Which V10 firm has the most insecure people? Forum

[Anonymous User]

This is fair. I was shitposting in response to stuff like "corporate is just pencil pushing, lit do real lawyer stuff". No actual offense intended.

Absolutely makes sense. I know that a lot of the fun of this website is flame wars, but sometimes I’m still blown away. I’m a litigator and I have no idea what corporate folks do. I also don’t really know what accountants or data such rises or entomologists do. Not trying to compete or compare with any of the above

Accidental anon tlsguy2020

[jotarokujo]

Nah

i'll phrase it this way - money alone does not make sense as a motivation to go to biglaw. there has to be an element of substantive interest because there are more lucrative things to do.

I don't agree even at YSH. Biglaw is about as lucrative as management consulting and success in the better paying finance jobs (HFs, IBD, PE) requires some basic level of quant acumen. If you're a humanities ugrad with a good work ethic, biglaw is one of the most lucrative paths available. I can think of thousands of reasons not to go law school, but money isn't one.

i dont think biglaw is as lucrative as consulting - and again im taking the average. the average person in biglaw doesn't make it past year 4. biglaw partnership is actually quite competitive money wise, but that's not what most people should be going to biglaw should be planning for. so when i say biglaw i mean biglaw as the average person experiences it, which is for a brief time then go into government or in house or something else

the three years opportunity cost is just so massive, the career of other folks is at least three years longer. so folks in other paths will have 3 years more of their most senior years. not to mention tuition and the time value of that. finally, if someone isn't interested in law, they are going to hate law school compared to working.

[Anonymous User]

Do you think consulting ppl last forever in MBB? This is dumb. And again, they don't give out those jobs like candy. Plus MBA is an investment of time and money too.

[jotarokujo]

Do you think consulting ppl last forever in MBB? This is dumb. And again, they don't give out those jobs like candy. Plus MBA is an investment of time and money too.

no but their exits are at least as lucrative as biglaw exits (government, in-house), and they didn't have to go through three years of school. im not saying mba>law school, i'm saying working out of undergrad >law school.

if you went to an undergrad where you literally have 0 good paying options, but you can reliably go to biglaw, then sure, go to law school with 0 interest in law. but that' doesn't describe most people who go to t14s. most folks going to t14s had other options. i suppose you could also go to law school if you hate most jobs but could tolerate biglaw, but still aren't interested in law. so i guess i mean "relative" interest.

and mbb isn't the only consulting that is more lucrative than biglaw

[Wubbles]

Do you think consulting ppl last forever in MBB? This is dumb. And again, they don't give out those jobs like candy. Plus MBA is an investment of time and money too.

no but their exits are at least as lucrative as biglaw exits (government, in-house), and they didn't have to go through three years of school. im not saying mba>law school, i'm saying working out of undergrad >law school.

if you went to an undergrad where you literally have 0 good paying options, but you can reliably go to biglaw, then sure, go to law school with 0 interest in law. but that' doesn't describe most people who go to t14s. most folks going to t14s had other options. i suppose you could also go to law school if you hate most jobs but could tolerate biglaw, but still aren't interested in law. so i guess i mean "relative" interest.

and mbb isn't the only consulting that is more lucrative than biglaw

I went to a lower T14 and like half of the class had prior backgrounds that were not setting them up for financial windfalls without law school (me included). There really are quite a few biglaw lawyers who mostly had high grades in a useless major, a high LSAT score, both of the prior stats from a meh school, or worked their ass off at a lower ranked law school coming in with shitty stats and ug school in general.

I say this as someone who does not like law but practices it, but it is financially lucrative compared to the other options that like half of biglaw lawyers had before law school.

[Anonymous User]

It's harder to make partner, and partners make less money than corporate partners. And the exits.

Then we define quality of career differently, because that is all just about money.

[jotarokujo]

I went to a lower T14 and like half of the class had prior backgrounds that were not setting them up for financial windfalls without law school (me included). There really are quite a few biglaw lawyers who mostly had high grades in a useless major, a high LSAT score, both of the prior stats from a meh school, or worked their ass off at a lower ranked law school coming in with shitty stats and ug school in general.

