Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:14 pm

Is there any consensus Latham fits in with the Texas energy giants? I know they've been growing like crazy over the last 3 years; how do they stack up against BB and V&E (Dallas for V&E and both for Houston)? Since partnership may not be my end goal, is L&W Houston the best option for future mobility? I like living in TX, but would be open to leaving for the right opportunity. I only want to do transactional work and have some experience in energy industry, which I enjoyed. Thoughts?

And I'm familiar with the offer rates for V&E and BB: ~85-90%. Is anyone familiar with the full-time offer rate for L&W Houston? I know this isn't the determinative factor, but since they are all first-half or 10-week programs, I would hate to play Russian Roulette with my summer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:56 pm

Preface: I don't really know more than you. But my impression is: They're kind of running town at the moment; not sure how long that will last but their raids on BB and V&E seem to have succeeded in grabbing some really talented young producers. They've been *very* busy, and my sense is that that is especially true on the cap markets side. Huge amount of issuer work.

Seems like it is a great option if you are committed to corp work and don't mind working hours closer to NYC than Houston.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:13 pm

I'll second the response you got here. In Houston, Latham is on-par (if not superior) to V&E/BB , and benefits from an significantly stronger national platform and brand. Partnership prospects, while not particularly rosy anywhere you look, are relatively good here as significant growth is expected from the Houston office.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:51 am

Original responder-- just for shits'n'grins, my feeling for corp is V&E = Latham, BB = AK
(for cap markets) and not sure what else.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:19 am

Where does NRF/F&J fit in?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:41 am

Anonymous User wrote:Where does NRF/F&J fit in?


Honestly no idea, the merger kind of scared me off them and I didn't wind up looking there. Corp side is reputedly less strong than at the other big Houston firms, probably including AK (again, especially on the cap markets side).

Since I've parentheticaled it twice, I should just say that my sense (and again this is basically just a step up from voodoo) is that AK's cap markets practice is probably just barely below Latham/V&E's. Definitely a very high end practice.

BigLawer
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:37 pm

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby BigLawer » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:05 am

Anonymous User wrote:I'll second the response you got here. In Houston, Latham is on-par (if not superior) to V&E/BB , and benefits from an significantly stronger national platform and brand. Partnership prospects, while not particularly rosy anywhere you look, are relatively good here as significant growth is expected from the Houston office.


I will second this, somewhat. Latham is seen on par with V&E and BB in Texas, but not ahead. Also, incorrect to say that partnership prospects are as good as at the big 3 (if thats what you are implying). They have yet to promote anyone from associate to partner at that office. Yes, it will happen, but odds of making partner are much better being at a Big 3 since it is the HQ firm. Also, exit options will be better from V&E and BB (in Texas) because they have such strong names/institutional clients in the state. Outside of Texas, Latham obviously wins the reputation battle.

You cant go wrong with any choice, but if you want to stay in Texas, I would personally go with BB or V&E in this case.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:39 am

I don't see why offer rate shouldn't be the determinative factor, especially when all other things are pretty much equal.

Latham Houston's offer rate has been significantly higher than BB's. In 2012, LW Houston's offer rate was 100%, and BB's was 87.2% firm-wide. I have it on good authority that the offer rate in the Houston office of BB specifically was abysmal that year, and that it was partly because LW had poached so many of their partners. I may be biased: I know someone personally who got no-offered at BB that year, who was told that their work was good but the "fit" was bad. This person is not an antisocial weirdo. To me, that story sounds like a firm making excuses for the fact that they can't afford to give an offer to all of their summers. The volume of work at Latham Houston is out of control, so you definitely wouldn't have to worry about getting no offered for financial reasons (insert obvious joke about layoffs here).

If I were in your shoes, I would go to Latham because of the difference in the offer rates alone.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I don't see why offer rate shouldn't be the determinative factor, especially when all other things are pretty much equal.

