What's going on in Texas? Forum

[Ken Kesey]

What is going on with Norton Rose? They are the only main player in Texas left that has not matched at least for first years. There is almost no way they do not match ... right? Has that firm fallen that much? I get that they are not really on the same level as VE/BB, but I thought they at least tried to pretend they are...

FYI in Texas call them "Fullbright", Norton Rose is the English firm and Fullbright and Jabrorski? was the Texas firm.

It was Fulbright & Jaworski. Unless you were bros with Leon Jaworski and called him Jabrorski.

Look, if Ken Kesey says it's Jabrorski, then it's Jabrorski. Lotta cockiness in this thread re: firm names.

Cockiness? I put a question mark after Jabroski because I thought I was incorrect. And I was correct about my incorrectness.

Edit: Also I caught some implicit flak during OCI for calling them "Norton Rose" instead of "Fulbright."

[Anonymous User]

What is going on with Norton Rose? They are the only main player in Texas left that has not matched at least for first years. There is almost no way they do not match ... right? Has that firm fallen that much? I get that they are not really on the same level as VE/BB, but I thought they at least tried to pretend they are...

FYI in Texas call them "Fullbright", Norton Rose is the English firm and Fullbright and Jabrorski? was the Texas firm.

It was Fulbright & Jaworski. Unless you were bros with Leon Jaworski and called him Jabrorski.

Look, if Ken Kesey says it's Jabrorski, then it's Jabrorski. Lotta cockiness in this thread re: firm names.

Cockiness? I put a question mark after Jabroski because I thought I was incorrect. And I was correct about my incorrectness.

Edit: Also I caught some implicit flak during OCI for calling them "Norton Rose" instead of "Fulbright."

In Texas, we call them Norton Rose. That should not be the topic here, the fact is that NRF/FJ/whatever you want to call them is dying. Thompson & Knight matched today (even though at a slightly lower scale)...they can afford to but NRF cannot?

[Anonymous User]

Just catching up on the convos on this thread, and thought this article might be helpful to those trying to understand the Houston market:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busines ... 887969.php

What do you think the future of the Texas-based firms is? Are BB/V&E especially badly placed due to their reliance on the type of big-market deals that the arriving elite firms are now doing, or will the upper-mid market firms also have problems?

[Anonymous User]

Former Texas Big 2 Midlevel here that recently left firm life.

NRF is in a tight spot. Entering this year, NRF Texas was on a significantly compressed payscale. NRF only recently (within the last two months?) matched old NYC lockstep for all associates in Texas. To now also match Cravath (even if only for first year base + back to a compressed scale for other class years) is going to be tough to absorb.

Not to derail the thread, but how does it feel to be out? Seems that most exit options in Texas right now are to other firms (K&E, Simpson, etc. all still trying to grow), if you're at one of the Texas elite corp. shops, there is no real reason to make this move.

I actually enjoy the law firm life/work. I just wish it would be a little more predictable/consistent.

Like you, I enjoyed firm work/life except for the unpredictability of the schedule. I had a really good relationship with the partners that I worked for. A firm client recruited me heavily to jump into a business role and the offer was too good to pass up. I now lead a small business unit that sources, evaluates and negotiates the deals I was working on as a lawyer. Very happy so far with the move.

My sense was that exit ops were improving over the last six months and associates were starting to leave for good in house jobs. Between January of 2014 and December of 2015, it felt like there were very few in house departures from my office.

I'm with you 100% that in most cases it doesn't make sense for associates in good standing to trade one top tier firm for another.

Yeah, it seems like no one has left at my firm for positions other than to other firms in town. Did you take a pay hit when you moved? When I read this site about in house jobs, you always hear about large pay cuts...but the few people I know who have done it in Houston usually make between 185-200+k all in comp, about where they were as an associate.

Base pay increased three class years for me with the move (under the old payscale) and all in comp will probably be low 300s (bonus will be much more variable and results driven for me).

I know people will call flame on me, but, FWIW and only speaking for myself and people I completely trust were not bullshitting me, in the past 6 months I know people left for all in comp packages that were $240k on the conservative end and could get as high as $400k depending on company performance. These tended to be jobs with financial institutions, but one person left for an industry that is generally thought of as low paying.

I've also known people that went to big financial institutions and got low $200s all in comp. A friend also turned down a financial institution that wouldn't budge past $170k all in on their offer. In house pay really seems to be company-dependent.

Thank you for this. Can the likelihood of an exit like yours (i.e. a well paying legal/business role) or another well paying in-house position like those you mentioned be maximized somehow (e.g. certain firms, practice areas, type of client, etc.)? Can you generalize on the lifestyle for these exits (hours, predictability of schedule, etc.)? Also, what would you say is the range of seniority for an exit (e.g. 2-5 years of experience)?

In no particular order:

What worked for me was specializing early on. I worked in sub specialty X of practice Y. Other associates had a better overall grip on Y as it applied to various other industries, but I knew X better in the O&G space. When my employer, a financial institution who is in industry Y wanted to expand its presence in X, I was a natural fit.