I say this as someone who does not like law but practices it, but it is financially lucrative compared to the other options that like half of biglaw lawyers had before law school.

fair enough you're probably right, but i do think most of folks at t6 probably had other options. maybe the composition of the student body is very different as you go up and down the t14, because there are plenty of folks who come from just from mbb at those schools. more than 10% of the class at yls and sls comes from yale undergrad alone usually.

all this to say that hopefully the people in biglaw who don't like law disproportionately had no other options, whereas the folks in biglaw who did have other options disproportionately enjoy the law.

tbh that's probably why you have folks at ysh disproportionately go litigation and academia compared to the rest of t14 - because they went to law school actually interested in the law, not because of no other options. they did have other options, potentially even leaving a more lucrative career for law

[Po$eidon]

The "you could have done banking" crowd really doesn't understand how many biglaw lawyers have underwater basketweaving degrees from Party School State University

Oh no it’s me

[Anonymous User]

Do you think consulting ppl last forever in MBB? This is dumb. And again, they don't give out those jobs like candy. Plus MBA is an investment of time and money too.

no but their exits are at least as lucrative as biglaw exits (government, in-house), and they didn't have to go through three years of school. im not saying mba>law school, i'm saying working out of undergrad >law school.

if you went to an undergrad where you literally have 0 good paying options, but you can reliably go to biglaw, then sure, go to law school with 0 interest in law. but that' doesn't describe most people who go to t14s. most folks going to t14s had other options. i suppose you could also go to law school if you hate most jobs but could tolerate biglaw, but still aren't interested in law. so i guess i mean "relative" interest.

and mbb isn't the only consulting that is more lucrative than biglaw

I went to a lower T14 and like half of the class had prior backgrounds that were not setting them up for financial windfalls without law school (me included). There really are quite a few biglaw lawyers who mostly had high grades in a useless major, a high LSAT score, both of the prior stats from a meh school, or worked their ass off at a lower ranked law school coming in with shitty stats and ug school in general.

I say this as someone who does not like law but practices it, but it is financially lucrative compared to the other options that like half of biglaw lawyers had before law school.

Is the advice "don't go to law school unless you want to be a lawyer" incorrect then, at least for people who went to a bad undergrad and a have "useless" major but got into a t14? Is it rational to go to law school solely for money?

[Anonymous User]

Is the advice "don't go to law school unless you want to be a lawyer" incorrect then? Is it rational to go to law school solely for money?

I mean, that depends on what law school you’re going to go to and how much it matters to you that you like your job.

But I don’t think the conventional wisdom above really means “don’t go to law school if all you want is money.” It’s more saying, go to law school if you plan to be an attorney; don’t go to law school if you plan not to practice law and think the JD will help you get into politics or start a business or something similar. You have to want to do the job that law school qualifies you to do, but why you want to do that job is kind of up to you.

People do often say “don’t go to law school if you want to get rich,” which I think is fair, except that there are lots of different definitions of rich, and many of the paths to get there aren’t open to many people.

So I think it can be rational to go law school for the money, as long as you mean money you can get by practicing law, and you go to a law school that will get you a biglaw job, and you don’t care if you hate the job, and you have a plan for what to do if/when you want to leave biglaw. (Some personal injury attorneys make way more than biglaw, but I think that’s a way less predictable route, and less likely to be something someone who doesn’t have any interest in law besides the money will succeed at.)

[lawschoolistough23]

Gotta be S&C tho right? It's 2023, why are you still in fidi!

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Gotta be S&C tho right? It's 2023, why are you still in fidi!

"we own the building"

[Anonymous User]

Former finance guy (IB / PE) here. I think we sometimes underrate the risk adjusted comp from biglaw. I’m not saying it’s the best risk-adjusted comp path, but it’s not nearly as grim as many people on this sub pretend it is these days.

Yes, sellside banking pays somewhat more in the junior / mid ranks. But at the senior levels, it is significantly riskier than biglaw partner and probably pays less than most good corporate firms. The hours are worse in almost every case as well.

PE and other buyside investment roles pay more, and are probably the highest comp general path out there. But there are so many gates to pass through to make it to serious money - many different promotions, fund successes, etc. You are likely to get pushed out of many funds, and may still need an MBA to advance in many funds (which although a year less is a similar commitment to a JD). You’re much more dependent on fund performance and macro conditions than law, and a lot of your comp is in carry which is indefinite, delayed, and a pain. Comp at credit funds isn’t appreciably better than biglaw at most levels beyond VP. Hedge funds can pay a lot but the number of kids who get zeroed and bounce around pods or smaller funds which blow up or have bad years is insane. The platform and performance risk is insane in public markets. The hours are worse for nearly all of your career at most shops. You have fewer fallback exits if you flame out of the buyside as well. Your downside is less hedged.

