Top Law Schools

Loved both and have offers. Might have loves JD a touch more. If I want to do kit with ultimate goal of ending up in academia, which should I choose? Obviously Paul Weiss has a better lit reputation, but is the gap significant enough to make me a fool to pick JD?

Anonymous User wrote:Loved both and have offers. Might have loves JD a touch more. If I want to do kit with ultimate goal of ending up in academia, which should I choose? Obviously Paul Weiss has a better lit reputation, but is the gap significant enough to make me a fool to pick JD?

yes

Op here.

Anyone care to elaborate?

Jones Day for lit in NY is simply not in the same league, and you haven't given much insight here into why you would choose it. I'm making the same decision (among others) and for litigation just can't really fathom JD over PW.

.

Anonymous User wrote:Jones Day for lit in NY is simply not in the same league, and you haven't given much insight here into why you would choose it. I'm making the same decision (among others) and for litigation just can't really fathom JD over PW.

OP here. Certainly I recognize that PW is great for lit, a clear and decisive cut above JD. The problem is that I just really liked Jones Day upon visiting. That makes the decision hard. Loved PW too. It's tough.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Jones Day for lit in NY is simply not in the same league, and you haven't given much insight here into why you would choose it. I'm making the same decision (among others) and for litigation just can't really fathom JD over PW.

OP here. Certainly I recognize that PW is great for lit, a clear and decisive cut above JD. The problem is that I just really liked Jones Day upon visiting. That makes the decision hard. Loved PW too. It's tough.

It would be a different story if you disliked Paul Weiss, but with the info you're giving us there's nothing we can say except Paul Weiss.

Bronte wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Jones Day for lit in NY is simply not in the same league, and you haven't given much insight here into why you would choose it. I'm making the same decision (among others) and for litigation just can't really fathom JD over PW.

OP here. Certainly I recognize that PW is great for lit, a clear and decisive cut above JD. The problem is that I just really liked Jones Day upon visiting. That makes the decision hard. Loved PW too. It's tough.

It would be a different story if you disliked Paul Weiss, but with the info you're giving us there's nothing we can say except Paul Weiss.

fair enough.

I honestly want to delve into why this is a tough choice for you (I'm the anon upthread also choosing between JD and PW). Can you elaborate on your reasons beyond that you "might have loved JD a touch more?" I am genuinely curious what else is motivating your ambivalence, because your stated preference for JD based on feel seems pretty lukewarm, and beyond that the choice is really between a very large firm that is one of the very best in the field you want to work in and a very large firm that is a jack of all trades but relatively unremarkable in comparison to other firms in NY.

Folks on this board tend to think prestige/Vault rankings are more important than anything else in the world. You'd be going to a great law firm no matter what. If you think you'd be happier at JD, take that one and never look back. Life shouldn't be all about keeping up with the Joneses. (no pun intended)

PW.

PW is definitely on the upswing. Not only is the litigation group top notch, but their transactional practices are getting better with the passage of every year. Overall, the firm is just in tremendously good health.

Also, knowing a few PW associates, PW treats their associates well. PW will always match market salary/bonuses (something that on one knows about JD since they don't communicate this information publicly to their associates). PW has other benefits - like subsidized gym memberships, increased vacation time as you get more senior (unpaid I believe), etc. that are above market standards. JD also doesn't do business casual if I remember correctly.

Anonymous User wrote:Folks on this board tend to think prestige/Vault rankings are more important than anything else in the world. You'd be going to a great law firm no matter what. If you think you'd be happier at JD, take that one and never look back. Life shouldn't be all about keeping up with the Joneses. (no pun intended)

this is wrong. not wrong advice in every circumstance, but wrong here.

itbdvorm wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Folks on this board tend to think prestige/Vault rankings are more important than anything else in the world. You'd be going to a great law firm no matter what. If you think you'd be happier at JD, take that one and never look back. Life shouldn't be all about keeping up with the Joneses. (no pun intended)

this is wrong. not wrong advice in every circumstance, but wrong here.

Yeah the problem is OP doesn't have a bad feeling about PW. He just has a slightly (and vaguely) better feeling about JD. There's a huge margin of error in the "feeling" you get from a firm at a 2.5 hour cb. It's just not enough to justify the massive disparity between the firm's in terms of quality of work and exit options.

