How to be an SA in Boston but work after 3L in CA? Forum

[Sav]

[Sav]

?

[Sav]

[

[Sav]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

edit 2: one more thing to consider, and it is not common, BUT i have heard of people starting in BigLaw and landing a clerkship after having been in BigLaw for a few years (1-3), clerking for a year, then returning to their firm...

This would be a great option for me to stay at Boalt and do this.

This is becoming much more common. I also had the impression that the California federal judges prefer to hire alums with work experience, but I could be wrong on that.

[Sav]

.

[bk1]

edit 2: one more thing to consider, and it is not common, BUT i have heard of people starting in BigLaw and landing a clerkship after having been in BigLaw for a few years (1-3), clerking for a year, then returning to their firm...

This would be a great option for me to stay at Boalt and do this.

This is becoming much more common. I also had the impression that the California federal judges prefer to hire alums with work experience, but I could be wrong on that.

NDCA is up there as one of the districts that most favors alums.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I just thought HLS supercedes all that becuase all the S Ct clerks are from HYS.

I realize this is probably hyperbole, but I'm going to be pedantic and point out that they're not *all* from HYS (though yes, Harvard and Yale dominate).

[bk1]

I just thought HLS supercedes all that becuase all the S Ct clerks are from HYS.

I realize this is probably hyperbole, but I'm going to be pedantic and point out that they're not *all* from HYS (though yes, Harvard and Yale dominate).

Maybe he meant justices, in which case he would be mostly correct for the moment.

[Sav]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I just thought HLS supercedes all that becuase all the S Ct clerks are from HYS.

I realize this is probably hyperbole, but I'm going to be pedantic and point out that they're not *all* from HYS (though yes, Harvard and Yale dominate).

Maybe he meant justices, in which case he would be mostly correct for the moment.

Haha! It was hyperbole. The justices are all Catholic though, so that could be an easier thing for me to transfer to right here in Cal.

Well, except for Breyer and Ginsburg...

[Sav]

[Anonymous User]

There's lots of good advice here, but I'll add one thing: one Boston firm that is very open to transferring between offices is Ropes. I work at one of their California offices, and tons of people there transferred from Boston to California. As long as there is a practice group in the city you want to transfer to, and as long as you pass the bar, they'll let you transfer to my understanding. And you'll also have to get accepted at Ropes.

[Sav]

d

[LSATNightmares]

There's lots of good advice here, but I'll add one thing: one Boston firm that is very open to transferring between offices is Ropes. I work at one of their California offices, and tons of people there transferred from Boston to California. As long as there is a practice group in the city you want to transfer to, and as long as you pass the bar, they'll let you transfer to my understanding. And you'll also have to get accepted at Ropes.

Thank you! I know 2 partners at Ropes in SV who are enthusiastic about talking to me at OCI. (I only know them from academic conferences and career discussions I set up with them on the phone.) Would it make sense to approach them with this issue at OCI this fall? Reading the other comments on this thread, I do not want to scare off any firms now. I think becuase I got a 1L SA easily, it may be making me falsely overconfident

Also, with my young kids, I do not want to take any more risks than I have to related to scheduling the bar, scheduling a transfer from Ropes-Boston to SV, etc. In EE, we get our final jobs only 3 mos before we graduate, hence I was unclear about how it appears to work in law school. Also, in EE, ties are not a factor since fabs, research, factories are in small towns mostly. Austin, Raleigh, Chelmsford MA are big EE locations, and I have never had to show ties at interviews!

Professors I talked to have said to transfer becuase a school's brand stays with you for 20 years. But they likely are not taking all the other factors into account that other posters refer to in this thread.

My main motive to transfer is not to do big law but if 10 years later, I want to work for the govt or judiciary, I thought the HLS name and contacts would mean more than Cal's.

I would talk with your career services, but at least to me, being honest doesn't sound bad.

[ninereal]

It seems like you're overly concerned with the prestige of Harvard, when you're not looking at much marginal advantage over your current situation. The number of doors that would be open to an HLS transfer but not to a magna grad from Cal is vanishingly small, especially if you want to work in California.

You should definitely push Boalt for scholarship money, though.

[lolwat]

I agree with not transferring.

If you were at some school other than Boalt (or, well, Stanford) and wanted to end up in SF/SV after graduating, then transferring to HLS would probably have been a good idea; the prestige factor of HLS would likely get you further in SF/SV than, say, Duke or something. But going from Boalt to HLS likely won't get you any points with firms in SF/SV and may very well be seen as a negative.

You seem to have the credentials for clerking, but given your limited geographic flexibility, I don't think your chances improve any at HLS either.