Honestly wanna know why do people want biglaw? Is it for the money? The career prospects?

[wannabestacysmom]

Anong the people who aren’t taking out student loans and have zero debt, do they want biglaw or what are their fields of interest? (Yeah I know I’m kinda asking for a generalization) 

[Rashabon]

46 minutes ago, wannabestacysmom said:

Anong the people who aren’t taking out student loans and have zero debt, do they want biglaw or what are their fields of interest? (Yeah I know I’m kinda asking for a generalization) 

This is not a good question. Nobody can give you anything approaching a decent answer.

[wannabestacysmom]

33 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

This is not a good question. Nobody can give you anything approaching a decent answer.

Yeah I agree hahahah, I was hoping maybe people on this thread who didn’t take out student loans would wanna answer

[Turtles]

1 hour ago, wannabestacysmom said:

Anong the people who aren’t taking out student loans and have zero debt, do they want biglaw or what are their fields of interest? (Yeah I know I’m kinda asking for a generalization) 

I'm planning to graduate with zero (or close to zero) debt despite paying my own way through. I was drawn to big law because my background is in consulting and I enjoy helping corporate clients solve problems and identify opportunities. I enjoy learning about different industries. I enjoy meeting and working with other business professionals. It's not much deeper than that. I've worked in law firms dealing with the general public, as well as specifically with those with convictions, and I generally found those experiences less enjoyable. At least with faceless corporations and numbered companies there's no surprises about what they want -- to make money. You can anticipate what they'll do and help them achieve their aims. But people continue to disappoint me to this day with their irrational decisions and self-sabotaging actions. I don't think my spirit could take a career in retail law.   

[easttowest]

On 4/3/2022 at 1:24 PM, Barry said:

What do you like about it because it sounds pretty awful. 

What about it sounds awful? Do you know what a shareholder dispute might involve or just reflexively recoil when you hear words related to corporations like “shareholder”?

[GGrievous]

5 hours ago, easttowest said:

What about it sounds awful? Do you know what a shareholder dispute might involve or just reflexively recoil when you hear words related to corporations like “shareholder”?

I’d love to engage but these discussions always devolve into comments about non-big law people just not getting it. Because, you know, nothing seems bad or stressful about a high stakes dispute. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Barry

[Rashabon]

1 hour ago, Barry said:

I’d love to engage but these discussions always devolve into comments about non-big law people just not getting it. Because, you know, nothing seems bad or stressful about a high stakes dispute. 

So in your view, all of criminal and family law is "pretty awful" to use your words and explanation?

[BlockedQuebecois]

2 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

So in your view, all of criminal and family law is "pretty awful" to use your words and explanation?

No no no, he just thinks they're not high stakes.

[GGrievous]

10 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

So in your view, all of criminal and family law is "pretty awful" to use your words and explanation?

No, not all of it. If you read further you'd see I would find family law disputes difficult and not something I would view as pleasant, so I inquired. 

7 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

No no no, he just thinks they're not high stakes.

I never said I enjoyed the thought of disputes in any other area of law to where I would describe them as fun. I find them actually emotionally daunting and sometimes I question if I can even handle it. 

But you should probably give up the narrative you push that non big-law people are always derailing your discussions.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Barry

[t3ctonics]

1 hour ago, Barry said:

I’d love to engage but these discussions always devolve into comments about non-big law people just not getting it. Because, you know, nothing seems bad or stressful about a high stakes dispute. 

Litigation like shareholder disputes or large commercial litigation claims can be very stressful because of the stakes. The flip side is, often so much money is involved that the lawyers can do everything they want. You can raise every argument, research every sub-issue in minute detail, interview every conceivable potential witness, take the most advantageous position at every procedural step, make lots of chambers applications, etc. This is different from smaller-stakes litigation where your hands are often tied by your client's budget. On a really high-stakes file with deep pocketed client you have an opportunity to shine and can do the absolute best job possible. Some people really prefer that sort of no-limits litigation. I know multiple big firm litigators that have told me exactly that. But of course, the clients expect results, and if they let you loose like that there are no excuses if you fall short of their expectations.

But, as @Rashabon just implied, the stakes in criminal and family law are very high for those involved. And they usually don't have the money for their lawyers to take the above approach. That means their files have to be run on more of a quick-and-dirty approach (relatively speaking). That can be very stressful too - you need to meet your professional obligations and preserve your reputation, but at the same time you can only put so much work into each step. That's a tough balance.

