Straight to AmLaw 200? Or BigLaw first? Forum

[DoveBodyWash]

I wasn't sure if AmLaw200 could be considered "MidLaw"

But what are people's thoughts on going straight to MidLaw out of law school? I know that the typical path is to do BigLaw first, then lateral to a smaller firm (among other exit options).

Does having a BigLaw pedigree give you some kind of advantage in the smaller firm once you get there? I have an opportunity to join an AmLaw 200 in my home market, they pay market but I'm guessing the bonuses and partner profits are significantly lower than the NYC Vault/AmLaw 100 firms. Debt isn't really an issue for me so I'm not necessarily chasing the highest salary and it seems like the hours and partnership prospects tend to be better in these middle firms. Does it make sense to just go straight into one of the smaller shops instead of grinding it out in BigLaw for 3-5 years then lateraling down? Or do the exit options/prestige of BigLaw justify the 3-5 year grind?

[romothesavior]

So I just told you a lot of this on Facebook, but I'll post it here for posterity's sake.

What people have to keep in mind is that there are tons (TONS) more jobs in biglaw than there are in respectable midlaw. I work in the type of job you're talking about: 80-100 person office, strong firm in the region, make good money, bill 35-40 hours most weeks, interesting work, good partnership prospects, etc. It's easy to think, "Man, why aren't more people trying to get these jobs? Why go to NYC." People usually go to biglaw because that's where the jobs are. My firm takes 3-5 SAs a year. Most biglaw firms in NYC take more SAs than all the market-rate firms in my flyover city combined.

You'll also make less money, especially later in your career. The pay increases are just much bigger in true biglaw. I realize that a fifth year associate in NYC is going to be making almost double what I'll be making at that stage. Personally, I'll take less money for better hours and better partnership opportunities, but that's a personal decision.

The other big identifiable pro to biglaw is that your exit options are much better. If I ever wanted to leave the region, or go to big fed or some great in-house job, my options won't be quite as sexy as the guy leaving a place like CSM. Again, that's a personal decision. I'm personally more interested in partnership at a firm I enjoy (and it sounds like you are too), so that's what you've got to consider.

[FattyMcFatFat]

So I just told you a lot of this on Facebook, but I'll post it here for posterity's sake.

What people have to keep in mind is that there are tons (TONS) more jobs in biglaw than there are in respectable midlaw. I work in the type of job you're talking about: 80-100 person office, strong firm in the region, make good money, bill 35-40 hours most weeks, interesting work, good partnership prospects, etc. It's easy to think, "Man, why aren't more people trying to get these jobs? Why go to NYC." People usually go to biglaw because that's where the jobs are. My firm takes 3-5 SAs a year. Most biglaw firms in NYC take more SAs than all the market-rate firms in my flyover city combined.

You'll also make less money, especially later in your career. The pay increases are just much bigger in true biglaw. I realize that a fifth year associate in NYC is going to be making almost double what I'll be making at that stage. Personally, I'll take less money for better hours and better partnership opportunities, but that's a personal decision.

The other big identifiable pro to biglaw is that your exit options are much better. If I ever wanted to leave the region, or go to big fed or some great in-house job, my options won't be quite as sexy as the guy leaving a place like CSM. Again, that's a personal decision. I'm personally more interested in partnership at a firm I enjoy (and it sounds like you are too), so that's what you've got to consider.

This was a good post.

[stratocophic]

So I just told you a lot of this on Facebook, but I'll post it here for posterity's sake.

What people have to keep in mind is that there are tons (TONS) more jobs in biglaw than there are in respectable midlaw. I work in the type of job you're talking about: 80-100 person office, strong firm in the region, make good money, bill 35-40 hours most weeks, interesting work, good partnership prospects, etc. It's easy to think, "Man, why aren't more people trying to get these jobs? Why go to NYC." People usually go to biglaw because that's where the jobs are. My firm takes 3-5 SAs a year. Most biglaw firms in NYC take more SAs than all the market-rate firms in my flyover city combined.

You'll also make less money, especially later in your career. The pay increases are just much bigger in true biglaw. I realize that a fifth year associate in NYC is going to be making almost double what I'll be making at that stage. Personally, I'll take less money for better hours and better partnership opportunities, but that's a personal decision.

The other big identifiable pro to biglaw is that your exit options are much better. If I ever wanted to leave the region, or go to big fed or some great in-house job, my options won't be quite as sexy as the guy leaving a place like CSM. Again, that's a personal decision. I'm personally more interested in partnership at a firm I enjoy (and it sounds like you are too), so that's what you've got to consider.

Co-signed.

[unlicensedpotato]

I feel like there's an elephant in the room here. Someone that started at a V5 NY who was billing 2500 per year vs your 1800 is going to have a lot more knowledge/experience as a 4th year associate. If they lateraled to your firm, they would then be at the firm with better lifestyle, better partnership prospects, etc., as a probably more valuable attorney than you (with commensurately greater partnership prospects).

[Anonymous User]

I feel like there's an elephant in the room here. Someone that started at a V5 NY who was billing 2500 per year vs your 1800 is going to have a lot more knowledge/experience as a 4th year associate. If they lateraled to your firm, they would then be at the firm with better lifestyle, better partnership prospects, etc., as a probably more valuable attorney than you (with commensurately greater partnership prospects).

Disagree with the above poster's opinion. The AMLaw200 may staff their cases/transactions much leaner than a V5 firm and thus they would get much more substantive experience from those 4 years of work. So the V5 associate lateraling in may not be more valuable.

[unlicensedpotato]

Disagree with the above poster's opinion. The AMLaw200 may staff their cases/transactions much leaner than a V5 firm and thus they would get much more substantive experience from those 4 years of work. So the V5 associate lateraling in may not be more valuable.

Fair enough.