Cravath/Davis Polk/Cleary (NY) v. Morrison Foerster (SF) Forum

[Anonymous User]

You clearly have never taken a stats class. Sample of 1 person must mean it's true!

I actually have never taken a stats class. But I can say this as well: All of the NY transplants at my firm, and there are many, have better hours.

Also, you seem to have unintentionally answered the OP's question about mobility -- it's easy to move from NYC to SF/SV. Vault may not be as important in the Bay as it is in New York, but firms like MoFo know that Cravath/DPW/Cleary are the cream of the crop in New York.

Yeah, I really can't imagine that MoFo corporate would not take a serious look at any Cravath applicant they get... they probably just don't get a lot because 1) difference in geography 2) if you're at Cravath corporate you probably don't want to do corporate at another firm since lifestyle won't be that different and you're probably downgrading in terms of quality of your work 3) people leaving Cravath and other top-flight firms will usually go in-house for aforementioned reason.

[jbagelboy]

You clearly have never taken a stats class. Sample of 1 person must mean it's true!

I actually have never taken a stats class. But I can say this as well: All of the NY transplants at my firm, and there are many, have better hours.

Also, you seem to have unintentionally answered the OP's question about mobility -- it's easy to move from NYC to SF/SV. Vault may not be as important in the Bay as it is in New York, but firms like MoFo know that Cravath/DPW/Cleary are the cream of the crop in New York.

Yeah, I really can't imagine that MoFo corporate would not take a serious look at any Cravath applicant they get... they probably just don't get a lot because 1) difference in geography 2) if you're at Cravath corporate you probably don't want to do corporate at another firm since lifestyle won't be that different and you're probably downgrading in terms of quality of your work 3) people leaving Cravath and other top-flight firms will usually go in-house for aforementioned reason.

I thought this was about NYC V10 -> top SV corporate laterals vis a vis MoFo SF -> top SV corporate, not NYC V10 -> Morrison Foerster SF. Why does it matter whether you could lateral to MoFo, OP already has that offer

[Anonymous User]

I actually have never taken a stats class. But I can say this as well: All of the NY transplants at my firm, and there are many, have better hours.

Also, you seem to have unintentionally answered the OP's question about mobility -- it's easy to move from NYC to SF/SV. Vault may not be as important in the Bay as it is in New York, but firms like MoFo know that Cravath/DPW/Cleary are the cream of the crop in New York.

Yeah, I really can't imagine that MoFo corporate would not take a serious look at any Cravath applicant they get... they probably just don't get a lot because 1) difference in geography 2) if you're at Cravath corporate you probably don't want to do corporate at another firm since lifestyle won't be that different and you're probably downgrading in terms of quality of your work 3) people leaving Cravath and other top-flight firms will usually go in-house for aforementioned reason.

I thought this was about NYC V10 -> top SV corporate laterals vis a vis MoFo SF -> top SV corporate, not NYC V10 -> Morrison Foerster SF. Why does it matter whether you could lateral to MoFo, OP already has that offer

Fwiw, at my NY V5, there is an insane amount of lateraling to the top SV corporate practices. One of the firms hires so many folks from us that people joke that it's our SV office.

[Anonymous User]

4. Question for WSGR/Cooley/Fenwick/Gunderson anon:

Just saying that in terms of the offers we've given, definite bias toward the V10 in NYC.

- Does this "definite bias" also apply to V10 bay area offices that are fairly big players in the region? Or is does it primarily have to do with the NYC offices in particular?

I'm curious about this too. I'm in a similar position as OP - currently don't have offers from SV firms, but have options in V10 bay area offices. What are my chances of lateraling?

[Anonymous User]

4. Question for WSGR/Cooley/Fenwick/Gunderson anon:

Just saying that in terms of the offers we've given, definite bias toward the V10 in NYC.

- Does this "definite bias" also apply to V10 bay area offices that are fairly big players in the region? Or is does it primarily have to do with the NYC offices in particular?

I'm curious about this too. I'm in a similar position as OP - currently don't have offers from SV firms, but have options in V10 bay area offices. What are my chances of lateraling?

Same anon as before. No difference from what I've seen, partly because corporate associates at these offices tend to work the same hours.

[Anonymous User]

I work at one of Gunderson/WSGR/Fenwick/Cooley:

I don't think MoFo is necessarily better than Cravath or Davis Polk when it comes to lateraling to one of the Silicon Valley practices. Firms in SV definitely know the prestige difference between the firms and also desire the training/work ethic that Cravath/Davis Polk lawyers bring to the table.

I see a lot of lateral resumes every day. The market is hot for people to come over. But a lot of people apply here so we have the luxury of being picky. I can definitely say that we've preferred V10 associates from NY.

It's also just a mentality thing. V10 associates are used to being abused, so they view us as a paradise. Not so for people indigenous to the region.

that said, we of course take a lot of people from other big law firms. Just saying that in terms of the offers we've given, definite bias toward the V10 in NYC.

