What is Redeeming about V20 (aside from Wachtell bonus)? Forum

[Anonymous User]

How does that work with a firm like Fried Frank, where the atmosphere is (slightly) more relaxed, but they're doing a bunch of deals with Goldman on as the Ibanker? I mean, I know S&C is THE PLACE if you want to work with Goldman, but do people from these lower ranked firms really have no shot when they actually are working with GS regularly? *I don't mean this to sound contentious. I'm a rising 2L so I have not dog in this fight

Oh boy. As an S&C associate with two close friends at FF, all I can tell you is that if you think FF is more relaxed, even slightly, than S&C, you have a big fucking surprise coming when you start working.

[Mal Reynolds]

FF also works their summers like associates. At least S&C is considerate enough to let you have a nice summer before they drop the hammer.

[Anonymous User]

How does that work with a firm like Fried Frank, where the atmosphere is (slightly) more relaxed, but they're doing a bunch of deals with Goldman on as the Ibanker? I mean, I know S&C is THE PLACE if you want to work with Goldman, but do people from these lower ranked firms really have no shot when they actually are working with GS regularly? *I don't mean this to sound contentious. I'm a rising 2L so I have not dog in this fight

Oh boy. As an S&C associate with two close friends at FF, all I can tell you is that if you think FF is more relaxed, even slightly, than S&C, you have a big fucking surprise coming when you start working.

fair enough. Bad example. But I'm sure there are some firms that aren't Cravath-level wrt hours but do have exposure to top clients. And at the very last, a place like FF is going to be easier to get into than S&C for those with average grades at a T14

[KidStuddi]

You are being a tad sensitive and making unfounded accusations. I am approaching OCI and have interviews with firms ranging from the top to the bottom of the Vault list. I am trying to make an informed decision among those firms and would appreciate a civil response.

Do you think your attitude is representative of those of the people at V5 firms?

Without being facetious, yes, I think it is.

If you're not one of those people who get something out of the fact that you're working at one of the best law firms in the world, helping the biggest corporations and/or wealthiest individuals, your interests are better better served by going to smaller "lifestyle" firm.

It's very much worth it to me to work long hours if it means I get to work with the best for the best. I fully admit that I'm a prestige whore.

And to your earlier loaded questions:

-Who do you think JP Morgan is going to hire? An associate from the V5 firm it has a 100 year relationship with, even if that associate has never directly met the clients or taken on "substantial responsibilities", or an associate from a V100 who's never come within 1000 feet of a client of the same caliber?

-Ask around at any of the V100 firms down the food chain--you'll find that a good chunk of their senior associates came from a V10 or V20 firm. For some reason, I've never heard of any senior associates at a V10 who came from a V100...

Man you're going to be miserable in life.

Yeah, I feel compelled to point out that this guy is not at all representative of what most V10 associates are like. At least at my firm. I have never heard/seen anything approaching the prestige boner this guy gets from serving the "biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals" around the office. Most of us are just normal people who did well in school and couldn't give a fuck less about Vault rankings / Chambers bands.

[Old Gregg]

You are being a tad sensitive and making unfounded accusations. I am approaching OCI and have interviews with firms ranging from the top to the bottom of the Vault list. I am trying to make an informed decision among those firms and would appreciate a civil response.

Do you think your attitude is representative of those of the people at V5 firms?

Without being facetious, yes, I think it is.

If you're not one of those people who get something out of the fact that you're working at one of the best law firms in the world, helping the biggest corporations and/or wealthiest individuals, your interests are better better served by going to smaller "lifestyle" firm.

It's very much worth it to me to work long hours if it means I get to work with the best for the best. I fully admit that I'm a prestige whore.

And to your earlier loaded questions:

-Who do you think JP Morgan is going to hire? An associate from the V5 firm it has a 100 year relationship with, even if that associate has never directly met the clients or taken on "substantial responsibilities", or an associate from a V100 who's never come within 1000 feet of a client of the same caliber?

