2014 Texas OCI (UT and other schools bidding on TX) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do you know how many of those 6 have accepted their offers? If not all 6 accepted, I might feel a little bit safer about taking them since there should be more entry-level spots open.

Also heard that some of the past no-offers have gone to South Texas people who dropped below the grade cutoff, but that might just be a rumor. Makes sense that the cutoff for UT and even UH would be much lower. Then there was the thing posted earlier ITT about people who split with PH and AK or BG not getting offers sometimes, so I would try to get across how much you like them and that you would seriously consider going there if offered.

Honestly, I think you made a great choice. PH is a good firm that does solid work. Most people say that BB is a miserable place to work, and NRF/HB/Strasburger aren't noticeably better (unless you want lit, in which case Fulbright is very good).

I spoke with a partner recently and at that point 4/6 had accepted their offers. The deadline is October 1st, so it's probably a pretty accurate reflection of what the end number will be.

Also, Strasburger and PH are two of the firms I am still deciding between for my first half. If someone doesn't mind giving their input, is there a clear choice between the two? Honestly I'm having a hard time distinguishing them beyond some minor structural/pay differences.

You turned down BB Houston to go with PH or Strasburger?

Thought process there? What are you trying to accomplish?

To answer your question, I occassionally find myself opposite PH. I really like one partner there that I've dealt with. Associates are more hit and miss, IME. I have not dealt with them enough to figure out the staffing structure. Partners seem to be more hands on than I'm used to at other firms (and certainly at my firm). This is a positive or negative depending on your personality.

Never deal with Starsburger, so can't comment there.

I am the previous anon that turned down BB etc for PH. My rationale was that I was looking for a firm that I could get more involved sooner and where I liked the people. For me, the name/prestige of BB didn't make up for how much more I liked the people at PH and I think I would get more experience earlier on at PH than at BB (or the other larger firms I turned down).

I actually really liked Strasburger as well. For me they were very similar to PH. These were a few of my considerations though:
1. Strasburger is controlled more by the Dallas office and PH is all in the Houston office - some of the Strasburger associates I interviewed with expressed that they didn't love having the Dallas office be in charge.
2. My understanding is PH handles a bit better work.

Beyond this I didn't have much to distinguish the two. There is the obvious pay difference, but Strasburger has an interesting bonus structure that appears to make up for most of the smaller base pay. Both firms seemed very family friendly to me, which is important because I am married and have a new baby. I did feel like the PH people I interviewed with were a bit more down to earth than Strasburger, but that could just be the people I interviewed with.

Hope that helps.

[Anonymous User]

I am the previous anon that turned down BB etc for PH. My rationale was that I was looking for a firm that I could get more involved sooner and where I liked the people. For me, the name/prestige of BB didn't make up for how much more I liked the people at PH and I think I would get more experience earlier on at PH than at BB (or the other larger firms I turned down).

I actually really liked Strasburger as well. For me they were very similar to PH. These were a few of my considerations though:
1. Strasburger is controlled more by the Dallas office and PH is all in the Houston office - some of the Strasburger associates I interviewed with expressed that they didn't love having the Dallas office be in charge.
2. My understanding is PH handles a bit better work.

Beyond this I didn't have much to distinguish the two. There is the obvious pay difference, but Strasburger has an interesting bonus structure that appears to make up for most of the smaller base pay. Both firms seemed very family friendly to me, which is important because I am married and have a new baby. I did feel like the PH people I interviewed with were a bit more down to earth than Strasburger, but that could just be the people I interviewed with.

Hope that helps.

Anon that was trying to distinguish PH and Strasburger. That was very helpful. Thank you.

EDIT: accepted PH so it looks like I will be joining you.

[zxasqw124]

I am the previous anon that turned down BB etc for PH. My rationale was that I was looking for a firm that I could get more involved sooner and where I liked the people. For me, the name/prestige of BB didn't make up for how much more I liked the people at PH and I think I would get more experience earlier on at PH than at BB (or the other larger firms I turned down).

