Chambers: Nationwide vs. NY Forum

[Anonymous User]

Considering offers from a handful of firms in NYC across the Vault spectrum, and since Vault isn't entirely reliable, looking to the Chambers rankings. What I'm trying to figure out is whether I should be paying more attention to the nationwide rankings or the New York rankings.

Sidley, for example, is one of the top firms I'm considering (the NY office), so things get especially confusing because in this context "nationwide" seems to imply "splitting the difference between Chicago and New York." Is this how I should be reading it? Or does nationwide mean something else in the context of Chambers? On the one hand, the firm seems considerably more attractive in the nationwide rankings than it does in the New York rankings, but on the other, the attorneys there talked a lot about how cross-staffing goes on all the time, and with a firm that size, clients are likely coming from across the country.

I'm sure this also applies to other firms with strong non-NY presences, so I thought it might be a good idea to get a thread going on how people deciding between firms should weigh the two measures. Thoughts?

Also, bonus question: what is the quantitative difference between the M&A "elite" vs. the merely "well regarded"? It makes sense intuitively, but is a Band 1 "well regarded" firm still a good get for the average law student, or is it basically a nice way of saying "Band 5"? Somewhere in between?

[itbdvorm]

Considering offers from a handful of firms in NYC across the Vault spectrum, and since Vault isn't entirely reliable, looking to the Chambers rankings. What I'm trying to figure out is whether I should be paying more attention to the nationwide rankings or the New York rankings.

Sidley, for example, is one of the top firms I'm considering (the NY office), so things get especially confusing because in this context "nationwide" seems to imply "splitting the difference between Chicago and New York." Is this how I should be reading it? Or does nationwide mean something else in the context of Chambers? On the one hand, the firm seems considerably more attractive in the nationwide rankings than it does in the New York rankings, but on the other, the attorneys there talked a lot about how cross-staffing goes on all the time, and with a firm that size, clients are likely coming from across the country.

I'm sure this also applies to other firms with strong non-NY presences, so I thought it might be a good idea to get a thread going on how people deciding between firms should weigh the two measures. Thoughts?

Also, bonus question: what is the quantitative difference between the M&A "elite" vs. the merely "well regarded"? It makes sense intuitively, but is a Band 1 "well regarded" firm still a good get for the average law student, or is it basically a nice way of saying "Band 5"? Somewhere in between?

Answer really is that it depends on the firm and practice. Certain firms have more "power bases" and centralized practice groups, whereas others have things spread out more across the country. I know Latham, for example, has a pretty tight-knit M&A team despite its myriad US offices, hence it's in the "Elite Band 1" despite not being ranked #1 in every US office. Simpson, on the other hand, makes it to "Elite Band 1" in M&A based primarily on NY (where it is obviously strong) without much of a boost from other offices.

A firm like Sidley I believe is closer to the Simpson camp (one predominant office, in this case Chicago) than the Latham camp but I certainly could be wrong.

As for your bonus question, it's a nice way of saying Band 5.