Latham Houston's offer rate has been significantly higher than BB's. In 2012, LW Houston's offer rate was 100%, and BB's was 87.2% firm-wide. I have it on good authority that the offer rate in the Houston office of BB specifically was abysmal that year, and that it was partly because LW had poached so many of their partners. I may be biased: I know someone personally who got no-offered at BB that year, who was told that their work was good but the "fit" was bad. This person is not an antisocial weirdo. To me, that story sounds like a firm making excuses for the fact that they can't afford to give an offer to all of their summers. The volume of work at Latham Houston is out of control, so you definitely wouldn't have to worry about getting no offered for financial reasons (insert obvious joke about layoffs here).

If I were in your shoes, I would go to Latham because of the difference in the offer rates alone.


+1

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I don't see why offer rate shouldn't be the determinative factor, especially when all other things are pretty much equal.

Latham Houston's offer rate has been significantly higher than BB's. In 2012, LW Houston's offer rate was 100%, and BB's was 87.2% firm-wide. I have it on good authority that the offer rate in the Houston office of BB specifically was abysmal that year, and that it was partly because LW had poached so many of their partners. I may be biased: I know someone personally who got no-offered at BB that year, who was told that their work was good but the "fit" was bad. This person is not an antisocial weirdo. To me, that story sounds like a firm making excuses for the fact that they can't afford to give an offer to all of their summers. The volume of work at Latham Houston is out of control, so you definitely wouldn't have to worry about getting no offered for financial reasons (insert obvious joke about layoffs here).

If I were in your shoes, I would go to Latham because of the difference in the offer rates alone.


BB is so busy that they are hiring associates in the 3L market who didnt even summer with them. Many (maybe all?) of their attorneys (in corporate) are swamped right now. The people who get no offered get it for a reason. For all you know their work product was awful and BB was being nice. Maybe they had a huge grade drop, or yeah, maybe they made a mistake over the summer (socially).

Not a chance I would go to a firm that is 3 years old (in year 4) and have not made a single partner from that office.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:BB is so busy that they are hiring associates in the 3L market who didnt even summer with them. Many (maybe all?) of their attorneys (in corporate) are swamped right now. The people who get no offered get it for a reason. For all you know their work product was awful and BB was being nice. Maybe they had a huge grade drop, or yeah, maybe they made a mistake over the summer (socially).

Not a chance I would go to a firm that is 3 years old (in year 4) and have not made a single partner from that office.


I know what you meant, but calling Latham a "3 year old" firm is pretty silly. The Houston office is new, but Latham is like 80 years old.

Also, the OP said that partnership might not be their end goal. I would rather have a permanent offer from a firm where the partnership prospects are bad than be no offered by a firm with better partnership prospects. Not a chance I would go to a firm that would torpedo my career because I got a B during 2L or made some tiny social faux pas over the summer. But I'm pretty risk averse; I don't think I'm too awesome and special to do poorly on an exam or make one mistake or inadvertently offend one person. Good luck making partner, bro.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I don't see why offer rate shouldn't be the determinative factor, especially when all other things are pretty much equal.

Latham Houston's offer rate has been significantly higher than BB's. In 2012, LW Houston's offer rate was 100%, and BB's was 87.2% firm-wide. I have it on good authority that the offer rate in the Houston office of BB specifically was abysmal that year, and that it was partly because LW had poached so many of their partners. I may be biased: I know someone personally who got no-offered at BB that year, who was told that their work was good but the "fit" was bad. This person is not an antisocial weirdo. To me, that story sounds like a firm making excuses for the fact that they can't afford to give an offer to all of their summers. The volume of work at Latham Houston is out of control, so you definitely wouldn't have to worry about getting no offered for financial reasons (insert obvious joke about layoffs here).

If I were in your shoes, I would go to Latham because of the difference in the offer rates alone.


As a recent summer in Houston (1st and 2nd half), I think this information is very misleading. Latham has had fairly small class sizes over the last few years (low teens), and BB/VE have been more in the 40/50+ range. With that many people, there is a greater likelihood that people who can't turn in assignments on time, have social deficiencies, and/or make drunk stupid mistakes (as subtle as dropping an inappropriate comment, it's not like someone always pukes on a partner) ended up in the class. With a few bad apples, the offer rate easily drops to the low 90's, high 80's. I actually believe that BB/VE no-offered the same amount of people this summer. To state that BB "can't afford to give an offer to all of their summers" is pretty dumb.