I actually really liked Strasburger as well. For me they were very similar to PH. These were a few of my considerations though:
1. Strasburger is controlled more by the Dallas office and PH is all in the Houston office - some of the Strasburger associates I interviewed with expressed that they didn't love having the Dallas office be in charge.
2. My understanding is PH handles a bit better work.

Beyond this I didn't have much to distinguish the two. There is the obvious pay difference, but Strasburger has an interesting bonus structure that appears to make up for most of the smaller base pay. Both firms seemed very family friendly to me, which is important because I am married and have a new baby. I did feel like the PH people I interviewed with were a bit more down to earth than Strasburger, but that could just be the people I interviewed with.

Hope that helps.

Anon that was trying to distinguish PH and Strasburger. That was very helpful. Thank you.

EDIT: accepted PH so it looks like I will be joining you.

Awesome! Congrats. PM me if you have time. Would love to talk more. I am the previous anon who also accepted to PH.

[Anonymous User]

so what is up with sidley's awful offer rate? 1/4...

[Anonymous User]

You turned down BB Houston to go with PH or Strasburger?

Thought process there? What are you trying to accomplish?

To answer your question, I occasionally find myself opposite PH. I really like one partner there that I've dealt with. Associates are more hit and miss, IME. I have not dealt with them enough to figure out the staffing structure. Partners seem to be more hands on than I'm used to at other firms (and certainly at my firm). This is a positive or negative depending on your personality.

Never deal with Starsburger, so can't comment there.

I am the previous anon that turned down BB etc for PH. My rationale was that I was looking for a firm that I could get more involved sooner and where I liked the people. For me, the name/prestige of BB didn't make up for how much more I liked the people at PH and I think I would get more experience earlier on at PH than at BB (or the other larger firms I turned down).

Not trying to make you second guess your decision, as a PH is a fine firm. Suppose the following *generalities* are for the benefit of future classes that stumble into this thread. Getting involved early, IME, is based on a variety of factors, the three most important being (1) leverage ratio, (2) hours in the practice group, and (3) the particular partner on a deal.

No. 1 isn't as straightforward as you would expect. Everybody can figure out that if a firm has too many associates relative to partners, then juniors aren't getting much substantive work. On the other hand, if a firm carries a low leverage ratio, then partners are doing most of the work and they are relying on juniors for the non-substantive work that needs to be addressed on every deal. This will tie into No. 2, but the sweet spot for getting involved early is a place where the partners feel compelled to have more associates than partners, but not by too much.

No. 2 - If getting involved early is the goal, look for a practice group that is very busy. You're looking for a practice group where average billable hours are running well north of 2000/yr. A significant function of doing substantive work early is that everybody else is too busy to do the work and substantive work has to be forced down to juniors.

Everybody is looking to make hours (including partners). If a practice group doesn't tend to have high(ish) average billable hours, senior lawyers are less likely to delegate work to juniors. Most lawyers aren't the type of people that delegate tasks unless they have to. If a practice group has average billable hours that are below 2000 hours, then people are always on the cusp of not being on pace for hours.

Essentially, it goes something like this: Partner on a deal is too busy to deal with everything, so partner pushes work to the senior associate on the deal -----> senior associate's hair is is on fire, senior associate prioritizes everything that needs to be done on all of senior associate's deals, looks for the low hanging fruit that is probably just beyond the experience/competence level of the junior associate, finds a great form for the junior associate to use, gives minimal instructions to the junior associate -----> Junior associate does the assignment (likely fucks some stuff up) and learns from mistakes ------> Senior associate corrects work before it gets to client/partner.

The ideal for getting involved early is: Partners and Senior and Midlevel associates are billing hellaciously high hours, forcing partners to staff only a junior on a matter because the more senior associates are tapped out, then the junior gets substantive experience early on.

No. 3 comes down to the luck of the draw.

[Anonymous User]

Does anybody know whether V&E pays for the flight to and from Houston for the summer? I go to an out of state school and still haven't gotten the offer letter yet.

[Anonymous User]

Does anybody know whether V&E pays for the flight to and from Houston for the summer? I go to an out of state school and still haven't gotten the offer letter yet.

