Would you chose Midlaw over Big 4? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Struck out at a T-14 but did secure a midlaw offer for an SA which I plan to accept. All that time really got me thinking about what I want to do with my life, being a lawyer at a firm sounds like something I'm going to hate (i've pretty much hated everything about law school so far including the legal practice class) and without the allure of the 160k paycheck it doesn't seem worth it to do that two-three year stint at a firm.

I have a light accounting background from undergrad and was sought after by Big 4 accounting firms during recruitment in the Tax and regulatory financial services departments. I enjoyed interwing with these companies, everyone seemed like they were learning a lot and doing very substantial work and seeing a future for themselves at the company (something I noticed wasn't common among young associates at law firms). I know nothing about whether I'm going to like the work at these places, but I'm drawn to the allure of non-legal work and expansive non legal exit options.

My concerns are

- Not working in a firm is going to make my JD useless, as I will never be able to move back into ordinary legal work, in house corporate etc

- Starting my career off in midlaw is less desirable than starting my career off at a top accounting firm. I feel like not starting in biglaw is going to forever tag me as "second best" despite my school and my decent grades, which seems like it's not worth it.


The starting salary at both these places is the same so that is not a factor here. Does anyone have any thoughts?

[orangecup]

I don't know anything about this topic, but you might find this thread helpful: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=254516

[HangingAround]

Struck out at a T-14 but did secure a midlaw offer for an SA which I plan to accept. All that time really got me thinking about what I want to do with my life, being a lawyer at a firm sounds like something I'm going to hate (i've pretty much hated everything about law school so far including the legal practice class) and without the allure of the 160k paycheck it doesn't seem worth it to do that two-three year stint at a firm.

I have a light accounting background from undergrad and was sought after by Big 4 accounting firms during recruitment in the Tax and regulatory financial services departments. I enjoyed interwing with these companies, everyone seemed like they were learning a lot and doing very substantial work and seeing a future for themselves at the company (something I noticed wasn't common among young associates at law firms). I know nothing about whether I'm going to like the work at these places, but I'm drawn to the allure of non-legal work and expansive non legal exit options.

My concerns are

- Not working in a firm is going to make my JD useless, as I will never be able to move back into ordinary legal work, in house corporate etc

- Starting my career off in midlaw is less desirable than starting my career off at a top accounting firm. I feel like not starting in biglaw is going to forever tag me as "second best" despite my school and my decent grades, which seems like it's not worth it.


The starting salary at both these places is the same so that is not a factor here. Does anyone have any thoughts?

I can't really speak to you not liking law but I don't think midlaw is a terrible outcome. People generally don't do it because it's not available in any significant number, but the opportunity to do it, make a good amount of money, live in a lower cost area (perhaps), and have less demanding clients and generally less demanding hours is appealing, at least to me. I think if given the opportunity many would choose it over biglaw. It should still have what like a 100k salary and hopefully isn't in the major markets that make 160k feel like nothing anyways. Some people will try and tell you they work the same hours as biglaw for less salary, which may be true for some areas, but certainly isn't across the board from speaking to family/friends working in midlaw.

No one outside of the law is going to know or really care that you aren't in biglaw. The biglaw people themselves will probably be somewhat jealous assuming your gig gives you more of a semblance of a life.

I, for one, would love to go straight into midlaw if I didn't make that obvious enough.

[lavarman84]

My concerns are

- Not working in a firm is going to make my JD useless, as I will never be able to move back into ordinary legal work, in house corporate etc

- Starting my career off in midlaw is less desirable than starting my career off at a top accounting firm. I feel like not starting in biglaw is going to forever tag me as "second best" despite my school and my decent grades, which seems like it's not worth it.


The starting salary at both these places is the same so that is not a factor here. Does anyone have any thoughts?

People are way too hung up on prestige.

[Dafaq]

If the choice is between midlaw and biglaw in the same market, always choose biglaw. Usually pays a third more (on up) and the hours are normally the same. Lateraling is certainly much easier, whereas, often a near zero chance with a midlaw firm. I do not see any advantage of taking midlaw over BL. None.

