selecting HQ vs. satellite offices Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hey yall

I'm curious how firms perceive their own offices. If one has an obvious HQ, like NYC or LA or Chi-town, then how do you determine if the office is a less important satellite or not? I define satellite as: less important, easier to get into, less likely to transfer out, less important work. I'm guessing salary would be the biggest clue. I don't mind working in a smaller market, just don't want to be perceived (or trained) as a second-rate lawyer.

[mrloblaw]

Be careful judging based on salary, since it tends to be tied to the market rate. I know some firms have satellite offices that are easier to get jobs with than the home office, but that pay considerably more (Vinson Elkins comes to mind, although someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Edit: Of course, I'm not saying that a NY satellite of a TX firm is necessarily a worse place to work by any means.

[Anonymous User]

Depends entirely on the firm. Many "satellites" (1) are actually more selective; (2) still work on headline matters; and (3) pay 160 in cheaper CoL markets.

[Anonymous User]

This is really going to depend on the office. Some satellites are harder to get hired by. That said, I feel like everyone looks at non-NY lawyers as second rate to NY.

Salary is a good benchmark (i.e., they pay the same in all their offices), especially if they are paying more than "market."