Minnesota Firms Forum

[secadc11]

Can anyone comment on the following firms in Minneapolis/Saint Paul? QOL, reputation, stability of the firm, where they stand in regard to Faegre/Dorsey, etc. Really anything; trying to get a feel.

Lindquist & Vennum
Fredrikson & Byron
Robins Kaplan
Stinson Leonard Street

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone comment on the following firms in Minneapolis/Saint Paul? QOL, reputation, stability of the firm, where they stand in regard to Faegre/Dorsey, etc. Really anything; trying to get a feel.

Lindquist & Vennum
Fredrikson & Byron
Robins Kaplan
Stinson Leonard Street

Let me start by saying I have never worked at these four firms and so only have an outsiders' view. Take all of this (and whatever else any random internet commenters or law students tell you) with an appropriate degree of skepticism and don't be afraid to check out this firms and get a sense for yourself.

Second off, can you say anything about your background? Are you a law student or a practicing lawyer looking to make a move (either locally or from another market)? Do you have a practice area you are looking at? Are you looking at someplace to possibly make a career or are you sure you want to put in a few years at a firm and do something else? This will all influence what you would want to know.

With all of that said, taking your list in order:

• Lindquist is the smallest of the firms you note, and the one probably most focused on local (rather than regional/national/international) work. They have a good reputation and seem to have a decent quality of life. I know they were looking at a potential merger with Oppenheimer recently (before conflicts derailed it and Oppenheimer instead was merged into Fox Rothschild). I would not call it unstable but of the firms you list, it is the one I could most easily imagine undergoing some sort of transformation. Right now, I sense it is probably slightly easier to make partner at Lindquist than at the other firms.
• Fredrikson is a good firm. If you are interested in private equity transactions, they seem to have had a lot of success with that work recently. Do not buy Fredrikssn's claims that they have a better quality of life than other large local firms. This is just spin. They have a lower target than some firms, but don't really give you full credit for pro bono like other firms do. And they publicize everyone's hours so it becomes a sort of race to bottom environment where peer pressure forces everyone to constantly bill more. The end result is somewhere between comparable with other large local law firms to a sweatshop.
• Robins Kaplan is a litigation-only firm. For that reason, I'd avoid them if you are interested in anything other than litigation (or are unsure of your interests). But if you are interested in litigation, including plaintiffs side class action litigation as well as business litigation, then it is a very well regarded firm and is on par with Faegre or Dorsey. They have a reputation for giving associates a lot of quality training and development opportunities (although I'm not sure how much of that is just their spin). The flip side is that they have a reputation of being a bit of a sweatshop with long hours and tough QOL (although frankly I suspect some of that is just inherent in having responsibility on interesting, sophisticated matters). They recently lost two of their name partners (and big rainmakers), who split off to a new firm. I am not sure how that has affected the firm but haven't heard anything terribly negative. They closed one of their small offices (Atlanta) recently but have still been investing in other expansion (new California office).
• On Stinson - my understanding is that the old Leonard Street's combination with Stinson (a Kansas City based firm) has really been handled more as an acquisition of LSD by Stinson rather than as a merger of equals. The combination has given their Minneapolis attorneys a bigger platform and I understand has enabled them to give higher partner compensation to some of their partners. I had always heard pretty good things about Leonard Street but I have more recently heard people dissatisfied with the loss of LSD culture, the relegation to a perceived status as second-class citizens under the Kansas City management, and a shift to a little colder more sweatshop-y model. I'm not too concerned about the stability of the overall firm, but I do worry about the success of their merger integration. This could very easily be sour grapes from just a few people that are afraid of change, so I'd take it with big grain of salt, but if you are looking seriously at them I would press them on these questions. In any event, I would not look at them as a "high-QOL" option.