All kinds of litigation are inherently stressful in my experience, but there are different reasons why. Which is better or worse is a very individual matter.

[GGrievous]

3 minutes ago, t3ctonics said:

the stakes in criminal and family law are very high for those involved.

believe me, this I know. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

21 minutes ago, Barry said:

No, not all of it. If you read further you'd see I would find family law disputes difficult and not something I would view as pleasant, so I inquired. 

I never said I enjoyed the thought of disputes in any other area of law to where I would describe them as fun.

The bit is that all of the practice of law is high stakes for the parties involved. Criminal lawyers are protecting the liberty of their clients. Family lawyers are working to get people out of abusive relationships and look after the welfare of children. Immigration lawyers are assisting vulnerable clients navigate a byzantine system. Personal injury lawyers are trying to make their clients whole after what may be a life changing injury. Estates lawyers are helping individuals structure their affairs in a manner that makes their death less burdensome on their heirs. And so on. 

If you think big law is awful because it is high stakes, you would be doing a massive disservice to your clients (and yourself) if you become a retail lawyer, particularly if your motivation for doing so is that the stakes for them—going to jail, losing their children, losing their home, being deported, etc—are low enough that you don't find it overly stressful. 

People don't hire lawyers when the stakes are low. They hire lawyers because the stakes are high. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois
Barry edited his post, so making the original comment clear.

[GGrievous]

3 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

The bit is that all of the practice of law is high stakes for the parties involved. Criminal lawyers are protecting the liberty of their clients. Family lawyers are working to get people out of abusive relationships and look after the welfare of children. Immigration lawyers are assisting vulnerable clients navigate a byzantine system. Personal injury lawyers are trying to make their clients whole after what may be a life changing injury. Estates lawyers are helping individuals structure their affairs in a manner that makes their death less burdensome on their heirs. And so on. 

If you think big law is awful because it is high stakes, you would be doing a massive disservice to your clients (and yourself) if you become a retail lawyer, particularly if your motivation for doing so is that the stakes for them—going to jail, losing their children, losing their home, being deported, etc—are low enough that you don't find it overly stressful. 

People don't hire lawyers when the stakes are low. They hire lawyers because the stakes are high. 

I'm aware of all of this. None of this sounds "fun" to me. That's the bit. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Barry

[CleanHands]

2 minutes ago, Barry said:

I'm aware of all of this. None of this sounds "fun" to me. That's the bit. 

Not to pile on, but your stated reason that a stakeholder dispute sounded terrible to you was that it was a "high stakes dispute."

If you find it mind-numbingly boring, I agree. And I doubt you'd get that much pushback because that's a subjective matter of tastes and different people will have different preferences and that's fine and nobody will change anyone's mind. But you're getting the responses you are because you're writing X, provoking people to waste their time responding to X, only for you to go "well but Y, duh, why don't you people get that?"

[GGrievous]

11 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Not to pile on, but your stated reason that a stakeholder dispute sounded terrible to you was that it was a "high stakes dispute."

If you find it mind-numbingly boring, I agree. And I doubt you'd get that much pushback because that's a subjective matter of tastes and different people will have different preferences and that's fine and nobody will change anyone's mind. But you're getting the responses you are because you're writing X, provoking people to waste their time responding to X, only for you to go "well but Y, duh, why don't you people get that?"

I disagree. I'm getting the responses I am because people are making the incorrect assumption that I don't think other areas are high stakes. That because I think this aspect is awful, that I don't think there are awful aspects of other areas. That's incorrect.

 

I actually got a few interesting answers about it too, which was awesome. It's unfortunate it has been derailed by those who have pre-emptively decided not to constructively contribute. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Barry

[Rashabon]

3 minutes ago, Barry said:

I disagree. I'm getting the responses I am because people are making the incorrect assumption that I don't think other areas are high stakes. That because I think this aspect is awful, that I don't think there are awful aspects of other areas. That's incorrect.

It's a pretty thumb in the eye question to go "what about [X] do you like because it sounds pretty awful" when your definition of "pretty awful" is "every single area of law besides maybe residential real estate".

To respond to your response to me:

34 minutes ago, Barry said:

No, not all of it. If you read further you'd see I would find family law disputes difficult and not something I would view as pleasant, so I inquired. 

