Plaintiff vs Defense Employment Litigation: Career Guide

Dear David P.,

The Core Practice Differences

The fundamental distinction between plaintiff-side and defense-side employment litigation shapes everything from your daily workflow to long-term earning potential. On the plaintiff side, you're representing individual employees or classes of workers in discrimination claims, wage and hour disputes, wrongful termination cases, and harassment matters. Your clients are typically seeking monetary damages, reinstatement, or injunctive relief against their current or former employers.

Defense-side attorneys represent the employers – corporations, nonprofits, government entities, and small businesses facing employment-related claims. You'll handle the same types of cases but from the opposite perspective, focusing on minimizing liability, ensuring compliance, and defending against both individual lawsuits and class actions.

Business Models and Compensation Structures

The economic models differ dramatically. Plaintiff-side employment attorneys typically work on contingency fees, commonly in the range of 30-40% of any settlement or judgment, though fee structures vary. This creates a feast-or-famine dynamic – you might land a significant wage and hour class action that generates substantial fees, or spend months on cases that yield nothing. Many plaintiff firms also advance case costs, meaning significant upfront investment before any return.

Defense work operates on the traditional billable hour model. Insurance companies, corporate legal departments, and direct-pay clients provide steady revenue streams. In markets like Charlotte, where Bank of America and Wells Fargo are major employers, defense-side employment practices at firms like Moore & Van Allen and Robinson Bradshaw may offer more predictable career paths. You can get a sense of the compensation landscape using tools like the Cravath scale calculator to benchmark salary expectations.

Case Types and Practice Focus

Plaintiff-side employment litigation has seen explosive growth, particularly in California where PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) cases and wage & hour class actions dominate the landscape. PAGA expertise remains valuable in California following the 2024 reforms (AB 2288/SB 92), which introduced manageability requirements and cure opportunities (verify current requirements as implementation continues to evolve). The Bay Area's recent tech layoffs have created surge demand for wrongful termination and WARN Act litigation.

Defense-side practices tend to be more varied. Beyond reactive litigation, you'll handle proactive compliance work – drafting policies, conducting workplace investigations, advising on terminations, and navigating complex regulatory frameworks. Changes to noncompete laws in states like Washington have created advisory opportunities for firms serving tech clients (note: employment laws change frequently and current requirements should be verified).

Market Dynamics and Demand

Both sides are experiencing strong demand, but for different reasons. Many employment litigation firms in major markets report strong hiring demand, driven by factors including increased employee awareness of rights and evolving workplace laws. AI employment law is emerging as a subspecialty, particularly in tech-heavy markets like Seattle where Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta generate constant regulatory questions.

Defense-side demand remains robust due to regulatory complexity. Pay transparency laws, gig worker classification issues (California's AB5), and ESG-related employment matters create consistent advisory needs. Insurance defense work, particularly strong in Charlotte's growing market, offers volume-based practices with steady workflows.

Career Trajectory Considerations

Partnership paths differ significantly between sides. Plaintiff-side partnerships often focus on business development skills and case origination ability. Successful plaintiff attorneys build referral networks and develop reputations in specific case types. The financial upside can be substantial – major class action settlements generate significant fees – but the income volatility requires careful financial planning.

Defense-side partnerships typically follow traditional law firm models with billable hour requirements and business development expectations. However, the steady client base from corporate relationships and insurance panels can provide more predictable revenue streams. Your in-house experience may provide valuable perspective on client needs, which could be advantageous for business development on the defense side.

Making the Transition from In-House

Your corporate counsel background is particularly valuable for defense work, where understanding client perspectives and business priorities is crucial. You've seen how employment issues impact operations, which resonates with corporate clients and insurance carriers. The learning curve involves adapting to billable hour pressures and potentially more aggressive litigation tactics than you've experienced in-house.

For plaintiff work, your defense experience provides strategic advantages – you understand how the other side thinks and what drives settlement decisions. However, the business development requirements and contingency fee model represent more significant adjustments from your in-house role.

Given Charlotte's growth trajectory and your existing market presence, both sides offer viable paths. The city's growth in the financial services sector may create opportunities across employment litigation practices. Consider which model aligns better with your risk tolerance, income goals, and long-term career vision.