I work in corporate at a NYC v5, strong ties to the bay area and I am looking to make a lateral to SF. However, I will only have about a year of experience when I try to do so. Do grades play a big factor here or is the name of the firm sufficient to get my resume looked at? FWIW, I have passed the CA bar already.

[Anonymous User]

I'm an associate at WSGR. I would say you are fine. A year is a bit on the low end, and may raise some eyebrows, but if you can tell a good story, you should be fine. Just make it clear (not by saying this explicitly, but by telling a convincing story) that you are not leaving your v5 because they dont like you or something.

[sundance95]

MoFo's local Bay Area rep is that it is sweatshoppy (at least, for the Bay Area--that probably means standard NY hours).

I live in SF, and I'm going to Chicken Little here for a second. If I was a 2L leaning corporate, I would think long and hard before coming to the Bay Area. Venture deals are down and valuations are going to start to get real. Because all the investment in that space is private, it's not going to create a nationwide crash a la 2008, but I'd guess it will radically slow down deal work in that space (Q4 saw a big downturn in deals, if I understand correctly) and pwn a lot of associates. And yes, there are other kinds of transactional work here, but a tech slowdown will have far-reaching effects here.

Mandatory disclosure here--I'm a litigator. Now come at me, TLS hordes.

[2014]

MoFo's local Bay Area rep is that it is sweatshoppy (at least, for the Bay Area--that probably means standard NY hours).

I live in SF, and I'm going to Chicken Little here for a second. If I was a 2L leaning corporate, I would think long and hard before coming to the Bay Area. Venture deals are down and valuations are going to start to get real. Because all the investment in that space is private, it's not going to create a nationwide crash a la 2008, but I'd guess it will radically slow down deal work in that space (Q4 saw a big downturn in deals, if I understand correctly) and pwn a lot of associates. And yes, there are other kinds of transactional work here, but a tech slowdown will have far-reaching effects here.

Mandatory disclosure here--I'm a litigator. Now come at me, TLS hordes.

SF to 190

[Anonymous User]

MoFo's local Bay Area rep is that it is sweatshoppy (at least, for the Bay Area--that probably means standard NY hours).

I live in SF, and I'm going to Chicken Little here for a second. If I was a 2L leaning corporate, I would think long and hard before coming to the Bay Area. Venture deals are down and valuations are going to start to get real. Because all the investment in that space is private, it's not going to create a nationwide crash a la 2008, but I'd guess it will radically slow down deal work in that space (Q4 saw a big downturn in deals, if I understand correctly) and pwn a lot of associates. And yes, there are other kinds of transactional work here, but a tech slowdown will have far-reaching effects here.

Mandatory disclosure here--I'm a litigator. Now come at me, TLS hordes.

Any data on this q4 slowdown or general prediction?

[sundance95]

See, e.g.,

https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/media/ ... in-q4.html

https://newsroom.cnb.com/venture-capita ... =position1

http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/article ... rtup-money

ETA: First KPMG report is global, while last two links are specific to SV.

[TheRedMamba]

See, e.g.,

https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/media/ ... in-q4.html

https://newsroom.cnb.com/venture-capita ... =position1

http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/article ... rtup-money

ETA: First KPMG report is global, while last two links are specific to SV.

I see your point about taking a long, hard look at targeting the Bay Area for corporate work as a law student, but I don't think this should deter those students too much.

If anything, this strikes me as a good sign for the longevity of the market's health. Had there not been a slowdown in Q4, people would have been Chicken Little over the pending burst of another tech bubble. This seems to be a good sign that the market is maturing, albeit cooling off.

[sundance95]

OK, fine, that's the thesis of the Bloomberg article, and I don't have any basis to disagree. But even if VC deals/private tech valuations are in for a soft landing, I don't see how that helps junior associates. Law firms expand when there's lots of work, and contract when there is less. The fact is that Q4 2015 had a 28% year-over-year reduction in SV venture deal volume compared with Q4 2014. I'm not cherry-picking there, either--here's what the last year of deals looked like:

Q4 2014 - 364 ($5923.6 MM)
Q1 2015 - 331 ($5746.5 MM)
Q2 2015 - 389 ($9685.5 MM)
Q3 2015 - 362 ($7027.1 MM)
Q4 2015 - 263 ($4229.8 MM)

Source: https://newsroom.cnb.com/venture-capita ... =position1

Obviously, SV/SF transactional practices had enough attorneys to handle ~350 deals per year. If Q4 is the new normal and deal volume slows to about ~ 250 per year, then SV firms simply will not need as many transactional associates.

Put another way: even if tech valuations correct instead of crashing, there still will be less deal work, and hence less demand for associates. That's an uncertain environment to bet that a firm will want to employ you two years in the future, which is what accepting an SA offer is.