I didn't see anything about it in my offer letter

[Anonymous User]

I just received an offer from Perkins Coie Dallas.

[Anonymous User]

Just got dinged from Bracewell Dallas

[Anonymous User]

I was reading last year's thread and came across this exchange:

Here is a question, and I am honestly not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but very curious

Did people who took Latham's Houston office just not get offers at V&E/Baker Botts in Houston? I interviewed at all 3, and just dont understand how one could justify taking Latham in that situation. My decision is down to V&E and Baker Botts, I already turned down Latham but I am curious to hear people's thoughts.

Here is my take:

Baker Botts and V&E are both HQ in Houston. The partner chances (though slim) will be a hell of a lot better than a satellite. We have no idea if Latham will ever make a partner at that office (I think they will) but when you look at Skadden's office there, I think they have made 0 since they opened.

The Latham culture is very similar to V&E (I felt), and if you dont like that you can go to Baker Botts which has a very different culture.

Latham is trying to get 8 weeks from people, making it harder to split which is one big positive about Texas.

V&E is known for having the best corporate department in Texas. Baker Botts is known for having tons of huge institutional clients that will always go to them (think Haliburton, Trans Ocean, etc.)

The one positive I see for Latham is that they might have more pull outside of Texas. But if you want to stay in Texas, why take a satellite over one of the Texas Elite?

While it wasn't an easy decision by any means (for reasons that many have discussed), I chose Latham (over offers from V&E and BB and others), and did so for several reasons:

1) While I like Texas, it's not the only place I could see myself ending up, so I thought L&W gave more flexibility and future opportunity in regards to not only location but also quality of exit options (although V&E and Baker Botts have plenty of offices elsewhere, they are still predominantly known as Texas firms).

2) Partner isn't the end-all, be-all for me like it may be for others. Even if it was, I felt like at BB and V&E my likelihood of making partner is 10-15%, and 5%-10% at L&W, so I wouldn't base my decision on that. If you did make partner at L&W, it would be more money. Rates are higher, but for the type of high-end energy work that L&W is targeting, those clients have the money for it. As other posters have mentioned, Houston is a cash-cow for the firm and is targeted for even more growth, so this could lead to those inside the firm being advanced.

3) With the increasing popularity of laterals in Texas, there is a likelihood that I could end up switching firms anyway. And it's easier to slide down the ladder than climb up. Unless you burned bridges during the recruiting process, are there reasons why someone could not switch from L&W to V&E or BB after a few years? And from what I gathered from interviewing, the few people who have left L&W in the short time the office has been open have been going in-house, so it appears that's an option available to those who want it.

4) As mentioned previously, L&W has been on a impressive growth streak. 3 years, from 8 attorneys up to ~60+ attorneys, and getting laterals from V&E, BB, AK, et al. So I definitely don't think there is any question that L&W is at least peer to the Texas Big 3. And if you look at Merger Market's tables, L&W has actually been outproducing just about everybody lately (see pp. 24-27: http://www.mergermarket.com/pdf/Mergerm ... Report.pdf).

5) In talking with associates, these firms are all competing and sitting across the table on all of these deals. So the "quality of work" is a push.

6) Offer rates: (For 2012) L&W = 100%; V&E (Houston) = 90%; BB (Houston) = 83%. While L&W does push for 8-week to 10-week, I think this has been (and will continue to be) a growing trend as firms realize that they don't want to spend ~20K for 6 weeks to recruit someone who will then go work at the other firm they split with. And if I have a very high chance of getting a full-time offer, there's less incentive to split.

7) While not a major factor, if I'm going to be working a ton, compensation was something to consider. L&W has NYC market lockstep comp and bonuses. I know V&E just switched their comp structure (changed from some of it being deferred until you hit your hours requirement) and BB has the "levels" which I didn't really like (you get paid the same base for 2 years unless you level up early, and some associates said that their bonuses didn't always square them up with typical lockstep comp).

