The Promise of Corporate v. The Legacy of Litigation - A Career in Law

The legal profession, since the past century, has developed two broad and prominent limbs - litigation and corporate. Corporate law is what has broken apart from the classic system of courts since the onset of firms, companies and corporations, while litigation remains to be the basal component of a thriving judicial system worldwide. It is no lie that there exists a living fervour for job opportunities in legal corporate firms, whereas litigation on the other hand, seems to be a less opted choice, or more of an option that is lower than the former on the list of priority. It is also true and evident that for most, a corporate firm's good-paying package would be the first choice, and for justified intentions. Again, there are clearly valid reasons for choosing either of the paths, which become more clear when the nature of both are put to close comparison and analysis. Let this post not come across as an attack on either of the career paths, but more of an empirical analysis of both.

To begin with, choosing to pursue litigation is a challenging decision. To be an advocate of clients, representing them in courts throughout the hierarchy can be a tough process to kickstart. Litigation is no less than a test on interpersonal skills, of first obtaining, then maintaining and providing a professional service to individuals from all walks of life. 

It is very interesting to note what makes litigation unique, and as I would argue - noble. Judges, Courts, then Advocates are all interconnected by the basic character of the law. Law has its roots tightly compacted in the soil of society. It was societal behaviour that warranted development of Law as society's own appendage. Hence a profession that helps maintain, develop, moderate and practice has come to be litigation. A court is that institution that aims to uphold the law in the right manner, to reach an equitable and just conclusion in each case.

The caveat of litigation is with no doubt - the beginnings. As mentioned earlier, litigation is a test of knowledge and skill, most importantly - interpersonal skills. It is established 'lawyer trivia' to know your judge. Furthermore, it is equally important to know your client. Lastly, to know the law. Building up a foundation in this profession can be a tedious one, involving hard work, dedication and passion. It is with such perseverance that permits an input of both clients, and money, after which litigation can be a very rewarding career path.

On the other hand, corporate law firms have a much differing character. On the advent of industrial entities, which gradually expanded and evolved the economic landscape of the world, affairs within such entities needed strictness. Laws came into picture, to develop rules and provisos encompassing the vast varieties of companies and their affairs - both internal and external. To highlight again, societal behaviour warrants the development of law. 

Law firms provide an assortment of services for companies of varied nature. It can expand beyond procedural aspects, such as registrations, contracts, MoUs, mergers acquisitions, and end with representing the firms in their lawsuits. A career in such firms can be benefitting because the system replicates that of a non-legal firm. With vacancies, salaries, client-based services, partners and managers, corporate law firms function quite similar to let's say accounting firms or finance-related offices. A corporate position may also include legal consultation, with providing opinions on various activities such as purchases, acquisitions, permits and licenses, and more of such sorts. To summarise, corporate law firms are good-earning firms, since most clients are profit-based entities. In addition, laws and procedures for corporate firms are necessarily entangled and meandering, which make legal services all the more easing to clients.

This leads to understand that such a career is well-rewarding in remuneration and appraisal. Package-based hiring practiced by these firms ensure a decent, or even a great start to a legal profession, further ensuring job security, company benefits and the entire corporate experience. Such opportunities are assuring. They assure stability and decent beginnings, as opposed to an erratic or unpredictable one in litigation. But again, matter such as job satisfaction and opinions on daily routines can be subjective. An advocate might find as much happiness in dealing with clients, as would one find in an office environment. A lawyer might find as much satisfaction in winning a criminal case, as would one find in successfully facilitating a merger.

When both are weighed against one another, both the 'limbs' seem to hold unique pros and cons, where what one lacks can be found in the other. It is up to the aspiring law student to recognize their personal traits, and check their compatibility with either path. A simple equation of one's goals and objectives with a pinch of passion might help get the answer. 

Vamshi Krishna Kusuma