TX v. NY for 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
IrwinM.Fletcher
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:55 pm

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby IrwinM.Fletcher » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
IrwinM.Fletcher wrote:I will reiterate something that I'm sure has been mentioned at some point in other threads-

It is obviously more common to split in Texas than in most other markets (although this has become increasingly difficult in recent years). When you see, for instance, a firm no-offering 2 out of 23 summers in Texas, the split often plays a large part in this.

For instance, I personally know of two individuals who had different firms for their first and second half and received an offer from only 1 of the 2. They both readily admit that the reason they did not receive an offer from one of the firms was that they'd spent their first 6 weeks at a "better/more prestigious" firm, received an offer (or had been promised one unofficially by partners), then totally mailed it in during the second half and did basically no work.

These situations definitely do not explain all, or even the majority of no-offers in Texas NALP firms, but I'm convinced this type of scenario plays out somewhat commonly in split-friendly markets. After all, if you like Firm A better and they gave out offers on the last day of the first half of the summer, why strive at Firm B?


Very good point that I didn't consider.

So is there a consensus? Where is there a better chance of getting a full-time offer?


Odds are still the highest in NYC if offer rates are your primary deciding factor.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:57 pm

I am going to try to bump this thread. Semi different scenario though.

T6 student, debating between 2 V5 firms and going to Baker Botts/Vinson & Elkins. I know two people who summered at a V5 and BB/V&E a couple years back and both chose BB/V&E. (I dont know how they did this with 1st half firms, but nonetheless).

Crazy to take the Big 3 SA over V5 if overall the main care at the moment is career? Ending up in Texas would be great, but ending up elsewhere (NY, CA, TX, etc) would also be okay with me. My family is in Texas, but my wife's family is in CA and OR.

Struggling with this decision at the moment. Any insight?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:39 am

Anonymous User wrote:I am going to try to bump this thread. Semi different scenario though.

T6 student, debating between 2 V5 firms and going to Baker Botts/Vinson & Elkins. I know two people who summered at a V5 and BB/V&E a couple years back and both chose BB/V&E. (I dont know how they did this with 1st half firms, but nonetheless).

Crazy to take the Big 3 SA over V5 if overall the main care at the moment is career? Ending up in Texas would be great, but ending up elsewhere (NY, CA, TX, etc) would also be okay with me. My family is in Texas, but my wife's family is in CA and OR.

Struggling with this decision at the moment. Any insight?


Non-horrible necro.

And I'm at the same decision point that you are more or less, so grain of salt, but I think the clear answer here is no, it would not be crazy to go to TX if the main concern is career prospects. The only thing I'd be careful about is what practice area you're interested in compared to what firm you're going to, given that there's kinda a clear place to be for both corp and lit.

Beyond that it seems (from relatively little real knowledge) as though V&E/BB associates exit into pretty solid jobs at smaller firms and major clients' legal departments, with a non-trivial but not-big government contingent as well. Maybe that's worse than having a really good shot at bulge-bracket/major PE fund/non-Texas F500 legal departments or whatever else NYC firms might offer. Depends on your preferences, I guess. Partnership prospects at TX firms are, just numbers-wise, somewhat to substantially better than at your big NY shops.

Also you will be, basically, bathing in money.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I am going to try to bump this thread. Semi different scenario though.

T6 student, debating between 2 V5 firms and going to Baker Botts/Vinson & Elkins. I know two people who summered at a V5 and BB/V&E a couple years back and both chose BB/V&E. (I dont know how they did this with 1st half firms, but nonetheless).

Crazy to take the Big 3 SA over V5 if overall the main care at the moment is career? Ending up in Texas would be great, but ending up elsewhere (NY, CA, TX, etc) would also be okay with me. My family is in Texas, but my wife's family is in CA and OR.

Struggling with this decision at the moment. Any insight?


Non-horrible necro.

And I'm at the same decision point that you are more or less, so grain of salt, but I think the clear answer here is no, it would not be crazy to go to TX if the main concern is career prospects. The only thing I'd be careful about is what practice area you're interested in compared to what firm you're going to, given that there's kinda a clear place to be for both corp and lit.