On that note, attorneys at VE, Latham and BB will all tell you that they consider themselves peers w/r/t corporate work. AK might not get as many WSJ M&A deals, but they are definitely players when it comes to MLP-related capital markets work. These firms are constantly on opposite sides of deals. VE tends to do a little more issuer work, Latham split, and BB a little more underwriter side.

TLDR; You're not playing "russian roulette" with your summer by going to any of the major corporate players in Houston. All of them are super swamped and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. Offer rates (as compared to 100% rates in NY) in Houston are a reflection of the fact that Houston firms/attorneys aren't willing to take on everyone just for the publicity. They no-offer summers that have shown, for whatever reason, they aren't dependable in the office or in front of a client. And remember, people who get no-offered aren't necessarily forthcoming about their own mistakes.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:BB is so busy that they are hiring associates in the 3L market who didnt even summer with them. Many (maybe all?) of their attorneys (in corporate) are swamped right now. The people who get no offered get it for a reason. For all you know their work product was awful and BB was being nice. Maybe they had a huge grade drop, or yeah, maybe they made a mistake over the summer (socially).

Not a chance I would go to a firm that is 3 years old (in year 4) and have not made a single partner from that office.


I know what you meant, but calling Latham a "3 year old" firm is pretty silly. The Houston office is new, but Latham is like 80 years old.

Also, the OP said that partnership might not be their end goal. I would rather have a permanent offer from a firm where the partnership prospects are bad than be no offered by a firm with better partnership prospects. Not a chance I would go to a firm that would torpedo my career because I got a B during 2L or made some tiny social faux pas over the summer. But I'm pretty risk averse; I don't think I'm too awesome and special to do poorly on an exam or make one mistake or inadvertently offend one person. Good luck making partner, bro.


I'm not that anon, but you don't know what you're talking about. I can tell you that the people who get no-offered for grade drops in Houston (almost) always attend local schools like UH/SMU/STX. They usually fall below the hiring criteria and suffer for it (this is at all Houston firms). As far as "tiny social faux pas," I saw some pretty stupid mistakes over this past summer. Recent summer associates will tell you that the people who got no-offered for what people might speculate to be social issues, tended to show a pattern of mistakes throughout the summer. Firms realize how bad it looks to no-offer people and aren't stupid enough to do so lightly (like pissing off only 1 person, unless of course, it's the managing partner or something).

As far as Latham goes, you're pretty silly for not understanding what the previous anon meant. Latham, as a non-TX firm, has materially lower partnership prospects than TX HQ'ed firms. As such, I think that anon was referring to how Latham's office is too young to evaluate whether they will make partners in the office, or decide to increase leverage/push people out to capitalize on the quality of partners they have in the office.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:53 pm

The last two posts are very credited. I also spent time at two Houston firms last summer and agree. I think, if you want corporate work and want to stay in Texas long term....you should go to BB, V&E or AK

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:54 pm

I think it has to come down to a feeling of fit and which firm you like best. Ass far as work goes, you cannot go wrong with either BB, V&E or Latham in Houston right now. Obviously, if you want to do any litigation ever, dont got Latham (or V&E really, but at least there is still a small section).

As far as offer rates, Latham wins, period. Smaller classes or not, 100% offer rates means a job. That being said, Latham's summer program is 8-10 weeks, so splitting isnt generally realistic.

Partner opportunities might or might not be better at the TX giants, but they really arent good anywhere. And in my mind, what does it matter for an SA offer and early career associate? If you are a 2L right now, you have 8-9 years at least until you will be eligible for partner, there is a lot that can change in that time. Any of these firms will give you good exit options if you choose.

My advice is to go to the firm you like the best, do the best work you can and be a normal person and you really cant go wrong with any of these 3-4 firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't see why offer rate shouldn't be the determinative factor, especially when all other things are pretty much equal.

