XxSpyKEx wrote:Veyron wrote:There's pros and cons to each imo. Midsize firms give you more responsibility earlier on and better partnership prospects, but the work/cases aren't as challenging. You won't get to be a major player in cases that you see on the news, unlike with biglaw firms. You also don't get the prestige on your resume that you do working at a major biglaw firm, meaning it's tougher to exit from midlaw --> in house, or move to another midlaw firm than biglaw --> in house/midlaw
? You won't be a major player in ANY case in biglaw. In midlaw, you may get to be a major player on smaller cases.
I've been a minor player on major cases, trust me, I'd have far more fun running my own itty-bitty little case.
I didn't mean you, personally, would be a major player on large cases. But a major biglaw firm will be, whereas a midlaw firm won't... This really just boils down to the responsibility upfront v. prestige thing (prestigious firms are prestigious at least partially because of the large challenging cases they work on). The benefit of working at the biglaw firm is that you get the additional prestige on your resume, which leads to better exit options.
So I should care that the firm is a major player on major cases because the prestige will give me better exit options?