[Anonymous User]

If the choice is between midlaw and biglaw in the same market, always choose biglaw. Usually pays a third more (on up) and the hours are normally the same. Lateraling is certainly much easier, whereas, often a near zero chance with a midlaw firm. I do not see any advantage of taking midlaw over BL. None.

Talking about Big4 acct, not Biglaw...but you just gave me a bunch of reasons not to pick midlaw.

People are way too hung up on prestige.

Well that's my concern, that people hung up on prestige are going to look unfavorably at this when I'm looking for my next job/in the future in general.

[jbagelboy]

If the choice is between midlaw and biglaw in the same market, always choose biglaw. Usually pays a third more (on up) and the hours are normally the same. Lateraling is certainly much easier, whereas, often a near zero chance with a midlaw firm. I do not see any advantage of taking midlaw over BL. None.

Talking about Big4 acct, not Biglaw...but you just gave me a bunch of reasons not to pick midlaw.

People are way too hung up on prestige.

Well that's my concern, that people hung up on prestige are going to look unfavorably at this when I'm looking for my next job/in the future in general.

I don't think of a tax analyst or actuary at pricewaterhouse or whatever as prestigious. I doubt others look at that and are particularly impressed either, at least relative to a law firm or other service firm (I mean, except to the extent being employed at all in a profession is impressive as a baseline ITE). I'd go where you think you'd like the work most and not worry about a label.

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to chime in to say that plenty of people, myself included, take midlaw over biglaw offers. Depending on the firm, a midlaw gig can offer a lot of benefits that you're unlikely to get in biglaw. A few of benefits that I was seeking:
- improved partnership prospects
- lower leverage ratio, translating to more substantive work and better mentorship prospects
- less severe up-or-out model
- opportunity to build relationships with the people that run the firm (positive implications for career advancement, job security, skill development, work-life balance)
- you're not as easy to replace (firm doesn't have policy of hiring 50 first-years every year and may have low success rate with laterals), which encourages the firm to invest in you

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to chime in to say that plenty of people, myself included, take midlaw over biglaw offers. Depending on the firm, a midlaw gig can offer a lot of benefits that you're unlikely to get in biglaw. A few of benefits that I was seeking:

- improved partnership prospects... POSSIBLY TRUE....Difference is BL partnership translates to MUCH bigger bucks!
- lower leverage ratio, translating to more substantive work and better mentorship prospects... BL offers more substantive work. Mentorship depends soley on Partners you work with.
- less severe up-or-out model... this is not particularly true.
- opportunity to build relationships with the people that run the firm (positive implications for career
advancement, job security, skill development, work-life balance).... Most of that is IFY or simply not particularly true.
- you're not as easy to replace (firm doesn't have policy of hiring 50 first-years every year and may have low success rate with laterals), which encourages the firm to invest in you

.... More oftentimes job security is connected to the volume of business. When midlaw runs into problems there are usually no mega blue chip clients to make up the slack.

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to chime in to say that plenty of people, myself included, take midlaw over biglaw offers. Depending on the firm, a midlaw gig can offer a lot of benefits that you're unlikely to get in biglaw. A few of benefits that I was seeking:

- improved partnership prospects... POSSIBLY TRUE....Difference is BL partnership translates to MUCH bigger bucks!
- lower leverage ratio, translating to more substantive work and better mentorship prospects... BL offers more substantive work. Mentorship depends soley on Partners you work with.
- less severe up-or-out model... this is not particularly true.
- opportunity to build relationships with the people that run the firm (positive implications for career
advancement, job security, skill development, work-life balance).... Most of that is IFY or simply not particularly true.
- you're not as easy to replace (firm doesn't have policy of hiring 50 first-years every year and may have low success rate with laterals), which encourages the firm to invest in you

.... More oftentimes job security is connected to the volume of business. When midlaw runs into problems there are no blue chip clients to make up the slack.

Anon from above. YMMV -- all of above is firm-specific. Just wanted to say that some people choose midlaw over biglaw since OP seemed concerned that taking a midlaw job would expose him as not good enough for biglaw.

