Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions Forum

[Anonymous User]

What's the word on Reed Smith's entertainment practice?

[beepboopbeep]

I don't really get the hostility, man.

Not necessarily true. My old firm had an office in downtown and an office in century city and there was substantial overlap. The other firms with two offices like this have overlap too. You end up working often for partners in both offices.

I can buy it being not true everywhere, but the main point--which I think holds regardless of whether there are exceptions--is that I think someone going through OCI right now or considering lateraling to LA should really do their diligence on what type of practice areas are represented in an office rather than just assuming they're created equal.

Please name one firm that has more than three offices (e.g. downtown, century city, santa monica/venice) in the LA metro area (also note that Orange County is not part of the LA metro area).

I was exaggerating for comedic effect. You're right, looks like most of the ones with multiple have 3,and some of those you have to count OC offices to make it work. I had it in my head that OMM had like a million (please don't ask me to name one firm with more than one million offices next -- this one is exaggeration too) offices around the LA metro, but it's also only 3.

This doesn't really change the point in any meaningful way. Are you an arguments as soldiers type of guy?

[SmokeytheBear]

I don't really get the hostility, man.

Not necessarily true. My old firm had an office in downtown and an office in century city and there was substantial overlap. The other firms with two offices like this have overlap too. You end up working often for partners in both offices.

I can buy it being not true everywhere, but the main point--which I think holds regardless of whether there are exceptions--is that I think someone going through OCI right now or considering lateraling to LA should really do their diligence on what type of practice areas are represented in an office rather than just assuming they're created equal.

Please name one firm that has more than three offices (e.g. downtown, century city, santa monica/venice) in the LA metro area (also note that Orange County is not part of the LA metro area).

I was exaggerating for comedic effect. You're right, looks like most of the ones with multiple have 3,and some of those you have to count OC offices to make it work. I had it in my head that OMM had like a million (please don't ask me to name one firm with more than one million offices next -- this one is exaggeration too) offices around the LA metro, but it's also only 3.

This doesn't really change the point in any meaningful way. Are you an arguments as soldiers type of guy?

No hostility. Your post was a little inarticulate, so I couldn't quite follow what point you were making. That and I had a few drinks last night and was feeling a bit saucy. My sincerest apologies. Only love in this thread.

I think most people do do their research on the make up of a firm when deciding on firms in DTLA or CC. I think we were simply just trying to add one more level of analysis if a person was choosing between, for the sake of example, S&C CC and Sidley DTLA for corporate work (couldn't really think of two similarly situated firms, so don't take me to task for the choice of comps). As you probably experience, commuting in LA can suck the life out of you, and it's something that people don't think about when looking at where to live and practice in LA. The choice of living in Echo Park and working at Latham as opposed to living in Marina del Rey and working at MIlbank will put someone on an entirely different journey in LA in terms of social circles, places they visit, gyms, yoga studios, farmers market, daily activities--everything. So when someone comes on here and asks about a decision between OMM CC and Jones Day DTLA, telling them the realities of commuting and choosing where you want to live is more than a trivial consideration when choosing a firm.

No sweat on the exageration. I've just noticed that people going through OCI are hyper anxious as fuck, so anything we tell them they take more literally than they should. I'm just trying to help keep this thread as clear as possible so people know what the story is.

Again, didnt mean to be agro. Blame it on the booze.

[SmokeytheBear]

What's the word on Reed Smith's entertainment practice?

Here is my take on it (and I think a few people have said similar-ish things on here): every firm in LA is going to say that they have an entertainment practice. This is LA--they want to believe they are part of the sexiest industry in town (well, second sexiest ifyouknowwhatimean) and they need to sell themselves as such so they can try to get the work.

I know nothing about Reed Smith's entertainment practice, but given my background, if they had one then I should know about it.

The firms with known and reputable entertainment practices are Latham, OMM, Sheppard Mullin, and Manatt. I have been told by people who have worked there that the Sheppard Mullin entertainment group places their associates on a different pay scale far below market than non-entertainment associates.

[beepboopbeep]

I don't really get the hostility, man.

Not necessarily true. My old firm had an office in downtown and an office in century city and there was substantial overlap. The other firms with two offices like this have overlap too. You end up working often for partners in both offices.