Try to hook up with new lateral partners, brand new partners or seniors that are about to make partner. Anybody who fits that bill at an elite firm is probably doing some interesting work and you can get in at ground level by becoming a go to associate for that person. There are some growing pains, but I think it is worth it. Bonus: I saw one senior with good partnership chances leave for GC at a big company and she took her most trusted mid levels with her.

If you have an opportunity to learn a complimentary practice area, do it. Those people who legit had their feet in two different practice groups seem to always do well. lots of value in house if you can intelligently converse in two different practice areas. E.g., Secured lending + Real Estate experience has great exit ops if your firm splits up the two practice groups.

As for clients, I didn't really see a hard pattern, but generally, midsize and flexible entities (like boutique financial institutions) appeared to be more likely to need someone for hybrid business/legal positions.

ETA: for me, lifestyle is 90% better, 10% worse. Better: more predictable hours, weekend work is rare, truly as needed basis, a late night for me is 7 pm and that happens once every two weeks or so, I no longer rush my lunches, I haven't missed dinner with my family due to work since I transitioned, though I expect it will eventually happen, Friday's typically end around 3:30 pm, which is huge to me. Worse: things move slower and I'm adjusting to not getting instant internal responses and approvals.

Experience: start looking as a third year, best paying exit ops seem to go to fifth years and more senior. If you aren't yet a fifth year, I would encourage you to stick around and wait for a truly great offer to leave for in house instead of just taking the first job that you're offered.

[unlicensedpotato]

What is going on with Norton Rose? They are the only main player in Texas left that has not matched at least for first years. There is almost no way they do not match ... right? Has that firm fallen that much? I get that they are not really on the same level as VE/BB, but I thought they at least tried to pretend they are...

FYI in Texas call them "Fullbright", Norton Rose is the English firm and Fullbright and Jabrorski? was the Texas firm.

It was Fulbright & Jaworski. Unless you were bros with Leon Jaworski and called him Jabrorski.

Look, if Ken Kesey says it's Jabrorski, then it's Jabrorski. Lotta cockiness in this thread re: firm names.

Cockiness? I put a question mark after Jabroski because I thought I was incorrect. And I was correct about my incorrectness.

Edit: Also I caught some implicit flak during OCI for calling them "Norton Rose" instead of "Fulbright."

It was an attempted joke about the person correcting you, because it's completely irrelevant. Although, the fact that you were interviewing for these firms and legitimately don't know that it was fulbright and jaworksi is beyond weird.

[Anonymous User]

Just catching up on the convos on this thread, and thought this article might be helpful to those trying to understand the Houston market:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busines ... 887969.php

What do you think the future of the Texas-based firms is? Are BB/V&E especially badly placed due to their reliance on the type of big-market deals that the arriving elite firms are now doing, or will the upper-mid market firms also have problems?

I'm biased as a junior associate at one of these firms, but I think BB/V&E will be the only general practice "texas-based firms" that survive this upheaval. Yes, there will be smaller firms that have lower rates, and there will be Susman etc., but I think NRF/LL/TK/AK/Bracewell will have the hardest time surviving and will probably merge with big national firms or other texas-based ones. That obviously depends though on the ability of BB/V&E to elevate themselves into international firms that happen to be based in TX.

[Anonymous User]

Just catching up on the convos on this thread, and thought this article might be helpful to those trying to understand the Houston market:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busines ... 887969.php

What do you think the future of the Texas-based firms is? Are BB/V&E especially badly placed due to their reliance on the type of big-market deals that the arriving elite firms are now doing, or will the upper-mid market firms also have problems?

I'm biased as a junior associate at one of these firms, but I think BB/V&E will be the only general practice "texas-based firms" that survive this upheaval. Yes, there will be smaller firms that have lower rates, and there will be Susman etc., but I think NRF/LL/TK/AK/Bracewell will have the hardest time surviving and will probably merge with big national firms or other texas-based ones. That obviously depends though on the ability of BB/V&E to elevate themselves into international firms that happen to be based in TX.

I don't disagree with this. BB and VE still have the best corporate groups in Houston overall, based on talent levels. Latham and Kirkland have taken some talent and some of the associates they pulled were great, but many of them were those who were not loved at their current firm or only got an offer from a shop with a small corporate practice and were left wanting. V&E and BB matched NY salaries, but they are going to need to keep up with bonuses or top associates will be more likely to bounce to K&E or Latham where you get market bonus at 2000 (rather than having to hit higher numbers). I think the thing that keeps a lot of people from making the jump is knowing that your chances of making partner at the Houston office of Latham and K&E is very very unlikely.

[Anonymous User]

Just catching up on the convos on this thread, and thought this article might be helpful to those trying to understand the Houston market:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busines ... 887969.php

What do you think the future of the Texas-based firms is? Are BB/V&E especially badly placed due to their reliance on the type of big-market deals that the arriving elite firms are now doing, or will the upper-mid market firms also have problems?

I'm biased as a junior associate at one of these firms, but I think BB/V&E will be the only general practice "texas-based firms" that survive this upheaval. Yes, there will be smaller firms that have lower rates, and there will be Susman etc., but I think NRF/LL/TK/AK/Bracewell will have the hardest time surviving and will probably merge with big national firms or other texas-based ones. That obviously depends though on the ability of BB/V&E to elevate themselves into international firms that happen to be based in TX.

