What do you consider Biglaw?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby A'nold » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:38 pm

Basically I am now angry that nobody commented on like my 5 awesome comments above. Screw all of you. 8)

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Renzo » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:39 pm

Veyron wrote:
Renzo wrote:
Veyron wrote:
Renzo wrote:In answer to the original question, I say it has to be big/important enough to get talked about in the industry-watching news outlets, like WSJ law blog, Lawshucks, ATL, JD journal, Blog of the Legal TImes, etc.

Yes, there are good jobs in firms outside of these. But if you say "biglaw" I don't want to hear about a 30 person firm in New Mexico that happens to pay $110k to new hires.


This makes no sense though. In a lot of secondary markets you get V100s that exist right alongside local firms which pay the same, have the same number of people in that city's office, have SA programs of the same size, and pay their partners the same. Is one really biglaw and the other not?


I think so. Like I said, it's not a term that encompasses all the good legal jobs in the world. In your example, the V100 office is "biglaw" only by it's association with a home office someplace that's genuinely "big."

Now, I understand that people include the latter when they say, "I need a biglaw job to pay off my debt." But if we're going to define the term, that usage to me is sloppy. They mean they need a high-paying job, not a job in a large firm that works on the size & types of matters and for the size & types of clients that typify "biglaw"


Right, but the local firms do get the biglaw type stuff (major league local sports teams, local Fortune 500s, etc.)


Representing a sports team in employment and contract law is not the stuff I think of when I think "typical biglaw" (although it does have sex appeal). And all of the fortune 500 have in-house counsel, and they all hire the traditional big firms for M&A work, or right issues, or big litigation (traditional biglaw types of work); granted they might have local counsel on a litigation, but that doesn't make the local counsel biglaw. SImilarly, Family Dollar may be a Fortune 500, but representing a Family Dollar in a slip-and-fall doesn't make a shop a "biglaw" firm.

UCLAtransfer
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby UCLAtransfer » Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:29 pm

Magnificent wrote:160k starting salary = biglaw

PERIOD


So, just throwing a couple random examples out there to clarify: DLA Piper, over 3,500 lawyers in more than 30 countries, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw? Also, Greenberg Traurig, 1,800 lawyers, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw?

User avatar
IzziesGal
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby IzziesGal » Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:34 pm

I'd say anything on the Vault 100 list. They take into consideration size, clientele, training, compensation, prestige, diversity, etc. I'd say all of those factors combined = biglaw.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:49 pm

[/quote]Representing a sports team in employment and contract law is not the stuff I think of when I think "typical biglaw" (although it does have sex appeal). And all of the fortune 500 have in-house counsel, and they all hire the traditional big firms for M&A work, or right issues, or big litigation (traditional biglaw types of work); granted they might have local counsel on a litigation, but that doesn't make the local counsel biglaw. SImilarly, Family Dollar may be a Fortune 500, but representing a Family Dollar in a slip-and-fall doesn't make a shop a "biglaw" firm.[/quote]


Big M&A will always go through NYC. However the firms I'm describing in my market that are the primary outside firms used by the Fortune 500s/1000s in the metro area for big litigation.

Are you specifically saying that these firms, that do this kind of work, are not biglaw (at least in a litigation context), based solely on the number of attorneys?

Magnificent
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Magnificent » Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:00 pm

UCLAtransfer wrote:
Magnificent wrote:160k starting salary = biglaw

PERIOD


So, just throwing a couple random examples out there to clarify: DLA Piper, over 3,500 lawyers in more than 30 countries, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw? Also, Greenberg Traurig, 1,800 lawyers, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw?


yes

if you don't pay market base salary then your not worthy of my attention as firm

who gives a damn about the # of lawyers at a firm

don't people go to firms for the $$$

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby fatduck » Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:05 pm

Magnificent wrote:
UCLAtransfer wrote:
Magnificent wrote:160k starting salary = biglaw

PERIOD


So, just throwing a couple random examples out there to clarify: DLA Piper, over 3,500 lawyers in more than 30 countries, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw? Also, Greenberg Traurig, 1,800 lawyers, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw?


yes

if you don't pay market base salary then your not worthy of my attention as firm

who gives a damn about the # of lawyers at a firm

don't people go to firms for the $$$

your posting career is off to, dare i say, a magnificent start.

User avatar
donzoli
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:53 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby donzoli » Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:21 pm

fatduck wrote:
Veyron wrote:a bunch of quoting fail, something about subway attorneys


You want to be the one to tell these guys they aren't biglaw?

Image


I guess these guys can be honorary Godzillaw thanks to their awesome advertisement

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Renzo » Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:10 pm

Veyron wrote: Big M&A will always go through NYC. However the firms I'm describing in my market that are the primary outside firms used by the Fortune 500s/1000s in the metro area for big litigation.

Are you specifically saying that these firms, that do this kind of work, are not biglaw (at least in a litigation context), based solely on the number of attorneys?


If one of those firms merged with another, would the legal news outlets report it?

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:09 pm

Renzo wrote:
Veyron wrote: Big M&A will always go through NYC. However the firms I'm describing in my market that are the primary outside firms used by the Fortune 500s/1000s in the metro area for big litigation.

Are you specifically saying that these firms, that do this kind of work, are not biglaw (at least in a litigation context), based solely on the number of attorneys?


If one of those firms merged with another, would the legal news outlets report it?


Based on what I know about past coverage: The local business journal and state newspaper would, ATL probably would, the WSJ Legal Blog probably wouldn't unless it spoke to some wider trend.