I can buy it being not true everywhere, but the main point--which I think holds regardless of whether there are exceptions--is that I think someone going through OCI right now or considering lateraling to LA should really do their diligence on what type of practice areas are represented in an office rather than just assuming they're created equal.

Please name one firm that has more than three offices (e.g. downtown, century city, santa monica/venice) in the LA metro area (also note that Orange County is not part of the LA metro area).

I was exaggerating for comedic effect. You're right, looks like most of the ones with multiple have 3,and some of those you have to count OC offices to make it work. I had it in my head that OMM had like a million (please don't ask me to name one firm with more than one million offices next -- this one is exaggeration too) offices around the LA metro, but it's also only 3.

This doesn't really change the point in any meaningful way. Are you an arguments as soldiers type of guy?

No hostility. Your post was a little inarticulate, so I couldn't quite follow what point you were making. That and I had a few drinks last night and was feeling a bit saucy. My sincerest apologies. Only love in this thread.

I think most people do do their research on the make up of a firm when deciding on firms in DTLA or CC. I think we were simply just trying to add one more level of analysis if a person was choosing between, for the sake of example, S&C CC and Sidley DTLA for corporate work (couldn't really think of two similarly situated firms, so don't take me to task for the choice of comps). As you probably experience, commuting in LA can suck the life out of you, and it's something that people don't think about when looking at where to live and practice in LA. The choice of living in Echo Park and working at Latham as opposed to living in Marina del Rey and working at MIlbank will put someone on an entirely different journey in LA in terms of social circles, places they visit, gyms, yoga studios, farmers market, daily activities--everything. So when someone comes on here and asks about a decision between OMM CC and Jones Day DTLA, telling them the realities of commuting and choosing where you want to live is more than a trivial consideration when choosing a firm.

No sweat on the exageration. I've just noticed that people going through OCI are hyper anxious as fuck, so anything we tell them they take more literally than they should. I'm just trying to help keep this thread as clear as possible so people know what the story is.

Again, didnt mean to be agro. Blame it on the booze.

All good - I appreciate this. Yea I was also a little drunk hence the drastic change in typing style from last night to today.

That's a fair perspective. To be sure, I wasn't trying to take aim at the value of your post -- location absolutely will affect your experience / happiness / etc, and a lot of this job, at least so far for me, is figuring out how to stay sane in an absurd environment -- but just adding a consideration of how much to prioritize location in the grand scheme of all factors that differ between a firm / offices of the same firm. I think this

(couldn't really think of two similarly situated firms, so don't take me to task for the choice of comps)

kinda gets to the heart of it, though, yea? I can't really think of two similarly situated firms where one in in CC and one is in DTLA either, so my preference for Century City vs DTLA would have to be very strong to outweigh like substantive work differences between the two offices. I am sure that people do legitimately have those strong preferences -- but they probably aren't asking for others' opinions on it on TLS, they're just like only bidding OC firms or whatever (though I don't know anyone who was like, exclusively bidding DTLA or CC, for probably obvious reasons). Fair play that two offices of the same firm might be similar enough to where you could legitimately just be choosing location within the metro; it's not the case at my firm, but I haven't experienced yours or any others, so I have no real idea on the general similarities/dissimilarities across the market. I think I'm just skeptical that these differences will outweigh substantive differences between firms generally, but I also recognize that's dependent on my prioritization (training / career arc > short term QOL). Someone who weights them more equally would factor location more heavily.

I still think century city kinda sucks tho. I won't defend that opinion as I have no real basis for it other than spending a couple days in hotels there two years ago.

[SmokeytheBear]

I still think century city kinda sucks tho. I won't defend that opinion as I have no real basis for it other than spending a couple days in hotels there two years ago.

In isolation, I also agree that CC blows compared to DTLA. But I prefer CC because I live on the beach and when I am done with work, I want to be home or back in my community ASAP. While I love the food, social scene, and proximity to Dodger stadium and the east side that working DTLA afforded me, I found that I was spending less time in my area. Indeed, I found that I was spending more unnecessary time DTLA because it would be 4:40, my desk would be clear, I could go home, I didnt want to deal with traffic, so I just stayed DTLA when I really wanted to be back at the beach. If I am at work now and I want to go out in areas not near Venice/SM, being in CC means that I can at a bar in BH, Culver or WeHo in 20 minutes at most. But it means that I can also head home if I want to.

