I'm interested in pursuing either a career in M&A (either in tech transactions or just general M&A) or patent litigation, and I have a few questions about the nature of the work for each that I hope lawyers in the respective fields can share their insights on.
1st year associates at biglaw firms get paid the same, but I have heard that it's easier to make partner in M&A than in patent litigation. Is this true? I intend on working in biglaw for a long time, so I am really trying to make sure I get the most bang for my buck, as crude as it sounds, I must admit. Not sure if there's a "pay ceiling" I need to worry about, should I not make partner.
How is work-life balance in each? I heard that litigators have a set schedule with deadlines that you can plan around, but with M&A/tech transactions, there are busy busy weeks but then less busy weeks. I do want to start a family in my mid-to-late 20s, so I was wondering if it is a better choice to pursue patent litigation work as opposed to M&A/tech transactional work, just for that balance. (But how much of a difference does the spontaneity of M&A make, though? I feel like I could handle it, but I am none the wiser, so I ask for your takes.)
If there are any other considerations/takes you have, please do let me know!
I have seen live arguments before the federal circuit court of appeals and honestly, seeing the intensity of the courtroom was what kind of made me question whether I wanted to be a litigator (some folks were getting grilled). Someone told me to not worry about it much as most parties settle before I even need to show up to a courtroom, but idk. I've been reading about the Warner Brother's deal and it's been exciting tracking how things are proceeding.
I know that what I write is probably mostly wrong, so I am totally open to people pointing out my misunderstandings! Thank you