I don't disagree with this. BB and VE still have the best corporate groups in Houston overall, based on talent levels. Latham and Kirkland have taken some talent and some of the associates they pulled were great, but many of them were those who were not loved at their current firm or only got an offer from a shop with a small corporate practice and were left wanting. V&E and BB matched NY salaries, but they are going to need to keep up with bonuses or top associates will be more likely to bounce to K&E or Latham where you get market bonus at 2000 (rather than having to hit higher numbers). I think the thing that keeps a lot of people from making the jump is knowing that your chances of making partner at the Houston office of Latham and K&E is very very unlikely.

Strongly agree with all of this. I think the underlined in particular may not be obvious to law students.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the two posters above. Currently a senior associate at a Texas BigLaw firm (i.e., based in Texas) that isn't VE/BB and we are still very profitable, but we don't print money like the national shops do. What's frustrating is the New York-ification of the Texas market - yes, associate salaries have seen dramatic increases in the last decade, but partnership chances and collegiality have taken a hit at a lot of places. Now it seems every partner is only as loyal as his next paycheck. I think the biggest takeaway for law students from this changing market is to figure out if they want to do BigLaw for 4-5 years or less or if they want a realistic shot at partner. If the former, there is no reason (in my mind) to pass up a GDC, LW, K&E, Weil offer for a BigTex firm (even a VE/BB firm) - those firms pay lockstep NYC bonuses regardless of hours. If you can't get an offer at one of those places, then I would still say go somewhere like Sidley or Akin Gump where you might have to hit certain hours thresholds to get Cravath level bonus but those thresholds will be lower than a BB/VE or other Texas firm. However, if you want to make partner, I would strongly suggest starting somewhere like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK - you may make a bit less money as an associate (though, if you're busy, you will come very very close to Cravath-level pay) - once you're a partner, your opportunities really open up - both in-house and lateraling to other firms. Though its certainly easier to lateral down the ladder as opposed to up the ladder as an associate, you will be gambling that the right spot will open up at the more regional firm, and that doesn't always pan out. Finally, as a partner, the rule about going up the ladder and down the ladder sort of flies out the window - so if you pick a firm where you have no real shot at making partner, you've also sort of closed the door at making partner anywhere else (unless you lateral at the exact right time), but if you start at a more regional firm and then make a name for yourself, you can either leverage that into higher pay at your current firm or a partner position at a national firm. And with alllll that said, VE/BB do still get the top quality candidates on average - and those firms have the most stable outlook out of any of the Texas BigLaw firms - the only downsides are the lower pay (vis-a-vis 2000-2200 hour years at a national firm) and the lower partnership chances (vis-a-vis the more regional firms).

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the two posters above. Currently a senior associate at a Texas BigLaw firm (i.e., based in Texas) that isn't VE/BB and we are still very profitable, but we don't print money like the national shops do. What's frustrating is the New York-ification of the Texas market - yes, associate salaries have seen dramatic increases in the last decade, but partnership chances and collegiality have taken a hit at a lot of places. Now it seems every partner is only as loyal as his next paycheck. I think the biggest takeaway for law students from this changing market is to figure out if they want to do BigLaw for 4-5 years or less or if they want a realistic shot at partner. If the former, there is no reason (in my mind) to pass up a GDC, LW, K&E, Weil offer for a BigTex firm (even a VE/BB firm) - those firms pay lockstep NYC bonuses regardless of hours. If you can't get an offer at one of those places, then I would still say go somewhere like Sidley or Akin Gump where you might have to hit certain hours thresholds to get Cravath level bonus but those thresholds will be lower than a BB/VE or other Texas firm. However, if you want to make partner, I would strongly suggest starting somewhere like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK - you may make a bit less money as an associate (though, if you're busy, you will come very very close to Cravath-level pay) - once you're a partner, your opportunities really open up - both in-house and lateraling to other firms. Though its certainly easier to lateral down the ladder as opposed to up the ladder as an associate, you will be gambling that the right spot will open up at the more regional firm, and that doesn't always pan out. Finally, as a partner, the rule about going up the ladder and down the ladder sort of flies out the window - so if you pick a firm where you have no real shot at making partner, you've also sort of closed the door at making partner anywhere else (unless you lateral at the exact right time), but if you start at a more regional firm and then make a name for yourself, you can either leverage that into higher pay at your current firm or a partner position at a national firm. And with alllll that said, VE/BB do still get the top quality candidates on average - and those firms have the most stable outlook out of any of the Texas BigLaw firms - the only downsides are the lower pay (vis-a-vis 2000-2200 hour years at a national firm) and the lower partnership chances (vis-a-vis the more regional firms).

This is very interesting, thanks for contributing. Don't you think someone who starts at VE/BB, and 6-7 years down the road doesn't think they will make partner/gets showed the door, could lateral to a more regional firm like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK or to one of the national shops? I am at a Big Texas shop and it seems like if you are a senior at VE/BB you can basically move anywhere in Texas (more regional firm, or a firm like Latham, Kirkland, etc.). Whether or not you make partner at that place is a different story. I imagine this will not slow down. I hear GDC is looking to open a Houston office in the coming years (saw it in a Texas Lawyer article or something) - they are going to take the proven path - pay big money to poach people from VE/BB...right?

