How heavily do the Vault Rankings Influence Your Job Offers? Forum

[WheninLaw]

0. Reverse-vault is probably credited in California.

[First Offense]

Didn't end up in NY. Fuck Vault.

[Desert Fox]

[Anonymous User]

say there are two law firms with similar qualities (strength of practice area, qol, hours etc) but the salary is different - one pays more than the other because it isn't lockstep, but the one that is lockstep is more prestigious (aka has a name that is more recognizable). would you choose the more prestigious one even if you would make 2m less as a partner there than you would if you were a partner at the other one?

[Anonymous User]

Some influence. I was choosing between two firms with particular advantages and disadvantages that I felt, on balance, cancelled each other out. Ranking aside, I would have flipped a coin.

One of the firms is ranked higher on Vault, ATL, and every Chambers category. That's the one I went with.

[84651846190]

Vault isn't accurate enough to use at all.

for litigation. in fact, the higher ranked the firm, the shittier it is for litigation, in many cases. top firms are making bank on mass doc review projects, not sending associates to court (lol). good luck trying to find a job after 5 years of doc review at Latham. you'd be much better off working at a smaller firm and getting less "high stakes" experience but building actual litigation skills. high stakes giant litigations are great for equity partners, super shitty for junior associates

Damn, going to have to tell all those associates I've seen leave Latham for DOJ, AUSA and various in-house positions that they're shit out of luck.

They probably got those jobs based on grades/clerkships, not based on whatever rote shit they were doing at Latham. Who exactly do you think does all of the discovery, doc review, first drafts of pleadings, etc.? Also, you're probably talking about people who actually survived to become senior associates before getting pushed out or burning out, which is a non-representative subset.

[chuckbass]

say there are two law firms with similar qualities (strength of practice area, qol, hours etc) but the salary is different - one pays more than the other because it isn't lockstep, but the one that is lockstep is more prestigious (aka has a name that is more recognizable). would you choose the more prestigious one even if you would make 2m less as a partner there than you would if you were a partner at the other one?

I think choosing a firm based on partner compensation is a little cart before horse.

[Anonymous User]

They probably got those jobs based on grades/clerkships, not based on whatever rote shit they were doing at Latham. Who exactly do you think does all of the discovery, doc review, first drafts of pleadings, etc.? Also, you're probably talking about people who actually survived to become senior associates before getting pushed out or burning out, which is a non-representative subset.

3rd-5th years.

Gotta appreciate the pivot from "good luck finding a job!" to "sure, you can get a job, but it will be from all these other things you were likely selected for in the first place!"

You must have trial experience!

[Desert Fox]

[lavarman84]

It influenced my mass mailing because I just went down the list on Vault.

[84651846190]

They probably got those jobs based on grades/clerkships, not based on whatever rote shit they were doing at Latham. Who exactly do you think does all of the discovery, doc review, first drafts of pleadings, etc.? Also, you're probably talking about people who actually survived to become senior associates before getting pushed out or burning out, which is a non-representative subset.

3rd-5th years.

Gotta appreciate the pivot from "good luck finding a job!" to "sure, you can get a job, but it will be from all these other things you were likely selected for in the first place!"

You must have trial experience!

I'm going to take your word for it that some tiny group of 3rd-5th years somehow gained some kind of useful experience at Latham that helped them get AUSA jobs. I doubt this actually happened. But even if that's true for those few people, it's not true for the vast majority of biglaw associates, and 100% of your comments in this regard are irrelevant to almost everyone. The vast majority of ex-biglaw litigation associates I know have settled for much shittier outcomes after biglaw.

Transactional folks generally have it much better than litigation folks after biglaw.

[dixiecupdrinking]

They probably got those jobs based on grades/clerkships, not based on whatever rote shit they were doing at Latham. Who exactly do you think does all of the discovery, doc review, first drafts of pleadings, etc.? Also, you're probably talking about people who actually survived to become senior associates before getting pushed out or burning out, which is a non-representative subset.

3rd-5th years.

Gotta appreciate the pivot from "good luck finding a job!" to "sure, you can get a job, but it will be from all these other things you were likely selected for in the first place!"

You must have trial experience!

I'm going to take your word for it that some tiny group of 3rd-5th years somehow gained some kind of useful experience at Latham that helped them get AUSA jobs. I doubt this actually happened. But even if that's true for those few people, it's not true for the vast majority of biglaw associates, and 100% of your comments in this regard are irrelevant to almost everyone. The vast majority of ex-biglaw litigation associates I know have settled for much shittier outcomes after biglaw.

Transactional folks generally have it much better than litigation folks after biglaw.