Consulting just pays less. MBB partners mostly make just over 1mm, very few make above 2mm. Making partner is comparably if not more difficult than in biglaw. There aren’t many good shops, so if you don’t make it at your shop, it can be hard to move around / down to make it up. Comp at the engagement manager level is somewhat below biglaw midlevel comp. You probably have to get an MBA to have a shot at partner. Sure, the hours are overall better and you can have great exits. But the travel can also suck. Comparable at best to biglaw.

Tech requires less work and pays good money to start. But comp caps much lower than biglaw for most people (very few people in big tech making more than 400k etc). But the jobs are fairly hard to get if you want to do something good. The real money comes from starting your own company, but obviously that is quite difficult to predict or plan on even if you have the skills (many of us don’t).

[Anonymous User]

Former finance guy (IB / PE) here. I think we sometimes underrate the risk adjusted comp from biglaw. I’m not saying it’s the best risk-adjusted comp path, but it’s not nearly as grim as many people on this sub pretend it is these days.

Yes, sellside banking pays somewhat more in the junior / mid ranks. But at the senior levels, it is significantly riskier than biglaw partner and probably pays less than most good corporate firms. The hours are worse in almost every case as well.

PE and other buyside investment roles pay more, and are probably the highest comp general path out there. But there are so many gates to pass through to make it to serious money - many different promotions, fund successes, etc. You are likely to get pushed out of many funds, and may still need an MBA to advance in many funds (which although a year less is a similar commitment to a JD). You’re much more dependent on fund performance and macro conditions than law, and a lot of your comp is in carry which is indefinite, delayed, and a pain. Comp at credit funds isn’t appreciably better than biglaw at most levels beyond VP. Hedge funds can pay a lot but the number of kids who get zeroed and bounce around pods or smaller funds which blow up or have bad years is insane. The platform and performance risk is insane in public markets. The hours are worse for nearly all of your career at most shops. You have fewer fallback exits if you flame out of the buyside as well. Your downside is less hedged.

Consulting just pays less. MBB partners mostly make just over 1mm, very few make above 2mm. Making partner is comparably if not more difficult than in biglaw. There aren’t many good shops, so if you don’t make it at your shop, it can be hard to move around / down to make it up. Comp at the engagement manager level is somewhat below biglaw midlevel comp. You probably have to get an MBA to have a shot at partner. Sure, the hours are overall better and you can have great exits. But the travel can also suck. Comparable at best to biglaw.

Tech requires less work and pays good money to start. But comp caps much lower than biglaw for most people (very few people in big tech making more than 400k etc). But the jobs are fairly hard to get if you want to do something good. The real money comes from starting your own company, but obviously that is quite difficult to predict or plan on even if you have the skills (many of us don’t).

TICR, with two additional points:

1) Lawyers are known for being risk averse, which bolsters your point about why many pick biglaw over other (potentially) high paying careers.
2) There's a direct, predictable, and relatively low risk path from pre-law to a high salary: get a high GPA (most risk-averse overachievers do this anyway), get a high LSAT (relatively easy to study for, at least to get to the next step), get into a T14 (almost automatic if you did the first two, unlike MBAs which require more than good test scores), and stay out of the bottom 1/4 of the class (for upper T14, maybe mark this down a bit). Voila, you now make $215k. I'm not saying there's NO risk, and I'm not saying there aren't other paths to get to this salary (even in biglaw), but if you're sitting with a 3.9 in underwater basket weaving, hate risk, but love $$$, the stats on law school websites showing 75% of graduates start at $215k seem pretty attractive.

[Anonymous User]

The "you could have done banking" crowd really doesn't understand how many biglaw lawyers have underwater basketweaving degrees from Party School State University

[jotarokujo]

The "you could have done banking" crowd really doesn't understand how many biglaw lawyers have underwater basketweaving degrees from Party School State University

Yeah I think I'm starting to realize how variable the backgrounds are of t-20 students. Like at Vanderbilt law, there are about 2 people per class of 150 that went to HYP undergrad. At yale and stanford, more than 10% went to yale undergrad alone. Yet most people from Vanderbilt can get biglaw. So honestly, it seems like only for people at YSH you can confidently say that the vast majority had more lucrative options

Thus, I agree that "don't go to law school unless you want to be a lawyer" is not so narrow as to mean "don't go to law school unless you'll enjoy being a lawyer". For people who can get biglaw but can't do sales or finance or tech, it could still be worth it, and I think I underestimated the proportion of biglaw that could not even do sales or accounting

[Moneytrees]

This is fair. I was shitposting in response to stuff like "corporate is just pencil pushing, lit do real lawyer stuff". No actual offense intended.