[Ken Kesey]

What is going on with Norton Rose? They are the only main player in Texas left that has not matched at least for first years. There is almost no way they do not match ... right? Has that firm fallen that much? I get that they are not really on the same level as VE/BB, but I thought they at least tried to pretend they are...

FYI in Texas call them "Fullbright", Norton Rose is the English firm and Fullbright and Jabrorski? was the Texas firm.

It was Fulbright & Jaworski. Unless you were bros with Leon Jaworski and called him Jabrorski.

Look, if Ken Kesey says it's Jabrorski, then it's Jabrorski. Lotta cockiness in this thread re: firm names.

Cockiness? I put a question mark after Jabroski because I thought I was incorrect. And I was correct about my incorrectness.

Edit: Also I caught some implicit flak during OCI for calling them "Norton Rose" instead of "Fulbright."

It was an attempted joke about the person correcting you, because it's completely irrelevant. Although, the fact that you were interviewing for these firms and legitimately don't know that it was fulbright and jaworksi is beyond weird.

Oh I knew, I just didn't realize it was still kind of a faux pas to just say "norton rose." A partner literally said to me, "oh it's so weird to hear people call it that instead of fulbright."

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the two posters above. Currently a senior associate at a Texas BigLaw firm (i.e., based in Texas) that isn't VE/BB and we are still very profitable, but we don't print money like the national shops do. What's frustrating is the New York-ification of the Texas market - yes, associate salaries have seen dramatic increases in the last decade, but partnership chances and collegiality have taken a hit at a lot of places. Now it seems every partner is only as loyal as his next paycheck. I think the biggest takeaway for law students from this changing market is to figure out if they want to do BigLaw for 4-5 years or less or if they want a realistic shot at partner. If the former, there is no reason (in my mind) to pass up a GDC, LW, K&E, Weil offer for a BigTex firm (even a VE/BB firm) - those firms pay lockstep NYC bonuses regardless of hours. If you can't get an offer at one of those places, then I would still say go somewhere like Sidley or Akin Gump where you might have to hit certain hours thresholds to get Cravath level bonus but those thresholds will be lower than a BB/VE or other Texas firm. However, if you want to make partner, I would strongly suggest starting somewhere like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK - you may make a bit less money as an associate (though, if you're busy, you will come very very close to Cravath-level pay) - once you're a partner, your opportunities really open up - both in-house and lateraling to other firms. Though its certainly easier to lateral down the ladder as opposed to up the ladder as an associate, you will be gambling that the right spot will open up at the more regional firm, and that doesn't always pan out. Finally, as a partner, the rule about going up the ladder and down the ladder sort of flies out the window - so if you pick a firm where you have no real shot at making partner, you've also sort of closed the door at making partner anywhere else (unless you lateral at the exact right time), but if you start at a more regional firm and then make a name for yourself, you can either leverage that into higher pay at your current firm or a partner position at a national firm. And with alllll that said, VE/BB do still get the top quality candidates on average - and those firms have the most stable outlook out of any of the Texas BigLaw firms - the only downsides are the lower pay (vis-a-vis 2000-2200 hour years at a national firm) and the lower partnership chances (vis-a-vis the more regional firms).

This is very interesting, thanks for contributing. Don't you think someone who starts at VE/BB, and 6-7 years down the road doesn't think they will make partner/gets showed the door, could lateral to a more regional firm like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK or to one of the national shops? I am at a Big Texas shop and it seems like if you are a senior at VE/BB you can basically move anywhere in Texas (more regional firm, or a firm like Latham, Kirkland, etc.). Whether or not you make partner at that place is a different story. I imagine this will not slow down. I hear GDC is looking to open a Houston office in the coming years (saw it in a Texas Lawyer article or something) - they are going to take the proven path - pay big money to poach people from VE/BB...right?

Certainly if any firm in Texas is looking to hire a 6-7 year associate, a VE/BB associate will be at the front of the line for that position. However, a few things to consider:

1. Both the Bracewell/AK/HB/TK type firms and the more national firms don't often hire 6-7 year associates - 3-5 year associates seem to be more the sweet spot. This is especially true in Dallas where the market is much calmer and few firms are looking to grow much. If associates wait too long at the big national firm before trying to move, it is my experience that they end up at a "lower" tier regional firm (eg, Gardere/Winstead - great firms, btw, but just lower profitability than some others) than one of the Bracewell/AK/HB/TK type firms.

2. If you do get lucky and there's a need for a 6-7 year associate, your partnership chances at Bracewell/AK/HB won't be any better than if you had started there, and possibly slightly worse - just depends on the situation. Your partnership chances at the national firm if you lateral over as a 6-7 year seem almost next to none - they would rather create some goodwill by promoting one of their own (in an effort to dispel the "myth" that no one makes partner there) or hire a lateral who's already a partner and has a book of business.

3. GDC (and others) may, indeed, be looking to move into (or expand significantly) in Houston - and they will likely follow the path of other firms before them - but that path doesn't often involve many senior associates - it typically involves proven partners at the local shops and junior-midlevel associates.