Latham Houston's offer rate has been significantly higher than BB's. In 2012, LW Houston's offer rate was 100%, and BB's was 87.2% firm-wide. I have it on good authority that the offer rate in the Houston office of BB specifically was abysmal that year, and that it was partly because LW had poached so many of their partners. I may be biased: I know someone personally who got no-offered at BB that year, who was told that their work was good but the "fit" was bad. This person is not an antisocial weirdo. To me, that story sounds like a firm making excuses for the fact that they can't afford to give an offer to all of their summers. The volume of work at Latham Houston is out of control, so you definitely wouldn't have to worry about getting no offered for financial reasons (insert obvious joke about layoffs here).

If I were in your shoes, I would go to Latham because of the difference in the offer rates alone.


As a recent summer in Houston (1st and 2nd half), I think this information is very misleading. Latham has had fairly small class sizes over the last few years (low teens), and BB/VE have been more in the 40/50+ range. With that many people, there is a greater likelihood that people who can't turn in assignments on time, have social deficiencies, and/or make drunk stupid mistakes (as subtle as dropping an inappropriate comment, it's not like someone always pukes on a partner) ended up in the class. With a few bad apples, the offer rate easily drops to the low 90's, high 80's. I actually believe that BB/VE no-offered the same amount of people this summer. To state that BB "can't afford to give an offer to all of their summers" is pretty dumb.


This logic doesn't really work. Statistics allow for extrapolation. If Latham again offered 100% in 2013, that is probably 23-25 or so SA's that have summered at Latham and all have received offers. When 6 out of 48 BB SA's get no-offered, it's not just based on having a bigger class. Look at it this way, would you expect 6 out of the next 23 Latham SA's to get no-offered? Your logic would work better if BB was offering 48 out of 50 and LW had offered 3 out of 3 for a couple of years straight.

It seems that LW is making more of a conscious effort to achieve a higher offer rate than other TX firms. That's not to say there are not good reasons to pick BB or VE or that those firms couldn't conceivably offer 100% if by chance every SA performed as expected. But with TX firms, the tradition has been that 100% offer rates are not as important as in NY/DC/etc. Maybe that will change at some point with more national firms moving in.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:31 pm

As a recent summer in Houston (1st and 2nd half), I think this information is very misleading. Latham has had fairly small class sizes over the last few years (low teens), and BB/VE have been more in the 40/50+ range. With that many people, there is a greater likelihood that people who can't turn in assignments on time, have social deficiencies, and/or make drunk stupid mistakes (as subtle as dropping an inappropriate comment, it's not like someone always pukes on a partner) ended up in the class.


Summers in the past at V&E have thrown up on people (though not partners) during summer events and still received offers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:28 am

This thread is full of derp, but to pick out the derpiest:

(1) Re: "No-offered summers at Baker Botts got what they deserved": It's no secret that BB stealth-slashes 10-15% of its summer class each year. They have hard grade cutoffs, but they won't tell you the number specifically until you've started working (Hint: it's school-specific, but for UT students, it was a 3.5 cutoff this year). And, to at least one close friend's chagrin, even if you meet the grade cutoff, BB may no-offer you after only 6 weeks in which your "social fit was strong" and "overall work product was strong but tailed off on the last of your [seven] assignments." Go with BB if you value arbitrariness.

(2) Re: "Don't count on Latham's offer rate to stay near 100%; small sample size": No. Large sample size. Latham Houston's offer rates are consistent with Latham's overall offer rates, i.e., 95 or 100% in all offices. That's because it's virtually f'ing impossible to lose your offer at Latham, hard as some have tried. Got drunk to the point you couldn't speak and puke all over partner's home carpet? Offer. Entire offices of summers wasted jumping into fancy hotel pools fully clothed, some of whom destroying their firm-issued Blackberrys in the process? Offers abound. Bill 8-10 hours/week, get reprimanded at mid-summer review for both quantity & quality of work but fail subsequently to work harder, all while visibly annoying every associate and summer you meet? Offer. Willing to bet those familiar with other Latham offices know similar stories.