Beyond that it seems (from relatively little real knowledge) as though V&E/BB associates exit into pretty solid jobs at smaller firms and major clients' legal departments, with a non-trivial but not-big government contingent as well. Maybe that's worse than having a really good shot at bulge-bracket/major PE fund/non-Texas F500 legal departments or whatever else NYC firms might offer. Depends on your preferences, I guess. Partnership prospects at TX firms are, just numbers-wise, somewhat to substantially better than at your big NY shops.

Also you will be, basically, bathing in money.


Yeah I am deciding between V&E and BB in Houston. LW is also in the mix. I agree, the $ will be awesome in Texas. But I wonder if my earning income is limited by going to Texas first.

Which way are you leaning at the moment?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I am going to try to bump this thread. Semi different scenario though.

T6 student, debating between 2 V5 firms and going to Baker Botts/Vinson & Elkins. I know two people who summered at a V5 and BB/V&E a couple years back and both chose BB/V&E. (I dont know how they did this with 1st half firms, but nonetheless).

Crazy to take the Big 3 SA over V5 if overall the main care at the moment is career? Ending up in Texas would be great, but ending up elsewhere (NY, CA, TX, etc) would also be okay with me. My family is in Texas, but my wife's family is in CA and OR.

Struggling with this decision at the moment. Any insight?


Non-horrible necro.

And I'm at the same decision point that you are more or less, so grain of salt, but I think the clear answer here is no, it would not be crazy to go to TX if the main concern is career prospects. The only thing I'd be careful about is what practice area you're interested in compared to what firm you're going to, given that there's kinda a clear place to be for both corp and lit.

Beyond that it seems (from relatively little real knowledge) as though V&E/BB associates exit into pretty solid jobs at smaller firms and major clients' legal departments, with a non-trivial but not-big government contingent as well. Maybe that's worse than having a really good shot at bulge-bracket/major PE fund/non-Texas F500 legal departments or whatever else NYC firms might offer. Depends on your preferences, I guess. Partnership prospects at TX firms are, just numbers-wise, somewhat to substantially better than at your big NY shops.

Also you will be, basically, bathing in money.


Yeah I am deciding between V&E and BB in Houston. LW is also in the mix. I agree, the $ will be awesome in Texas. But I wonder if my earning income is limited by going to Texas first.

Which way are you leaning at the moment?


Leaning Texas. Honestly I don't see it making much of a difference career earning potential wise, but that's pretty much rank speculation.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I am going to try to bump this thread. Semi different scenario though.

T6 student, debating between 2 V5 firms and going to Baker Botts/Vinson & Elkins. I know two people who summered at a V5 and BB/V&E a couple years back and both chose BB/V&E. (I dont know how they did this with 1st half firms, but nonetheless).

Crazy to take the Big 3 SA over V5 if overall the main care at the moment is career? Ending up in Texas would be great, but ending up elsewhere (NY, CA, TX, etc) would also be okay with me. My family is in Texas, but my wife's family is in CA and OR.

Struggling with this decision at the moment. Any insight?


Non-horrible necro.

And I'm at the same decision point that you are more or less, so grain of salt, but I think the clear answer here is no, it would not be crazy to go to TX if the main concern is career prospects. The only thing I'd be careful about is what practice area you're interested in compared to what firm you're going to, given that there's kinda a clear place to be for both corp and lit.

Beyond that it seems (from relatively little real knowledge) as though V&E/BB associates exit into pretty solid jobs at smaller firms and major clients' legal departments, with a non-trivial but not-big government contingent as well. Maybe that's worse than having a really good shot at bulge-bracket/major PE fund/non-Texas F500 legal departments or whatever else NYC firms might offer. Depends on your preferences, I guess. Partnership prospects at TX firms are, just numbers-wise, somewhat to substantially better than at your big NY shops.

Also you will be, basically, bathing in money.


Yeah I am deciding between V&E and BB in Houston. LW is also in the mix. I agree, the $ will be awesome in Texas. But I wonder if my earning income is limited by going to Texas first.