4. Essentially, in my mind, the only reason to go to VE/BB is if you feel very confident in your connections or BD skills such that you will have an edge on making partner over your classmates, assuming in-house doesn't appeal much to you. I would think BB/VE partnership is more appealing (on average) than Bracewell/AK/HB/TK partnership (mostly due to money - but also due to increased ability to leverage that into a lateral spot at a national firm where you can get paid the really big bucks). Otherwise - go to a big national firm and make the big bucks before going in-house. Or got a more regional firm and grind it out to make partner and then reassess your options.

Anyway, those are my thoughts - let me know if you have any questions or think I'm off-base on something.

[Anonymous User]

I am a junior associate at a BigTex firm (Fulbright/Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead) and hope that my firm does NOT match. My firm is not in a position to charge an hourly rate that comes close to firms like Latham and Weil or even Baker Botts and VE. If our rates increase to cover salary increases, clients will either take their matters to a smaller or boutique firm (which there are plenty of in Texas), or just pay a little more and go with a more national firm (if you are willing to pay more, why not go with the more prestigious brand).

If we are no longer considered "market," we will still be hiring the same caliber of attorneys we currently hire. But if we matched, we would not be getting the folks that would be considering places like Latham and VE.

I do think that a slight salary increase for the mid and senior level attorneys is appropriate (maybe $10-20K increase per year). But until the small and midsize firms begin increasing salaries for associates, I don't think it makes sense for the BigTex firms to match salaries for the junior attorneys. That probably means that my firm will now be lumped in with firms like Gray Reed, Munsch Hardt, Kelly Hart, and Strasburger, but I don't think that is a bad thing, especially for the long-run.

[Anonymous User]

I am a junior associate at a BigTex firm (Fulbright/Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead) and hope that my firm does NOT match. My firm is not in a position to charge an hourly rate that comes close to firms like Latham and Weil or even Baker Botts and VE. If our rates increase to cover salary increases, clients will either take their matters to a smaller or boutique firm (which there are plenty of in Texas), or just pay a little more and go with a more national firm (if you are willing to pay more, why not go with the more prestigious brand).

If we are no longer considered "market," we will still be hiring the same caliber of attorneys we currently hire. But if we matched, we would not be getting the folks that would be considering places like Latham and VE.

I do think that a slight salary increase for the mid and senior level attorneys is appropriate (maybe $10-20K increase per year). But until the small and midsize firms begin increasing salaries for associates, I don't think it makes sense for the BigTex firms to match salaries for the junior attorneys. That probably means that my firm will now be lumped in with firms like Gray Reed, Munsch Hardt, Kelly Hart, and Strasburger, but I don't think that is a bad thing, especially for the long-run.

I agree with that analysis - the only reason to match salaries is if you think that your associates will leave if you don't or if you think your recruiting abilities will be hurt. 10 years ago VE wouldn't have matched Cravath within a week - but they had to now because they are directly competing against the national firms for talent. Gardere/Winstead/JW/Fulbright aren't really competing against VE/Latham/Kirkland for talent already (maybe Fulbright is with respect to litigation, but there are almost no litigation spots at the big national firms anyway - so Fulbright doesn't really run the risk of having all of its associates leave - there are only so many spots at the high-end boutiques). And while associate retention and recruiting is important to firms, the number one most important thing to a firm is work continuing to come in the door, which could be diminished as a result of salary raises if (a) associate pay raises result in higher rates that the clients won't pay or (b) associate pay raises result in productive partners taking such a paycut that they decide to move to a more profitable firm.

[Anonymous User]

I am a junior associate at a BigTex firm (Fulbright/Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead) and hope that my firm does NOT match.

Seeing Fulbright mentioned as a peer to Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead has to make the Fulbright folks wince. Older folks still refer to the "Big 3" as BB/VE/Fulbright. But I do think Fulbright is in a very different situation than those firms. It's absolutely massive taking into account the Norton Rose merger, and it has a lot more pressure to drive profits than those firms (which are really midlaw firms). The fact that they've yet to match when even the mid-tier firms have means they likely really are suffering.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the two posters above. Currently a senior associate at a Texas BigLaw firm (i.e., based in Texas) that isn't VE/BB and we are still very profitable, but we don't print money like the national shops do. What's frustrating is the New York-ification of the Texas market - yes, associate salaries have seen dramatic increases in the last decade, but partnership chances and collegiality have taken a hit at a lot of places. Now it seems every partner is only as loyal as his next paycheck. I think the biggest takeaway for law students from this changing market is to figure out if they want to do BigLaw for 4-5 years or less or if they want a realistic shot at partner. If the former, there is no reason (in my mind) to pass up a GDC, LW, K&E, Weil offer for a BigTex firm (even a VE/BB firm) - those firms pay lockstep NYC bonuses regardless of hours. If you can't get an offer at one of those places, then I would still say go somewhere like Sidley or Akin Gump where you might have to hit certain hours thresholds to get Cravath level bonus but those thresholds will be lower than a BB/VE or other Texas firm. However, if you want to make partner, I would strongly suggest starting somewhere like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK - you may make a bit less money as an associate (though, if you're busy, you will come very very close to Cravath-level pay) - once you're a partner, your opportunities really open up - both in-house and lateraling to other firms. Though its certainly easier to lateral down the ladder as opposed to up the ladder as an associate, you will be gambling that the right spot will open up at the more regional firm, and that doesn't always pan out. Finally, as a partner, the rule about going up the ladder and down the ladder sort of flies out the window - so if you pick a firm where you have no real shot at making partner, you've also sort of closed the door at making partner anywhere else (unless you lateral at the exact right time), but if you start at a more regional firm and then make a name for yourself, you can either leverage that into higher pay at your current firm or a partner position at a national firm. And with alllll that said, VE/BB do still get the top quality candidates on average - and those firms have the most stable outlook out of any of the Texas BigLaw firms - the only downsides are the lower pay (vis-a-vis 2000-2200 hour years at a national firm) and the lower partnership chances (vis-a-vis the more regional firms).

