Employment vs Immigration

[lawsttime]

Hello! It's the end of in-firms and I have received two offers in vastly different fields. One is with an immigration boutique and the other is with a medium-sized employment litigation firm that is quite famous in the media (think: talk radio and the news).

Both practice areas appeal to me. I was always passionate about immigration law and that's the reason I pursued this profession; however, employment law has recently piqued my interest. I worked with an employment lawyer over the summer and I enjoyed the complexity of each case.

The only drawback from the employment firm was that during the interview I didn't particularly vibe with two of the associates. One of them was very clearly texting during our interview and he asked me weird questions (I think in an effort to intimidate me). 

On the other hand, the immigration firm felt like a better fit culture-wise; however, I worry that I won't enjoy the actual work as much. I took immigration law and it's obviously very administrative. I fear if I don't enjoy my experience this summer that I won't be able to transfer into another practice area for articling.

I'm not sure which route to go, and my gut was initially telling me to go with the immigration firm because of the bad vibes I received during my OCI with the employment firm; however, those 'bad vibes' were alleviated in my two other interviews with the other associates and partners. 

What to do?! 

 

[123]

6 minutes ago, lawsttime said:

I fear if I don't enjoy my experience this summer that I won't be able to transfer into another practice area for articling.

I'm not sure about that. Obviously, the most relevant experience for any articling job would be in the same practice area. And you do often need to demonstrate interest to get jobs at immigration and employment practices. But the kind of work students do -- intake, research, drafting -- is usually pretty basic, and has some transferable value. Articling principals will (or should) expect to train students on a lot of what they'll need to do in practice. So while I think it's beneficial to summer in the same area as you'll article, I don't think it's usually necessary. You're not locked into a practice area at your second year summer.

[lawsttime]

9 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

I'm not sure about that. Obviously, the most relevant experience for any articling job would be in the same practice area. And you do often need to demonstrate interest to get jobs at immigration and employment practices. But the kind of work students do -- intake, research, drafting -- is usually pretty basic, and has some transferable value. Articling principals will (or should) expect to train students on a lot of what they'll need to do in practice. So while I think it's beneficial to summer in the same area as you'll article, I don't think it's usually necessary. You're not locked into a practice area at your second year summer.

That makes a lot of sense. I personally want to summer somewhere that I'll eventually article/ be an associate at, and not have to go through the recruitment process again next year.  I suppose it boils down to which practice area I can see myself in long-term, and I am unsure about that. 

🥲

 

[Jaggers]

I would go to the immigration place.

[lawsttime]

9 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

I would go to the immigration place.

Sorry, do you mind elaborating? Is it because of the vibes I got with the employment firm?

I am just doubting my gut because I fear immigration isn't going to be as fast-paced/interesting as employment can be, and that this firm would be easier to transfer out of if I wanted to pursue another employment firm afterwards... whereas with immigration it might be difficult to 

[TheAEGIS]

All things being equal, I suspect employment law would pay better in the long run - for what that's worth. Personally though, I prefer to work in a place I feel comfortable in. So I would lean towards immigration in your situation, and not just because it's my practice area.

Also, I suspect that after a few years of practice, the work starts to feel the same no matter the which field you are in.

And it's not the fast paced nature of practice per se that sustains most lawyers (although it helps when your files don't drag on and on) ... if anything too much of that can burn you out more quickly. I think it's that if you're sufficiently invested in your client's result / the outcome of your work, you will be interested in the work. That's all most of us need to keep going.

Maybe that's all most of us ever get...

But I digress.
Immigration. 

 

[lawsttime]

26 minutes ago, TheAEGIS said:

All things being equal, I suspect employment law would pay better in the long run - for what that's worth. Personally though, I prefer to work in a place I feel comfortable in. So I would lean towards immigration in your situation, and not just because it's my practice area.

Also, I suspect that after a few years of practice, the work starts to feel the same no matter the which field you are in.

And it's not the fast paced nature of practice per se that sustains most lawyers (although it helps when your files don't drag on and on) ... if anything too much of that can burn you out more quickly. I think it's that if you're sufficiently invested in your client's result / the outcome of your work, you will be interested in the work. That's all most of us need to keep going.

Maybe that's all most of us ever get...

But I digress.
Immigration. 

 

You're absolutely right. I think both fields could potentially lead to burnout, but I've always been more interested in immigration.

Thank you!

[Rashabon]

If the principal of the employment place drives a Ferrari, go to the immigration place without question.

[Jaggers]

That place has two principals now! There is also the other place, with the app.

[lawsttime]

46 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

If the principal of the employment place drives a Ferrari, go to the immigration place without question.

Lol, not that one

[Ramesses]

Immigration firm. The people make more difference than the law you are practicing. 

[QueensDenning]

1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

If the principal of the employment place drives a Ferrari, go to the immigration place without question.

Why does everyone seem to have negative things to say about this one? I hear it's a grind shop, but can you elaborate on anything else? 

Edit: plz PM if you don't want to post here.

Edited November 9, 2022 by QueensDenning

[QueensDenning]

Also OP: I'm pretty sure I know the firm your talking about and have heard great things from people I know who work there. DM me if u want more info. Sometimes one or two lawyers are having a bad day and it doesn't necessarily translate to the firm being any less of a fit. 

[pro boner]

On 11/9/2022 at 4:32 PM, Rashabon said:

If the principal of the employment place drives a Ferrari, go to the immigration place without question.

Why do you say that? Genuinely curious. 

15 minutes ago, pro boner said:

Edited March 11, 2023 by pro boner
Double wording