Tuesday, December 05, 2006

UC Law 1998

Turns out plaintiffs lawyers go to lame law schools and big corporate lawyers go to top 25 schools.


Why, do you think? Easy answer is corporate practice is where the money seems to be on graduation. But if the real money is in successful trial practice (I'll float that without supporting it), why would not a successful, top 25 graduate move into trial practice after paying off student loans? Answer suggested in the above link is that classic smart law students lack the skills to be successful trial lawyers (and maybe visa versa).


UC Law 1998


At Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:52:00 PM, Blogger michael budelsky said...

Plaintiffs work is certainly the way to hit it very big. The corporate jobs provide a safer, "very good" pay amount and a sense of prestige (which probably doesn't matter to successful class action lawyers who are crapping in gold toilets and wiping with hundred dollar bills).

My sense is that it's not that a plaintiffs lawyer wouldn't make an excellent corporate lawyer, he just couldn't get his foot in the door, so decided to pursue the great equalizer -- money. Likewise, I think that many successful corporate lawyers could make it big with a plaintiffs trial practice, but they were conditioned to go with the prestigious job and a safe paycheck. A bird in the hand type argument.

It's not terribly unusual for an entreprenurial big firm guy to realize how much money he could be making on the other side, and go out on his own. You rarely see lawyers going the other way, though.


Post a Comment

<< Home