This is very interesting, thanks for contributing. Don't you think someone who starts at VE/BB, and 6-7 years down the road doesn't think they will make partner/gets showed the door, could lateral to a more regional firm like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK or to one of the national shops? I am at a Big Texas shop and it seems like if you are a senior at VE/BB you can basically move anywhere in Texas (more regional firm, or a firm like Latham, Kirkland, etc.). Whether or not you make partner at that place is a different story. I imagine this will not slow down. I hear GDC is looking to open a Houston office in the coming years (saw it in a Texas Lawyer article or something) - they are going to take the proven path - pay big money to poach people from VE/BB...right?

Certainly if any firm in Texas is looking to hire a 6-7 year associate, a VE/BB associate will be at the front of the line for that position. However, a few things to consider:

1. Both the Bracewell/AK/HB/TK type firms and the more national firms don't often hire 6-7 year associates - 3-5 year associates seem to be more the sweet spot. This is especially true in Dallas where the market is much calmer and few firms are looking to grow much. If associates wait too long at the big national firm before trying to move, it is my experience that they end up at a "lower" tier regional firm (eg, Gardere/Winstead - great firms, btw, but just lower profitability than some others) than one of the Bracewell/AK/HB/TK type firms.

2. If you do get lucky and there's a need for a 6-7 year associate, your partnership chances at Bracewell/AK/HB won't be any better than if you had started there, and possibly slightly worse - just depends on the situation. Your partnership chances at the national firm if you lateral over as a 6-7 year seem almost next to none - they would rather create some goodwill by promoting one of their own (in an effort to dispel the "myth" that no one makes partner there) or hire a lateral who's already a partner and has a book of business.

3. GDC (and others) may, indeed, be looking to move into (or expand significantly) in Houston - and they will likely follow the path of other firms before them - but that path doesn't often involve many senior associates - it typically involves proven partners at the local shops and junior-midlevel associates.

4. Essentially, in my mind, the only reason to go to VE/BB is if you feel very confident in your connections or BD skills such that you will have an edge on making partner over your classmates, assuming in-house doesn't appeal much to you. I would think BB/VE partnership is more appealing (on average) than Bracewell/AK/HB/TK partnership (mostly due to money - but also due to increased ability to leverage that into a lateral spot at a national firm where you can get paid the really big bucks). Otherwise - go to a big national firm and make the big bucks before going in-house. Or got a more regional firm and grind it out to make partner and then reassess your options.

Anyway, those are my thoughts - let me know if you have any questions or think I'm off-base on something.

You seem to have a better feel on the market than me. But when KE moved in, they were offering 6-8th years 6 figure signing bonuses and their "non-share partner" position to move over (rumor was that the salary was also $500+ for some of the highly sought). Most ignored it since they wanted to try to make partner where they started, but that has to be a hard offer to turn down that kind of $$. The feeling I get from friends and fellow associates around town is that it is extremely hard to make partner at VE (their starting corporate groups are usually 15+) and difficult at BB, but if you start there and stick around you have a good shot - their starting corporate class was only like 4 people this year (doing good work is required obviously). I think it is true that it would be much easier to make partner if you started at a AK in Houston or HayBoo in Dallas and just stayed. The problem is your exit options would not be quite as good, and if you didn't make partner or w/e it would be more difficult to lateral.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the two posters above. Currently a senior associate at a Texas BigLaw firm (i.e., based in Texas) that isn't VE/BB and we are still very profitable, but we don't print money like the national shops do. What's frustrating is the New York-ification of the Texas market - yes, associate salaries have seen dramatic increases in the last decade, but partnership chances and collegiality have taken a hit at a lot of places. Now it seems every partner is only as loyal as his next paycheck. I think the biggest takeaway for law students from this changing market is to figure out if they want to do BigLaw for 4-5 years or less or if they want a realistic shot at partner. If the former, there is no reason (in my mind) to pass up a GDC, LW, K&E, Weil offer for a BigTex firm (even a VE/BB firm) - those firms pay lockstep NYC bonuses regardless of hours. If you can't get an offer at one of those places, then I would still say go somewhere like Sidley or Akin Gump where you might have to hit certain hours thresholds to get Cravath level bonus but those thresholds will be lower than a BB/VE or other Texas firm. However, if you want to make partner, I would strongly suggest starting somewhere like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK - you may make a bit less money as an associate (though, if you're busy, you will come very very close to Cravath-level pay) - once you're a partner, your opportunities really open up - both in-house and lateraling to other firms. Though its certainly easier to lateral down the ladder as opposed to up the ladder as an associate, you will be gambling that the right spot will open up at the more regional firm, and that doesn't always pan out. Finally, as a partner, the rule about going up the ladder and down the ladder sort of flies out the window - so if you pick a firm where you have no real shot at making partner, you've also sort of closed the door at making partner anywhere else (unless you lateral at the exact right time), but if you start at a more regional firm and then make a name for yourself, you can either leverage that into higher pay at your current firm or a partner position at a national firm. And with alllll that said, VE/BB do still get the top quality candidates on average - and those firms have the most stable outlook out of any of the Texas BigLaw firms - the only downsides are the lower pay (vis-a-vis 2000-2200 hour years at a national firm) and the lower partnership chances (vis-a-vis the more regional firms).

