How to Make It: Transactional Law vs. Litigation—How, When and Why to Choose
At some point (usually early in law school), a new lawyer considering a career in Big Law decides whether to become a litigator or a transactional lawyer.
April 25, 2022 at 08:42 AM
3 minute read
How I Made ItAt some point (usually early in law school), a new lawyer considering a career in Big Law decides whether to become a litigator or a transactional lawyer. It's a big decision—one that can affect your entire working life. What are the best criteria for making that choice? Once decided, are you stuck with it? Where can you get good advice?
Let's look at the differences between transactional law and litigation. Simply put, transactional practice is the creation and review of documents that bring individuals and companies together: mergers and acquisitions, private equity, real estate transactions, drawing up contracts, participating in closings, etc. Lots of research, plenty of meetings, no time in court. To quote Bonnie Neuman, a partner and head of real estate finance and co-chair of the finance group at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: "I was initially drawn to transactional practice areas of the law as I appreciate the collaborative nature of the work, where both sides are working towards a common goal of getting the deal done."
Litigation is the process of resolving disputes, often in a courtroom, although most (but certainly not all) lawsuits settle before going to trial. So, to oversimplify, transactional practice is collaborative, while litigation is oppositional. If a situation may require a lawsuit, litigators go to work. Transactional attorneys work on the agreements if both parties agree that a lawsuit is inappropriate.
How do you choose which is the practice for you?
Transactional lawyers (often called "deal" lawyers) focus on business and corporate issues that affect their clients. So, while this type of law involves copious amounts of research, that research consists more of studying the client's needs and perspective rather than legal texts. Transactional matters usually don't take as long as litigation cases, allowing transactional attorneys to be involved in a greater variety of matters.
On the other hand, litigators often have more exposure to the public, engage in more dramatic issues, and work in a more recession-proof field (people sue in good times and bad).
Generally speaking, transactional law is often a more direct path to leadership positions at large and midsized firms, although Ross Todd has written an excellent column on litigators turned leaders. One example is Melissa Jones, litigator and firm managing partner at Stoel Rives, who says, "Whatever our area of practice, we all have opportunities to be leaders at our firms."
Can attorneys change practices? Of course, although it involves developing a different range of legal skills. Lawyers who start as litigators may have an edge when entering a transactional practice, knowing where to find the contractual loopholes they may have had to navigate in litigation. Still, there are significant differences between drafting motions and drafting contracts.
In short, know yourself and get good advice from lawyers on both sides before committing to a practice, but don't fear getting stuck in the wrong field!
For more career advancement success stories, check out the "How I Made It" Q&A series on Law.com.
Join ALM's Professionals Network on LinkedIn, Advancing Future Leaders. We are excited about this pivotal group. Click here to join.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow I Made Partner: 'Work With as Many People as Possible,' Says Kyle Dorso of Brown Rudnick
How I Made Public Office: 'Embrace Action Over Excessive Planning,' Says Jennifer Sellitti of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender
- How I Made Partner: 'I Owned Every Deal I Was Staffed on, No Matter How Small My Contribution Seemed,' Says Puanani Norwood of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
- How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Don't Be Afraid to Take Risks, Embrace Challenges, and Learn From Failures,' Stacie Trott of DLA Piper
- How I Made It To Law Firm Leadership: 'Listen to the People Who Express Interest in You,' Says Shonette Gaston of Blank Rome
- How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Surround Yourself With Mentors Who Care About You and Your Future,' Says Richard W. Miller of Ballard Spahr
- How I Made Partner: 'Become Comfortable With Being Uncomfortable,' Says Natalia Sieira Millán of Shipman & Goodwin
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250