Which way are you leaning at the moment?


Leaning Texas. Honestly I don't see it making much of a difference career earning potential wise, but that's pretty much rank speculation.



I have made a decision, so I figured I would throw it out here. I have offers at S&C and DPW, decided today that I will be in Houston for the summer...I think it was definitely the right decision for me. I have talked to some attorneys about it from both markets, and I now feel like it is a good decision. Right now Texas (Houston in particular) is booming and doing top notch legal work.

Good luck to anyone else making this decision!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:55 pm

I think that, for people faced with these kinds of dilemmas, the real question should be: what city do I want to live in? Then, if you have any biglaw offer from that city from a firm that is not in catastrophic financial condition/does not have unusually high no-offer rates, accept. If not, go for NY and try to transfer a couple years in.

NY is a place that divides opinion. With the insane-even-for-biglaw hours, freezing winters and humid summers, and tiny overpriced rooms, I know it's not where I want to be. Don't spend years living in a place you don't want to be if you have other options.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I think that, for people faced with these kinds of dilemmas, the real question should be: what city do I want to live in? Then, if you have any biglaw offer from that city from a firm that is not in catastrophic financial condition/does not have unusually high no-offer rates, accept. If not, go for NY and try to transfer a couple years in.

NY is a place that divides opinion. With the insane-even-for-biglaw hours, freezing winters and humid summers, and tiny overpriced rooms, I know it's not where I want to be. Don't spend years living in a place you don't want to be if you have other options.


I think this is very true. Especially with the TX v. NY debate. This is one of the largest discrepancies in COL especially since TX firms (at least the top ones) pay the same as the top NY firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think that, for people faced with these kinds of dilemmas, the real question should be: what city do I want to live in? Then, if you have any biglaw offer from that city from a firm that is not in catastrophic financial condition/does not have unusually high no-offer rates, accept. If not, go for NY and try to transfer a couple years in.

NY is a place that divides opinion. With the insane-even-for-biglaw hours, freezing winters and humid summers, and tiny overpriced rooms, I know it's not where I want to be. Don't spend years living in a place you don't want to be if you have other options.


I think this is very true. Especially with the TX v. NY debate. This is one of the largest discrepancies in COL especially since TX firms (at least the top ones) pay the same as the top NY firms.


Not to mention that depending on the firm the level of work is if not identical probably not relevant-ly different at the associate level.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think that, for people faced with these kinds of dilemmas, the real question should be: what city do I want to live in? Then, if you have any biglaw offer from that city from a firm that is not in catastrophic financial condition/does not have unusually high no-offer rates, accept. If not, go for NY and try to transfer a couple years in.

NY is a place that divides opinion. With the insane-even-for-biglaw hours, freezing winters and humid summers, and tiny overpriced rooms, I know it's not where I want to be. Don't spend years living in a place you don't want to be if you have other options.


I think this is very true. Especially with the TX v. NY debate. This is one of the largest discrepancies in COL especially since TX firms (at least the top ones) pay the same as the top NY firms.


Not to mention that depending on the firm the level of work is if not identical probably not relevant-ly different at the associate level.


And any differences will usually be in favor of the smaller market - an LA partner describing the difference between LA and NY suggested that at a large office, they give you work based on your job title, while at a smaller office, they know you and give you work according to your ability. That's probably true of TX offices too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think that, for people faced with these kinds of dilemmas, the real question should be: what city do I want to live in? Then, if you have any biglaw offer from that city from a firm that is not in catastrophic financial condition/does not have unusually high no-offer rates, accept. If not, go for NY and try to transfer a couple years in.

NY is a place that divides opinion. With the insane-even-for-biglaw hours, freezing winters and humid summers, and tiny overpriced rooms, I know it's not where I want to be. Don't spend years living in a place you don't want to be if you have other options.


I think this is very true. Especially with the TX v. NY debate. This is one of the largest discrepancies in COL especially since TX firms (at least the top ones) pay the same as the top NY firms.


Not to mention that depending on the firm the level of work is if not identical probably not relevant-ly different at the associate level.


