Employment Law vs General Litigation: Career Specialization Guide

Dear Jessica O.,

The Current Employment Law Landscape

Employment law is experiencing unprecedented demand across multiple markets, making this an opportune time to consider specialization. California has shown strong demand for employment litigators in recent years, driven by the 2024 PAGA reforms (AB 2288/SB 92) and their implications, ongoing wage and hour class actions, and the tech industry's complex workforce challenges. The Bay Area specifically has seen a surge in layoff-related litigation and emerging AI employment law issues that require specialized expertise.

Beyond California, the employment practice is thriving nationally. Major corporate headquarters often drive employment law demand, such as financial institutions in Charlotte creating massive employment practices, or Amazon and Microsoft in Seattle generating constant workforce compliance needs. Recent changes to noncompete regulations in Washington state (verify current requirements) alone created unique employment law dynamics that specialists can capitalize on.

The Specialization Advantage

What many attorneys don't realize is how employment law specialization creates clear competitive advantages in the lateral market. Firms typically evaluate employment candidates differently than general litigators because the practice area has distinct regulatory knowledge requirements. California employment law expertise may command premium compensation at some firms for attorneys who understand PAGA, Cal/OSHA regulations, and AB5 gig worker classification nuances.

Employment specialists also benefit from predictable deal flow. Unlike some litigation practices that can be cyclical, employment issues are constant — companies frequently need wage and hour guidance, workplace policy reviews, and litigation defense. This stability translates to more predictable billable hours and often better work-life balance than high-stakes commercial litigation.

The General Litigation Counter-Case

However, general litigation offers undeniable advantages that shouldn't be dismissed. The breadth of experience creates more lateral opportunities since virtually every firm needs strong general litigators. You're not tied to markets with specific employment law demand, and your skill set translates across industries and practice groups.

General litigation also exposes you to higher-stakes matters that can accelerate business development skills. Major commercial disputes often involve C-suite relationships and can lead to broader client opportunities that employment matters might not provide. Many lateral candidates find that general litigation experience makes them attractive to a wider range of firms, especially if they're open to geographic flexibility.

Market-Specific Considerations

The answer partly depends on your target markets. If you're interested in California, Seattle, or other tech-heavy jurisdictions, employment specialization is incredibly valuable. These markets have shown strong lateral demand in recent years. Charlotte's growing fintech sector also creates employment opportunities, though the market there still favors general commercial litigation given the banking industry's diverse legal needs.

For markets like Texas or the Southeast more broadly, general litigation might provide better long-term flexibility since these regions have more diverse industry bases that value broad litigation skills.

Making the Strategic Decision

Consider your natural interests and aptitudes first. Employment law requires patience for regulatory detail and comfort with class action dynamics. If you genuinely enjoyed those employment matters, that's a significant factor — specialization works best when you're intellectually engaged with the subject matter.

Think about your five-year trajectory too. If partnership is your goal, employment law can provide a clearer path to expertise-based origination. Companies often develop ongoing relationships with employment counsel in ways they might not with general litigation firms. However, if you're considering in-house opportunities, general litigation experience might open more doors across different legal department roles.

Consider having candid conversations with both employment and general litigation partners at your firm about partnership timelines, business development expectations, and typical lateral paths. The employment group's busy schedule is promising, but understand what that means for associate development and advancement opportunities.

The Hybrid Approach

Don't overlook the possibility of a hybrid approach, especially at your experience level. Many successful litigators maintain employment law as a significant subspecialty while keeping broader commercial litigation capabilities. This can provide the best of both worlds — specialized expertise that commands premium rates, plus the flexibility that comes with diverse litigation skills.

The key is being strategic about how you position yourself in the lateral market. Whether you choose specialization or stay broad, make sure you can articulate a clear value proposition to prospective firms based on your actual case experience and developing expertise.