Anonymous User wrote:Folks on this board tend to think prestige/Vault rankings are more important than anything else in the world. You'd be going to a great law firm no matter what. If you think you'd be happier at JD, take that one and never look back. Life shouldn't be all about keeping up with the Joneses. (no pun intended)

This isn't about some granular distinction between firms in the Vault rankings. It's a choice between two firms in the same city, one of which is widely acknowledged to be superior than the other for litigation. To make a law school admissions analogy, it's not like Columbia versus NYU, or Columbia versus Berkeley; it's like someone going on TLS and saying, "Should I go to Columbia at sticker or Fordham at sticker? I liked them both but I might have liked Fordham just a little bit more." Unless there is some pertinent information that we are unaware of, I think it would be a totally irrational decision to go to Jones Day in this situation.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Folks on this board tend to think prestige/Vault rankings are more important than anything else in the world. You'd be going to a great law firm no matter what. If you think you'd be happier at JD, take that one and never look back. Life shouldn't be all about keeping up with the Joneses. (no pun intended)

This isn't about some granular distinction between firms in the Vault rankings. It's a choice between two firms in the same city, one of which is widely acknowledged to be superior than the other for litigation. To make a law school admissions analogy, it's not like Columbia versus NYU, or Columbia versus Berkeley; it's like someone going on TLS and saying, "Should I go to Columbia at sticker or Fordham at sticker? I liked them both but I might have liked Fordham just a little bit more." Unless there is some pertinent information that we are unaware of, I think it would be a totally irrational decision to go to Jones Day in this situation.

I personally agree with the Columbia vs. NYU type analogy here. While the firm you practice at is important in lateraling from big law to a different job, the idea that the PW associate is going to have an automatic leg up on the JD associate isn't quite accurate (at least in my opinion). These two firms are both widely regarding as having great litigation practices, even if PW is perceived to be a better overall practice. I don't think one is going to open up doors over the other. I mean what if the hypothetical was a Cravath corporate associate versus a DPW or Skadden corporate associate. I think that highlights the point even better. You would be hard pressed to suggest that Cravath is the easy answer in this situation.

Once you actually get an interview, it is much more about what you have done while an associate. This is where lateral hiring and summer hiring are so different. Summer hiring is basically a comparison of pedigree (school and grades), while lateral hiring is more about your experiences then your pedigree. Certainly you need a certain pedigree to even get an interview, but there just isn't that much of a difference in PW and JD to suggest that you are going to have vastly different (or any difference for that matter) options. In fact, there is an argument to be made that you should go to the firm that you feel you like the best since you'll need to stick around for several years before you have any shot of lateraling.

Jones Day NY is not the supposed paradise you might think it to be (or even a "touch" better than PW). I worked for JD in California and it was widely acknowledged that the NY folks were unhappier and more difficult to work with.

Go with PW.

alumniguy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Folks on this board tend to think prestige/Vault rankings are more important than anything else in the world. You'd be going to a great law firm no matter what. If you think you'd be happier at JD, take that one and never look back. Life shouldn't be all about keeping up with the Joneses. (no pun intended)

This isn't about some granular distinction between firms in the Vault rankings. It's a choice between two firms in the same city, one of which is widely acknowledged to be superior than the other for litigation. To make a law school admissions analogy, it's not like Columbia versus NYU, or Columbia versus Berkeley; it's like someone going on TLS and saying, "Should I go to Columbia at sticker or Fordham at sticker? I liked them both but I might have liked Fordham just a little bit more." Unless there is some pertinent information that we are unaware of, I think it would be a totally irrational decision to go to Jones Day in this situation.

I personally agree with the Columbia vs. NYU type analogy here. While the firm you practice at is important in lateraling from big law to a different job, the idea that the PW associate is going to have an automatic leg up on the JD associate isn't quite accurate (at least in my opinion). These two firms are both widely regarding as having great litigation practices, even if PW is perceived to be a better overall practice. I don't think one is going to open up doors over the other. I mean what if the hypothetical was a Cravath corporate associate versus a DPW or Skadden corporate associate. I think that highlights the point even better. You would be hard pressed to suggest that Cravath is the easy answer in this situation.

Once you actually get an interview, it is much more about what you have done while an associate. This is where lateral hiring and summer hiring are so different. Summer hiring is basically a comparison of pedigree (school and grades), while lateral hiring is more about your experiences then your pedigree. Certainly you need a certain pedigree to even get an interview, but there just isn't that much of a difference in PW and JD to suggest that you are going to have vastly different (or any difference for that matter) options. In fact, there is an argument to be made that you should go to the firm that you feel you like the best since you'll need to stick around for several years before you have any shot of lateraling.

No. In NY, PW vs. JD is not equivalent to Cravath vs. DPW or Skadden. The Columbia vs. Fordham distinction is correct.