-Ask around at any of the V100 firms down the food chain--you'll find that a good chunk of their senior associates came from a V10 or V20 firm. For some reason, I've never heard of any senior associates at a V10 who came from a V100...

Man you're going to be miserable in life.

Yeah, I feel compelled to point out that this guy is not at all representative of what most V10 associates are like. At least at my firm. I have never heard/seen anything approaching the prestige boner this guy gets from serving the "biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals" around the office. Most of us are just normal people who did well in school and couldn't give a fuck less about Vault rankings / Chambers bands.

Thanks I was there too man.

[Phil Brooks]

You are being a tad sensitive and making unfounded accusations. I am approaching OCI and have interviews with firms ranging from the top to the bottom of the Vault list. I am trying to make an informed decision among those firms and would appreciate a civil response.

Do you think your attitude is representative of those of the people at V5 firms?

Without being facetious, yes, I think it is.

If you're not one of those people who get something out of the fact that you're working at one of the best law firms in the world, helping the biggest corporations and/or wealthiest individuals, your interests are better better served by going to smaller "lifestyle" firm.

It's very much worth it to me to work long hours if it means I get to work with the best for the best. I fully admit that I'm a prestige whore.

And to your earlier loaded questions:

-Who do you think JP Morgan is going to hire? An associate from the V5 firm it has a 100 year relationship with, even if that associate has never directly met the clients or taken on "substantial responsibilities", or an associate from a V100 who's never come within 1000 feet of a client of the same caliber?

-Ask around at any of the V100 firms down the food chain--you'll find that a good chunk of their senior associates came from a V10 or V20 firm. For some reason, I've never heard of any senior associates at a V10 who came from a V100...

Man you're going to be miserable in life.

Yeah, I feel compelled to point out that this guy is not at all representative of what most V10 associates are like. At least at my firm. I have never heard/seen anything approaching the prestige boner this guy gets from serving the "biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals" around the office. Most of us are just normal people who did well in school and couldn't give a fuck less about Vault rankings / Chambers bands.

Good to know. Thanks.

[Phil Brooks]

OP here.

Is the disparity* in exit options as pertinent for commercial litigators, or are they (we) screwed regardless of our firm's rank?

*I acknowledge that this disparity has been disputed with the example of Fried Frank etc.

[Lacepiece23]

Everyone in this thread seems to have a corporate bias. What about Lit? I turned down some prestige for a better work/life balanace and more substantive work in another market. I always understood why it was important for corp associates to go to top firms, but never really understood the draw for litigation folks.

[Anonymous User]

How does that work with a firm like Fried Frank, where the atmosphere is (slightly) more relaxed, but they're doing a bunch of deals with Goldman on as the Ibanker? I mean, I know S&C is THE PLACE if you want to work with Goldman, but do people from these lower ranked firms really have no shot when they actually are working with GS regularly? *I don't mean this to sound contentious. I'm a rising 2L so I have not dog in this fight

Oh boy. As an S&C associate with two close friends at FF, all I can tell you is that if you think FF is more relaxed, even slightly, than S&C, you have a big fucking surprise coming when you start working.

fair enough. Bad example. But I'm sure there are some firms that aren't Cravath-level wrt hours but do have exposure to top clients. And at the very last, a place like FF is going to be easier to get into than S&C for those with average grades at a T14

My understanding based on my friends' experiences since we graduated is that there is absolutely no correlation between Vault ranking/prestige and hours. The only thing I've seen that correlates with hours is location in a secondary market - Boston / DC corp /Philly folks clearly work less. NYC is pretty consistent from firm to firm with far more variance within firms based upon practice group than from firm to firm.

To give you an idea, my friends whose hours are the worst are at Ropes and Debevoise. The lightest load is probably me, at S&C, and my buddy at Weil.

[gk101]

Everyone in this thread seems to have a corporate bias. What about Lit? I turned down some prestige for a better work/life balanace and more substantive work in another market. I always understood why it was important for corp associates to go to top firms, but never really understood the draw for litigation folks.