TBF saying higher ranked Vault firms are worse for lit than lower ranked firms is a pretty ridiculous blanket statement.

[84651846190]

They probably got those jobs based on grades/clerkships, not based on whatever rote shit they were doing at Latham. Who exactly do you think does all of the discovery, doc review, first drafts of pleadings, etc.? Also, you're probably talking about people who actually survived to become senior associates before getting pushed out or burning out, which is a non-representative subset.

3rd-5th years.

Gotta appreciate the pivot from "good luck finding a job!" to "sure, you can get a job, but it will be from all these other things you were likely selected for in the first place!"

You must have trial experience!

I'm going to take your word for it that some tiny group of 3rd-5th years somehow gained some kind of useful experience at Latham that helped them get AUSA jobs. I doubt this actually happened. But even if that's true for those few people, it's not true for the vast majority of biglaw associates, and 100% of your comments in this regard are irrelevant to almost everyone. The vast majority of ex-biglaw litigation associates I know have settled for much shittier outcomes after biglaw.

Transactional folks generally have it much better than litigation folks after biglaw.

TBF saying higher ranked Vault firms are worse for lit than lower ranked firms is a pretty ridiculous blanket statement.

Not necessarily, if you understand law firm economics. Clients want the best partners working on their biggest matters. The biggest matters create the most leverage. The most leverage creates the biggest incentives for top partners to join/stay with law firms. The biggest matters that involve the most leverage necessarily afford associates the fewest opportunities for certain kinds of substantive experience that are essential for long-term success, like client interaction and trial experience.

[SweetrollStealer]

I do think there's some truth to the assertion that higher-ranked Vault firms provide worse lit experience for juniors especially in New York. It's not impossible or even unlikely for midlevel NYC V10 litigators to lateral to AUSA or other government jobs. You just have to waste the first three years of your career spending 90% of your time on rote, commodity work and savoring the one or two opportunities you get every few months to do a substantive task. If you can endure that, then you'll start getting more real work to do and you'll presumably have good relationships with partners who might be able to help hook you up. At smaller or lower-ranked firms, and much more so in DC (and probably Chicago, California, other markets as well) my sense is that there's just a lot less dues-paying.

[dixiecupdrinking]

They probably got those jobs based on grades/clerkships, not based on whatever rote shit they were doing at Latham. Who exactly do you think does all of the discovery, doc review, first drafts of pleadings, etc.? Also, you're probably talking about people who actually survived to become senior associates before getting pushed out or burning out, which is a non-representative subset.

3rd-5th years.

Gotta appreciate the pivot from "good luck finding a job!" to "sure, you can get a job, but it will be from all these other things you were likely selected for in the first place!"

You must have trial experience!

I'm going to take your word for it that some tiny group of 3rd-5th years somehow gained some kind of useful experience at Latham that helped them get AUSA jobs. I doubt this actually happened. But even if that's true for those few people, it's not true for the vast majority of biglaw associates, and 100% of your comments in this regard are irrelevant to almost everyone. The vast majority of ex-biglaw litigation associates I know have settled for much shittier outcomes after biglaw.

Transactional folks generally have it much better than litigation folks after biglaw.

TBF saying higher ranked Vault firms are worse for lit than lower ranked firms is a pretty ridiculous blanket statement.

Not necessarily, if you understand law firm economics. Clients want the best partners working on their biggest matters. The biggest matters create the most leverage. The most leverage creates the biggest incentives for top partners to join/stay with law firms. The biggest matters that involve the most leverage necessarily afford associates the fewest opportunities for certain kinds of substantive experience that are essential for long-term success, like client interaction and trial experience.

I guess so. I don't get the sense that junior litigation associates at lower V100 firms are doing better work. I think the primary issue is biglaw period is not great for getting hands on lit experience. Not sure that the deviations from that standard have much relation to Vault ranks either way.

[Anonymous User]

Higher vault ranked satellite office or lower vault ranked main?

[almondjoy]

Higher vault ranked satellite office or lower vault ranked main?

Chambers

[UnicornHunter]

Higher vault ranked satellite office or lower vault ranked main?

Chambers

Does chambers even make sense for entry level associates?

[rpupkin]

Higher vault ranked satellite office or lower vault ranked main?

Chambers

Does chambers even make sense for entry level associates?

That was the point of my asking the "why is Chambers better than Vault" question earlier ITT. Just because the senior partner in a firm's practice group is "Band 1" doesn't mean that it's a good place for a junior associate to start a career.

