in-house counsel all seem to be good explainers.

Long story short, if you want to be a litigator, you should do it. But be prepared for (a) a lot of discovery; (b) a lot of motion practice; (c) a more competitive vertical path than you might have in a corporate group.

[boredtodeath]

This is OP, like you said I don't have a frame of reference so IDK if I "want" to do something I don't know anything about. When I talk to corp people at firm receptions they just talk a lot about "deals" and very little about actual law. They sound like businesspeople but I don't know anything about the business world either?

That's because we don't practice actual law. We write down the terms of the deal on many, many different pieces of paper and then coordinate everyone signing those pieces of paper. We only sound like businesspeople because the only interesting parts of our job are the fights between the actual businesspeople and so that's what we talk about when describing what we worked on.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP, like you said I don't have a frame of reference so IDK if I "want" to do something I don't know anything about. When I talk to corp people at firm receptions they just talk a lot about "deals" and very little about actual law. They sound like businesspeople but I don't know anything about the business world either?

That's because we don't practice actual law. We write down the terms of the deal on many, many different pieces of paper and then coordinate everyone signing those pieces of paper. We only sound like businesspeople because the only interesting parts of our job are the fights between the actual businesspeople and so that's what we talk about when describing what we worked on.

+1. I'm clerking in district court right now and trying to figure out what to do afterwards. I still don't get what corporate lawyers do. I've read all the buzzword-y descriptors like "due diligence" and "running deals", but they aren't informative of what junior associates in practices like Credit, Cap Markets, IMG, M&A, and especially Restructuring actually do. Even 2L and 3L law school courses like bankruptcy and corporations are not helpful. It sounds to my best estimation that as a junior in all of these groups, regardless of the firm (within V5 or V10, etc.), you read loan documents and offer suggestions on how change some of the terms based on precedents you can access. That, and you help file paperwork by making sure people sign documents where they are supposed to. But it can't be that simple. So I don't know what I'm missing. But in fairness, maybe you can't know until you try it. I don't want to go into a litigation practice because that will narrow my options 4-5 years down the road, but I don't know what Corporate does!

[toast and bananas]

This is OP, like you said I don't have a frame of reference so IDK if I "want" to do something I don't know anything about. When I talk to corp people at firm receptions they just talk a lot about "deals" and very little about actual law. They sound like businesspeople but I don't know anything about the business world either?

That's because we don't practice actual law. We write down the terms of the deal on many, many different pieces of paper and then coordinate everyone signing those pieces of paper. We only sound like businesspeople because the only interesting parts of our job are the fights between the actual businesspeople and so that's what we talk about when describing what we worked on.

+1. I'm clerking in district court right now and trying to figure out what to do afterwards. I still don't get what corporate lawyers do. I've read all the buzzword-y descriptors like "due diligence" and "running deals", but they aren't informative of what junior associates in practices like Credit, Cap Markets, IMG, M&A, and especially Restructuring actually do. Even 2L and 3L law school courses like bankruptcy and corporations are not helpful. It sounds to my best estimation that as a junior in all of these groups, regardless of the firm (within V5 or V10, etc.), you read loan documents and offer suggestions on how change some of the terms based on precedents you can access. That, and you help file paperwork by making sure people sign documents where they are supposed to. But it can't be that simple. So I don't know what I'm missing. But in fairness, maybe you can't know until you try it. I don't want to go into a litigation practice because that will narrow my options 4-5 years down the road, but I don't know what Corporate does!

Talk to corporate lawyers, preferably over a beer. I could type all of the things I do on a day to day basis but that sounds exhausting and there are threads for that. Generally, it's a lot of drafting docs of seemingly every imaginable sort. There is a diligence aspect to being a corporate junior but IME that has been a minor part of it (then again, I shy away from diligence heavy projects - i'm looking at you buy-side public M&A). The rest of it is coordinating other parties in some shape or form - this is what they mean by "running the deal". It entails a ton of emails and phone calls to clients, opposing firms, internal specialist groups, and other institutional players like banks, transfer agents, the SEC, the NYSE/NASDAQ, printers.

ETA something actually on-topic: I would be weary of saying you're all-in on transactional without being prepared to have a thought out, non-generic response as to why. I personally don't hold it against interviewees for wanting to do transactional based only upon a vague idea of what it involves (i did - though i do not endorse that as a well-advised approach), but i've seen partners push back on the question many times because, as others have said in this thread, they're very used to people saying they want to do transactional just because they think it's more likely to get them an offer. I think if you just want an offer outright (especially as a 1L), the best approach is to say that you at least want to try both because that's really the only reasonable response for someone with no relevant experience. We all know you have no idea what you're talking about, so it's better (and more respectable) to not pretend otherwise.

