Post
by abl » Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:17 pm
Another follow-up: do you know what sort of small/midlaw you want? Are you looking for a boutique (usually between 25-50 lawyers and practices law at just as high of a level as biglaw firms) or more of a secondary firm (can be any size, but usually does the less complicated, less high-stakes litigation)? There's much more variability in hours and work-life balance in both boutiques and what I'm calling "secondary firms" than in biglaw firms -- there are places that will work you as hard or harder than biglaw, and places that allow for reasonable hours. I think the biggest difference between boutiques and "secondary firms" is the sot of work you'll be doing and the sort of folks who you'll be working with: true boutique firms tend to be harder to get spots at than biglaw.
I'm somewhat biased, but I personally think that finding the right "boutique" should be just about everyone's goal: there are a number of boutiques that pay as well or better than biglaw, have much better partnership chances, give young associates much better early experience, and still allow for a higher quality of life. That said, many boutiques are high-stakes high-stress sort of places. On the other hand, a lot of the work at "secondary firms" can be pretty rote (although I think you'll have an easier time finding a "secondary firm" that allows for a strong QOL). I think the main tradeoff is that boutiques will *tend* to require longer hours (although potentially not more than 50-60 hours/week--and usually are pretty flexible) and will have more interesting work and chances for advancement, while "secondary firms" will *tend* to have a shorter work week (albeit potentially not much less than ~50 hours/week--and probably less flexibility) and will have less interesting work.
I assume you haven't thought about this, but it's worth thinking about. Specifically, I'd recommend that you do some more research about what sort of work the SoCal "secondary firms" actually do--and think about whether that's right for you. If that's what you want, UCLA is probably the correct decision (at those prices). If not, or if you're not sure, this becomes a closer question. Stanford gives you a realistic shot at getting a spot at a boutique, whereas UCLA really doesn't. Whether that shot is worth the $150k or so COA difference (is that math right? I do think you should be treating Stanford COA as closer to $225k) depends somewhat on how sure you are you want a boutique vs a "secondary firm," and how much you care about the other advantages Stanford has to offer.
