Best Secondary Markets? Forum

[Solerpower]

PPP

Where are you getting the PPP info from. It seems pretty arbitrary to simply claim Texas partners receive less profit. There is no defined reason why a Texas firm would make less profit if they're doing the same type of law.

Considering the size of the Texas GDP, combined with a business friendly taxation, one would assume PPP would be higher in Texas.

[RVP11]

Going to law school in the area is usually sufficient.

People seem to be overstating the importance of ties - they're going to matter more in the smaller secondary or tertiary markets, and less in the bigger secondary markets. Like, they're probably not 100% necessary in places like Dallas, Houston, Philly, etc. but in smaller, highly desirable markets like Seattle, Portland, Austin, Denver, etc. it's going to be a lot more difficult without real ties.

[Solerpower]

Going to law school in the area is usually sufficient.

People seem to be overstating the importance of ties - they're going to matter more in the smaller secondary or tertiary markets, and less in the bigger secondary markets. Like, they're probably not 100% necessary in places like Dallas, Houston, Philly, etc. but in smaller, highly desirable markets like Seattle, Portland, Austin, Denver, etc. it's going to be a lot more difficult without real ties.

Everything i've read, TITCR

[RisingMichigan3L]

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... 2448485135

There is no TX firm on that list.

2008 PPP:
Fulbright & Jaworski: $833,000
Vinson & Elkins: $1,311,000$ (my bad on this one; I thought all of the big three hovered around $800k)
Baker Botts: $1,365,000

Given that 2008 represented an increase in PPP for these three firms compared to 2007, which was the best year for many firms (http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX. ... 2430174520), it seems weird that they can't even come close to matching the PPP of NYC/other major market firms of 2009, which was considered the worst year for firms:

1) Wachtell: $4,300,000
2) Quinn: $3,130,000
3) S&C: $2,965,000
4) Boies: $2,880,000
5) Cravath: $2,715,000
6) Paul Weiss: $2,690,000
7) Kirkland & Ellis: $2,495,000
Simpson Thacher: $2,415,000
9) Cadwalader: $2,410,000
10) Cleary: $2,385,000

[RisingMichigan3L]

Found 2009 PPP for BigTX firms, so a better comparison can be made:
V&E: $1,270,000
Fulbright: $813,000
Baker: $1,360,000
http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_la ... ewell.html
http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_la ... -2009.html

[Solerpower]

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... 2448485135

There is no TX firm on that list.

2008 PPP:
Fulbright & Jaworski: $833,000
Vinson & Elkins: $1,311,000$ (my bad on this one; I thought all of the big three hovered around $800k)
Baker Botts: $1,365,000

Given that 2008 represented an increase in PPP for these three firms compared to 2007, which was the best year for many firms (http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX. ... 2430174520), it seems weird that they can't even come close to matching the PPP of NYC/other major market firms of 2009, which was considered the worst year for firms:

1) Wachtell: $4,300,000
2) Quinn: $3,130,000
3) S&C: $2,965,000
4) Boies: $2,880,000
5) Cravath: $2,715,000
6) Paul Weiss: $2,690,000
7) Kirkland & Ellis: $2,495,000
Simpson Thacher: $2,415,000
9) Cadwalader: $2,410,000
10) Cleary: $2,385,000

Are these figures how much the average partner makes at the firm or how much the firm makes in profit divided by the number of partners, meaning that the partners make less than the numbers indicated.

[RisingMichigan3L]

how much the firm makes in profit divided by the number of partners, meaning that the partners make less than the numbers indicated.

Latter. Whether it indicates how much a partner actually makes is a tough call, as different firms compensate partners differently. Some do straight up lock-step even through the partnership ranks (Davis Polk), other firms give a larger slice of the pie to partners who have more shares, etc. Generally, though, unless you're a star rainmaker (or just starting out as partner), I doubt the number would deviate too far from PPP.

[Solerpower]

how much the firm makes in profit divided by the number of partners, meaning that the partners make less than the numbers indicated.