8. Culture - I really liked the people at L&W and V&E. BB was "meh." But there is some upside to work in a (relative to V&E and BB) smaller office, even if it is a satellite office (but like mentioned above, partner isn't a big concern); you get to know people better and it wasn't as much of the "cog-in-the-wheel" feel, though in the big scheme of things, you are anyway. But just the impression that I got. I also think stated hours minimum is a little lower at L&W (1900) versus 2000+ at the other 2. I know I'll be working more, but if things ever do slow a little, the benchmark for a bonus is lower. L&W also has a reputation for being fairly family-friendly, which isn't relevant for me now, but could be down the road.

9) Unassigned practice group. L&W gives you an extra year (if you want) to be unassigned and work across practice groups before settling into one (similar to JD's New Lawyer's Group); V&E has you double between 2 (corporate and capital markets are a common pair for transactional folks); BB doesn't give you much flexibility to speak of.

And to directly answer poster's question above: "if you want to stay in Texas, why take a satellite over one of the Texas Elite?" I think that L&W, which is elite in its own right on a global scale, has been able to do something that other "satellite" firms haven't been able to in Houston: get a foothold and really grow on a scale that other peer-firms haven't been able to achieve with ~60+ attorneys in 3 years (for comparison: Skadden--20 attorneys; Cadwalader--4; STB--16; McGuire Woods--19; as well as some others listed here: http://www.dallasnews.com/business/head ... ouston.ece)

This is an interesting take, and to each his own. I am with those who feel that taking Latham is a bad choice if you have offers at all of the Big 3.

V&E leads the league tables in Houston in both deal volume and value (just Houston/Texas specifically). I have seen the chart on this, but I cannot find it at the moment. If you think I am mistaken, let me know and I will find it. I spoke with partners at many other Houston firms, all of them said V&E was top dog. Chambers and Partners has V&E and BB in band 1 corporate, they do not put Latham at the same level. See http://www.chambersandpartners.com/usa/Editorial/99153

Also, Baker Botts doesn't make you specialize, so you saying they dont have flexibility makes me think you didn't interview with them. Their associates dont have to pick between M&A and Securities, they can do both (and almost all I spoke with do). They are, by far, more flexible than the other two. This is a positive to some and not others, but I just wanted to clarify that. Baker Botts compensation goes to 180 after year one (not including stub of course). You spend 2 years at 180 and then you go directly to 230k. To me, BB had the most tempting compensation structure of the 3.

I think the main reason I dont see taking LW over VE or BB as a good choice is because of what they did in the downturn. They really screwed EVERYONE in many of their offices. I am not saying that the Big 3 didnt do layoffs, they did, but they didnt just fire everyone. I dont think Latham would hesitate to do it again if they need to. Also, this doesnt seem to matter to you, but Partnership is important to me. You saying its a 5-10% difference is just wrong, partnership chances are going to be much better at the HQ all the time.

I do agree that all of these firms will give you good exit options. I think being at VE, BB or LW allows you to later to most other firms in Houston if you want (besides the Big 3).

Now that it's 2014, I wanted to get people's thoughts on Latham vs. V&E and BB.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading last year's thread and came across this exchange:

Now that it's 2014, I wanted to get people's thoughts on Latham vs. V&E and BB.

The way I see it, if you want to do capital markets and want to practice in Houston, it comes down to V&E and Latham (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). LW and V&E are close together on banking/finance as well (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). Baker Botts is a step down in both of those areas. If you're talking general corporate/M&A, that's where Baker Botts makes up some ground with VE, while LW isn't on the same level (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1).

Vinson & Elkins, because of its size and TX connections, is the leading capital markets group in terms of deal count/deal size, especially on the issuer side.
Latham is probably ahead on the underwriter-side work, due to their connections with all the I-banks in NYC.

If you're making a decision, some things I recommend you consider: 1) offer rates (especially if you are not splitting) - you can't become a partner in the HQ if you don't get an offer; 2) practice group fit--do you like the type of work, the people you'll work with and the culture of the firm, and the work/billable requirements for the group?; and 3) when you leave that firm, which firm puts you in the best position for your career goals?