(3) Re: "Partnership prospects suck b/c in 3 years no associate made partner": Ahoy douchenozzles, the office has only been open for -- you guessed it -- 3 f'ing years. The partnership emigrated from firms including -- you guessed it again -- BB, VE, & FJ. Associates don't make partner until year 8, meaning only 5th+ yr. laterals could possibly have been considered for partner at this time. Moreover, there's little incentive to lateral as a 6th+ year associate, because those who've made it that far have better partnership chances at their original firm. There are currently only 39 associates currently employed in the Houston office, which in a growing office nevertheless represents an increase. A strong majority earned a JD in 2009 or later. It's 2013. Subtraction. Inference.

(4) Re: "[post-derp silence]": Most have failed to note that OP is not convinced he/she wants to stay in Texas. Latham dwarfs the "Texas Powerhouses" outside of Texas. Only post-merger Fulbright has any national/international reputation to speak of, and OP is not interested in lit (Fulbright Houston's bread & butter). Plus lateraling between Latham offices is relatively common. If there's a non-trivial chance OP will want to leave TX, Latham is the obvious choice.

/enumerated rant.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This thread is full of derp, but to pick out the derpiest:

(1) Re: "No-offered summers at Baker Botts got what they deserved": It's no secret that BB stealth-slashes 10-15% of its summer class each year. They have hard grade cutoffs, but they won't tell you the number specifically until you've started working (Hint: it's school-specific, but for UT students, it was a 3.5 cutoff this year). And, to at least one close friend's chagrin, even if you meet the grade cutoff, BB may no-offer you after only 6 weeks in which your "social fit was strong" and "overall work product was strong but tailed off on the last of your [seven] assignments." Go with BB if you value arbitrariness.

(2) Re: "Don't count on Latham's offer rate to stay near 100%; small sample size": No. Large sample size. Latham Houston's offer rates are consistent with Latham's overall offer rates, i.e., 95 or 100% in all offices. That's because it's virtually f'ing impossible to lose your offer at Latham, hard as some have tried. Got drunk to the point you couldn't speak and puke all over partner's home carpet? Offer. Entire offices of summers wasted jumping into fancy hotel pools fully clothed, some of whom destroying their firm-issued Blackberrys in the process? Offers abound. Bill 8-10 hours/week, get reprimanded at mid-summer review for both quantity & quality of work but fail subsequently to work harder, all while visibly annoying every associate and summer you meet? Offer. Willing to bet those familiar with other Latham offices know similar stories.

(3) Re: "Partnership prospects suck b/c in 3 years no associate made partner": Ahoy douchenozzles, the office has only been open for -- you guessed it -- 3 f'ing years. The partnership emigrated from firms including -- you guessed it again -- BB, VE, & FJ. Associates don't make partner until year 8, meaning only 5th+ yr. laterals could possibly have been considered for partner at this time. Moreover, there's little incentive to lateral as a 6th+ year associate, because those who've made it that far have better partnership chances at their original firm. There are currently only 39 associates currently employed in the Houston office, which in a growing office nevertheless represents an increase. A strong majority earned a JD in 2009 or later. It's 2013. Subtraction. Inference.

(4) Re: "[post-derp silence]": Most have failed to note that OP is not convinced he/she wants to stay in Texas. Latham dwarfs the "Texas Powerhouses" outside of Texas. Only post-merger Fulbright has any national/international reputation to speak of, and OP is not interested in lit (Fulbright Houston's bread & butter). Plus lateraling between Latham offices is relatively common. If there's a non-trivial chance OP will want to leave TX, Latham is the obvious choice.

/enumerated rant.


This post is okay, but it just doesnt sound like you know the Texas market as much as you are leading on. Texas is a different kind of beast, especially with splits.

I was at two Texas firms last summer and a best friend of mine at two others. I know of each person no offered at both firms I was at and he knows all no offered at one of his. NONE of them were much of a surprise. Huge grade drop at a crap school, not turning in assignments on time when warned about it, or just making a big mistake at a social outing.

I think the one thing that is definitely true is the Latham name outside of Texas. The issue I see is that Latham doesnt yet have institutional clients that attorneys can move into. BB, VE, FJ, AK etc have clients that they (almost) always represent and often send attorneys to in-house. Latham doesnt have that yet in Texas.

