HYS, T6 or UW for Seattle Law Forum

[Blessedassurance]

I guess I don't associate "well known" with "prestige." In San Francisco, for example, Orrick has a much larger presence than Munger, but few (if any) SF lawyers consider the former more "prestigious."

Really? The only real industry "prestige" marker we have disagrees with this assessment of bay area prestige for these firms: http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=10. And since vault is the composite of the opinions of "SF" lawyers, evidently many find the opposite.

My impression was also that Orrick carries a little extra cache for some companies since its the oldest firm in san francisco by a stretch.

he's wrong but that vault list is pretty useless...

but even the vault list puts perkins on top for the pnw (note how susman is missing from the list. i'm pretty serious when i say a shitton of lawyers in seattle have no idea susman has an office in seattle):

http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=11

again, this list is misleading and dla piper is damn sure not more prestigious than dorsey and fenwick in seattle. it's fucking dla piper. just lol.

the legal profession is full of garbage rankings. there are publications and various "markers of prestige" that will accommodate you for a fee.

[PDaddy]

Ruby and it's not remotely close. Hamilton and Ruby are perhaps the best possible scenario in all situations other than maybe Yale. If you get Yale go with it but otherwise take the Ruby & enjoy ChiTown!

Chicago is a no-brainer for me. Otherwise you should go to Stanford. Chicago can open all of the doors you need, though Stanford would be ideal if the money was there.

The UW-Seattle Law School sucks anyways. Every other school within that university is fantastic, but the law school is boring and overrated. The faculty and staff are arrogant, snotty and rude.

The UW? Great university...beautiful campus...awesome city. The only thing that DOES suck is the law school.

[drawstring]

Ruby

[El Principe]

Probably not the first person to point this out, but in no way does 21K/year from Stanford equal 125-150,000 in loans.

[aboutmydaylight]

Yea OP you're going to need about $35k a year to even have a shot at Stanford with 150k debt at graduation.

[rpupkin]

I guess I don't associate "well known" with "prestige." In San Francisco, for example, Orrick has a much larger presence than Munger, but few (if any) SF lawyers consider the former more "prestigious."

Really? The only real industry "prestige" marker we have disagrees with this assessment of bay area prestige for these firms: http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=10. And since vault is the composite of the opinions of "SF" lawyers, evidently many find the opposite.

My impression was also that Orrick carries a little extra cache for some companies since its the oldest firm in san francisco by a stretch.

That could be true for transactional work (though I wouldn't know). But for litigation, Orrick is not among the top five firms in SF. (Nor is Wilson Sonsini, which is ranked second on that list.)

When you're talking about west-coast litigation, the Sussman/Keker/MTO tier is a cut above. Orrick, for example, will hire Boalt students with median grades, while those "elite/prestigious" litigation firms generally require top 10% grades and/or an A3 clerkship.

[bhanson10]

Ruby is TCR

[Blessedassurance]

I guess I don't associate "well known" with "prestige." In San Francisco, for example, Orrick has a much larger presence than Munger, but few (if any) SF lawyers consider the former more "prestigious."

Really? The only real industry "prestige" marker we have disagrees with this assessment of bay area prestige for these firms: http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=10. And since vault is the composite of the opinions of "SF" lawyers, evidently many find the opposite.

My impression was also that Orrick carries a little extra cache for some companies since its the oldest firm in san francisco by a stretch.

That could be true for transactional work (though I wouldn't know). But for litigation, Orrick is not among the top five firms in SF. (Nor is Wilson Sonsini, which is ranked second on that list.)

When you're talking about west-coast litigation, the Sussman/Keker/MTO tier is a cut above. Orrick, for example, will hire Boalt students with median grades, while those "elite/prestigious" litigation firms generally require top 10% grades and/or an A3 clerkship.

dude, susman is "prestigious," (what does this even mean?) but it's a texas thing, you can't throw their name in any market just because they have an office there. there are a total of 12 lawyers in susman's LA office...

[rayiner]

I'm using the word "elite" in the context of earning potential, not prestige (which is a stupid lawyer fixation). Susman is elite because it pays fat bonuses.

by that metric perkins wouldn't even be in the top five (maybe more) of the "elite" firms in seattle, which is laughable. there are many firms that pay more than perkins in seattle (from 4-5k more to the 160k-satellites etc.).

if all one wanted was more money, seattle would be the wrong city to be aiming for.

You're totally ignoring the context of my post.

ABL contended that SLS was worth all the extra debt, because of the potential for getting a clerkship and because "one's earning potential at a school like SLS is through the roof."

My point is that the career trajectories for clerks are usually not that different from those with good grades at a good law school. There are a handful of firms, like Susman or Munger, that hire almost exclusively people who have clerked, and then pay them more money or offer much better partnership prospects. A good shot at one of those firms might justify the extra debt, but no school offers a good prospect at those firms. This is especially true in Seattle, where Susman is the only firm that pays above-NY-market and focuses heavily on clerkships. Perkins might be a locally elite firm, but you certainly don't need to be a federal clerk to get a job there. An SLS student who targets Seattle post-clerkship is overwhelmingly likely to end up in the same career track as a grad from a different school that never had a shot at a clerkship.