If you're a dreamer and are looking at partnership prospects (which are small enough to begin with), I will throw out there that I heard that Latham is planning to make several partners out of their Houston office this year.

[downinDtown]

I was reading last year's thread and came across this exchange:

Now that it's 2014, I wanted to get people's thoughts on Latham vs. V&E and BB.

The way I see it, if you want to do capital markets and want to practice in Houston, it comes down to V&E and Latham (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). LW and V&E are close together on banking/finance as well (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). Baker Botts is a step down in both of those areas. If you're talking general corporate/M&A, that's where Baker Botts makes up some ground with VE, while LW isn't on the same level (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1).

Vinson & Elkins, because of its size and TX connections, is the leading capital markets group in terms of deal count/deal size, especially on the issuer side.
Latham is probably ahead on the underwriter-side work, due to their connections with all the I-banks in NYC.

If you're making a decision, some things I recommend you consider: 1) offer rates (especially if you are not splitting) - you can't become a partner in the HQ if you don't get an offer; 2) practice group fit--do you like the type of work, the people you'll work with and the culture of the firm, and the work/billable requirements for the group?; and 3) when you leave that firm, which firm puts you in the best position for your career goals?

If you're a dreamer and are looking at partnership prospects (which are small enough to begin with), I will throw out there that I heard that Latham is planning to make several partners out of their Houston office this year.

I was just looking at these, so here is the first-half league table for people looking at TX firms focusing exclusively on M&A activity, but not capital markets deals -- I've pulled all the firms with TX offices, with them sorted by total deal value, and then listing each firm's total deal count so far in 2014 (http://www.mergermarket.com/pdf/Mergerm ... .Texas.pdf):

Weil Gotshal & Manges ($75,044 million, from 12 total deals)
Jones Day ($73,437, 23 deals)
Simpson Thatcher ($65,495, 3 deals)
Vinson & Elkins ($20,065 million, 35 deals)
Latham & Watkins ($13,490 million, 23 deals)
Andrews Kurth ($8,551 million, 12 deals)
Kirkland & Ellis ($6,595 million, 20 deals)
Locke Lord ($5,774 million, 15 deals)
Bracewell & Giuliani ($5,414 million, 12 deals)
Akin Gump ($4,927 million, 17 deals)
Baker Botts ($4,471 million, 10 deals
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher ($4,125 million, 9 deals)
King & Spalding ($1,444 million, 10 deals)
Haynes and Boone ($1,323 million, 19 deals)
DLA Piper ($387 million, 9 deals)

[Anonymous User]

I was reading last year's thread and came across this exchange:

Now that it's 2014, I wanted to get people's thoughts on Latham vs. V&E and BB.

The way I see it, if you want to do capital markets and want to practice in Houston, it comes down to V&E and Latham (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). LW and V&E are close together on banking/finance as well (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). Baker Botts is a step down in both of those areas. If you're talking general corporate/M&A, that's where Baker Botts makes up some ground with VE, while LW isn't on the same level (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1).

Vinson & Elkins, because of its size and TX connections, is the leading capital markets group in terms of deal count/deal size, especially on the issuer side.
Latham is probably ahead on the underwriter-side work, due to their connections with all the I-banks in NYC.

If you're making a decision, some things I recommend you consider: 1) offer rates (especially if you are not splitting) - you can't become a partner in the HQ if you don't get an offer; 2) practice group fit--do you like the type of work, the people you'll work with and the culture of the firm, and the work/billable requirements for the group?; and 3) when you leave that firm, which firm puts you in the best position for your career goals?

If you're a dreamer and are looking at partnership prospects (which are small enough to begin with), I will throw out there that I heard that Latham is planning to make several partners out of their Houston office this year.

Do you think Chambers is a little outdated here? I was under the impression that V&E and Latham were the top shops for corporate, with other firms like BB/AK/BG/STB/Sidley a step below. But Chambers suggests that V&E and BB are still at the top (V&E has 8 band 1 rankings in TX, while BB has 7 band 1 rankings). It seems weird to me that Latham is only band 1 for Capital Markets when they are pretty established in Houston now and their corporate group has been killing it.