Latter. Whether it indicates how much a partner actually makes is a tough call, as different firms compensate partners differently. Some do straight up lock-step even through the partnership ranks (Davis Polk), other firms give a larger slice of the pie to partners who have more shares, etc. Generally, though, unless you're a star rainmaker (or just starting out as partner), I doubt the number would deviate too far from PPP.

Are these figures pre-associate salary/operating costs or after. Basically, i'm trying to figure out if these figures are relatively close to the actual partner salary or if its simply profit divided by number.

[RisingMichigan3L]

Look up the difference between profits and revenue.

[Solerpower]

Look up the difference between profits and revenue.

Technically partner salary would come out before profit is able to be calculated and therefore, if you want to get smart with me, PPP has no true connection with partner salary.

However, that is not the case and I was asking if PPP was before or after specific costs.

And people wonder why there are so many lawyer jokes.

[thesealocust]

edited / never mind

[Anonymous User]

Sounds right.

[XxSpyKEx]

^ That. Going to law school in a particular city for a year is not going to be a sufficient tie to the market that employers will take you seriously ITE, particularly if it is a secondary market city (and I say a year because that's all you will be there prior to 2L OCI). If you have some other ties to all those markets (e.g. you have family living there and have at least visited them a few times), then that's great, but I wouldn't just pick a city and plan on being able to work at a firm there merely because you went to school there for a year. A lot of firms are taking very small class sizes nowadays and the last thing they want is one of there two summer associates deciding they don't like the market and want to go elsewhere, so they will much rather hire someone that has lived in that market prior to starting law school.

This really isn't all that accurate. Most firms take for granted that your choice in a law school in a particular geographic location is evidence enough of ties. Firms are much more skeptical of someone not going to law school in the area and with no other relevant ties.

I had zero questions whatsoever at OCI re; my commitment to the area and I have no ties beyond law school to the area.

What market are you in?

Going to law school in the area is usually sufficient.

People seem to be overstating the importance of ties - they're going to matter more in the smaller secondary or tertiary markets, and less in the bigger secondary markets. Like, they're probably not 100% necessary in places like Dallas, Houston, Philly, etc. but in smaller, highly desirable markets like Seattle, Portland, Austin, Denver, etc. it's going to be a lot more difficult without real ties.

This is probably right. The market my school is in is a smaller secondary market and I got asked quite a few questions by the few firms I interviewed with out here, really digging into the fact that I don't have ties out here. E.g. one firm asked me "why X state," and I told the interviewers that I went to undergrad out here, have quite a few friends out here, and really like it. So the interviewers followed up with "well ... do you have any family out here?" and when I said "no" they asked "why don't you want to go back to Chicago?" Although, I suppose the firms might have been more (and admittedly, rightfully) skeptical because I lived in a major market for basically all my life.

[rando]

^ That. Going to law school in a particular city for a year is not going to be a sufficient tie to the market that employers will take you seriously ITE, particularly if it is a secondary market city (and I say a year because that's all you will be there prior to 2L OCI). If you have some other ties to all those markets (e.g. you have family living there and have at least visited them a few times), then that's great, but I wouldn't just pick a city and plan on being able to work at a firm there merely because you went to school there for a year. A lot of firms are taking very small class sizes nowadays and the last thing they want is one of there two summer associates deciding they don't like the market and want to go elsewhere, so they will much rather hire someone that has lived in that market prior to starting law school.

This really isn't all that accurate. Most firms take for granted that your choice in a law school in a particular geographic location is evidence enough of ties. Firms are much more skeptical of someone not going to law school in the area and with no other relevant ties.

I had zero questions whatsoever at OCI re; my commitment to the area and I have no ties beyond law school to the area.

What market are you in?

ATL

[eaters333]

No one has said denver?

[rando]

No one has said denver?

I actually strongly considered Denver in my application process. Huge quality of Life bonus. Great city. I think market rate is ~125-130 and cost of living is fairly low. But certainly higher than TX or ATL. Its also a lot smaller than the above mentioned markets.

