Lawyers, how did you decide the area of law you currently practice? 2L summer job?

I am coming up on my 3rd year and have yet to really focus on area particular area of the law. I know firms in the summer usually rotate you through the various practice depts. and upon being hired post-grad, they really place you where they need the help (not so much by what your interests are). With that said I have been trying to pick up various different experiences to explore different areas. So far I have:

-interned with a small law office (3 attorneys) focusing on criminal defense (usually smaller cases like juvenile ****, assault, theft cases etc. no murder and not a lot of financial stuff, also some bankruptcy and divorce cases)
*the freedom here was nice but I wasn't to big on the practice areas, on the other hand I think defending in larger high stake cases may be something that peaks my interest more.

-interned with attorney general office in white collar corruption and fraud division
*didn't really like criminal prosecuting, not something I would want to do in the future, so this was great in the sense that it allowed me to scratch something off the list

-currently interning with the SEC in enforcement division
*have yet to make up my mind about this

This summer I wanted to get some firm experience to see what that is like and have the opportunity to view first hand a number of different practice groups. However, since the larger firms have completed their hiring needs and I did not get any call backs, I need to start looking at mid/small firms (which is fine with me). However these firms tend to have more specific practice areas that they are known for. My question is how did you fall into your current practice area? did you know in your 2L/3L year? did you participate in a concentration in law school? did you focus your course selection in a particular area?

Magic 8 ball.

Well, at the very least you should decide whether you want to do transactional work or litigation. Going into law school, I knew at the very least that I wanted to be a litigator (i.e., a real lawyer). After 1L I got a summer associate gig with a big firm, and we were given some choice over the assignments we would take, so I always looked for the litigation assignments (I did assignments in a few different areas - commercial litigation, business litigation, insurance coverage litigation, product liability).

After my summer was over, we were asked to pick our top 3 groups and our bottom 3 groups. I picked as my top 3 the 3 groups where I thought the most court room litigating goes on and where I might have a chance to get some litigation experience. The firm placed me in the product liability group. As part of this group, I did mostly product liability and personal injury defense, and also some other general civil litigation. I decided that I liked litigation, but didn't really like the big firm thing, so I left the firm and started my own practice.

I'm now doing plaintiff personal injury cases, collection cases, consumer protection cases and criminal defense cases. So far, so good.

So, the moral of the story: use deductive reasoning. Start from broad catagories (e.g., litigation vs. transactional) and keep narrowing (e.g., civil vs. criminal; plaintiff vs. defense; etc.) and so on and so forth until you find something that you might like.

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

Well, at the very least you should decide whether you want to do transactional work or litigation. Going into law school, I knew at the very least that I wanted to be a litigator (i.e., a real lawyer). After 1L I got a summer associate gig with a big firm, and we were given some choice over the assignments we would take, so I always looked for the litigation assignments (I did assignments in a few different areas - commercial litigation, business litigation, insurance coverage litigation, product liability).

After my summer was over, we were asked to pick our top 3 groups and our bottom 3 groups. I picked as my top 3 the 3 groups where I thought the most court room litigating goes on and where I might have a chance to get some litigation experience. The firm placed me in the product liability group. As part of this group, I did mostly product liability and personal injury defense, and also some other general civil litigation. I decided that I liked litigation, but didn't really like the big firm thing, so I left the firm and started my own practice.

I'm now doing plaintiff personal injury cases, collection cases, consumer protection cases and criminal defense cases. So far, so good.

So, the moral of the story: use deductive reasoning. Start from broad catagories (e.g., litigation vs. transactional) and keep narrowing (e.g., civil vs. criminal; plaintiff vs. defense; etc.) and so on and so forth until you find something that you might like.

