Career Clinic: Looking out for litigation

Wow, what an attitude. First you were a fool to turn down a job without one to go to - if you don't get one sharpish then you'll become less attractive to firms. Second who on earth "promised" that people would start suing each other? This may or may not happen so you can't base your career on it. Third whilst you've done two litigation seats there were clearly better candidates to be associates as they chose not to pick you - most firms will pick on ability rather than 3 v 6 v 12 months experience in the area.

In houser -31 Jul 2008 | 17:08

See if you can get them to give you the finance role ASAP and then you might stand a chance of ending up as a finance litigator. Or you could squeegee windscreens at Wandsworth roundabout. Your call.

Associate, US Firm -31 Jul 2008 | 17:28

You need to grovel to HR and get your job offer back. Why not take the finance job - which will at least pay the bills - while looking for something else? It'll be easy to explain away at interview. Or bite the finance hand and look out for work in litigation-esque sectors - distressed debt, insolvency - that kind of jazz.Personally though, if I had my time again, I'd take the six months off, and never go back to law.

US Associate -31 Jul 2008 | 17:28

My first inclination was to write something not too dissimilar to the first poster: your post does rather suggest that the legal world owes you a living. But concentrating on your current predicament: first, try to get your HR team or the litigation group to tell you why they didn't choose you and listen hard to what they say. Reflect and learn. Then, if you haven't already done so, find yourself a decent recruitment agent and go to everything they put in front of you in the litigation arena. In the current market, you need to be flexible. It is not necessarily the wrong thing to do to leave rather than go into another area of practice but you have to be prepared for some sacrifices, either on pay, firm, or city. Travelling might be a good solution to the CV gap but you can't 'wait' for better jobs to come along, you need to go out and find one. Lose the attitude and you should be OK.

Associate -31 Jul 2008 | 17:29

If you didn't get a litigation seat despite doing more work in litigation than any other trainee, then I think that says something. You need to find out why. I wouldn't focus on about your "experience". As a trainee/almost NQ you really don't have much. However, it is good that you have clear ideas about what you do and seem committed. Try some recruitment agencies and see what is out there. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Sooty speaks -31 Jul 2008 | 18:21

Why such harsh replies? At least the poster is completely focused and has the foresight not to get stuck in an area they will not enjoy and then be posting in a few years asking how to move out of banking. That aside, time out travelling as NQ is probably not a good idea, you need experience under your belt so i'd avoid it and certainly no more than two or three months or you'll be competing with the spring qualifiers. Have you considered going overseas? There is plenty international arbitration work in paris for example. The Middle East could also be a good option if you are willing to do contstruction/engineering litigation. Also, some banks have been ramping up their in-house litigation teams, thought admittedly it woud be hard to get in as NQ. Cast the net widely and if necessary I'd consider paralegaling in litigation as a stop-gap rather than travelling, anything to keep your hand in.

Associate, City firm -31 Jul 2008 | 18:27

Go travelling, come back when the market is healthier, get a job. With your background it should be that simple.

Anonymous -01 Aug 2008 | 04:28

Good for you, for standing your ground. Unless you are in a position where you can't afford not to have a monthly income to pay the bills, I believe you've done the right thing in turning down a job in an area you didn't want to specialise in. Hold out for what you want. If you start in a specialism you don't like now, you may find it hard to change specialisms further down the line, and by that time, you may not be able to live without the salary. I was in a similar position to you when I qualified, but I kept applying for jobs in the area I wanted to specialise in. It was a tough few months (and I had to do paralegal work to pay the rent), but I got a job in litigation in the end. I've been a litigator for 12 years now and I love it. I have no regrets. It is a risky strategy, though, so I don't want to sound too gung-ho about this.

Associate, National Firm -01 Aug 2008 | 09:39

According to friends in private practice and recruitment there are plenty of opportunities in litigation (particularly for financial institutions). Why not qualify into a finance role and look to move into litigation for financial institutions (as this would give you valuable backgroud in this area)? Also, have you thought about applying for NQ litigation positions at other firms? You may need to work a bit harder to get a litigation position - from your post it sounds like you have been resting on your laurels and expecting a litigation position to land in your lap. Most trainees coming up to qualification will actively be looking at other firms and making back-up plans. Also in the current climate it is perhaps not a good idea to be too sniffy about what positions are available to you...

In house lawyer -01 Aug 2008 | 12:32

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the first posters - go into finance knowing exactly how dull it is, and you'll end up like US Associate above, wishing you'd never chosen law. The market is tough, but it's far better to go where you want to work than where you really don't. Litigation is still being squeezed, but it should pick up - I work in contentious insolvency and can see the beginnings of mass litigation brewing. If you can swallow your pride and find a paralegal role in litigation, you may just be in the right place at the right time when bodies are needed...

Anonymous -01 Aug 2008 | 17:11

You can't be looking very hard. We've been interviewing litigation NQs for a while due to massive workloads. Get yourself a decent recruitment agent.

Solicitor, litigation firm -01 Aug 2008 | 17:14

Not directly related, but to the associate who wrote this: "It was a tough few months (and I had to do paralegal work to pay the rent), but I got a job in litigation in the end. I've been a litigator for 12 years now and I love it. I have no regrets."An associate after 12 years rather speaks for itself about the success of this strategy; that's not meant to be bitchy - just being realistic!