Assuming I know I want to do corporate but am unsure as to whether I want to do Cap Markets, M&A, or even projects work, should I be more wary of Latham?

These are V&E's Texas Chambers Rankings:
Bankruptcy/Restructuring (Band 1)
Capital Markets: Debt & Equity (Band 1)
Corporate/M&A (Band 1)
Energy: State Regulatory & Litigation (Electricity) (Band 1)
Environment (Band 1)
Litigation: General Commercial (Band 1)
Real Estate (Band 1)
Tax (Band 1)
Banking & Finance (Band 2)
Intellectual Property (Band 2)
Labor & Employment (Band 2)
Technology: Corporate & Commercial (Band 2)
Antitrust (Band 3)

Latham:
Capital Markets: Debt & Equity (Band 1)
Banking & Finance (Band 2)
Corporate/M&A (Band 2)
Tax (Band 4)

Baker Botts:
Bankruptcy/Restructuring (Band 1)
Corporate/M&A (Band 1)
Environment (Band 1)
Intellectual Property (Band 1)
Real Estate (Band 1)
Tax (Band 1)
Technology: Corporate & Commercial (Band 1)
Capital Markets: Debt & Equity (Band 2)
Energy: State Regulatory & Litigation (Electricity) (Band 2)
Litigation: General Commercial (Band 2)
Technology: Outsourcing (Band 2)
Banking & Finance (Band 3)

[Anonymous User]

I was reading last year's thread and came across this exchange:

Now that it's 2014, I wanted to get people's thoughts on Latham vs. V&E and BB.

The way I see it, if you want to do capital markets and want to practice in Houston, it comes down to V&E and Latham (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). LW and V&E are close together on banking/finance as well (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). Baker Botts is a step down in both of those areas. If you're talking general corporate/M&A, that's where Baker Botts makes up some ground with VE, while LW isn't on the same level (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1).

Vinson & Elkins, because of its size and TX connections, is the leading capital markets group in terms of deal count/deal size, especially on the issuer side.
Latham is probably ahead on the underwriter-side work, due to their connections with all the I-banks in NYC.

If you're making a decision, some things I recommend you consider: 1) offer rates (especially if you are not splitting) - you can't become a partner in the HQ if you don't get an offer; 2) practice group fit--do you like the type of work, the people you'll work with and the culture of the firm, and the work/billable requirements for the group?; and 3) when you leave that firm, which firm puts you in the best position for your career goals?

If you're a dreamer and are looking at partnership prospects (which are small enough to begin with), I will throw out there that I heard that Latham is planning to make several partners out of their Houston office this year.

Do you think Chambers is a little outdated here? I was under the impression that V&E and Latham were the top shops for corporate, with other firms like BB/AK/BG/STB/Sidley a step below. But Chambers suggests that V&E and BB are still at the top (V&E has 8 band 1 rankings in TX, while BB has 7 band 1 rankings). It seems weird to me that Latham is only band 1 for Capital Markets when they are pretty established in Houston now and their corporate group has been killing it.

Assuming I know I want to do corporate but am unsure as to whether I want to do Cap Markets, M&A, or even projects work, should I be more wary of Latham?

The quality of work is not any different. In fact, a lot of time LW is across the table from V&E on some of these deals. I suspect the key difference in the Chambers rankings is due to the difference in size/head count of their corporate/M&A department versus Baker Botts and V&E. The rankings are likely influenced by the fact that V&E and Baker Botts have the capacity for more deals, but the quality of work isn't materially different.

With that in mind, I'd recommend making your decision without placing overemphasis on the Chambers rankings b/c all those firms have different strengths and weaknesses and you should pick where you'll feel most comfortable. In your situation where you're unsure, a firm that allows you to rotate between groups would be ideal. I just know V&E pairs you up into 2 different practice groups and LW has an "unassigned" program for associates for your first year or so.

[Anonymous User]

Any word from JW Dallas?