This is very interesting, thanks for contributing. Don't you think someone who starts at VE/BB, and 6-7 years down the road doesn't think they will make partner/gets showed the door, could lateral to a more regional firm like Bracewell/AK/HayBoo/TK or to one of the national shops? I am at a Big Texas shop and it seems like if you are a senior at VE/BB you can basically move anywhere in Texas (more regional firm, or a firm like Latham, Kirkland, etc.). Whether or not you make partner at that place is a different story. I imagine this will not slow down. I hear GDC is looking to open a Houston office in the coming years (saw it in a Texas Lawyer article or something) - they are going to take the proven path - pay big money to poach people from VE/BB...right?

Certainly if any firm in Texas is looking to hire a 6-7 year associate, a VE/BB associate will be at the front of the line for that position. However, a few things to consider:

1. Both the Bracewell/AK/HB/TK type firms and the more national firms don't often hire 6-7 year associates - 3-5 year associates seem to be more the sweet spot. This is especially true in Dallas where the market is much calmer and few firms are looking to grow much. If associates wait too long at the big national firm before trying to move, it is my experience that they end up at a "lower" tier regional firm (eg, Gardere/Winstead - great firms, btw, but just lower profitability than some others) than one of the Bracewell/AK/HB/TK type firms.

2. If you do get lucky and there's a need for a 6-7 year associate, your partnership chances at Bracewell/AK/HB won't be any better than if you had started there, and possibly slightly worse - just depends on the situation. Your partnership chances at the national firm if you lateral over as a 6-7 year seem almost next to none - they would rather create some goodwill by promoting one of their own (in an effort to dispel the "myth" that no one makes partner there) or hire a lateral who's already a partner and has a book of business.

3. GDC (and others) may, indeed, be looking to move into (or expand significantly) in Houston - and they will likely follow the path of other firms before them - but that path doesn't often involve many senior associates - it typically involves proven partners at the local shops and junior-midlevel associates.

4. Essentially, in my mind, the only reason to go to VE/BB is if you feel very confident in your connections or BD skills such that you will have an edge on making partner over your classmates, assuming in-house doesn't appeal much to you. I would think BB/VE partnership is more appealing (on average) than Bracewell/AK/HB/TK partnership (mostly due to money - but also due to increased ability to leverage that into a lateral spot at a national firm where you can get paid the really big bucks). Otherwise - go to a big national firm and make the big bucks before going in-house. Or got a more regional firm and grind it out to make partner and then reassess your options.

Anyway, those are my thoughts - let me know if you have any questions or think I'm off-base on something.

You seem to have a better feel on the market than me. But when KE moved in, they were offering 6-8th years 6 figure signing bonuses and their "non-share partner" position to move over (rumor was that the salary was also $500+ for some of the highly sought). Most ignored it since they wanted to try to make partner where they started, but that has to be a hard offer to turn down that kind of $$. The feeling I get from friends and fellow associates around town is that it is extremely hard to make partner at VE (their starting corporate groups are usually 15+) and difficult at BB, but if you start there and stick around you have a good shot - their starting corporate class was only like 4 people this year (doing good work is required obviously). I think it is true that it would be much easier to make partner if you started at a AK in Houston or HayBoo in Dallas and just stayed. The problem is your exit options would not be quite as good, and if you didn't make partner or w/e it would be more difficult to lateral.

Excellent points. And to be honest, my perspective is a bit skewed because I'm in Dallas - Houston is definitely a different market. With respect to K&E, they definitely seemed to be more willing to make senior associate laterals non-equity partners than other firms you mentioned - having the "partner" title is certainly nice, but I'd be curious to see how many of those people actually make equity partner. Also, with respect to in-house opportunities, it is my impression that there is virtually no difference between AK Houston, VE Houston, or KE Houston - and same in Dallas for firms like HB Dallas, TK Dallas, VE Dallas and GDC Dallas. There is a lot of luck involved in getting the right gig, but they seem to generally only care that you worked at one of the "BigLaw" firms.

[Anonymous User]

I am a junior associate at a BigTex firm (Fulbright/Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead) and hope that my firm does NOT match.