That is funny that you mention plaintiff personal injury. I've been researching some local firms that only practice in products liability (boutique size 8-20), wrongful death, child safety, consumer rights, etc. I am leaning toward trying to intern at one of these firms next summer to see if I like it. I have def. ruled out criminal prosecution (in any form) and probably criminal defense in any form... I am open to civil litigation on both sides of the fence but plaintiff seems like it would have more of a thrill and excitement, at least in the personal injury/torts arena (I may be wrong here). I love hearing about the cases where a corp. (or whomever) decides to take a short cut on something then gets nailed with a large hit to the wallet... seems like it could be very satisfying (and with contingencies very lucrative).

Are you on your own at the moment?

Originally Posted by pg600rr

Click to expand...

That is funny that you mention plaintiff personal injury. I've been researching some local firms that only practice in products liability (boutique size 8-20), wrongful death, child safety, consumer rights, etc. I am leaning toward trying to intern at one of these firms next summer to see if I like it. I have def. ruled out criminal prosecution (in any form) and probably criminal defense in any form... I am open to civil litigation on both sides of the fence but plaintiff seems like it would have more of a thrill and excitement, at least in the personal injury/torts arena (I may be wrong here). I love hearing about the cases where a corp. (or whomever) decides to take a short cut on something then gets nailed with a large hit to the wallet... seems like it could be very satisfying (and with contingencies very lucrative).

Are you on your own at the moment?

Yeah, I just started my practice earlier this month after a few years at a big firm. I was one of the lucky few associates in biglaw to actually get a lot of substantive "on my feet" litigation experience, and that was enough to make me feel confident that I can do this on my own.

I picked the one where I'd make the most money because I'm a complete schill like that. Seriously I'd sell out my own mother.

Originally Posted by JD_May

Click to expand...

I picked the one where I'd make the most money because I'm a complete schill like that. Seriously I'd sell out my own mother.

BIGLAW associate salaries are lockstep across practice groups, no?

Originally Posted by bluemagic

Click to expand...

BIGLAW associate salaries are lockstep across practice groups, no?

I dont think that is true, I think I remember Ip groups making slightly higher ($10-$15k) but not sure if this is practiced at all larger firms

Originally Posted by pg600rr

Click to expand...

I dont think that is true, I think I remember Ip groups making slightly higher ($10-$15k) but not sure if this is practiced at all larger firms

Were they making slightly higher than the local salary, or higher than the NYC salary. It certainly would make economic sense, but I haven't heard about it before.

Originally Posted by bluemagic

Click to expand...

Were they making slightly higher than the local salary, or higher than the NYC salary. It certainly would make economic sense, but I haven't heard about it before.

slightly higher than local salary (Boston which is now pretty close to NYC) top firms here start at $160k, then I think next step down is $145k, then $135k, then $110k...

I took IP Law last semester, thought it was interesting but all the firms want the IP people with PhD's or at least a science background (even though its only really a pre-requisite to practice patents). Def. some interesting cases tho.

Originally Posted by bluemagic

Click to expand...

BIGLAW associate salaries are lockstep across practice groups, no?
Actually there is a tax law firm here that doesn't alter articling and associate salaries based on locations; you get paid the same here as you would at their other offices on the other side of the country. Since the salary at their other office is comptetitive with big firms in that area, and big firm salaries here are nowhere near that amount, the result is about a 40% higher pay for your first few years working there than you would at a big firm here. So that's where I'm trying to work. But yeah generally you're right. Also I was kidding about choosing it for the money, I chose it because I like the area, presumably because there's something seriously wrong with me.

Originally Posted by JD_May

Click to expand...

Actually there is a tax law firm here that doesn't alter articling and associate salaries based on locations; you get paid the same here as you would at their other offices on the other side of the country. Since the salary at their other office is comptetitive with big firms in that area, and big firm salaries here are nowhere near that amount, the result is about a 40% higher pay for your first few years working there than you would at a big firm here. So that's where I'm trying to work. But yeah generally you're right. Also I was kidding about choosing it for the money, I chose it because I like the area, presumably because there's something seriously wrong with me.

Would that be Thorsteinssons?