So, yeah, working and living DTLA/east side is better for some. But I'm at a place in life where I want the pace of the west side, the commute of CC, and the option to go out with minimal commute but the ease of going home if I want to.

[SmokeytheBear]

(couldn't really think of two similarly situated firms, so don't take me to task for the choice of comps)

kinda gets to the heart of it, though, yea? I can't really think of two similarly situated firms where one in in CC and one is in DTLA either, so my preference for Century City vs DTLA would have to be very strong to outweigh like substantive work differences between the two offices.

I am still trying to understand your argument. Are you saying that firms DTLA do more substantive and bigger work than firms in CC?

[Barrred]

The firms with known and reputable entertainment practices are Latham, OMM, Sheppard Mullin, and Manatt. I have been told by people who have worked there that the Sheppard Mullin entertainment group places their associates on a different pay scale far below market than non-entertainment associates.

I have heard this too, and we're not talking 140K, we're talking 5-figures. What's the deal with that? Are the associates still partner-track, or do they only hire contract attorneys for entertainment? They are still called "Associate" on the website.

[Anonymous User]

The firms with known and reputable entertainment practices are Latham, OMM, Sheppard Mullin, and Manatt. I have been told by people who have worked there that the Sheppard Mullin entertainment group places their associates on a different pay scale far below market than non-entertainment associates.

I have heard this too, and we're not talking 140K, we're talking 5-figures. What's the deal with that? Are the associates still partner-track, or do they only hire contract attorneys for entertainment? They are still called "Associate" on the website.

Used to work at the firm (but now in this group). Two reasons. One is that their group's rates are far lower than normal corporate rates, so they pay their associates less (which is weird because employment's rates are lower too, but they get paid market). Second is that they think that they have the best entertainment group in town with the best exit opportunities (at least for exit ops, it's kind of true), so they can pay people below market because they know that they have bargaining power over the associates due to the amazing exit ops.

[beepboopbeep]

(couldn't really think of two similarly situated firms, so don't take me to task for the choice of comps)

kinda gets to the heart of it, though, yea? I can't really think of two similarly situated firms where one in in CC and one is in DTLA either, so my preference for Century City vs DTLA would have to be very strong to outweigh like substantive work differences between the two offices.

I am still trying to understand your argument. Are you saying that firms DTLA do more substantive and bigger work than firms in CC?

Sorry, I'll try to clarify a bit more. I don't mean substantive as, like, differences in how important or meaningful or big the work is. I just mean that, for example, if the head of the entertainment practice group is in your century city office and you want to do entertainment, you shouldn't assume you'll have a totally equal opportunity to get that kind of work if you want to work in your firm's DTLA office instead. Maybe it will work out no matter which office you choose; some firms are pretty good about getting associates work they want that originates out of other offices and some are not very good. All firms, however, say that they are good about this, so it's the type of thing that I think you need to ask some toughish questions about if e.g. you're going through OCI or summering someplace and considering working in an office that isn't the central focus of whatever you want your practice to be.

[Anonymous User]

The firms with known and reputable entertainment practices are Latham, OMM, Sheppard Mullin, and Manatt. I have been told by people who have worked there that the Sheppard Mullin entertainment group places their associates on a different pay scale far below market than non-entertainment associates.

I have heard this too, and we're not talking 140K, we're talking 5-figures. What's the deal with that? Are the associates still partner-track, or do they only hire contract attorneys for entertainment? They are still called "Associate" on the website.

Used to work at the firm (but now in this group). Two reasons. One is that their group's rates are far lower than normal corporate rates, so they pay their associates less (which is weird because employment's rates are lower too, but they get paid market). Second is that they think that they have the best entertainment group in town with the best exit opportunities (at least for exit ops, it's kind of true), so they can pay people below market because they know that they have bargaining power over the associates due to the amazing exit ops.

Any opinions on how Loeb & Loeb stacks up against Latham/Sheppard/Manatt in regards to corporate entertainment work and exit ops? Mostly want to know for M&A, film finance, and other non-talent corporate deal work (think JV's, strategic partnerships, large scale licensing, etc.). Not really concerned with talent representation.