[Anonymous User]

Any word from Thompson Coe Dallas?

[Anonymous User]

For those that received Bracewell (Houston) offers, how long after your callback did you receive them and on what day of the week did they come? Thanks in advance.

Also, to the poster above, I had my callback with Thompson Coe 3-4 weeks ago and I haven't heard a thing even after notifying them of a deadline. If they follow the same timeline as last year there should be movement now that it's October. IIRC the first mention of one in last year's thread was mid-Oct. Apparently they take their sweet ass time.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone heard anything from Kelly Hart & Hallman?

[Anonymous User]

For those that received Bracewell (Houston) offers, how long after your callback did you receive them and on what day of the week did they come?

I received my offer the day after my CB which was a Friday. I know 2 other people at my school with offers from them and both received their offers within a week of their CB.

[Anonymous User]

Any word from Thompson Coe Dallas?

No movement for me from Thompson Coe Dallas. CB was about 4 weeks ago.

[Anonymous User]

Any word from Thompson Coe Dallas?

No movement for me from Thompson Coe Dallas. CB was about 4 weeks ago.

Same for me. I saw that offers went out on Oct. 16 last year. Maybe it will be next week.

[rachelzane]

[
I was just looking at these, so here is the first-half league table for people looking at TX firms focusing exclusively on M&A activity, but not capital markets deals -- I've pulled all the firms with TX offices, with them sorted by total deal value, and then listing each firm's total deal count so far in 2014 (http://www.mergermarket.com/pdf/Mergerm ... .Texas.pdf):

Weil Gotshal & Manges ($75,044 million, from 12 total deals)
Jones Day ($73,437, 23 deals)
Simpson Thatcher ($65,495, 3 deals)
Vinson & Elkins ($20,065 million, 35 deals)
Latham & Watkins ($13,490 million, 23 deals)
Andrews Kurth ($8,551 million, 12 deals)
Kirkland & Ellis ($6,595 million, 20 deals)
Locke Lord ($5,774 million, 15 deals)
Bracewell & Giuliani ($5,414 million, 12 deals)
Akin Gump ($4,927 million, 17 deals)
Baker Botts ($4,471 million, 10 deals
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher ($4,125 million, 9 deals)
King & Spalding ($1,444 million, 10 deals)
Haynes and Boone ($1,323 million, 19 deals)
DLA Piper ($387 million, 9 deals)

Why did Latham take a 65% hit in deal value but have five more deals? Moving middle market with Houston's office?
Honorable mention: SullCrom. Dominating the TX deal market from the East River.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading last year's thread and came across this exchange:

Now that it's 2014, I wanted to get people's thoughts on Latham vs. V&E and BB.

The way I see it, if you want to do capital markets and want to practice in Houston, it comes down to V&E and Latham (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). LW and V&E are close together on banking/finance as well (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). Baker Botts is a step down in both of those areas. If you're talking general corporate/M&A, that's where Baker Botts makes up some ground with VE, while LW isn't on the same level (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1).

Vinson & Elkins, because of its size and TX connections, is the leading capital markets group in terms of deal count/deal size, especially on the issuer side.
Latham is probably ahead on the underwriter-side work, due to their connections with all the I-banks in NYC.

If you're making a decision, some things I recommend you consider: 1) offer rates (especially if you are not splitting) - you can't become a partner in the HQ if you don't get an offer; 2) practice group fit--do you like the type of work, the people you'll work with and the culture of the firm, and the work/billable requirements for the group?; and 3) when you leave that firm, which firm puts you in the best position for your career goals?

If you're a dreamer and are looking at partnership prospects (which are small enough to begin with), I will throw out there that I heard that Latham is planning to make several partners out of their Houston office this year.