As for how all these firms compare with Faegre and Dorsey:

• These are all good firms. But with the exception of Robins, the firms listed above are all smaller, generally less-profitable, and less well regarded than Faegre and Dorsey. As a result, I think their marketing pitch for talent often focuses on distinguishing themselves from Faegre and Dorsey. Unfortunately, I think they often do so in a very dishonest way by trying to spin the bigger, more profitable, and better regarded firms as "sweatshops" and themselves as an alternative where you can do the same quality of work with a better quality of life and easier partnership standards. Do not buy this spin.
• Faegre, Robins (in litigation) and Dorsey (to a lesser extent these days) really do have more sophisticated work and more national work than the firms you note above. That's not to say the other firms don't do good work -- they do. It's just comparatively less sophisticated and more local.
• Faegre, Robins and Dorsey more effectively utilize leverage than Lindquist and to a lesser extent Stinson and Fredrikson. That means the bigger firms push down more responsibility to younger lawyers earlier in their careers (good for the partners, since they get to profit off associates time, but even better for the associates who are getting real responsibility). I sometimes here firms that are partner-heavy try to suggest this is better for associates -- it isn't. It means the partners hoard the substantive work and there isn't that much to push down to associates.
• The quality of life at local firms is pretty similar and varies much more based on your individual priorities, your practice area, and the level of responsibility you are getting rather than the firm you are at. Lindquist might be a little better than the rest, but that is largely just because they don't have as much demanding work rather than a conscious decision to have a good work-life balance. Otherwise, I think you should consider Dorsey, Faegre, Robins, Stinson and Fredrikson as pretty comparable on the quality of life front. (Again, I think Fredrikson is the worst offender at pretending to have a better work-life balance. Don't buy it!)
• One last thought for what it is worth... you seem to lump "Faegre and Dorsey" together as one category which made sense 5-10 years ago but probably doesn't make sense today. Dorsey is a great firm with great lawyers, a strong reputation, solid community roots, good work, etc... but they have shrunken and are now fourth or fifth by number of lawyers in MN. They seem to be transforming into a more local firm, although they also have seriously explored merger talks. I think they are in a different category than Faegre now.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone offer any advice on Larkin Hoffman?

Reputation, stability, pay, summer programs, really anything to get a better feel.

[secadc11]

Can anyone comment on the following firms in Minneapolis/Saint Paul? QOL, reputation, stability of the firm, where they stand in regard to Faegre/Dorsey, etc. Really anything; trying to get a feel.

Lindquist & Vennum
Fredrikson & Byron
Robins Kaplan
Stinson Leonard Street

Let me start by saying I have never worked at these four firms and so only have an outsiders' view. Take all of this (and whatever else any random internet commenters or law students tell you) with an appropriate degree of skepticism and don't be afraid to check out this firms and get a sense for yourself.

Second off, can you say anything about your background? Are you a law student or a practicing lawyer looking to make a move (either locally or from another market)? Do you have a practice area you are looking at? Are you looking at someplace to possibly make a career or are you sure you want to put in a few years at a firm and do something else? This will all influence what you would want to know.

With all of that said, taking your list in order:

• Lindquist is the smallest of the firms you note, and the one probably most focused on local (rather than regional/national/international) work. They have a good reputation and seem to have a decent quality of life. I know they were looking at a potential merger with Oppenheimer recently (before conflicts derailed it and Oppenheimer instead was merged into Fox Rothschild). I would not call it unstable but of the firms you list, it is the one I could most easily imagine undergoing some sort of transformation. Right now, I sense it is probably slightly easier to make partner at Lindquist than at the other firms.
• Fredrikson is a good firm. If you are interested in private equity transactions, they seem to have had a lot of success with that work recently. Do not buy Fredrikssn's claims that they have a better quality of life than other large local firms. This is just spin. They have a lower target than some firms, but don't really give you full credit for pro bono like other firms do. And they publicize everyone's hours so it becomes a sort of race to bottom environment where peer pressure forces everyone to constantly bill more. The end result is somewhere between comparable with other large local law firms to a sweatshop.
• Robins Kaplan is a litigation-only firm. For that reason, I'd avoid them if you are interested in anything other than litigation (or are unsure of your interests). But if you are interested in litigation, including plaintiffs side class action litigation as well as business litigation, then it is a very well regarded firm and is on par with Faegre or Dorsey. They have a reputation for giving associates a lot of quality training and development opportunities (although I'm not sure how much of that is just their spin). The flip side is that they have a reputation of being a bit of a sweatshop with long hours and tough QOL (although frankly I suspect some of that is just inherent in having responsibility on interesting, sophisticated matters). They recently lost two of their name partners (and big rainmakers), who split off to a new firm. I am not sure how that has affected the firm but haven't heard anything terribly negative. They closed one of their small offices (Atlanta) recently but have still been investing in other expansion (new California office).
• On Stinson - my understanding is that the old Leonard Street's combination with Stinson (a Kansas City based firm) has really been handled more as an acquisition of LSD by Stinson rather than as a merger of equals. The combination has given their Minneapolis attorneys a bigger platform and I understand has enabled them to give higher partner compensation to some of their partners. I had always heard pretty good things about Leonard Street but I have more recently heard people dissatisfied with the loss of LSD culture, the relegation to a perceived status as second-class citizens under the Kansas City management, and a shift to a little colder more sweatshop-y model. I'm not too concerned about the stability of the overall firm, but I do worry about the success of their merger integration. This could very easily be sour grapes from just a few people that are afraid of change, so I'd take it with big grain of salt, but if you are looking seriously at them I would press them on these questions. In any event, I would not look at them as a "high-QOL" option.