Also, any thoughts/insight into culture, hours, etc. at Latham CC, Loeb and Manatt? I've heard mixed things about Loeb (some praise, some bad, can't tell what's noise and what's real), and can't find much about Latham CC and Manatt (other than Manatt doesn't pay Cravath scale).

[SmokeytheBear]

Any opinions on how Loeb & Loeb stacks up against Latham/Sheppard/Manatt in regards to corporate entertainment work and exit ops? Mostly want to know for M&A, film finance, and other non-talent corporate deal work (think JV's, strategic partnerships, large scale licensing, etc.). Not really concerned with talent representation.

Latham does a lot of film finance. A group from OMM left for Latham in 2014 that handles a lot of this.
Sheppard doesnt do any film finance, but rather works on the JVs, licensing, and distribution deals mostly out of the CC office.
Loeb does similar work to Sheppard, though not as much, and does a lot of talent stuff mostly.

[Anonymous User]

Any opinions on how Loeb & Loeb stacks up against Latham/Sheppard/Manatt in regards to corporate entertainment work and exit ops? Mostly want to know for M&A, film finance, and other non-talent corporate deal work (think JV's, strategic partnerships, large scale licensing, etc.). Not really concerned with talent representation.

Latham does a lot of film finance. A group from OMM left for Latham in 2014 that handles a lot of this.
Sheppard doesnt do any film finance, but rather works on the JVs, licensing, and distribution deals mostly out of the CC office.
Loeb does similar work to Sheppard, though not as much, and does a lot of talent stuff mostly.

Thank you. If anyone has insight into culture/quality of life/associate turnover at Manatt/Latham CC/Loeb, that would be much appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

Don't believe they've been discussed here and sorry if they were. Thoughts on Akin Gump for corporate work?

[SmokeytheBear]

Going to post this in the other thread about CA callbacks as well, but guys, come on. I have done maybe a dozen or so callback interviews or lunches/dinners so far and it seems like people are just not trying (yes, I am at a top, top firm on whatever ranking you want to consider). I very must dislike the question "Why do you want to be at [my firm]?" because it's the kind of canned question I have to ask when conversation has run dry. And I've asked it to 10 of 12 people.

What is worse? Only one of those people could say something intelligent about a deal or case my office has handled.

"You guys do a lot of transactional work" is not an answer.

Spend ten minutes (it should only take five) to look on the firm's website to see what deals the office has done recently (every firm highlights recent work by an office -- and some will link to recent deals on people's bio pages). It takes so little effort you could do it while you're valeting your car. And it will go miles.

Please try.

[smoked]

Any opinions on how Loeb & Loeb stacks up against Latham/Sheppard/Manatt in regards to corporate entertainment work and exit ops? Mostly want to know for M&A, film finance, and other non-talent corporate deal work (think JV's, strategic partnerships, large scale licensing, etc.). Not really concerned with talent representation.

Latham does a lot of film finance. A group from OMM left for Latham in 2014 that handles a lot of this.
Sheppard doesnt do any film finance, but rather works on the JVs, licensing, and distribution deals mostly out of the CC office.
Loeb does similar work to Sheppard, though not as much, and does a lot of talent stuff mostly.

Thank you. If anyone has insight into culture/quality of life/associate turnover at Manatt/Latham CC/Loeb, that would be much appreciated.

Bump on culture, turnover, etc. at Manatt/Latham CC/Loeb. OP here going non-anon (not sure why I did first time around...call me timid).

Also, seconding SmokeytheBear re: callbacks. Callback interviewers in CA are, for the most part (based on my exp, colleagues, and friends at other CA firms), just looking to see if:

(a) you fit the firm's culture (which generally means determining if you're a normal, good person who the interviewer would like working with day-to-day); and
(b) you're actually interested in the firm.

I've done a few interviews so far and a lot of candidates are forgetting about (b). Even just asking your interviewer about the firm and their practice makes you look interested--ask about why they chose the firm, what their day-to-day is like (law school tells you very little about this, especially if you're interviewing for corporate), what the summer program is like and what they liked most about their summer (most associates loved being a summer associate and will probably gladly talk your ear off about summer).

[lolRCscrewyou]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

[Anonymous User]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

Would also like to know, because same.

[SmokeytheBear]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

Would also like to know, because same.