I was just looking at these, so here is the first-half league table for people looking at TX firms focusing exclusively on M&A activity, but not capital markets deals -- I've pulled all the firms with TX offices, with them sorted by total deal value, and then listing each firm's total deal count so far in 2014 (http://www.mergermarket.com/pdf/Mergerm ... .Texas.pdf):

Weil Gotshal & Manges ($75,044 million, from 12 total deals)
Jones Day ($73,437, 23 deals)
Simpson Thatcher ($65,495, 3 deals)
Vinson & Elkins ($20,065 million, 35 deals)
Latham & Watkins ($13,490 million, 23 deals)
Andrews Kurth ($8,551 million, 12 deals)
Kirkland & Ellis ($6,595 million, 20 deals)
Locke Lord ($5,774 million, 15 deals)
Bracewell & Giuliani ($5,414 million, 12 deals)
Akin Gump ($4,927 million, 17 deals)
Baker Botts ($4,471 million, 10 deals
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher ($4,125 million, 9 deals)
King & Spalding ($1,444 million, 10 deals)
Haynes and Boone ($1,323 million, 19 deals)
DLA Piper ($387 million, 9 deals)

How important should this table be when evaluating firm strength or selecting a firm? I don't hear people talking much about Jones Day, yet it looks pretty good in terms of deal value.

I also thought V&E and Latham were the two top firms in TX for corporate work.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading last year's thread and came across this exchange:

Now that it's 2014, I wanted to get people's thoughts on Latham vs. V&E and BB.

The way I see it, if you want to do capital markets and want to practice in Houston, it comes down to V&E and Latham (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). LW and V&E are close together on banking/finance as well (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1). Baker Botts is a step down in both of those areas. If you're talking general corporate/M&A, that's where Baker Botts makes up some ground with VE, while LW isn't on the same level (http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1323 ... torial/5/1).

Vinson & Elkins, because of its size and TX connections, is the leading capital markets group in terms of deal count/deal size, especially on the issuer side.
Latham is probably ahead on the underwriter-side work, due to their connections with all the I-banks in NYC.

If you're making a decision, some things I recommend you consider: 1) offer rates (especially if you are not splitting) - you can't become a partner in the HQ if you don't get an offer; 2) practice group fit--do you like the type of work, the people you'll work with and the culture of the firm, and the work/billable requirements for the group?; and 3) when you leave that firm, which firm puts you in the best position for your career goals?

If you're a dreamer and are looking at partnership prospects (which are small enough to begin with), I will throw out there that I heard that Latham is planning to make several partners out of their Houston office this year.

I was just looking at these, so here is the first-half league table for people looking at TX firms focusing exclusively on M&A activity, but not capital markets deals -- I've pulled all the firms with TX offices, with them sorted by total deal value, and then listing each firm's total deal count so far in 2014 (http://www.mergermarket.com/pdf/Mergerm ... .Texas.pdf):

Weil Gotshal & Manges ($75,044 million, from 12 total deals)
Jones Day ($73,437, 23 deals)
Simpson Thatcher ($65,495, 3 deals)
Vinson & Elkins ($20,065 million, 35 deals)
Latham & Watkins ($13,490 million, 23 deals)
Andrews Kurth ($8,551 million, 12 deals)
Kirkland & Ellis ($6,595 million, 20 deals)
Locke Lord ($5,774 million, 15 deals)
Bracewell & Giuliani ($5,414 million, 12 deals)
Akin Gump ($4,927 million, 17 deals)
Baker Botts ($4,471 million, 10 deals
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher ($4,125 million, 9 deals)
King & Spalding ($1,444 million, 10 deals)
Haynes and Boone ($1,323 million, 19 deals)
DLA Piper ($387 million, 9 deals)

How important should this table be when evaluating firm strength or selecting a firm? I don't hear people talking much about Jones Day, yet it looks pretty good in terms of deal value.

I also thought V&E and Latham were the two top firms in TX for corporate work.

A year into biglaw, I'll say this: every firm on that table beside DLA is a great choice. Choose based on fit and people you want to learn from. Looking back, I realize how ridiculous discussing things like whether x firm is marginally better than y in z practice area. I can assure you that clients don't sit around ranking firms; they rank lawyers, and each of those firms has plenty of people highly-regarded in their fields.

[Anonymous User]

anyone have a CB with sidley austin in Dallas and have any advice?