When I spoke with attorneys at Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins, they told me that they were often on opposite sides of the deal of NYC counsel. I think you are right.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think that, for people faced with these kinds of dilemmas, the real question should be: what city do I want to live in? Then, if you have any biglaw offer from that city from a firm that is not in catastrophic financial condition/does not have unusually high no-offer rates, accept. If not, go for NY and try to transfer a couple years in.

NY is a place that divides opinion. With the insane-even-for-biglaw hours, freezing winters and humid summers, and tiny overpriced rooms, I know it's not where I want to be. Don't spend years living in a place you don't want to be if you have other options.


I think this is very true. Especially with the TX v. NY debate. This is one of the largest discrepancies in COL especially since TX firms (at least the top ones) pay the same as the top NY firms.


Not to mention that depending on the firm the level of work is if not identical probably not relevant-ly different at the associate level.


When I spoke with attorneys at Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins, they told me that they were often on opposite sides of the deal of NYC counsel. I think you are right.


Which counsels?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:18 pm

I'm in a slightly different situation than the above poster but still trying to decide between TX and NY. I don't have any offers from the V5 and because I was dinged from V&E and BB, I'm looking at some of the more regional firms in TX. So for me, the question is regional TX firms versus NY V50's.

I really want to be in Houston because of family, friends, firm culture, and COL. I also want to do transactional work, energy in particular. And I love Houston. It's where I grew up; it's where I want to spend my career.

Given my goals, does it make sense for me to choose a firm like Jackson Walker, Porter Hedges, Locke Lord, Strasburger, or Gardere over V50's in NY? Or would I be better off starting at a V50 in NY then trying to lateral to a TX firm after a year or two?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:24 am

Just throwing my decision out there. I'm the anon from another thread picking between BB/NRF/Quinn(NY) for IP. I'm picking BB Houston. Making the calls tomorrow. I couldn't handle the NYC lifestyle. I know I love Texas and will certainly not mind the low COL.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:52 am

Anonymous User wrote:I'm in a slightly different situation than the above poster but still trying to decide between TX and NY. I don't have any offers from the V5 and because I was dinged from V&E and BB, I'm looking at some of the more regional firms in TX. So for me, the question is regional TX firms versus NY V50's.

I really want to be in Houston because of family, friends, firm culture, and COL. I also want to do transactional work, energy in particular. And I love Houston. It's where I grew up; it's where I want to spend my career.

Given my goals, does it make sense for me to choose a firm like Jackson Walker, Porter Hedges, Locke Lord, Strasburger, or Gardere over V50's in NY? Or would I be better off starting at a V50 in NY then trying to lateral to a TX firm after a year or two?


Sounds like your mind's already made up on Texas. Go with your heart on this one, forget NYC vault obsession and stuff like that. You want to be where you're going to be happy. I see little point in staying just one or two years in NYC and then start planning your exit strategy almost immediately after starting the job. If Texas is the goal, then start in Texas if you can.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: TX v. NY for biglaw

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm in a slightly different situation than the above poster but still trying to decide between TX and NY. I don't have any offers from the V5 and because I was dinged from V&E and BB, I'm looking at some of the more regional firms in TX. So for me, the question is regional TX firms versus NY V50's.

I really want to be in Houston because of family, friends, firm culture, and COL. I also want to do transactional work, energy in particular. And I love Houston. It's where I grew up; it's where I want to spend my career.

Given my goals, does it make sense for me to choose a firm like Jackson Walker, Porter Hedges, Locke Lord, Strasburger, or Gardere over V50's in NY? Or would I be better off starting at a V50 in NY then trying to lateral to a TX firm after a year or two?


Sounds like your mind's already made up on Texas. Go with your heart on this one, forget NYC vault obsession and stuff like that. You want to be where you're going to be happy. I see little point in staying just one or two years in NYC and then start planning your exit strategy almost immediately after starting the job. If Texas is the goal, then start in Texas if you can.


I really appreciate the advice. I was already thinking Texas, but most students at my school are pretty obsessed with NYC and vault firms. I was worried that I would be missing out on something. Thank you for the reassurance.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.