Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. I seem to be getting a lot of input from those who are in or are looking to go into Big Law. I will never work in big law. I didn't graduate from a great law school and I have always worked in public benefits. For my particular situation, I still don't see how doc review would hurt my resume. For instance, in 3 years if I decide to be a staff attorney at legal aid, do you really think they'd look down on me for having worked in document review? I also don't think it would create that many conflicts because most legal aid cases involve low income individuals that usually don't have substantial ties to larges businesses, multiple people, etc.

What you are hearing is that it has a bad reputation. What you are hearing is that it will not help on your resume. You may find understanding potential employers, who don’t discount you because of that. But even those will not consider it real legal work. It is considered the legal equivalent of a data entry position. You should do it if you need the money, but understand how people view it (whether or not justified) and based on this, consider not having it on your resume.

The stigma is real, and it's not limited to big law. I think many legal employers would look more positively on a longer at-home-with-kids resume gap than on having spent that time doing doc review instead. It's not going to be considered to have done anything to maintain your legal skills. You will not have written anything, you will not have researched anything, you will not have negotiated or argued anything. You will have clicked through millions of pages of documents and categorized them by topic and flagged for potential privilege. It will do zero to maintain or refresh your legal skills. And it's not necessarily a flexible job. Jobs come and go quickly and many review projects run way over 40 hrs/wk. You may get overtime (my firm paid our contractors overtime, but I hear many agencies skirt employment law by saying doc reviewers are exempt professionals on salary), but if you're not willing to take assignments that require 40-60 hrs/wk availability, you won't get much work. English-only doc reviewers with no niche experience and limited availability are going to be getting the bottom of the barrel jobs at the lowest rates.

Right now it’s paying around $30 per hour.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve done doc review since 2003 and I welcome a cancer diagnosis. I’ve hated every moment of my life since I began law school .

Can you change careers? I feel bad for you..

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. I seem to be getting a lot of input from those who are in or are looking to go into Big Law. I will never work in big law. I didn't graduate from a great law school and I have always worked in public benefits. For my particular situation, I still don't see how doc review would hurt my resume. For instance, in 3 years if I decide to be a staff attorney at legal aid, do you really think they'd look down on me for having worked in document review? I also don't think it would create that many conflicts because most legal aid cases involve low income individuals that usually don't have substantial ties to larges businesses, multiple people, etc.

What you are hearing is that it has a bad reputation. What you are hearing is that it will not help on your resume. You may find understanding potential employers, who don’t discount you because of that. But even those will not consider it real legal work. It is considered the legal equivalent of a data entry position. You should do it if you need the money, but understand how people view it (whether or not justified) and based on this, consider not having it on your resume.

OP here. Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. I seem to be getting a lot of input from those who are in or are looking to go into Big Law. I will never work in big law. I didn't graduate from a great law school and I have always worked in public benefits. For my particular situation, I still don't see how doc review would hurt my resume. For instance, in 3 years if I decide to be a staff attorney at legal aid, do you really think they'd look down on me for having worked in document review? I also don't think it would create that many conflicts because most legal aid cases involve low income individuals that usually don't have substantial ties to larges businesses, multiple people, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

people omit that all the time otherwise if you do doc review long enough you will conflict out constantly and become homeless

Unless you are applying for a fed job, no need to list everything on your resume. It's not an affidavit. If they make it to the conflicts check point, then you can share "oh by the way, I did doc review for x months and worked on the following matters...." No biglaw firm is going to hire this person for a permanent position anyway, and a smaller firm won't care as much.

They really need to exempt doc reviewers from conflicts requirements. Youare literally lower than the janitors and you retain nothing from these cases and could in no way aid or hurt your former “client” .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

people omit that all the time otherwise if you do doc review long enough you will conflict out constantly and become homeless

Legal employers would prefer you be homeless to working doc review

Successful lawyers: would you rather have your child review docs or be a prostitute or a prisoner?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doc review is not "keeping your hand in the pot." It's a career killer. I would only do it if you never plan on going back to a real legal job one day.

-Doc reviewer of over 10 yrs

Normally I would agree with this. But if OP isn't working at all now, I don't think the doc review jobs would hurt her future career prospects. She doesn't even have to put them on her resume. Not doing so would negate some of the benefits of 'keeping your hand in the pot' (which I agree with you isn't really what doc review would be), but she would at least be making some money.

I'd look at the income as more valuable than any aspects of keeping your hand in the game.

I don't see how you can avoid putting it on your resume. You will have to list the cases you worked on while a doc reviewer during the conflict check so it will come up.

Meant to say top sentence was for non attorneys. The rest you have to be a lawyer

Anonymous wrote:Non attorney here - just curious - how much does this pay and do firms ever hire non-attorneys?

I think government contractors hire foreign language reviewers, but a law firm wont. It pays $28-33/hr, no benefits if employed by a temp agency

Non attorney here - just curious - how much does this pay and do firms ever hire non-attorneys?

I’ve done doc review since 2003 and I welcome a cancer diagnosis. I’ve hated every moment of my life since I began law school .