So the partners are meeting today off-site. This is their traditional year-end, split up the profits and discuss the future meeting. This calendar year, they fired the only associate with more experience than me. Couple that with the fact that I had an A+ year, I know I'm on track for partnership. This is only the end of year 3 for me, so I know they won't be offering it to me for another few years. But I am hearing that they want me to decide which direction I want my practice to go. The firm basically has two arms. One is a litigation practice that gets 90% of its business as insurance defense. The other is transactional practice that does commercial and a little residential real estate work.All along, I have bounced back and forth between the two arms. This started when I was low man on the totem pole, because I had existing real estate experience, but the need was more towards litigation. So I did both. I was worth more to the real estate side because I needed less instruction to be up to speed, but I was needed more on the litigation side. That has pretty much remained the case. The downside, of course, is that it's tough to be a true rainmaker when you don't have a very good familiarity with your clients and your area of expertise. Basically most of the big clients see me as the "fill-in guy." So they're not sending me any work directly. Also, I don't feel like an expert in either field, because I'm always splitting time.So I know the question is coming, "which way do you want to go?" And I don't know the answer.Pros/ConsReal Estate ProI have the experience alreadyI can bill at a higher rateI am already good at itI have a fair amount of contacts that I could start working harderPayment usually occurs at the closing, and in full (clients are typically banks or corporations, and they don't generally question bills)Work is generally more steady (no "OMG I have a trial next week and have to dedicate all time and effort to it!")Real Estate ConIt's a lot of just reviewing documentsNever go to court/trial, aka what's considered "real lawyering"Never do any research or writing, which I enjoyLitigation ProThe work is more exciting with court, trials, hearings, mediationsIncludes research and writingIf a case ever got appealed, my firm would let me argue it before the state supreme courtLitigation ConInsurance defense work = always fighting to get paid (ins companies significantly limit amount you can bill per hour, for what items, etc. etc.)Much tougher to make my goal/quota/nut with this type of workWork is much streakier, when a trial approaches, everything else gets dropped, other times there just isn't much going onThe overlay of this whole dilemma is that in 2008, I got laid off. That totally changed my point of view. Up until then I thought my job was 99% secure. Luckily, I was able to immediately find a new job (this one). But it was a fair amount of luck. These days, luck might be different, AND, the legal job market is even worse. I know that if I had never been laid off, I'd say litigation, knowing I'd just have to hustle as much as need be. But reality hits you hard, bro. Knowing what a lay off would mean makes me really hesitant to make any move that puts me the tiniest bit closer to expendable. And I don't know if I'll ever feel that confident about job security ever again, even if/when I make partner.Thanks for reading, GMTAN.
Also, Stryker, YSR, you're on the clock.
Way to go you dumb, stupid, *******! Was this baby conceived in the bathroom? 
I'm also in lust for the dirty drunken slut.
Best of luck with your toe.