Vault rankings in general have a corporate bias. With litigation, the work and fit within the practice group is far more important than the rankings. The same may be true in practice for corporate as well (fit + work>>>>> vault ranking) but I get the impression that vault rankings are an acceptable proxy for picking "elite" firms. Prestige whoring based on vault rankings in litigation is objectively dumb

[Phil Brooks]

Everyone in this thread seems to have a corporate bias. What about Lit? I turned down some prestige for a better work/life balanace and more substantive work in another market. I always understood why it was important for corp associates to go to top firms, but never really understood the draw for litigation folks.

Vault rankings in general have a corporate bias. With litigation, the work and fit within the practice group is far more important than the rankings. The same may be true in practice for corporate as well (fit + work>>>>> vault ranking) but I get the impression that vault rankings are an acceptable proxy for picking "elite" firms. Prestige whoring based on vault rankings in litigation is objectively dumb

Asked and answered. Thank you.

One final thing: is "prestige whoring based on vault rankings in litigation objectively dumb" because the allegedly primary advantage of highly ranked firms--exit options--does not apply to litigation? I.e. Litigators are screwed for exit options regardless of the rank of the firm?

[rambleon65]

You are being a tad sensitive and making unfounded accusations. I am approaching OCI and have interviews with firms ranging from the top to the bottom of the Vault list. I am trying to make an informed decision among those firms and would appreciate a civil response.

Do you think your attitude is representative of those of the people at V5 firms?

Without being facetious, yes, I think it is.

If you're not one of those people who get something out of the fact that you're working at one of the best law firms in the world, helping the biggest corporations and/or wealthiest individuals, your interests are better better served by going to smaller "lifestyle" firm.

It's very much worth it to me to work long hours if it means I get to work with the best for the best. I fully admit that I'm a prestige whore.

And to your earlier loaded questions:

-Who do you think JP Morgan is going to hire? An associate from the V5 firm it has a 100 year relationship with, even if that associate has never directly met the clients or taken on "substantial responsibilities", or an associate from a V100 who's never come within 1000 feet of a client of the same caliber?

-Ask around at any of the V100 firms down the food chain--you'll find that a good chunk of their senior associates came from a V10 or V20 firm. For some reason, I've never heard of any senior associates at a V10 who came from a V100...

Man you're going to be miserable in life.

[Anonymous User]

FF also works their summers like associates. At least S&C is considerate enough to let you have a nice summer before they drop the hammer.

I'm just finishing my summer at S&C and you're wrong. Many of us pulled all-nighters and worked straight through weekends.

Have you worked at S&C or FF? Aren't you a rising 2L?

[Mal Reynolds]

FF also works their summers like associates. At least S&C is considerate enough to let you have a nice summer before they drop the hammer.

I'm just finishing my summer at S&C and you're wrong. Many of us pulled all-nighters and worked straight through weekends.

Have you worked at S&C or FF? Aren't you a rising 2L?

I know FF and S&C summers. The S&C worked basically 9-5. The late stuff was probably your choice.

[gk101]

Everyone in this thread seems to have a corporate bias. What about Lit? I turned down some prestige for a better work/life balanace and more substantive work in another market. I always understood why it was important for corp associates to go to top firms, but never really understood the draw for litigation folks.

Vault rankings in general have a corporate bias. With litigation, the work and fit within the practice group is far more important than the rankings. The same may be true in practice for corporate as well (fit + work>>>>> vault ranking) but I get the impression that vault rankings are an acceptable proxy for picking "elite" firms. Prestige whoring based on vault rankings in litigation is objectively dumb

Asked and answered. Thank you.

One final thing: is "prestige whoring based on vault rankings in litigation objectively dumb" because the allegedly primary advantage of highly ranked firms--exit options--does not apply to litigation? I.e. Litigators are screwed for exit options regardless of the rank of the firm?

The bold part is not true.