Perhaps Chambers makes more sense for corporate associates, where one's exit options are dictated by the quality of the practice group's clients (or so I am told). But in litigation, most exit options are driven by skill-acquisition and actual client contact. And a lot of those Band 1/Band 2 practice groups are poor places to get that kind of experience.

To be clear, I agree with the conventional wisdom that Vault is essentially useless for litigation associates. But I think there needs to be more skepticism about the value of Chambers as well.

[DELG]

Higher vault ranked satellite office or lower vault ranked main?

Chambers

Does chambers even make sense for entry level associates?

That was the point of my asking the "why is Chambers better than Vault" question earlier ITT. Just because the senior partner in a firm's practice group is "Band 1" doesn't mean that it's a good place for a junior associate to start a career.

Perhaps Chambers makes more sense for corporate associates, where one's exit options are dictated by the quality of the practice group's clients (or so I am told). But in litigation, most exit options are driven by skill-acquisition and actual client contact. And a lot of those Band 1/Band 2 practice groups are poor places to get that kind of experience.

To be clear, I agree with the conventional wisdom that Vault is essentially useless for litigation associates. But I think there needs to be more skepticism about the value of Chambers as well.

Client contact doesn't really drive lit exit options. Firm branding is big though.

[rpupkin]

Client contact doesn't really drive lit exit options. Firm branding is big though.

I disagree. There aren't that many desirable in-house lit positions out there. But based on what I've seen, those positions often go to associates who were able to work closely with the in-house client.

[DELG]

Client contact doesn't really drive lit exit options. Firm branding is big though.

I disagree. There aren't that many desirable in-house lit positions out there. But based on what I've seen, those positions often go to associates who were able to work closely with the in-house client.

I would agree if in-house were where shitigators exit, but it isn't, so that's not really a sensible consideration.

[rpupkin]

Client contact doesn't really drive lit exit options. Firm branding is big though.

I disagree. There aren't that many desirable in-house lit positions out there. But based on what I've seen, those positions often go to associates who were able to work closely with the in-house client.

I would agree if in-house were where shitigators exit, but it isn't, so that's not really a sensible consideration.

But that's a little circular though, right? I mean, the point is that you can exit in-house if you develop the right relationships.

As far as government exit options go, I agree that client contact matters far less than "firm branding," as you put it. But if you're exiting to another law firm (which is probably the most common exit destination for litigators), then having substantive client-contact experience will be a significant plus.

[DELG]

Client contact doesn't really drive lit exit options. Firm branding is big though.

I disagree. There aren't that many desirable in-house lit positions out there. But based on what I've seen, those positions often go to associates who were able to work closely with the in-house client.

I would agree if in-house were where shitigators exit, but it isn't, so that's not really a sensible consideration.

But that's a little circular though, right? I mean, the point is that you can exit in-house if you develop the right relationships.

As far as government exit options go, I agree that client contact matters far less than "firm branding," as you put it. But if you're exiting to another law firm (which is probably the most common exit destination for litigators), then having substantive client-contact experience will be a significant plus.

You probably, most likely, can't go in-house with the world's best connections, from lit. It's the "just do well and transfer" of exit options.

Okay if you're at a V5, you're not taking clients with you, so client contact isn't that meaningful. If you have clients that can and will leave with you, as an associate, why are you exiting, and where? Basically to the same kind of firm (and you're probably in midlaw already).

If you're an associate at a good firm, you're in a sort of awkward position where you can't really cultivate your own clients because the firm won't take cases small enough for you to bring in, and for the bigger cases, there's a question of if, even if your college roommate's dad did you a solid and called you first, it would have come Davis Polk's way anyway and your involvement was more coincidental.

[rpupkin]

You probably, most likely, can't go in-house with the world's best connections, from lit. It's the "just do well and transfer" of exit options.

This just isn't true. I practice in California, so maybe it's a region-specific thing, but there are a fair number of in-house lit opportunities here and one's connections definitely matter.

Okay if you're at a V5, you're not taking clients with you, so client contact isn't that meaningful. If you have clients that can and will leave with you, as an associate, why are you exiting, and where? Basically to the same kind of firm (and you're probably in midlaw already).

You misunderstood me. This isn't about "taking clients with you." (If you're actually in a position to take clients with you, then you're almost surely in a position to make partner at your current firm.) It's about the quality of experience you get. When considering laterals, firms are looking for associates with actual lit skills--someone who can run (or at least help run) a case. If all you've done is stuff like doc review, rog responses, and drafts of pleadings, then you're going to be a relatively weak lateral candidate. An associate who has worked directly with clients will have an advantage over an associate who hasn't. None of this is controversial, I hope.