Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had much more real world courtroom experience than the BigLaw types, though I'm sure they'd write a better law review article than mine.

the really important thing here, and what makes biglaw attys such attractive candidates, is that their briefs have ZERO TYPOS. and they really adhere to that bluebook style.

PP here... sorry to disappoint you, but I learned that in law school (T20 if you care) and my first year or 2 of practice, and didn't need BigLaw to teach me that aspect of being a professional.

I do. I really do care to know that you went to GW. (Thank goodness for you this was before the economic meltdown. GW grads are probably populating the doc review mills and trip and fall shitshops. This is how bad the legal job market is.) Anyway, thanks for bragging that you went to a fairly decent law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had much more real world courtroom experience than the BigLaw types, though I'm sure they'd write a better law review article than mine.

the really important thing here, and what makes biglaw attys such attractive candidates, is that their briefs have ZERO TYPOS. and they really adhere to that bluebook style.

PP here... sorry to disappoint you, but I learned that in law school (T20 if you care) and my first year or 2 of practice, and didn't need BigLaw to teach me that aspect of being a professional.

Anonymous wrote:

Of course, this request for practical advice turned into a pissing contest. How unoriginal of you, lawyers.


Lawyer here. This made me laugh. So true.


Yep, this was OP. This is why I seek to flee...

Um, unless you are fleeing the law altogether you are going to encounter competitive, aggressive people. Govt is no different.

I know, I know. Any other suggestions welcome.

Of course, this request for practical advice turned into a pissing contest. How unoriginal of you, lawyers.


Lawyer here. This made me laugh. So true.


Yep, this was OP. This is why I seek to flee...

Um, unless you are fleeing the law altogether you are going to encounter competitive, aggressive people. Govt is no different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, this request for practical advice turned into a pissing contest. How unoriginal of you, lawyers.

Lawyer here. This made me laugh. So true.

Yep, this was OP. This is why I seek to flee...

Anonymous wrote:Of course, this request for practical advice turned into a pissing contest. How unoriginal of you, lawyers.

Lawyer here. This made me laugh. So true.

Of course, this request for practical advice turned into a pissing contest. How unoriginal of you, lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:I had much more real world courtroom experience than the BigLaw types, though I'm sure they'd write a better law review article than mine.

the really important thing here, and what makes biglaw attys such attractive candidates, is that their briefs have ZERO TYPOS. and they really adhere to that bluebook style.

I was hired coming out of a small private firm 26 yrs. ago because I had considerable courtroom experience, i.e., real first-chair time doing trials and appeals as a public defender in Seattle, and arguing appeals and doing civil litigation in NJ. I was a trial lawyer first, a litigator second [including the ancillary skills that 14:45 rightly mentions] ...

As the Gen. Counsel at the agency said then, "we have a lot of lawyers here who consider themselves experienced litigators ... many of them have never been in a courtroom [actually trying a case] ... we could use your experience."

I had much more real world courtroom experience than the BigLaw types, though I'm sure they'd write a better law review article than mine.

Anonymous wrote:

If I saw a BigLaw resume cross my desk, I would assume that they had decent academic credentials (if prestigous big law firm) and probably could write a great legal memo, understand complicated issues quickly, good brief writer, etc. Maybe would have taken some depositions/defended some (if a large trial team). But I would never think they had any courtroom skills, probably never argued even a motion/

True, but I view litigation skills as being somewhat more than arguing motions and going to court - I would include negotiating resolutions both to the case and procedural disputes and being able to shut down obnoxious behavior from opposing counsel in a professional way.

Of course, and I would not assume a Big Law associate would have those skills. Maybe haggling with scumbag opposing counsel over discovery requests and depo scheduling, but not settling cases.

If I saw a BigLaw resume cross my desk, I would assume that they had decent academic credentials (if prestigous big law firm) and probably could write a great legal memo, understand complicated issues quickly, good brief writer, etc. Maybe would have taken some depositions/defended some (if a large trial team). But I would never think they had any courtroom skills, probably never argued even a motion/

True, but I view litigation skills as being somewhat more than arguing motions and going to court - I would include negotiating resolutions both to the case and procedural disputes and being able to shut down obnoxious behavior from opposing counsel in a professional way.

Anonymous wrote:If I saw a BigLaw resume cross my desk, I would assume that they had decent academic credentials (if prestigous big law firm) and probably could write a great legal memo, understand complicated issues quickly, good brief writer, etc. Maybe would have taken some depositions/defended some (if a large trial team). But I would never think they had any courtroom skills, probably never argued even a motion/

I am sure that is true. I would think you could also assume the same about the vast bulk of attorneys coming from the vast bulk of prior experiences. Not all agency/staff attorney jobs or even the majority require trial experience; not all attorneys want to try cases.

If I saw a BigLaw resume cross my desk, I would assume that they had decent academic credentials (if prestigous big law firm) and probably could write a great legal memo, understand complicated issues quickly, good brief writer, etc. Maybe would have taken some depositions/defended some (if a large trial team). But I would never think they had any courtroom skills, probably never argued even a motion/

Not all great litigators are big law alums. Big law doesn't mean skilled litigator... it can but great trial lawyers also come from small firms, can be sole practicioners, etc.

Agree 1000 times over. I am at DOJ and some of the laterals we hired from smaller firms that I have never heard of are amazing litigators. Some of the folks we poached from biglaw, not as much.

Anonymous wrote:Not all great litigators are big law alums. Big law doesn't mean skilled litigator... it can but great trial lawyers also come from small firms, can be sole practicioners, etc.

biglaw absolutely does not mean great/skilled litigator. i work at a big firm (not true biglaw, but a national "boutique" with several hundred lawyers) that has a reputation for giving younger associates substantive experience. many midlevels here have not taken a deposition or examined a witness (except in an unemployment hearing, which is a joke). i came here from working for a sole practitioner, and i got MUCH more experience working with him (that experience is the reason that i have been able to take on some responsibility).

the "director of litigation" in my office has never tried a jury trial. i think maybe 2-3 of us has stepped into a courtroom in the last year (and only for bullshit motions hearings and scheduling conferences).