[motiontodismiss]

...you mean United.

lol yeah. But until the UA/CO merger gets DOJ approval, Continental.

Can't believe I'm saying this but if I don't get NY or Chi, I'm going to TX. Might as well save on CoL if I don't get the locations I want.

[20160810]

Are we defining "secondary" ITT as anything but NYC and DC? If so, Chicago, LA, SF and Houston would be the "best" in terms of options.

Of the cities listed in the OP, I'd say Seattle and Portland take the cake. Not only are they livable cities in a cool area, but you're somewhat insulated from competition in the job market (you're basically up against U of O, L&C and UW students and that's it -- go to UW and the world is yours up there).

[motiontodismiss]

Low pay+highish CoL=fail.

LA/SF are NOT good markets to break into. CoL is absurd, taxes are more absurd, and it's in a failed state.

[lilybbloom]

I've actually heard that for Philly, geographical ties matter quite a bit.

[RVP11]

LA/SF are NOT good markets to break into. CoL is absurd, taxes are more absurd, and it's in a failed state.

I move to dismiss this post for lack of mention of California having a perfect climate and (SoCal, at least) beautiful women.

[enygma]

LA/SF are NOT good markets to break into. CoL is absurd, taxes are more absurd, and it's in a failed state.

I move to dismiss this post for lack of mention of California having a perfect climate and (SoCal, at least) beautiful women.

how you people live without halter top day is beyond me

[motiontodismiss]

LA/SF are NOT good markets to break into. CoL is absurd, taxes are more absurd, and it's in a failed state.

I move to dismiss this post for lack of mention of California having a perfect climate and (SoCal, at least) beautiful women.

Motion denied. People overrate the weather in SoCal. And I Iike my women to be more than 80% natural and have a 3 digit IQ.

[Locke N. Lawded]

I'm not totally up on the current situation, but minneapolis has a relatively decent market. last i checked (and this could have changed with the economy) the market rate was about $120k starting at the big firms in town. although cost of living is quite a bit lower than chicago, this is still pretty low relatively speaking. However, if you were comparing it to market rate in NYC it's probably a pretty fair rate, relatively (and considering dorsey pays market in NYC maybe that's more relevant to their consideration than chicago).

the other reason that makes minneapolis stronger than most is that it's the seat of the 8th circuit, so there are all of those federal opportunities that come along with that.

also, minneapolis is a very excellent city.

There are four law schools in the Twin Cities...University of Minnesota, St. Thomas, William Mitchell, and Hamline. The latter three schools are TTT and the U is top 25. Right now, the market in the Twin Cities is saturated, and according to the students I deal with from that area, it's hard for outsiders to break in right now.

If you're serious about this area, try to get into the U or don't bother...not a ton of jobs there right now, plus the weather sucks so bad most of the year that they created over 7 miles of interconnected walkways--the skyway--so they don't have to go outside to get around the city.

[wiseowl]

I'm not totally up on the current situation, but minneapolis has a relatively decent market. last i checked (and this could have changed with the economy) the market rate was about $120k starting at the big firms in town. although cost of living is quite a bit lower than chicago, this is still pretty low relatively speaking. However, if you were comparing it to market rate in NYC it's probably a pretty fair rate, relatively (and considering dorsey pays market in NYC maybe that's more relevant to their consideration than chicago).

the other reason that makes minneapolis stronger than most is that it's the seat of the 8th circuit, so there are all of those federal opportunities that come along with that.

also, minneapolis is a very excellent city.

There are four law schools in the Twin Cities...University of Minnesota, St. Thomas, William Mitchell, and Hamline. The latter three schools are TTT and the U is top 25. Right now, the market in the Twin Cities is saturated, and according to the students I deal with from that area, it's hard for outsiders to break in right now.

If you're serious about this area, try to get into the U or don't bother...not a ton of jobs there right now, plus the weather sucks so bad most of the year that they created over 7 miles of interconnected walkways--the skyway--so they don't have to go outside to get around the city.

hey now, William Mitchell is T2.