Seeing Fulbright mentioned as a peer to Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead has to make the Fulbright folks wince. Older folks still refer to the "Big 3" as BB/VE/Fulbright. But I do think Fulbright is in a very different situation than those firms. It's absolutely massive taking into account the Norton Rose merger, and it has a lot more pressure to drive profits than those firms (which are really midlaw firms). The fact that they've yet to match when even the mid-tier firms have means they likely really are suffering.

As previously mentioned, I think this is largely a reflection of the litigation practice (especially in Texas). Fulbright's reputation is based on its litigation practice. Even though it has a sizable transactional group, it is not on the same level as VE and BB. In the last 10 years, there has been a drastic change in the business of litigation. Every other week there is some announcement that a well-known litigator at a big firm is lateraling to a boutique firm or setting up his or her own shop. Clients no longer see the advantages of sending their cases to big firms where the billing rates are higher than the boutiques (usually to account for high overhead costs that are unrelated to litigation).

There will be "bet the company" cases and clients that are fine with paying billing rates of $800+/hour. But those cases are now being handled by firms like Susman, Yetter, AZA, Lynn Pinkerson, McKool, Bickel, etc. The majority of litigation matters and high volume clients are looking to spend less than $200/hour while still demanding additional write-offs. Previously, the Fulbrights of Texas could take a couple of these low-billing rate cases because they also had some high-billed cases to average things out. Today, those high-dollar partners are leaving their big firm shops, which means that Fulbright and its peer firms must compete for the few cases where they can charge $350-750/hour.

Jackson Walker is another big firm that is known more for its litigation practice and would struggle if it tried to match. Winstead and Gardere are more known for its transactional practices, but they do not handle the high dollar mergers and transaction deals like VE and BB. I am still surprised Locke, Bracewell and TK decided to match as quick as they did. There does not seem to be much lateral movement of associates between firms, especially with the oil market down.

[Anonymous User]

what's the word on weil's dallas office?

[Anonymous User]

I am a junior associate at a BigTex firm (Fulbright/Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead) and hope that my firm does NOT match.

Seeing Fulbright mentioned as a peer to Gardere/Jackson Walker/Winstead has to make the Fulbright folks wince. Older folks still refer to the "Big 3" as BB/VE/Fulbright. But I do think Fulbright is in a very different situation than those firms. It's absolutely massive taking into account the Norton Rose merger, and it has a lot more pressure to drive profits than those firms (which are really midlaw firms). The fact that they've yet to match when even the mid-tier firms have means they likely really are suffering.

As previously mentioned, I think this is largely a reflection of the litigation practice (especially in Texas). Fulbright's reputation is based on its litigation practice. Even though it has a sizable transactional group, it is not on the same level as VE and BB. In the last 10 years, there has been a drastic change in the business of litigation. Every other week there is some announcement that a well-known litigator at a big firm is lateraling to a boutique firm or setting up his or her own shop. Clients no longer see the advantages of sending their cases to big firms where the billing rates are higher than the boutiques (usually to account for high overhead costs that are unrelated to litigation).

There will be "bet the company" cases and clients that are fine with paying billing rates of $800+/hour. But those cases are now being handled by firms like Susman, Yetter, AZA, Lynn Pinkerson, McKool, Bickel, etc. The majority of litigation matters and high volume clients are looking to spend less than $200/hour while still demanding additional write-offs. Previously, the Fulbrights of Texas could take a couple of these low-billing rate cases because they also had some high-billed cases to average things out. Today, those high-dollar partners are leaving their big firm shops, which means that Fulbright and its peer firms must compete for the few cases where they can charge $350-750/hour.

Jackson Walker is another big firm that is known more for its litigation practice and would struggle if it tried to match. Winstead and Gardere are more known for its transactional practices, but they do not handle the high dollar mergers and transaction deals like VE and BB. I am still surprised Locke, Bracewell and TK decided to match as quick as they did. There does not seem to be much lateral movement of associates between firms, especially with the oil market down.

Completely agreed on all fronts. If LL, Bracewell, AK, HB and TK could have all gotten in the same room and signed a binding agreement not to raise, you know they would have. They could have also invited JD and Fulbright to that meeting. They would all be fine if only the national firms and VE/BB raised. But once any one of those firms matches, all the rest have to as well.

[favabeansoup]

what's the word on weil's dallas office?

I have heard negative things about the office (e.g. partner compensation cuts, defections, too much control by NY office), but that was all at least a few years ago. Not sure how much has changed in the time after that.

[Anonymous User]

what's the word on weil's dallas office?

My second-hand impression is that it's pretty chaotic but I know smart, talented people who have gone there.

[nothingtosee]

This is probably the highest quality thread on TLS. Really enjoying the well put together thoughts.

[Anonymous User]

any impressions of mcguirewoods in Dallas? our office is now around ~40 people, after the original group split off from Patton Boggs two years ago. While the office is continuing to grow at a healthy clip (especially private equity/debt finance work) i'm unsure what the exit options to a BigTex office here in Texas would be for lateraling somewhere around the 4-5 year mark or going in-house, if one wanted to do that.

[checkers]

This is probably the highest quality thread on TLS. Really enjoying the well put together thoughts.

Ditto