San Francisco v. Palo Alto Forum

[Anonymous User]

Which is harder to get (as in, hires fewer), given the same firm but with different offices?

[hiima3L]

Depends entirely on the firm. I believe most just have different practice groups at each (e.g., I know one where their corp/IP are entirely in PA and their lit is entirely in SF).

[Anonymous User]

I know most of the firms have larger SF offices. Last year everyone who got a job in NorCal in my T10 school got it in SF.

[Anonymous User]

This depends on the firm and practice group. SF offices are generally bigger and focus more on litigation. PA offices are smaller and do more IP transaction and IP lit (although a lot of IP lit is now in the city). I think, overall, SF firms are more competitive than PA firms because fewer top students are interested in being stuck in Silicon Valley. While SF firms might have larger summer classes, they also have a lot more students gunning to work there. In general, though, the Bay Area is a difficult market to break into unless you have significant ties to the area.

[run26.2]

Also, these two are not the only places in the Bay Area with major law firms. Weil, Quinn, Covington, and King & Spalding (as well as others) have offices in Redwood Shores. Fish has a Redwood City office. DPW, Orrick, O'Melveney, McDermott, and others are in Menlo Park. There are a lot of firms between Palo Alto and San Francisco.

[biglawww]

Also, these two are not the only places in the Bay Area with major law firms. Weil, Quinn, Covington, and King & Spalding (as well as others) have offices in Redwood Shores. Fish has a Redwood City office. DPW, Orrick, O'Melveney, McDermott, and others are in Menlo Park. There are a lot of firms between Palo Alto and San Francisco.

That's right. But Redwood Shores/ Redwood City/ Menlo Park/ Palo Alto are geographically so close. I wouldn't necessary see them as a separate market. I think OP is asking about SF vs. bay area non-SF offices.

[Anonymous User]

Tough question to answer. All things being equal, I think it's easier to get a job in PA than SF, assuming you've got the right qualifications. PA qualifications include transactional background and possibly IP experience, and SF high litigation or finance credentials.

[bk1]

Generally SF is harder than SV. On average SF firms are grade snobbier and care more about ties whereas SV firms care less about grades and more about interest in their kind of work (tech/startup focus). At lower T14s, the SV firms with big summer classes tend to have median callback medians whereas the SF firms with big summer classes tend to have top 1/3 (or higher) callback medians.

SF offices are generally bigger

Eh, not really. SF firms don't seem to take drastically more summers than SV firms. You have the bigger classes in SF (e.g. MoFo), but you also have bigger classes in SV (e.g. WSGR). Then you have a bunch of offices who take single digit summers. There might be more of those in SF total so there might be more SA spots in SF, but I'm not 100% sure of that. I don't think the total number of spots is drastically different between the 2.

[Anonymous User]

Related question. Sending in my stuff for Quinn. Think SF or SV? Just preference?

[bk1]

Related question. Sending in my stuff for Quinn. Think SF or SV? Just preference?

My (only slightly informed) opinion is just pick whichever you prefer. SF's a little bigger than SV. I think you end up working on similar stuff and there is plenty of cross-staffing, iirc.

[Anonymous User]

I'll also echo that Silicon Valley is easier. At my firm, all the people in SF are Stanford/Berkeley/T-14. The rest of us in Palo Alto are T-30. I do think people who are not from the area are enamored with the idea of being "in the city," especially if single. But honestly, Palo Alto is nice, and I would take the nicer weather down here over SF's foggy weather.

[Anonymous User]

I'll also echo that Silicon Valley is easier. At my firm, all the people in SF are Stanford/Berkeley/T-14. The rest of us in Palo Alto are T-30. I do think people who are not from the area are enamored with the idea of being "in the city," especially if single. But honestly, Palo Alto is nice, and I would take the nicer weather down here over SF's foggy weather.

SV is not necessarily easier; it may seem so because most people from the top schools are not interested in SV. I talked to a partner in SV (WSGR/fenwick/mofo) and he said they couldn't get enough interested from the top schools.

[run26.2]

Also, these two are not the only places in the Bay Area with major law firms. Weil, Quinn, Covington, and King & Spalding (as well as others) have offices in Redwood Shores. Fish has a Redwood City office. DPW, Orrick, O'Melveney, McDermott, and others are in Menlo Park. There are a lot of firms between Palo Alto and San Francisco.

That's right. But Redwood Shores/ Redwood City/ Menlo Park/ Palo Alto are geographically so close. I wouldn't necessary see them as a separate market. I think OP is asking about SF vs. bay area non-SF offices.

They are relatively close, but for someone who may not be familiar with the geography, and who sees "Redwood Shores" may have no idea where it is.

Also, as to difficulty, I think it is going to be highly firm-specific. Even in a firm with two offices in Nor Cal, practice areas and staffing needs will probably vary between offices. So it is hard to generalize as to which market is harder.