Absolutely makes sense. I know that a lot of the fun of this website is flame wars, but sometimes I’m still blown away. I’m a litigator and I have no idea what corporate folks do. I also don’t really know what accountants or data such rises or entomologists do. Not trying to compete or compare with any of the above

Accidental anon tlsguy2020

My hot take is Cravath - the firm is desperately clinging to the prestige of yore. They know other firms have been moving in on them for years, but haven't really been able to stop it. This knowledge will lead to greater and greater anxiety and insecurity amongst the ranks of its lawyers until Cravath is inevitably surpassed by more innovative and forward-thinking firms.

[Anonymous User]

This is fair. I was shitposting in response to stuff like "corporate is just pencil pushing, lit do real lawyer stuff". No actual offense intended.

Absolutely makes sense. I know that a lot of the fun of this website is flame wars, but sometimes I’m still blown away. I’m a litigator and I have no idea what corporate folks do. I also don’t really know what accountants or data such rises or entomologists do. Not trying to compete or compare with any of the above

Accidental anon tlsguy2020

My hot take is Cravath - the firm is desperately clinging to the prestige of yore. They know other firms have been moving in on them for years, but haven't really been able to stop it. This knowledge will lead to greater and greater anxiety and insecurity amongst the ranks of its lawyers until Cravath is inevitably surpassed by more innovative and forward-thinking firms.

See I feel like the Cravath attorneys I know are just arrogant, but not in an insecure way. Like they have their head in the sand, rather than trying to stick it out ahead of everyone else.

Maybe that will change, but for now I'd throw my vote in for K&E. Their associates fall into two camps - scrappy folk who couldn't land any other V10 firms (either at OGI or as a lateral) or folks who landed a bunch of other V10 offers and chose K&E for the pay/"innovative" environment. The former group is plagued with imposter syndrome or with the idea that they have something to prove (think Brady), while the later is made up almost entirely of people who think they need to prove that their choice to join K&E over another V10 was the only correct choice. Either way, they are all hopelessly insecure.

[I'm sure some insecure, defensive K&E associate will step in to correct me]

[Anonymous User]

The "you could have done banking" crowd really doesn't understand how many biglaw lawyers have underwater basketweaving degrees from Party School State University

Yeah I think I'm starting to realize how variable the backgrounds are of t-20 students. Like at Vanderbilt law, there are about 2 people per class of 150 that went to HYP undergrad. At yale and stanford, more than 10% went to yale undergrad alone. Yet most people from Vanderbilt can get biglaw. So honestly, it seems like only for people at YSH you can confidently say that the vast majority had more lucrative options

Thus, I agree that "don't go to law school unless you want to be a lawyer" is not so narrow as to mean "don't go to law school unless you'll enjoy being a lawyer". For people who can get biglaw but can't do sales or finance or tech, it could still be worth it, and I think I underestimated the proportion of biglaw that could not even do sales or accounting

At HYS and ~65% of my class went to a T20 and ~25% went to HYPSMC. I went to a non-target party school and didn't really have other options, but a ton of people here almost certainly did

[Anonymous User]

Maybe that will change, but for now I'd throw my vote in for K&E. Their associates fall into two camps - scrappy folk who couldn't land any other V10 firms (either at OGI or as a lateral) or folks who landed a bunch of other V10 offers and chose K&E for the pay/"innovative" environment. The former group is plagued with imposter syndrome or with the idea that they have something to prove (think Brady), while the later is made up almost entirely of people who think they need to prove that their choice to join K&E over another V10 was the only correct choice. Either way, they are all hopelessly insecure.