This response is nonsensical and counter to what you subsequently argued. You're now saying "pretty awful" = "unpleasant" which is not your prior explanation of to @easttowest.

If you don't find all aspects of criminal law or family law to be "pretty awful" by your own (previously) stated definition of "bad or stressful [...] high stakes dispute", then you are not fit to be a criminal or family law lawyer, because the stakes are always high. At least if I fuck up my client just loses money or has to do something remedial to fix it. There's no fixing fucking up a criminal law matter or family law matter in a way that makes anyone whole.

[GGrievous]

2 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

There's no fixing fucking up a criminal law matter or family law matter in a way that makes anyone whole.

It does sound pretty fucking awful. 

16 hours ago, Ruthless4Life said:

Shareholders disputes are fun… for me it’s like dealing with a divorce but without the “moral ramifications”…

This is actually something @Ruthless4Life brought up too. The "fun" comes from the lack of moral ramifications.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Barry

[Ruthless4Life]

22 hours ago, t3ctonics said:

Litigation like shareholder disputes or large commercial litigation claims can be very stressful because of the stakes. The flip side is, often so much money is involved that the lawyers can do everything they want. You can raise every argument, research every sub-issue in minute detail, interview every conceivable potential witness, take the most advantageous position at every procedural step, make lots of chambers applications, etc. This is different from smaller-stakes litigation where your hands are often tied by your client's budget. On a really high-stakes file with deep pocketed client you have an opportunity to shine and can do the absolute best job possible. Some people really prefer that sort of no-limits litigation. I know multiple big firm litigators that have told me exactly that. But of course, the clients expect results, and if they let you loose like that there are no excuses if you fall short of their expectations.

But, as @Rashabon just implied, the stakes in criminal and family law are very high for those involved. And they usually don't have the money for their lawyers to take the above approach. That means their files have to be run on more of a quick-and-dirty approach (relatively speaking). That can be very stressful too - you need to meet your professional obligations and preserve your reputation, but at the same time you can only put so much work into each step. That's a tough balance.

All kinds of litigation are inherently stressful in my experience, but there are different reasons why. Which is better or worse is a very individual matter.

Agree with this.  There’s really no comparison about which one has “bigger” stakes - can’t really compare a losing USD100m case for a listed company vs losing custody over your child.  One can argue that losing custody is a “bigger stake” for the individual - and that’s exactly the reason I don’t want to do matrimonial. I started my training in a niche criminal law firm - working on nitty gritty cases like theft, assault, etc receiving calls at midnight to attend police station.  Then I moved to matrimonial for a while and on my own I was preparing affidavits for clients fighting over who is better parent - it was too emotionally draining for me.  At the end I just feel more comfortable arguing stuff about over what constitutes unfair prejudice conduct over minority shareholders. 

[GGrievous]

5 minutes ago, Ruthless4Life said:

 - it was too emotionally draining for me.  At the end I just feel more comfortable arguing stuff about over what constitutes unfair prejudice conduct over minority shareholders. 

Maybe I should do big law after all

[Ruthless4Life]

1 minute ago, Barry said:

Maybe I should do big law after all

Perhaps “big law” is learning how to be a screw in a giant machine - but in “small law “ you are the machine itself from start to finish.

[GGrievous]

4 minutes ago, Ruthless4Life said:

Perhaps “big law” is learning how to be a screw in a giant machine - but in “small law “ you are the machine itself from start to finish.

It’s cool that you’ve done both. I might DM you with you with more questions later on if that’s ok. Is it more collaborative to be the screw? Or are you just given a small piece to work on independently, or is it more complex than that?

[Ruthless4Life]

13 minutes ago, Barry said:

It’s cool that you’ve done both. I might DM you with you with more questions later on if that’s ok. Is it more collaborative to be the screw? Or are you just given a small piece to work on independently, or is it more complex than that?

The “big stake” cases usually deal with so much papers and huge volume , that there might be 2-3 articling students doing the grunt work , have 1-2 associates and 1 partner.  Heck there might even be a “senior” partner in charge of overall conduct of the case . Imagine that , compared with a “small stake” case where you’re all on your own printing out the papers and putting it into a binder and arguing all the motions by yourself before a judge . There will be more “exposure” in terms of the legal disputes in “big stake” cases but in a small firm, you learn how to run a law firm. In a big firm you are Just an employee. 
but of course at the end it will really depend on the particular firm’s culture. 
yes and happy to share