THE UNNAMED ASSOCIATE SPEAKS #3: Prestige at Biglaw or Experience at an Insurance Defense Firm? The Debate Continues. . . 

by the Unnamed Associate

This week I've been out of my mind, preparing for and taking another bar exam, and simultaneously preparing for my first trial. It's a good confluence of circumstances – one an opportunity for the state to inform me that I shouldn't be practicing law; and the other an opportunity to prove it.

Color my underpants important, but it's days like today when I'm glad that I was less concerned about prestige when taking this job, and more concerned about getting experience as a litigating lawyer. I know I could have enjoyed researching and writing for other lawyers who will never give me credit – I can enjoy a whole lot if I'm well paid for it. And I could have swallowed my pride for the crazy egos and their volatility – again, for a lot of money I can be pretty humble. I know from experience that I enjoy the bigfirm culture. But when I count back and realize that my first trial is happening less than six months after the day I was sworn in as an attorney, I'm both intimidated and elated about the choice I made.

This prestige v. experience musing was prompted by Stankowski's post last week. Don't get me wrong – I had to think very hard about jumping from law school into an insurance defense ("ID") firm. I had always anticipated a cushy bigfirm job, post-law school, and all of the pressures and perks that go with it. I am one of those rare weirdos who thoroughly enjoys spending my days in the library and pecking away at the keyboard. But I got this wild hair and decided to see what being a trial lawyer is like. I had some idea that actual litigation experience might be valuable later on, in my ultimate quest to do solely appellate work. Whether the whole trial lawyer thing fits me or not remains to be seen, but it seemed like a good idea at the time; and I'm sure, after my trial next week, it will seem like a good idea again sometime real soon.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: Evan requested first year associate guest-posters so that people could get an idea what it's really like. Here's what it's like: I don't know if I made the right choice. Only time will tell. Stan doesn't know if he should jump ship and go for more day-to-day enjoyment in his life at the risk of sacrificing the perceived prestige enhancement of his big firm job.  Will it harm him down the road?

I'm suddenly worried that I've tarred myself for life, having started with ID. I don't know what rock I was under, but I had no idea other attorneys look down on the ID ones. I had been operating under the assumption that if I decided I didn't like the litigating thing, I could move elsewhere and that the experience I gain here would only be a plus. And Ted's comment from the Stankowski post, that another commenter set his career back two years by becoming a federal clerk, really floored me. I'd see clerking for the federal judiciary as a step up for anyone. Talk about prestige – that job has it. Federal clerks can go anywhere and do anything, and there's a reason why employers value that experience in an employee. So maybe my perspective isn't all that unusual, and the ID-sneerers are wrong. The point is that there's no way of knowing where I'm going to be two years from now, career-wise, and what I'm going to want to be doing at that time. Hell, when I went to law school I thought I'd be practicing environmental law, and I could barely stay awake through that class in school.

I guess all of the uncertainty is part of the fun and excitement of being a lawyer.

About the Author The Unnamed Associate is the pseudonym of a first-year litigation associate who works at a U.S. law firm. For more information, see her collected posts or Evan Schaeffer's introduction.

Comments

[Ted]

I didn't say a commenter "set his career back two years by becoming a federal clerk." I said that "ID + federal clerkship" didn't provide much more advancement than "federal clerkship," and the roundabout means of the former was a career setback. I certainly don't think Adam Ciongoli is hurting his career by becoming a Supreme Court clerk at 37.

[U.A.]

Point taken. Does anything provide much more advancement than a federal clerkship? Not from my p.o.v.

I hope you're wrong, Ted, about the "labels and prestige" issue, but my real point is that I'm afraid you're right, and I might have goofed.

[Marie]

Well, that depends. What do you want? Prestige or to help people?

Quote: I'm suddenly worried that I've tarred myself for life, having started with ID.

Not at all. You're getting the best experience right off the bat. You're learning the ropes in the beginning - when it counts the most. Without undue pressure, you're getting to know insurance adjusters and their annoying little quirks, what they really want and don't want. You'll not only learn the art of negotiation, but the art of negotiation from the side that has the upper hand. You'll come to recognize immediately when plaintiff's counsel is going down the wrong track in a deposition or at trial (and scoff silently to yourself, while maintaining your composure outwardly). I could go on.

These are all advantages some plaintiffs' lawyers can only dream about. Do good, and in a few years you'll find those same plaintiffs' firms will be thrilled to hire you away.

P.S. I'm not a lawyer, but I was a legal secretary for about 30 years.