[los blancos]

If the choice is between midlaw and biglaw in the same market, always choose biglaw. Usually pays a third more (on up) and the hours are normally the same. Lateraling is certainly much easier, whereas, often a near zero chance with a midlaw firm. I do not see any advantage of taking midlaw over BL. None.

This is a bad post.

[desola]

If the choice is between midlaw and biglaw in the same market, always choose biglaw. Usually pays a third more (on up) and the hours are normally the same. Lateraling is certainly much easier, whereas, often a near zero chance with a midlaw firm. I do not see any advantage of taking midlaw over BL. None.

Haha such a stupid post.

not all firms are created equal. If you were choosing between a top midlaw firm (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... p?t=246293), that would certainly be a better option than a kasowitz/stroock/bryan cave etc

Also, while lateralling is certainly more difficult from midlaw, exit options from a top midlaw firm will be strong.

Lastly anyone who chooses a biglaw firm with no strength in their preferred practice area over a midlaw firm with strength in that area is an idiot.

[Clemenceau]

OP is talking about midlaw vs. ACCOUNTING, not biglaw

[JusticeJackson]

.

[Anonymous User]

If the choice is between midlaw and biglaw in the same market, always choose biglaw. Usually pays a third more (on up) and the hours are normally the same. Lateraling is certainly much easier, whereas, often a near zero chance with a midlaw firm. I do not see any advantage of taking midlaw over BL. None.

If you are in litigation, this doesn't seem true at all. I think the appeal of working on a case with 2-8 other attorneys as opposed to 10x that number should speak for itself. In my market, associates at the firm I'm joining (25-50 attorneys, biglaw hours, little over 1/2 of biglaw pay) regularly take depositions, speak at hearings, write dispositive motions, and have lots of client contact. Also, 1 in 2 associates make partner.

People say the downside of lit is the exit options (more lit). So it seems like in biglaw, you get maybe an extra 300k (if you stay 4 years). Midlaw you'll maybe still work your ass off, but it may be more tolerable because you are doing less rote work. And the better partnership prospects.

[Anonymous User]

OP: I was highly rated in a big4 tax dept and I GTFO to go to law school.

That should tell you just how shitty big4 is.

[twenty 8]

Some midlaw firms are obviously much better than other ML firms. I have really never understood the parameters of what qualifies as ML.

I would think it is… firms pays for Barbri, state fees, full health and life insurance, matching 401k, garage parking (if downtown), billables under 2000, initial 2 weeks vacation (increases over time), pays all costs if you are transferred to a satellite market (even if you request transfer) promptly repays travel costs including 4 star (or good 3 star) hotels, fly business class (or better), approaches market bonuses and salary is at least 80% of market. If through no fault of yours (bad/soft market) cuts are made, you are provided 2 (or 3) month notice.

[jbagelboy]

Some midlaw firms are obviously much better than other ML firms. I have really never understood the parameters of what qualifies as ML.

I would think it is… firms pays for Barbri, state fees, full health and life insurance, matching 401k, garage parking (if downtown), billables under 2000, initial 2 weeks vacation (increases over time), pays all costs if you are transferred to a satellite market (even if you request transfer) promptly repays travel costs including 4 star (or good 3 star) hotels, fly business class (or better), approaches market bonuses and salary is at least 80% of market. If through no fault of yours (bad/soft market) cuts are made, you are provided 2 (or 3) month notice.

Just curious--do junior associates at the most elite large firms even fly business class when traveling for the firm? That would surprise me. It would surprise me more if a smaller firm provided this.

[Anonymous User]

Some midlaw firms are obviously much better than other ML firms. I have really never understood the parameters of what qualifies as ML.

I would think it is… firms pays for Barbri, state fees, full health and life insurance, matching 401k, garage parking (if downtown), billables under 2000, initial 2 weeks vacation (increases over time), pays all costs if you are transferred to a satellite market (even if you request transfer) promptly repays travel costs including 4 star (or good 3 star) hotels, fly business class (or better), approaches market bonuses and salary is at least 80% of market. If through no fault of yours (bad/soft market) cuts are made, you are provided 2 (or 3) month notice.