As for how all these firms compare with Faegre and Dorsey:

• These are all good firms. But with the exception of Robins, the firms listed above are all smaller, generally less-profitable, and less well regarded than Faegre and Dorsey. As a result, I think their marketing pitch for talent often focuses on distinguishing themselves from Faegre and Dorsey. Unfortunately, I think they often do so in a very dishonest way by trying to spin the bigger, more profitable, and better regarded firms as "sweatshops" and themselves as an alternative where you can do the same quality of work with a better quality of life and easier partnership standards. Do not buy this spin.
• Faegre, Robins (in litigation) and Dorsey (to a lesser extent these days) really do have more sophisticated work and more national work than the firms you note above. That's not to say the other firms don't do good work -- they do. It's just comparatively less sophisticated and more local.
• Faegre, Robins and Dorsey more effectively utilize leverage than Lindquist and to a lesser extent Stinson and Fredrikson. That means the bigger firms push down more responsibility to younger lawyers earlier in their careers (good for the partners, since they get to profit off associates time, but even better for the associates who are getting real responsibility). I sometimes here firms that are partner-heavy try to suggest this is better for associates -- it isn't. It means the partners hoard the substantive work and there isn't that much to push down to associates.
• The quality of life at local firms is pretty similar and varies much more based on your individual priorities, your practice area, and the level of responsibility you are getting rather than the firm you are at. Lindquist might be a little better than the rest, but that is largely just because they don't have as much demanding work rather than a conscious decision to have a good work-life balance. Otherwise, I think you should consider Dorsey, Faegre, Robins, Stinson and Fredrikson as pretty comparable on the quality of life front. (Again, I think Fredrikson is the worst offender at pretending to have a better work-life balance. Don't buy it!)
• One last thought for what it is worth... you seem to lump "Faegre and Dorsey" together as one category which made sense 5-10 years ago but probably doesn't make sense today. Dorsey is a great firm with great lawyers, a strong reputation, solid community roots, good work, etc... but they have shrunken and are now fourth or fifth by number of lawyers in MN. They seem to be transforming into a more local firm, although they also have seriously explored merger talks. I think they are in a different category than Faegre now.

Thanks a lot for all this info. Really good stuff. Please PM me if you'd be open to talking more.

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on Briggs and Morgan?

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on Briggs and Morgan?

I think everything said above about Lindquist more or less applies to Briggs (other than the Oppeneimer merger talks).

[MAPP]

Here is a link to Minnesota Lawyer. Some of the firms you can click on to get additional info (Larkin Hoffman, Faegre, Briggs and Morgan, etc)

http://minnlawyer.com/2014/12/15/minnes ... irms-2015/

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity... Why these four firms? Have you ruled out Faegre and Dorsey (or struck out there) already? I would definitely have both of those firms on my short list if i were looking at these types of firms.

I would also add Gray Plant and, as someone else noted, Briggs, if you are looking for general practice larger firms.

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity... Why these four firms? Have you ruled out Faegre and Dorsey (or struck out there) already? I would definitely have both of those firms on my short list if i were looking at these types of firms.

I would also add Gray Plant and, as someone else noted, Briggs, if you are looking for general practice larger firms.

Faegre, at least, is a lot more selective than the other Minnesota firms, imo. I was top 25% at my T10 coming out of OCI and did not get a callback, despite lots of interest and decent connections.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have information/anecdotes about working as a summer associate at GPM, Norton Rose Fulbright (mpls office), Larkin Hoffman, or Fredrikson? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Faegre, at least, is a lot more selective than the other Minnesota firms, imo. I was top 25% at my T10 coming out of OCI and did not get a callback, despite lots of interest and decent connections.