Also, re partnership, I think Latham is going to make associates partners in Houston as soon as they are eligible if for nothing else but to show that they are going to do it and that they arent a "satellite" firm (even though they obviously are). Also, I think with any of these firms, there is so much work right now that shouldnt be a worry. Lots of big firms moving in to Houston, hopefully this energy boom doesnt slow down.

Yeah, it is hard to make partner anywhere, but even if you are not going to make partner, if you stick around and do good work you will likely get offered an "of counsel" spot, or something in that fashion. It would suck to not make partner, but if you care more about sticking around and continuing to do big exciting work and making lots of $$$ (since in-house is usually a pay cut) then that may be something to think about. From what I have heard, of-counsel positions in Texas usually pay 300k+ (at least not less than the top associate pay).

One big plus for Latham, I believe you will make more money in years 1-8, even though V&E and BB and FJ are on NY scale, I think Latham will probably pay higher bonuses.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:This thread is full of derp, but to pick out the derpiest:

(1) Re: "No-offered summers at Baker Botts got what they deserved": It's no secret that BB stealth-slashes 10-15% of its summer class each year. They have hard grade cutoffs, but they won't tell you the number specifically until you've started working (Hint: it's school-specific, but for UT students, it was a 3.5 cutoff this year). And, to at least one close friend's chagrin, even if you meet the grade cutoff, BB may no-offer you after only 6 weeks in which your "social fit was strong" and "overall work product was strong but tailed off on the last of your [seven] assignments." Go with BB if you value arbitrariness.

(2) Re: "Don't count on Latham's offer rate to stay near 100%; small sample size": No. Large sample size. Latham Houston's offer rates are consistent with Latham's overall offer rates, i.e., 95 or 100% in all offices. That's because it's virtually f'ing impossible to lose your offer at Latham, hard as some have tried. Got drunk to the point you couldn't speak and puke all over partner's home carpet? Offer. Entire offices of summers wasted jumping into fancy hotel pools fully clothed, some of whom destroying their firm-issued Blackberrys in the process? Offers abound. Bill 8-10 hours/week, get reprimanded at mid-summer review for both quantity & quality of work but fail subsequently to work harder, all while visibly annoying every associate and summer you meet? Offer. Willing to bet those familiar with other Latham offices know similar stories.

(3) Re: "Partnership prospects suck b/c in 3 years no associate made partner": Ahoy douchenozzles, the office has only been open for -- you guessed it -- 3 f'ing years. The partnership emigrated from firms including -- you guessed it again -- BB, VE, & FJ. Associates don't make partner until year 8, meaning only 5th+ yr. laterals could possibly have been considered for partner at this time. Moreover, there's little incentive to lateral as a 6th+ year associate, because those who've made it that far have better partnership chances at their original firm. There are currently only 39 associates currently employed in the Houston office, which in a growing office nevertheless represents an increase. A strong majority earned a JD in 2009 or later. It's 2013. Subtraction. Inference.

(4) Re: "[post-derp silence]": Most have failed to note that OP is not convinced he/she wants to stay in Texas. Latham dwarfs the "Texas Powerhouses" outside of Texas. Only post-merger Fulbright has any national/international reputation to speak of, and OP is not interested in lit (Fulbright Houston's bread & butter). Plus lateraling between Latham offices is relatively common. If there's a non-trivial chance OP will want to leave TX, Latham is the obvious choice.

/enumerated rant.


This post is okay, but it just doesnt sound like you know the Texas market as much as you are leading on. Texas is a different kind of beast, especially with splits.

I was at two Texas firms last summer and a best friend of mine at two others. I know of each person no offered at both firms I was at and he knows all no offered at one of his. NONE of them were much of a surprise. Huge grade drop at a crap school, not turning in assignments on time when warned about it, or just making a big mistake at a social outing.

I think the one thing that is definitely true is the Latham name outside of Texas. The issue I see is that Latham doesnt yet have institutional clients that attorneys can move into. BB, VE, FJ, AK etc have clients that they (almost) always represent and often send attorneys to in-house. Latham doesnt have that yet in Texas.