SD is notoriously difficult to break into, even with ties. There are many firms there, but not all have summer classes and those that do have small classes. It's also known for a more laid back work environment. And they pay market and the cost of living there is nothing compared to NYC/LA/SV/SF. All that means there are going to be many qualified people competing for not that many spots.

Not sure what to tell you about why you're striking out at LA. The 3.3 is probably hurting a little bit, to be brutally honest.

[smokeylarue]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

It's probably the grades. Lot of Cali offices are grade snobby because the classes are so small so they can afford to be snobby. This is more or less true of any major non-NY market like SF, Chicago, or DC.

[SmokeytheBear]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

It's probably the grades. Lot of Cali offices are grade snobby because the classes are so small so they can afford to be snobby. This is more or less true of any major non-NY market like SF, Chicago, or DC.

Another smokey, eh.

[Anonymous User]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

Would also like to know, because same.

SD is notoriously difficult to break into, even with ties. There are many firms there, but not all have summer classes and those that do have small classes. It's also known for a more laid back work environment. And they pay market and the cost of living there is nothing compared to NYC/LA/SV/SF. All that means there are going to be many qualified people competing for not that many spots.

Not sure what to tell you about why you're striking out at LA. The 3.3 is probably hurting a little bit, to be brutally honest.

Is it just as hard to break into as a lateral? Suppose I did biglaw in New York for a couple years and want to return home? Also, how do people manage to lateral from another state to California? Do they just take a couple months off to take the CA bar, or is there a way to knock both of them out right after law school?

[SmokeytheBear]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

Would also like to know, because same.

SD is notoriously difficult to break into, even with ties. There are many firms there, but not all have summer classes and those that do have small classes. It's also known for a more laid back work environment. And they pay market and the cost of living there is nothing compared to NYC/LA/SV/SF. All that means there are going to be many qualified people competing for not that many spots.

Not sure what to tell you about why you're striking out at LA. The 3.3 is probably hurting a little bit, to be brutally honest.

Is it just as hard to break into as a lateral? Suppose I did biglaw in New York for a couple years and want to return home? Also, how do people manage to lateral from another state to California? Do they just take a couple months off to take the CA bar, or is there a way to knock both of them out right after law school?

Breaking in can be done, it's just not easy. Again, you'll need ties to SD. You'll also need to be doing something that is useful for that market. Note that obviously firms there are full service, but many lean heavily on life sciences, aerospace/defense, and emerging growth practices--in other words coming from corporate or IP will give you the best shot.

[Anonymous User]

Is it just as hard to break into as a lateral? Suppose I did biglaw in New York for a couple years and want to return home? Also, how do people manage to lateral from another state to California? Do they just take a couple months off to take the CA bar, or is there a way to knock both of them out right after law school?

Breaking in can be done, it's just not easy. Again, you'll need ties to SD. You'll also need to be doing something that is useful for that market. Note that obviously firms there are full service, but many lean heavily on life sciences, aerospace/defense, and emerging growth practices--in other words coming from corporate or IP will give you the best shot.

I talked to one SD biglaw partner who lateraled from LA, and she mentioned that it's much easier to join as an SA than to lateral later. This was in the recruiting context/pure anecdata, so grain of salt. The takeaway for me though was that because there's only a handful of SD biglaw firms, and they all don't hire many attorneys as it is, there's a good chance you may have to wait awhile for a job opening at your experience level and in your practice area to actually open up once you're ready to make the jump.

I also got the impression that if you want to do corporate work in SD, you're much more likely to remain a generalist than if you practice in NY or another major market. Idk if that really matters after only 2 yrs, but it may be more challenging if you get pigeon-holed and then try to move later.

[Anonymous User]

3.3 at a T-10 out of California. 2 journals and involvement with our women's association. Was born and raised in SoCal and went to college in San Diego. However, i keep striking out at LA and SD firms. Whats a person gotta do to get even an interview?!

It's probably the grades. Lot of Cali offices are grade snobby because the classes are so small so they can afford to be snobby. This is more or less true of any major non-NY market like SF, Chicago, or DC.

Okay, that's fair. I'm still top half at my T-10 but my grades are definitely not showstopping. I had turned down UCLA and USC thinking that LA wouldn't be so difficult to get into with my ties, so I'm just having a little bit of FOMO