[Pikappraider]

For corporate rankings the vault rankings are decent but its not like you won't have big important clients at like a Schulte Roth. Also all of he nyc firms work hard, its not like the v100 firms work less hours, my buddy at stroock stroock had insane billables last year

[nsideirish]

FF also works their summers like associates. At least S&C is considerate enough to let you have a nice summer before they drop the hammer.

I'm just finishing my summer at S&C and you're wrong. Many of us pulled all-nighters and worked straight through weekends.

Have you worked at S&C or FF? Aren't you a rising 2L?

Lol at summers pulling all-nighters and working through the weekends.

[Anonymous User]

FF also works their summers like associates. At least S&C is considerate enough to let you have a nice summer before they drop the hammer.

I'm just finishing my summer at S&C and you're wrong. Many of us pulled all-nighters and worked straight through weekends.

Have you worked at S&C or FF? Aren't you a rising 2L?

Also finishing S&C.... yes I pulled a few all-nighters this summer, but those were massively outnumbered by the days we rolled out at 5:30 pm.

[09042014]

lot of wearing their S&C tote with the label facing out going on ITT

[Anonymous User]

lot of wearing their S&C tote with the label facing out going on ITT

<opens thread about exit ops from top firms>
<sees helpful replies from folks at top firms about exit ops>
<complains>


If it makes you feel a little less wounded, I'll describe my firm as a V3.276 next time so that we're all happy.

[Briney Spring Gun]

OP-

I think you're drawing a rather arbitrary line. Look at it from this perspective: If you are getting interviews with firms from the top to the bototm of the Vault rankings, then take all of the interviews, ask questions, and see what you like/dislike about each firm, regardless of rank. Exit options are always something you should be considering, but overall you should go with feel. If you feel comfortable with a firm that is in the top 20, go with them. If your favorite firm winds up being v50, consider going with them.

[LRGhost]

lot of wearing their S&C tote with the label facing out going on ITT

<opens thread about exit ops from top firms>
<sees helpful replies from folks at top firms about exit ops>
<complains>


If it makes you feel a little less wounded, I'll describe my firm as a V3.276 next time so that we're all happy.

OP, do you want to know why there is some benefit to going to a "better" ranked firm?

Because about half of the lawyers you'll work with are obnoxious fucks like this guy who care.

[Anonymous User]

tl;dr

I say this with 1 summer of biglaw experience, so take it with a grain of salt.

I find who I'm being supervised by extremely important for my work satisfaction. For better or worse, you're not making this decision in isolation. The people who are going to be supervising you have made similar decisions years ago, and on average, the top V firms' current old guard tend to have gone to better schools, done better at those schools, and have similar work habits/ambitions as the ones who will be joining their ranks now.

If that's not what you're looking for, fine. But if you're an ambitious gunner from T14 and you prefer to be managed by ex-ambitious gunners from T14, then you're less likely to get that satisfaction in lower ranked firms.

[hellojd]

Tagging what has become a very useful thread. To the associates in here, please keep answering and being helpful.

To the associates here, my question is: obviously, there is a lot of caution on TLS about the lives of biglaw attorneys, working impossible schedules, etc. But you all also say that you have gotten a lot of substantial work. What would you rate your overall job satisfaction as, ranging from 1 (hell no never do this with your life) - 10 (I love what I do and wouldn't change a thing except maybe the hours)?

[Anonymous User]

Tagging what has become a very useful thread. To the associates in here, please keep answering and being helpful.

To the associates here, my question is: obviously, there is a lot of caution on TLS about the lives of biglaw attorneys, working impossible schedules, etc. But you all also say that you have gotten a lot of substantial work. What would you rate your overall job satisfaction as, ranging from 1 (hell no never do this with your life) - 10 (I love what I do and wouldn't change a thing except maybe the hours)?

HA. The hours is the only thing I am not trying to change in my next move. If you're staffed on something, you have to stay with it to really own it and understand it. I wouldn't want to back off from that.