Top Law Schools

KidStuddi wrote:

ResIpsa21 wrote:Look, you have to understand preftige for what it is. More general preftige means greater opportunities in a broad range of practice areas and employers. Preftige keeps more doors open, but if you already know which door you want to go through, it doesn't matter all that much. As an example, if you want to do energy litigation, a Big Three TX firm is way better than a V10 NY firm. If you want to do hedge funds, hit up SRZ. If you don't really have a clue what you want to do, then take the most preftigious option to keep as many doors open as you can until you figure it out.

The Vault rankings are well-correlated with breadth of exit opportunities, but not the likelihood of any particular exit opportunity. As far as actual substantive experience at the firm, I'd say they're more than worthless. The very basis of the Vault ranking is the perception of associates who haven't actually worked for the firms they're ranking. It's also comical to assume that someone's experience will be uniform across a firm's offices or practice groups.

You've got the first part of this right, I think, but I question the second part. Yeah, sure, Vault rankings are done by attorneys ranking places they've never worked at, but lateral hiring is also done by attorneys judging the training / experience gained at a firm they've never worked at. When our boy learntolift is trying to lateral in 3 years, do you really think firms are just going to take his word for it that he got world-beating training and exposure to the very best hedge fund work in the whole entire world? Or are they going to make a decision based on their preconceived perceptions of his firm's brand? I'm betting on the latter. Hiring committees continue to demonstrate year after year that they give sincere weight to U.S. News Rankings despite everyone knowing the methodology is flawed; I kind of doubt that they suddenly become bastions of critical thinking when hiring laterals.

dixiecupdrinking wrote: But the lateral hiring is done by attorneys who have some meaningful sense of how good a firm is in an actual practice area, know the partners' reputations and quite possibly know them personally, etc. Vault is done by associates who rank based on how hard it was for them to get a job somewhere.

KidStuddi wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote: But the lateral hiring is done by attorneys who have some meaningful sense of how good a firm is in an actual practice area, know the partners' reputations and quite possibly know them personally, etc. Vault is done by associates who rank based on how hard it was for them to get a job somewhere.

If only. D.C. would dominate if Vault voters gave a fuck about selectivity. Anyway, at my firm, lateral associate hiring is done by the same hiring committee that does SA hiring. Practice group reports they need more bodies, HR people engage headhunters to bring in candidates that have the desired qualifications / experience, full-round interviews work exactly like SA CBs, and committee decides. I guess other firms might do it differently and let individual practice groups do their own hiring, but if/when I have to start looking for jobs I won't be holding my breath for an industry insider with intimate knowledge of my firm's practice. Hell, the partners I work for barely even know what's going on in their own partners' practices, let alone what's happening down the street.

Anonymous User wrote:

KidStuddi wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote: But the lateral hiring is done by attorneys who have some meaningful sense of how good a firm is in an actual practice area, know the partners' reputations and quite possibly know them personally, etc. Vault is done by associates who rank based on how hard it was for them to get a job somewhere.

If only. D.C. would dominate if Vault voters gave a fuck about selectivity. Anyway, at my firm, lateral associate hiring is done by the same hiring committee that does SA hiring. Practice group reports they need more bodies, HR people engage headhunters to bring in candidates that have the desired qualifications / experience, full-round interviews work exactly like SA CBs, and committee decides. I guess other firms might do it differently and let individual practice groups do their own hiring, but if/when I have to start looking for jobs I won't be holding my breath for an industry insider with intimate knowledge of my firm's practice. Hell, the partners I work for barely even know what's going on in their own partners' practices, let alone what's happening down the street.

actually vault does have selectivity rankings (http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=35), but they are, as dixie suggested, mere impressions of how difficult an associate thought it was from their school to get a certain firm. They also inexplicably exclude nearly all the litigation boutiques (call Irell what you may)

KidStuddi wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote: But the lateral hiring is done by attorneys who have some meaningful sense of how good a firm is in an actual practice area, know the partners' reputations and quite possibly know them personally, etc. Vault is done by associates who rank based on how hard it was for them to get a job somewhere.

If only. D.C. would dominate if Vault voters gave a fuck about selectivity. Anyway, at my firm, lateral associate hiring is done by the same hiring committee that does SA hiring. Practice group reports they need more bodies, HR people engage headhunters to bring in candidates that have the desired qualifications / experience, full-round interviews work exactly like SA CBs, and committee decides. I guess other firms might do it differently and let individual practice groups do their own hiring, but if/when I have to start looking for jobs I won't be holding my breath for an industry insider with intimate knowledge of my firm's practice. Hell, the partners I work for barely even know what's going on in their own partners' practices, let alone what's happening down the street.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

KidStuddi wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote: But the lateral hiring is done by attorneys who have some meaningful sense of how good a firm is in an actual practice area, know the partners' reputations and quite possibly know them personally, etc. Vault is done by associates who rank based on how hard it was for them to get a job somewhere.

If only. D.C. would dominate if Vault voters gave a fuck about selectivity. Anyway, at my firm, lateral associate hiring is done by the same hiring committee that does SA hiring. Practice group reports they need more bodies, HR people engage headhunters to bring in candidates that have the desired qualifications / experience, full-round interviews work exactly like SA CBs, and committee decides. I guess other firms might do it differently and let individual practice groups do their own hiring, but if/when I have to start looking for jobs I won't be holding my breath for an industry insider with intimate knowledge of my firm's practice. Hell, the partners I work for barely even know what's going on in their own partners' practices, let alone what's happening down the street.

Interesting perspective. I don't know much about the lateral hiring process. It seems insane for firms to do it as you describe but maybe that is SOP.

zweitbester wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

KidStuddi wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote: But the lateral hiring is done by attorneys who have some meaningful sense of how good a firm is in an actual practice area, know the partners' reputations and quite possibly know them personally, etc. Vault is done by associates who rank based on how hard it was for them to get a job somewhere.

If only. D.C. would dominate if Vault voters gave a fuck about selectivity. Anyway, at my firm, lateral associate hiring is done by the same hiring committee that does SA hiring. Practice group reports they need more bodies, HR people engage headhunters to bring in candidates that have the desired qualifications / experience, full-round interviews work exactly like SA CBs, and committee decides. I guess other firms might do it differently and let individual practice groups do their own hiring, but if/when I have to start looking for jobs I won't be holding my breath for an industry insider with intimate knowledge of my firm's practice. Hell, the partners I work for barely even know what's going on in their own partners' practices, let alone what's happening down the street.

Interesting perspective. I don't know much about the lateral hiring process. It seems insane for firms to do it as you describe but maybe that is SOP.

Yeah, I don't know any firm that works that way (and I've done lateral interviews at many firms). Yes, HR does handle the procedural aspects of hiring, and there might be a hiring committee that needs to sign off on any ultimate decision to give an offer (which should be just a formality if the candidate is being recommended for an offer by the interviewing attorneys). Typically, when you're applying for a job, you're applying for a particular practice group. You will therefore meet with attorneys in that practice group. And yes, they all know a lot of details about your practice (usually), either because they socialize with partners in your group or they worked across from them on x deal or y case (this is especially the case if you are interviewing in the same city in which you work).