[Blessedassurance]

I'm using the word "elite" in the context of earning potential, not prestige (which is a stupid lawyer fixation). Susman is elite because it pays fat bonuses.

by that metric perkins wouldn't even be in the top five (maybe more) of the "elite" firms in seattle, which is laughable. there are many firms that pay more than perkins in seattle (from 4-5k more to the 160k-satellites etc.).

if all one wanted was more money, seattle would be the wrong city to be aiming for.

You're totally ignoring the context of my post.

ABL contended that SLS was worth all the extra debt, because of the potential for getting a clerkship and because "one's earning potential at a school like SLS is through the roof."

My point is that the career trajectories for clerks are usually not that different from those with good grades at a good law school. There are a handful of firms, like Susman or Munger, that hire almost exclusively people who have clerked, and then pay them more money or offer much better partnership prospects. A good shot at one of those firms might justify the extra debt, but no school offers a good prospect at those firms. This is especially true in Seattle, where Susman is the only firm that pays above-NY-market and focuses heavily on clerkships. Perkins might be a locally elite firm, but you certainly don't need to be a federal clerk to get a job there. An SLS student who targets Seattle post-clerkship is overwhelmingly likely to end up in the same career track as a grad from a different school that never had a shot at a clerkship.

i agree.

[tictactoe]

Thanks for all the feedback!

Does anyone have any view on how Seattle firms would view these different schools?

I don't think you'll have a problem at any of the schools. Though I can't comment about clerking.

I'm going from lower T14 to Seattle with significantly less ties. But once they believed I had a legitimate reason for wanting to move there, I didn't find my school to be a problem. I did do more legwork because most regional/midlaw firms in the area don't come to OCI. It's a little scary betting on a tiny market, but fewer loans + national reach (just in case Seattle doesn't work out) is a safer bet anyway.

One of the recruiters in Seattle mentioned other schools where they had offers out - and it was a surprisingly good representation of T14 schools.

[Blessedassurance]

Thanks for all the feedback!

Does anyone have any view on how Seattle firms would view these different schools?

I don't think you'll have a problem at any of the schools. Though I can't comment about clerking.

I'm going from lower T14 to Seattle with significantly less ties. But once they believed I had a legitimate reason for wanting to move there, I didn't find my school to be a problem. I did do more legwork because most regional/midlaw firms in the area don't come to OCI. It's a little scary betting on a tiny market, but fewer loans + national reach (just in case Seattle doesn't work out) is a safer bet anyway.

One of the recruiters in Seattle mentioned other schools where they had offers out - and it was a surprisingly good representation of T14 schools.

you beat out several people with stronger ties from higher ranked schools for the job. the ties thing is important but overstated on these boards w/r/t seattle (especially for ip people). hiring in seattle can best be described as "random"...it's just that most people who strike out in seattle blame it on insufficient ties or whatever. the fact of the matter is that it's a really small market and the people making hiring decisions choose on whatever metrics they want. your resume could be thrown into the trash at one place and viewed very favorably at another place. it's all random and there's no way to predict beforehand. it's all over the place, really. it's scary how small the SA market in Seattle is. Perkins hasn't provided it's numbers for 2014 but it took 10 2L's last summer (3 of whom were returning 1L's)....fenwick is taking 2 summers for 2014, foster pepper is taking 1, dorsey is taking 2, as is wsgr, stoel rives is taking 1, orrick is taking none. you get the point. there are literally less than 30 desirable spots. anyone betting on seattle should consider these odds.

https://www.nalpdirectory.com/Page.cfm?PageID=34

op, click on the firms on the list, then click on "recruitment & hiring," then click on "hiring grid," and look under "summer"...it should give you an idea. dwt and k&l gates are missing from the linked list...

[tictactoe]

you beat out several people with stronger ties from higher ranked schools for the job. the ties thing is important but overstated on these boards w/r/t seattle (especially for ip people). hiring in seattle can best be described as "random"...it's just that most people who strike out in seattle blame it on insufficient ties or whatever. the fact of the matter is that it's a really small market and the people making hiring decisions choose on whatever metrics they want. your resume could be thrown into the trash at one place and viewed very favorably at another place. it's all random and there's no way to predict beforehand. it's all over the place, really. it's scary how small the SA market in Seattle is. Perkins hasn't provided it's numbers for 2014 but it took 10 2L's last summer (3 of whom were returning 1L's)....fenwick is taking 2 summers for 2014, foster pepper is taking 1, dorsey is taking 2, as is wsgr, stoel rives is taking 1, orrick is taking none. you get the point. there are literally less than 30 desirable spots. anyone betting on seattle should consider these odds.

https://www.nalpdirectory.com/Page.cfm?PageID=34

op, click on the firms on the list, then click on "recruitment & hiring," then click on "hiring grid," and look under "summer"...it should give you an idea. dwt and k&l gates are missing from the linked list...

I agree, and I probably could have said something other than "you won't have a problem." I meant that it's a tough market to crack, but not any tougher by going to a T14/non-local school. And addressing the question about how firms would view the different schools.

I considered UW, but my school gave me a better shot at larger markets (including my home market) that I would not have gotten at UW. I figured that if Seattle didn't work out, I'd rather have a job I liked somewhere that could ultimately get me to Seattle.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[mac2013]

Yea OP you're going to need about $35k a year to even have a shot at Stanford with 150k debt at graduation.

Yea. My estimated living expenses are lower than Stanford estimates because I will live with my SO and share living expenses. Plus parents are contributing a little bit.