Above The Law has one of the rarest commodities around there days, a job listing for a new associate. The ersatz employer, out of beautiful Stamford, CT, describes itself as follows:
Silver Golub & Teitell is a premier boutique trial litigation firm that handles sophisticated cases, primarily on behalf of plaintiffs, with trial lawyers included in “Best Lawyers in America” and other renowned publications.
Litigation, eh? Well, talk about great fortune for SG&T, since it’s a subject that we know a little something about around here. Courtrooms. Trials. Cross-examination. All the really fun lawyer-type stuff that criminal defense lawyers gain experience in by slaving day after day in the trenches of courtrooms across America.
And good fortune for SG&T as well, given the nature of the job market, attorney layoffs and hard-working young lawyers desperate to prove their worth and earn their keep. In the past, a firm like this might have been forced to seek lawyers with spotty experience, perhaps even ill-suited to a “premier boutique” such as SG&T simply because of the great competition for top quality associates with proven competency in the trenches. You know, the type of new lawyers who have shown that they can hack the rigors of trial work. But today, the world is SG&T’s oyster. They have their pick of associations.
So what exactly are they seeking?
Thirteen-attorney litigation firm seeks junior full-time associate with 0-3 years litigation experience, top tier undergraduate and law school education, preferably with clerkship and.or journal experience.
Oh my. So zero years of litigation experience will do, but the candidate absolutely must have clerkship or journal experience. No doubt because those are particularly critical when it comes to trying cases checking footnotes. Apparently, SG&T is taking advantage of the Biglaw hemorrhage by scooping up the “best and the brightest” currently serving as a Starbucks barrista, likely due to the fact that these candidates have served Biglaw so very well.
Out of an excess of curiosity, I checked the backgrounds of the three named partners of SG&T to see whether they would have been qualified candidates for employment today. Both Silver and Golub come by their vision honestly, having gone to Ivy League law schools, though their firm resumes fail to note whether either did a clerkship or blue-booked a journal.
Ernest Teitell, on the other hand, might not cut the mustard.
He received his law degree from Loyola University in New Orleans and his undergraduate degree from Bethany College.
Uh oh. Bethany College? Please. But wait. If you read the rest of Ernie’s firm resume, you see that he has had an extraordinarily distinguished and successful career in litigation, even though he was Harvard undergrad and Yale law. How is that possible? Does Ernie carry around guilt and self-loathing for his failure to meet the Ivy League fantasies? Or does he realize that what happens in the courtroom has nothing to do with the color stripe on his school tie?
One might hope that partners like Ernie would help partners like Silver and Golub remember that the qualities they seek in a litigation associate have little to do with their recruiting some Biglaw wannabe, but with the intangibles who, like Ernie, can one day excel in litigation. Unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen at SG&T. Forget your skills, your zeal, your fervor. If you don’t meet the routine requirements for sitting in a Biglaw library, you have no hope of getting the job.
I wonder how Ernie would feel if he was looking for a job today. I wonder how well SG&T would have done without him.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I consider journal “experience” to be a major negative. I wouldn’t disqualify someone because of it, but I would want a damn good explanation as to why they would choose to be the law school equivalent of a “crossing guard”. Why the fuck don’t you idiots spend your time WRITING law review articles (or something more useful even) than bluebooking the footnotes of real writers?
Marc,
This comment made me giggle a little bit for two reasons:
1) if law students are inadequately prepared to practice law (as Scott, among many, many others, has repeatedly and forcefully argued, then why in the world would you want them to write a journal article about something they know nothing about? Because we need more articles about “Gender Bias in Depictions of the Legal Profession in Boston Legal?” For practice? (By the way, each law review member has to write a student note on some inane topic. Most aren’t published, but then, neither are most lawprof articles.)
2) Who are these “real writers” you mention? Law professors who know as little about practicing law as their journal editors?
Possible SG&T views journal/clerkship experience as a good indicator of the applicant’s ability to work hard and write (or think) clearly. Although it might not readily translate into a clear cross-examination, it’s something that allows them to pick associates on paper, rather than throwing each prospective associate into a mock trial setting, handing them a mock PD’s docket, and telling them to have at it.
Scott —
Any thoughts on the flip side of this?
My local PD essentially requires trial experience for new hires, even at “entry level” positions.
I was a summer clerk there, got a fellowship there out of law school, and now do contract research/writing/organization for certain serious felony cases. But none of that counts as “trial experience” when you’re fighting for an open misdo spot.
In other words, you have to have done trials, to get trials. I know it’s a luxury few PDs have, but does that make sense to you?
Bear in mind that the options aren’t quite that limited. Someone 2-3 years out might actually have some real lawyering experience to go by, so they can select an associate based on a totally novel criterion: competence.
Yes I do have a thought. That’s weird. PDs are generally one of the best places to start, to gain trial experience and to move forward from there. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a PD requiring trial experience first. But I guess since they no doubt pay a fortune, they can have the pick of the litter.
It may be supply and demand. There are big litters out there. Alternatively, trial experience may be nothing but a cover for political hiring.