Also, re partnership, I think Latham is going to make associates partners in Houston as soon as they are eligible if for nothing else but to show that they are going to do it and that they arent a "satellite" firm (even though they obviously are). Also, I think with any of these firms, there is so much work right now that shouldnt be a worry. Lots of big firms moving in to Houston, hopefully this energy boom doesnt slow down.

Yeah, it is hard to make partner anywhere, but even if you are not going to make partner, if you stick around and do good work you will likely get offered an "of counsel" spot, or something in that fashion. It would suck to not make partner, but if you care more about sticking around and continuing to do big exciting work and making lots of $$$ (since in-house is usually a pay cut) then that may be something to think about. From what I have heard, of-counsel positions in Texas usually pay 300k+ (at least not less than the top associate pay).

One big plus for Latham, I believe you will make more money in years 1-8, even though V&E and BB and FJ are on NY scale, I think Latham will probably pay higher bonuses.


I'm a different anon than the posters above.

When you say "crap" schools, you must mean schools like SMU and other Texas regional schools. They're not really that crappy, but okay. Either way, I summered at a Texas firm and I can't agree with your assessment that those who got no-offered were obviously going to get no-offered. When you look back, sure, you can see problems that they had, but I can say the same thing about my fellow summers who got offers. Hindsight is 20/20, or so they say. Having said that, everyone makes mistakes during their summer. Sometimes those mistakes are large. Sometimes they're small. I think most of us agree that if you make a mistake as a Latham summer, they will be a lot more forgiving (see higher offer rates historically).

Your argument about institutional clients is just wrong and it seems to me that you don't know how in-house hiring works. I would argue that Latham probably provides equal access to in-house positions within Texas and much better opportunities worldwide.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:This thread is full of derp, but to pick out the derpiest:

(1) Re: "No-offered summers at Baker Botts got what they deserved": It's no secret that BB stealth-slashes 10-15% of its summer class each year. They have hard grade cutoffs, but they won't tell you the number specifically until you've started working (Hint: it's school-specific, but for UT students, it was a 3.5 cutoff this year). And, to at least one close friend's chagrin, even if you meet the grade cutoff, BB may no-offer you after only 6 weeks in which your "social fit was strong" and "overall work product was strong but tailed off on the last of your [seven] assignments." Go with BB if you value arbitrariness.

(2) Re: "Don't count on Latham's offer rate to stay near 100%; small sample size": No. Large sample size. Latham Houston's offer rates are consistent with Latham's overall offer rates, i.e., 95 or 100% in all offices. That's because it's virtually f'ing impossible to lose your offer at Latham, hard as some have tried. Got drunk to the point you couldn't speak and puke all over partner's home carpet? Offer. Entire offices of summers wasted jumping into fancy hotel pools fully clothed, some of whom destroying their firm-issued Blackberrys in the process? Offers abound. Bill 8-10 hours/week, get reprimanded at mid-summer review for both quantity & quality of work but fail subsequently to work harder, all while visibly annoying every associate and summer you meet? Offer. Willing to bet those familiar with other Latham offices know similar stories.

(3) Re: "Partnership prospects suck b/c in 3 years no associate made partner": Ahoy douchenozzles, the office has only been open for -- you guessed it -- 3 f'ing years. The partnership emigrated from firms including -- you guessed it again -- BB, VE, & FJ. Associates don't make partner until year 8, meaning only 5th+ yr. laterals could possibly have been considered for partner at this time. Moreover, there's little incentive to lateral as a 6th+ year associate, because those who've made it that far have better partnership chances at their original firm. There are currently only 39 associates currently employed in the Houston office, which in a growing office nevertheless represents an increase. A strong majority earned a JD in 2009 or later. It's 2013. Subtraction. Inference.

(4) Re: "[post-derp silence]": Most have failed to note that OP is not convinced he/she wants to stay in Texas. Latham dwarfs the "Texas Powerhouses" outside of Texas. Only post-merger Fulbright has any national/international reputation to speak of, and OP is not interested in lit (Fulbright Houston's bread & butter). Plus lateraling between Latham offices is relatively common. If there's a non-trivial chance OP will want to leave TX, Latham is the obvious choice.

/enumerated rant.