Sounds about right (though I'm unsure of the business class part). I would also add biglaw style recruiting (summer associates paid as first year associates, high offer rates v. "law clerks" paid hourly during school year and summer and then maybe hired).

Probably a difference between midlaw in cities that have biglaw and cities that don't.

[twenty 8]

Just curious--do junior associates at the most elite large firms even fly business class when traveling for the firm? That would surprise me. It would surprise me more if a smaller firm provided this.

I’ve only been called out of state twice and it wasn’t first class, but the seating was comfortable enough, so possibly it was some level of business class. The firm makes all the travel arrangements on their card (guess they figured out the benefit of reward points).

On each flight the plane was HUGE. I wasn’t sardined in, so no idea of the classification.

[Anonymous User]

I would appreciate it if we kept on topic since I am not choosing between midlaw and biglaw.

OP: I was highly rated in a big4 tax dept and I GTFO to go to law school.

That should tell you just how shitty big4 is.

Can you expand on that? I'm not so set on building a career in big4 as much as I think it will open doors to other, non legal areas that firm jobs wouldn't.

I feel like with law in the private sector you either do firm life or in house life and those are pretty much your options.

[Anonymous User]

Also, can anyone talk about midlaw exit options?

[BizBro]

Biggest question: do you not want to practice law in the foreseeable future? I

By Big 4 do you mean the tax dept at big 4 and coming in as a senior assosciate ($~100k in NYC)? I hear these guys get to do interesting tax work (more writing / examining issues) v. regular non JD tax staff that do more compliance work. I'm not sure what they exit out to besides in-house tax at f500 company?

If you mean some other consultant / audit role, you might be able to exit out into strategy for the former, and accounting/finance at f500 for the latter.

[Anonymous User]

I would appreciate it if we kept on topic since I am not choosing between midlaw and biglaw.

OP: I was highly rated in a big4 tax dept and I GTFO to go to law school.

That should tell you just how shitty big4 is.

Can you expand on that? I'm not so set on building a career in big4 as much as I think it will open doors to other, non legal areas that firm jobs wouldn't.

I feel like with law in the private sector you either do firm life or in house life and those are pretty much your options.

It really depends on what you are interviewing for. If you are interviewing for stuff like M&A TAS or, to a lesser extent, international big4 can provide ok pay for ok work life balance (M&A pays more but their work life balance blows).

If you are getting slotted into SALT, Fed Tax, or T&E/Indiv., Then your life will be terrible. lower pay (prob 5-10%), but way more work and a lot less exciting at that (you WILL have to fill out tax forms in these services, not matter how much bullshit they feed you about how you can "only do consulting").

I have no idea how regulatory is because I never interacted with them.

I've seen a couple JDs lateral to biglaw so it's not like that opportunity is lost to you forever, but you really shouldn't count on it. Exit ops to industry are abundant, but starting in tax is sort of like starting in law - you're a tax guy forever. That being said, being a tax guy isn't all bad. After about 4-6 years, the work starts getting more interesting. Just don't expect to be exiting into a internal FP&A position or trying to lateral to a bank. Those jobs are reserved for the audit bros.

ETA: i was in one of the above shitty service lines.

[Anonymous User]

Biggest question: do you not want to practice law in the foreseeable future?

Nothing about the law appeals to me. I'm willing to do it (because I haven't really found that thing that does appeal to me), but I'm more than happy to drop it like a hot potato and do something else.

My initial plan was, had I gotten a biglaw job I would have done it for 2-3 years and then tried to go in-house if I liked it or gone to get my MBA and done something different. Now it looks like in-house won't be an option out of midlaw, so I'm limiting myself to either loving it and stay in firm life (doubtful) or definitely going to get another degree.

By Big 4 do you mean the tax dept at big 4 and coming in as a senior assosciate ($~100k in NYC)?

Yes those are the jobs I'm talking about (I believe they are also available in regulatory and a few other fields) but they are JD jobs.