+1. If you look at their recent hires, they are mostly Coif from T10-25 law schools, so you'd want top 10% to be looked at, regardless of law school ranking, maybe except for HYS.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have information/anecdotes about working as a summer associate at GPM, Norton Rose Fulbright (mpls office), Larkin Hoffman, or Fredrikson? Thanks!

I was at GPM this past summer. It was pretty good. The attorneys were generally nice, and even the DC office people were nice, but much more frank. You can expect to be asked to do a lot of menial-ish tasks, like preparing a powerpoint slide so an attorney can teach a CLE on the topic, 50 state surveys, and the like. You can also expect fun interesting work if you choose, like I did a pro bono project and got to write some cool legal stuff. They have really good resources (I have not worked in any other firm, so I don't know how they compare to other firms). Associates are nice to each other, and partners are generally approachable. Associates did share that working at GPM is likely comparable to working at any other biglaw firm in terms of work hours. If you have specific questions I can answer them, but as a general overview, I can't think of much else to add.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have information/anecdotes about working as a summer associate at GPM, Norton Rose Fulbright (mpls office), Larkin Hoffman, or Fredrikson? Thanks!

I was at GPM this past summer. It was pretty good. The attorneys were generally nice, and even the DC office people were nice, but much more frank. You can expect to be asked to do a lot of menial-ish tasks, like preparing a powerpoint slide so an attorney can teach a CLE on the topic, 50 state surveys, and the like. You can also expect fun interesting work if you choose, like I did a pro bono project and got to write some cool legal stuff. They have really good resources (I have not worked in any other firm, so I don't know how they compare to other firms). Associates are nice to each other, and partners are generally approachable. Associates did share that working at GPM is likely comparable to working at any other biglaw firm in terms of work hours. If you have specific questions I can answer them, but as a general overview, I can't think of much else to add.

Thanks for the response! I ended up going with a different choice but GPM was my second choice and it was definitely a hard decision.

[Anonymous User]

So I get that QOL branding usually doesn't translate, but what's QOL like compared to major market firms? Faegre and Dorsey I can see being no different, but some of these firms have 1800 hour mins.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the response! I ended up going with a different choice but GPM was my second choice and it was definitely a hard decision.

Which did you end up going with?

[Anonymous User]

Any shot for 3L hiring at any of the top firms? Had CB's with a few top firms in the state before taking an offer from another secondary market. Any thoughts on timeline or how to position myself landing back in Minnesota?

[Anonymous User]

Any shot for 3L hiring at any of the top firms? Had CB's with a few top firms in the state before taking an offer from another secondary market. Any thoughts on timeline or how to position myself landing back in Minnesota?

As of about a week or two ago there was nothing posted for entry level. I think Dorsey or Faegre had a few lateral opportunities (2-3 years exp.) but that was about it. Wouldn't hurt to check back, though.

[Anonymous User]

Any shot for 3L hiring at any of the top firms? Had CB's with a few top firms in the state before taking an offer from another secondary market. Any thoughts on timeline or how to position myself landing back in Minnesota?

The top firms do 3L hiring selectively or to fill unexpected holes although they may not necessarily post listings. If you interviewed, do you have connections with lawyers active in recruiting at the firms who you could check in with for their suggestions about what might be available? Think an email that says something like "Dear hiring partner, I really enjoyed meeting you last year while I was interviewing for summer positions. [Anecdote from interview.]?Although I ultimately spent my summer at GreatFirm in AltMarket [(and received an offer to return there)], I am now committed to practice in Minneapolis. I am hoping you would be willing to share some insight and advice into what opportunities might be available for 3Ls at AB&C and how I might best be able to take advantage of them..."

[Anonymous User]

Any predictions on if/when any of the MN firms will raise salaries?

[Anonymous User]

^ I think they just did. A year or two, at least.

[Anonymous User]

Any predictions on if/when any of the MN firms will raise salaries?

They are raising. I've heard to $140 or $145k, but not sure of the timeline

[Anonymous User]

^ Which firms?

[Anonymous User]

^ Which firms?

I don't know for sure, but I would bet on all the major mpls players (faegre, Dorsey, robins, fredrikson, GPM, fish, Stinson, etc) and all the vault firms with offices in mpls like jones day, norton rose, and dla piper

[Anonymous User]

Interviewed with two MN firms and would like to know how much they carw about ties, and how long it takes to get CB

[Anonymous User]

Anon above. Lindquist and Fredrikson specifically.