Anonymous -01 Aug 2008 | 18:43

I used to be in litigation...It's a tough racket.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 09:10

To the person who responded on 1 August to my earlier posting, you are talking complete rubbish. After you have been in practice for a couple of years, no recruiter or partner considering promotions is interested in the few months you spent paralegalling on qualification. If your experience is different, then please tell us the details, to back up your assertions.

Associate, National Firm -04 Aug 2008 | 10:04

In response to the response about my comment to the Associate at a national firm - I wasn't specifically referring to the time you spent paralegalling, I was referring to the fact that you are still an associate after 12 years. As I said, this isn't meant to be bitchy, but being an associate after 12 years does rather suggest that your career progression hasn't been all it could be, and that your strategy might therefore not be the best course of action for the NQ poster to follow.

me again -04 Aug 2008 | 14:13

To "me again", what should my career progression have been, then? And do tell us all about your own career progression to date.

Associate, National Firm -04 Aug 2008 | 15:03

To 'me again' - don't forget that a 12-year qualified associate might only be 34 or 35. That's not too old to be made up to partner - let's be honest, very few individuals are promoted to partner before they're 34 or so (save the rainmakers, the brilliant or particularly specialised) especially at large national or international practices. I think you're giving away more about your own career progression (sounds like small firm syndrome to me) than guessing about the associates.Additionally, if it's a she, she might have taken a couple of years out to have children, or he/she may have had secondments to clients - neither of which have necessarily bad effects on your promotion prospects.Just because someone is not a partner by 34 it doesn't mean they'll never get there.And let us not forget that being a partner is not the be-all and end-all to a successful legal career!

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 17:15

"me again" seems to be implying that you are a loser if you don't make partner by 12 years' PQE. Seems a bit harsh, especially if said poster has had time of for kids, dreams of olympic glory etc...

US associate II -04 Aug 2008 | 17:21

At the risk of turning this into a Career Clinic for you rather than the poster, I would have thought you should realistically have expected to make partner around the 10-year level at the latest. As for my career - it's going very well, thanks, but as I said I am not/was not trying to slight you. I'm just being honest and realistic.

me again -04 Aug 2008 | 17:22

With thanks to the other two posters for their input.... I am fully aware there is more to a legal career than becoming a partner. I'm in house so have not opted for that route myself. The fact still remains that if you are 12 yrs pqe and still not made up then time is ticking on and no, this isn't a case of sour grapes or small firm syndrome. As I said I'm doing just fine thanks; you'd be surprised just how fine. I'm not trying to be arrogant just telling it like it is - 12 years is very qualified, were I "associate" I'd be looking very seriously at my options

me again -04 Aug 2008 | 19:00

Why does "me again" think that everyone wants to be a partner? It is clear from the legal press that a large number of solicitors do not have that goal. From my point of view, my career has gone exactly the way I wanted it to go. I genuinely enjoy my work and find it interesting (how many people can say that?), have a decent work/life balance (for a lawyer, anyway) and have a decent amount of time to spend with my family. It's a struggle getting by on a senior associate's salary... not. Despite the aspersions, which have been cast with regard to my career "success", I still stand by my advice to the original poster - which is to hold out for what you want. If you want to chase partnership at any cost, then ignore what I have said altogether!

Associate, National Firm -04 Aug 2008 | 20:04

"An associate after 12 years rather speaks for itself about the success of this strategy; that's not meant to be bitchy - just being realistic!" That really sums up the arrogant and dismissive attitude that so many lawyers posting at legalweek display. I am repeatedly shocked at how rude and arrogant people are on here - no wonder so many lawyers (and non-lawyers) hate the profession. The originally poster has his/her head screwed on (albeit in the wrong market conditions). Why become a finance lawyer (hard to think of anything worse) if that's not what you really want? Recruitment consultants tend to be very narrow-minded and will find it hard to comprehend a finance NQ moving into litigation. My advice would be to apply as you see fit, in the meantime try and get some experience at FRU or a community law centre dealing with litigation.

US Assoc -04 Aug 2008 | 23:09

C'mon, if one doesn't feel like doing finance, then what's the point? Once the law firms shout they want lawyers specialised in a certain area, next they want you to throw your experience down the drain - illogical pour moi. Stick to your guns geezer.

Shania -05 Aug 2008 | 10:39

Don't travel - it'll seem wishy-washy and you may well miss the litigation boat when/if it launches. If litigation is what you want, then go get it.

Optimist -05 Aug 2008 | 17:46

Do you really think that you would enjoy travelling for six months to a year if you had to keep track of the market back in the UK constantly worrying about upturns, downturns and skill fade? Not sure I would. However, the fact that you're so determined is brilliant and it sounds like you'll not be happy unless you litigate, litigate or possibly litigate. In which case, if there really is nothing in London or possibly Bristol, Brimingham, Manchester or Leeds, I would really urge you to consider a job abroad. International experience will look great on your CV with the added bonus of language skills and the opprtunity to travel whilst you're there. What have you got to lose? At least you won't fall into the trap of unexplainable gaps on your CV.Best of luck.

NQ, Eversheds -11 Aug 2008 | 11:26