This post is okay, but it just doesnt sound like you know the Texas market as much as you are leading on. Texas is a different kind of beast, especially with splits.

I was at two Texas firms last summer and a best friend of mine at two others. I know of each person no offered at both firms I was at and he knows all no offered at one of his. NONE of them were much of a surprise. Huge grade drop at a crap school, not turning in assignments on time when warned about it, or just making a big mistake at a social outing.

I think the one thing that is definitely true is the Latham name outside of Texas. The issue I see is that Latham doesnt yet have institutional clients that attorneys can move into. BB, VE, FJ, AK etc have clients that they (almost) always represent and often send attorneys to in-house. Latham doesnt have that yet in Texas.

Also, re partnership, I think Latham is going to make associates partners in Houston as soon as they are eligible if for nothing else but to show that they are going to do it and that they arent a "satellite" firm (even though they obviously are). Also, I think with any of these firms, there is so much work right now that shouldnt be a worry. Lots of big firms moving in to Houston, hopefully this energy boom doesnt slow down.

Yeah, it is hard to make partner anywhere, but even if you are not going to make partner, if you stick around and do good work you will likely get offered an "of counsel" spot, or something in that fashion. It would suck to not make partner, but if you care more about sticking around and continuing to do big exciting work and making lots of $$$ (since in-house is usually a pay cut) then that may be something to think about. From what I have heard, of-counsel positions in Texas usually pay 300k+ (at least not less than the top associate pay).

One big plus for Latham, I believe you will make more money in years 1-8, even though V&E and BB and FJ are on NY scale, I think Latham will probably pay higher bonuses.




Your argument about institutional clients is just wrong and it seems to me that you don't know how in-house hiring works. I would argue that Latham probably provides equal access to in-house positions within Texas and much better opportunities worldwide
.


Please enlighten us. Most people I have seen move in house have been moving in after working for a client on multiple deals. What is your experience?

I have always heard that if you need to use headhunters, you are not doing your job well

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:

Your argument about institutional clients is just wrong and it seems to me that you don't know how in-house hiring works. I would argue that Latham probably provides equal access to in-house positions within Texas and much better opportunities worldwide
.


Please enlighten us. Most people I have seen move in house have been moving in after working for a client on multiple deals. What is your experience?

I have always heard that if you need to use headhunters, you are not doing your job well


I agree with what you just said. Most people move in-house with clients with whom they have worked. That is probably the biggest reason why TLS still looks at rankings like Vault, because they show how prestigious the firm is and how prestigious the clients are (for purposes of moving in-house later). The partners who came to Latham's Houston office from the other Texas firms brought with them large clients and work. The associates who work with these clients have the opportunity to move in-house, just like they would have at V&E and BB. Latham's Texas office may have fewer clients than V&E's Texas office because it is such a smaller office, but as an associate, you're still working with only a handful of clients a year. For example, a V&E associate may work with a handful of institutional clients during the course of a year and never do a single project for the other 100. A Latham associate may also work for a handful of clients and never work for the other 10 that are frequently represented by the firm's Houston office. That's why, in my opinion, the opportunities within Texas won't be drastically different. When that V&E associate applies for an in-house position with a V&E client he has never worked with, he is not applying based on a pre-existing relationship he has with the client but just as another associate and won't have a significant advantage over someone applying from BB, Latham, or another well-recognized firm.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Are there any other good exit options besides in house? I never hear anything about it. But everyone can't be okay moving to a job where they will likely take a pay cut, decrease their salary cap, and limit future options... Right?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Are there any other good exit options besides in house? I never hear anything about it. But everyone can't be okay moving to a job where they will likely take a pay cut, decrease their salary cap, and limit future options... Right?


Moving in-house would be a pay cut.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273597
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Latham (Houston) v. Texas Powerhouses

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Are there any other good exit options besides in house? I never hear anything about it. But everyone can't be okay moving to a job where they will likely take a pay cut, decrease their salary cap, and limit future options... Right?


Moving in-house would be a pay cut.


That seemed to just restate part of the question. I think the question is what are other options, maybe something that is not a pay cut or something that is not in-house in general




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.