User avatar
pleasetryagain
Posts: 762
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby pleasetryagain » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:18 pm

Q: what do you consider biglaw?
A: an impossibility for 90% of your class.

dougroberts
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:18 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby dougroberts » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:25 pm

Magnificent wrote:
UCLAtransfer wrote:
Magnificent wrote:160k starting salary = biglaw

PERIOD


So, just throwing a couple random examples out there to clarify: DLA Piper, over 3,500 lawyers in more than 30 countries, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw? Also, Greenberg Traurig, 1,800 lawyers, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw?


yes

if you don't pay market base salary then your not worthy of my attention as firm

who gives a damn about the # of lawyers at a firm

don't people go to firms for the $$$


Magnificent: hope your legal knowledge is better than your economics. Market pay is defined as the LOCAL market pay FYI. Thus, $160K is not market pay in the Midwest (in fact, in MN for example, not even the largest firms by size pay more than $120K).

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:30 pm

dougroberts wrote:
Magnificent wrote:
UCLAtransfer wrote:
Magnificent wrote:160k starting salary = biglaw

PERIOD


So, just throwing a couple random examples out there to clarify: DLA Piper, over 3,500 lawyers in more than 30 countries, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw? Also, Greenberg Traurig, 1,800 lawyers, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw?


yes

if you don't pay market base salary then your not worthy of my attention as firm

who gives a damn about the # of lawyers at a firm

don't people go to firms for the $$$


Magnificent: hope your legal knowledge is better than your economics. Market pay is defined as the LOCAL market pay FYI. Thus, $160K is not market pay in the Midwest (in fact, in MN for example, not even the largest firms by size pay more than $120K).


+1 can you imagine how obscene it would be to make 160k in a low COL city. To me its more like the best firms in any given city all pay about the same, that narrow range is the "market" rate for that city.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Renzo » Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:13 pm

Veyron wrote:
Renzo wrote:
Veyron wrote: Big M&A will always go through NYC. However the firms I'm describing in my market that are the primary outside firms used by the Fortune 500s/1000s in the metro area for big litigation.

Are you specifically saying that these firms, that do this kind of work, are not biglaw (at least in a litigation context), based solely on the number of attorneys?


If one of those firms merged with another, would the legal news outlets report it?


Based on what I know about past coverage: The local business journal and state newspaper would, ATL probably would, the WSJ Legal Blog probably wouldn't unless it spoke to some wider trend.

Based on that, I'd say biglaw.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:24 pm

Renzo wrote:
Veyron wrote:
Renzo wrote:
Veyron wrote: Big M&A will always go through NYC. However the firms I'm describing in my market that are the primary outside firms used by the Fortune 500s/1000s in the metro area for big litigation.

Are you specifically saying that these firms, that do this kind of work, are not biglaw (at least in a litigation context), based solely on the number of attorneys?


If one of those firms merged with another, would the legal news outlets report it?


Based on what I know about past coverage: The local business journal and state newspaper would, ATL probably would, the WSJ Legal Blog probably wouldn't unless it spoke to some wider trend.

Based on that, I'd say biglaw.


Makes sense. FWIW I'm thinking of my city's version of firms like Sherman and Howard. Mega-regional, but not national, players.

Magnificent
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Magnificent » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:28 pm

dougroberts wrote:
Magnificent wrote:
UCLAtransfer wrote:
Magnificent wrote:160k starting salary = biglaw

PERIOD


So, just throwing a couple random examples out there to clarify: DLA Piper, over 3,500 lawyers in more than 30 countries, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw? Also, Greenberg Traurig, 1,800 lawyers, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw?


yes

if you don't pay market base salary then your not worthy of my attention as firm

who gives a damn about the # of lawyers at a firm

don't people go to firms for the $$$


Magnificent: hope your legal knowledge is better than your economics. Market pay is defined as the LOCAL market pay FYI. Thus, $160K is not market pay in the Midwest (in fact, in MN for example, not even the largest firms by size pay more than $120K).


there isn't any biglaw anywhere in the country outside NY, DC, California, Chicago, and Texas.

so that where I'm talking about when I say market

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:33 pm

[/quote]

So, just throwing a couple random examples out there to clarify: DLA Piper, over 3,500 lawyers in more than 30 countries, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw? Also, Greenberg Traurig, 1,800 lawyers, $145k starting salary =/= biglaw?[/quote]

yes

if you don't pay market base salary then your not worthy of my attention as firm

who gives a damn about the # of lawyers at a firm

don't people go to firms for the $$$[/quote]

Magnificent: hope your legal knowledge is better than your economics. Market pay is defined as the LOCAL market pay FYI. Thus, $160K is not market pay in the Midwest (in fact, in MN for example, not even the largest firms by size pay more than $120K).[/quote]

there isn't any biglaw anywhere in the country outside NY, DC, California, Chicago, and Texas.

so that where I'm talking about when I say market[/quote]

*Is Boston, ATL*
*Hangs head in shame*
*Cries*

BTW, very solid flame performance.

dougroberts
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:18 am

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby dougroberts » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:38 pm

Magnificent wrote:there isn't any biglaw anywhere in the country outside NY, DC, California, Chicago, and Texas.

so that where I'm talking about when I say market


Magnificent: you said biglaw is defined by money (as opposed to size), making above $160K. You do realize that $160K in NYC is equivalent "roughly" to $120K in Minn. or $100K in like Kansas or Cleveland? Hence, a top lawyer in Minn. making $120K is on par, financially as you defined "biglaw," as a lawyer in NYC.

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: What do you consider Biglaw?

Postby Lawl Shcool » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:50 pm

Magnificent wrote:there isn't any biglaw anywhere in the country outside NY, DC, California, Chicago, and Texas.

so that where I'm talking about when I say market


How would you explain biglaw firms not headquartered in either of those 5 states?

See: Jones Day, Baker Hostetler, Bryan Cave, Perkins Coie, Fox Rothschild....




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.