[FND]

Transactional is very broad. If you can say something like "healthcare transactional", you've got a big leg up in a firm that has a thriving healthcare practice. While there's a lot of transferable skills from one practice group to another, a lot of knowledge is industry-specific. For example, structured finance in the energy sector may involve a "lockbox", which is unique to energy, while a structured finance in insurance may involve subrogation, which is unique to insurance.

As for what the work entails, well, at the lower level, it's basically making sure you (a) have a complete list of documents needed for the transaction, (b) that all the documents match, (c) that all the parties sign in the right order and the right time frame, (d) due diligence for anything weird.
At a middle level, there's a lot more drafting the terms of the documents, discussing exceptions, variations, etc.
At a high level, it may involve actually structuring a deal.

For example, one matter I worked on involved money moving from Client(s) A to Company B in Offshore Jurisdiction 1, then transferring to Company C in Offshore Jurisdiction 2, before getting to Party D back in the U.S. That made a world of different tax wise.
Senior Partner represents Party D and discusses the overall structure.
Junior Partner or Senior Associate will determine all the document requirements and will draft/negotiate the terms of the documents with the other parties.
Junior Associate may be given very specific simple tasks (e.g. determine KYC requirements in all 3 jurisdictions and figure out simplified procedures for meeting these standards).

Once the structure was up and running, Junior Associate would generally do "fill in the blanks" drafting of documents, perform due diligence, and review all documents. Depending on circumstances, either Junior Associate or Senior Associate would chase signatures and work with counterparts at the other companies/firms.
Anything unusual would be handled by Senior Associate / Junior Partner.
Senior Partner would provide general supervision to ensure everything was running smoothly and occasionally get on conference calls with the key players to discuss high-level considerations, but mostly the day-to-day stuff was supervised by Junior Partner.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

To people saying biglaw litigation is drying out: the last four years at my firm (NYC V20) I’ve been between 2,000-2,300 hours every year, I’m not the busiest person in my group, and the firm has been actively trying to recruit laterals into our litigation practice. My experience is that litigation in NYC is extremely active.

[Anonymous User]

To people saying biglaw litigation is drying out: the last four years at my firm (NYC V20) I’ve been between 2,000-2,300 hours every year, I’m not the busiest person in my group, and the firm has been actively trying to recruit laterals into our litigation practice. My experience is that litigation in NYC is extremely active.

Yeah not familiar with NYC biglaw, but I'm a litigator for biglaw in a secondary market and we're extremely busy. We've also been looking for and hiring laterals like crazy for the past year or so.

Also, for OP, you can say in interviews that you are generally interested in litigation and also want to try corporate but don't have an informed idea of what corporate is. I said that in all my interviews and the overwhelming response was positive and interviewers were agreeable that few, if any, rising 2Ls could know what corporate lawyers do. FWIW I still said that in corp heavy firm interviews and still got callbacks.

[LBJ's Hair]

Definitely not a sky is falling thing, but anecdotally I have friends with impeccable credentials (2d Cir., HYS, Law Review) going through post-clerkship hiring processes right now that have been told by V10 firms that they're not hiring clerks. Subtext was not enough hours to go around. And you do hear rumors of stealth layoffs at a couple of places that this board talks about as though they're "never-lays-people-off-except-for-performance" firms

There are obviously great lit jobs available, but does seem like the market is fragmenting no?

[QContinuum]

Definitely not a sky is falling thing, but anecdotally I have friends with impeccable credentials (2d Cir., HYS, Law Review) going through post-clerkship hiring processes right now that have been told by V10 firms that they're not hiring clerks. Subtext was not enough hours to go around. And you do hear rumors of stealth layoffs at a couple of places that this board talks about as though they're "never-lays-people-off-except-for-performance" firms

There are obviously great lit jobs available, but does seem like the market is fragmenting no?

If YSHers with 2nd Cir. CoA clerkships are struggling to land V10 lit positions, that's certainly a very ominous sign. I don't think we should dismiss it lightly. Short of DC Cir./SCOTUS, these folks should be absolutely dominating post-clerkship hiring. If they're struggling, what of the T6 grad who's "merely" clerking on the 6th Circuit, or even "just" on a district court like, dare we say, DNJ?

"Fragmentation" has largely referred to the top of the market - V10/20/[insert your preferred number] - increasingly keeping all of the spoils, leaving firms toward the bottom of the V100/AmLaw 100 - and especially the AmLaw 200 - to struggle. If V10 lit is now hurting, that's more than "fragmentation." That's BigLit itself hitting the rocks.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Something that has been discussed at my firm (and is in the news) is the possibility of an economic downturn. For firms with large associate classes IMO that is a more likely reason for slowing hiring than that litigation as a whole is drying up. If you look at the docket of any federal court—and this is certainly true of SDNY and EDNY—you will see that there are lots and lots of pending cases and of course there are disputes in arbitration and other forums.