[I'm sure some insecure, defensive K&E associate will step in to correct me]

Ask and ye shall receive! Though I'd only add on that there's a third category that applies to all of these firms: people who target specific groups/subgroups. K&E Restructuring, S&C White Collar, Sidely (I know they're technically not a V10 but I'd lump them in here) Activist Defense, etc, all can grab students who had other options. I picked K&E because of Rx, and very much see that as the correct decision, but I don't think I'd have made the same choice if I was gencorp or lit focused.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe that will change, but for now I'd throw my vote in for K&E. Their associates fall into two camps - scrappy folk who couldn't land any other V10 firms (either at OGI or as a lateral) or folks who landed a bunch of other V10 offers and chose K&E for the pay/"innovative" environment. The former group is plagued with imposter syndrome or with the idea that they have something to prove (think Brady), while the later is made up almost entirely of people who think they need to prove that their choice to join K&E over another V10 was the only correct choice. Either way, they are all hopelessly insecure.

[I'm sure some insecure, defensive K&E associate will step in to correct me]

I am not at KE and but I think it's pretty silly to criticize someone who takes a job for the extra money. You presumably do this for fun?

[Anonymous User]

Maybe that will change, but for now I'd throw my vote in for K&E. Their associates fall into two camps - scrappy folk who couldn't land any other V10 firms (either at OGI or as a lateral) or folks who landed a bunch of other V10 offers and chose K&E for the pay/"innovative" environment. The former group is plagued with imposter syndrome or with the idea that they have something to prove (think Brady), while the later is made up almost entirely of people who think they need to prove that their choice to join K&E over another V10 was the only correct choice. Either way, they are all hopelessly insecure.

[I'm sure some insecure, defensive K&E associate will step in to correct me]

I am not at KE and but I think it's pretty silly to criticize someone who takes a job for the extra money. You presumably do this for fun?

He does it for the scholarship and prestige. Those types absolutely LOATHE K&E and all it stands for, real and perceived.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe that will change, but for now I'd throw my vote in for K&E. Their associates fall into two camps - scrappy folk who couldn't land any other V10 firms (either at OGI or as a lateral) or folks who landed a bunch of other V10 offers and chose K&E for the pay/"innovative" environment. The former group is plagued with imposter syndrome or with the idea that they have something to prove (think Brady), while the later is made up almost entirely of people who think they need to prove that their choice to join K&E over another V10 was the only correct choice. Either way, they are all hopelessly insecure.

[I'm sure some insecure, defensive K&E associate will step in to correct me]

Ask and ye shall receive! Though I'd only add on that there's a third category that applies to all of these firms: people who target specific groups/subgroups. K&E Restructuring, S&C White Collar, Sidely (I know they're technically not a V10 but I'd lump them in here) Activist Defense, etc, all can grab students who had other options. I picked K&E because of Rx, and very much see that as the correct decision, but I don't think I'd have made the same choice if I was gencorp or lit focused.

Are these groups like that much better than other practice groups at those firms? I was under the impression that Sidley's "top" group was its appellate prax and S&C's was M&A

[Anonymous User]

Maybe that will change, but for now I'd throw my vote in for K&E. Their associates fall into two camps - scrappy folk who couldn't land any other V10 firms (either at OGI or as a lateral) or folks who landed a bunch of other V10 offers and chose K&E for the pay/"innovative" environment. The former group is plagued with imposter syndrome or with the idea that they have something to prove (think Brady), while the later is made up almost entirely of people who think they need to prove that their choice to join K&E over another V10 was the only correct choice. Either way, they are all hopelessly insecure.

[I'm sure some insecure, defensive K&E associate will step in to correct me]

Ask and ye shall receive! Though I'd only add on that there's a third category that applies to all of these firms: people who target specific groups/subgroups. K&E Restructuring, S&C White Collar, Sidley (I know they're technically not a V10 but I'd lump them in here) Activist Defense, etc, all can grab students who had other options. I picked K&E because of Rx, and very much see that as the correct decision, but I don't think I'd have made the same choice if I was gencorp or lit focused.

Are these groups like that much better than other practice groups at those firms? I was under the impression that Sidley's "top" group was its appellate prax and S&C's was M&A

I was more thinking top groups in their subfields, not so much firm top group overall. Like obviously most appellate groups are the "top" group from a preftige standpoint, and M&A is usually top from a billables standpoint, but if you're interested in White Collar in NYC it's hard to match/beat S&C, if you want to do Activist Defense you're going to have to look at Sidley, if you want Antitrust or Latin American work Cleary's going to jump to the front of the pack, etc.

Now, most law students don't know if they want a specific practice group and fucking around in M&A or general lit for a couple years isn't a bad way to get the lay of the land, but if you think you want X, going for the top group for X is value maximizing.