Top Law Schools

When considering offers, should an automatic bump be given to HQ offices vs. satellites? I've heard satellite offices generally have more relaxed environments, but might be looked down upon by firms with local HQs and lawyers in the HQ of the same firm. I've also heard that you might not have to do as much grunt work, but you also miss out on some of the more interesting projects. Anyone who summered at a satellite office or conversed with local attorneys about this care to share some insight? Thanks.

Anonymous User wrote:When considering offers, should an automatic bump be given to HQ offices vs. satellites? I've heard satellite offices generally have more relaxed environments, but might be looked down upon by firms with local HQs and lawyers in the HQ of the same firm. I've also heard that you might not have to do as much grunt work, but you also miss out on some of the more interesting projects. Anyone who summered at a satellite office or conversed with local attorneys about this care to share some insight? Thanks.

I think this is going to be a firm-by-firm call. Nobody at Jenner Chicago is looking down upon people at Jenner DC.

<-------2L, so no real experience

Depends on what you consider a "satellite office." K&E SF has a large office and was the most profitable office in the entire firm last year. As one partner told me during my interview: "I don't rely on anybody from Chicago to feed me dinner."

Anonymous User wrote:Depends on what you consider a "satellite office." K&E SF has a large office and was the most profitable office in the entire firm last year. As one partner told me during my interview: "I don't rely on anybody from Chicago to feed me dinner."

EAT WHAT YOU KILL BABY.

I'd agree that it depends on the firm. Latham doesn't really have the issue. MoFo NY? Not as big a deal as MoFo SF. Simpson Silicon Valley? Nowhere near Simpson NY. Quinn NY? Similar to Quinn Cali

Yeah this is gonna be a very unsatisfying answer, but it depends heavily on the firm and the office.

Grizz wrote:Yeah this is gonna be a very unsatisfying answer, but it depends heavily on the firm and the office.

Skadden (BOS/LA)?

Grizz wrote:Yeah this is gonna be a very unsatisfying answer, but it depends heavily on the firm and the office.

Sidley NY, LA?

Skadden Wilmington, DE?

Anonymous User wrote:Skadden Wilmington, DE?

Skadden DC?

Boies Hollywood?

Anonymous User wrote:Boies Hollywood?

lololololol hollywood fl

Susman's Seattle office?

Boies Miami, Lauderdale, Hollywood?

I think the real question is how the office stacks up to other firms in that market. Nobody is nursing offers from Sidley Chicago and Sidley NY trying to figure out which is better, because "great for Chicago" and "great for New York" don't mean the same thing.

Anonymous User wrote:

Grizz wrote:Yeah this is gonna be a very unsatisfying answer, but it depends heavily on the firm and the office.

Skadden (BOS/LA)?

Still work on headline matters but more relaxed. Better than NYC IMO.

Anonymous User wrote:I think the real question is how the office stacks up to other firms in that market. Nobody is nursing offers from Sidley Chicago and Sidley NY trying to figure out which is better, because "great for Chicago" and "great for New York" don't mean the same thing.

+1. while an office's position as a "satellite" should factor into your decision somewhat, if you're focusing on a particular city, you should be more concerned with how that office, satellite or not, stacks up against other firms in that city. some satellite offices are very highly regarded in their respective cities, others not so much so.

Proskauer LA?

Quinn Emanuel Portland?

Jones Day Orlando?

Skadden Baltimore?

White and Case Champaigne Illinois?

This is kind of a ludicrous exercise. Why don't you guys just go to lawfirmstats.com and see how the office has been doing? Just remember that the data is often old and should be cross checked with AmLaw, the firm's website, and NALP.

How does Boies Boise stack up?

edit: meant to be anonymous, oh shit

i heard from some dude that boise MIA does mostly work for phillip morris. you should prob check shit like this out before signing up for any small satellite office

^ is working for Philip Morris good or bad (personal moral issues aside).

Anonymous User wrote:^ is working for Philip Morris good or bad (personal moral issues aside).

Depends. What is you stance on having a lifetime supply of marlboro mediums?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I think the real question is how the office stacks up to other firms in that market. Nobody is nursing offers from Sidley Chicago and Sidley NY trying to figure out which is better, because "great for Chicago" and "great for New York" don't mean the same thing.

+1. while an office's position as a "satellite" should factor into your decision somewhat, if you're focusing on a particular city, you should be more concerned with how that office, satellite or not, stacks up against other firms in that city. some satellite offices are very highly regarded in their respective cities, others not so much so.

this is hard, though. if i stack PW's DC office against other firms in DC, it's not going to do very well. if that's evidence that the office does less interesting work or that associates or partners there have poorer exit options (than at the other DC firms), then you start to wonder why PW partners or associates would end up in that office. i hear PW's DC office is in some ways more selective (with regard to talent) than the NY office is. so... what's the deal? why are all these highly-credentialed attorneys working for PW in DC, instead of Hogan or Steptoe?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I think the real question is how the office stacks up to other firms in that market. Nobody is nursing offers from Sidley Chicago and Sidley NY trying to figure out which is better, because "great for Chicago" and "great for New York" don't mean the same thing.

+1. while an office's position as a "satellite" should factor into your decision somewhat, if you're focusing on a particular city, you should be more concerned with how that office, satellite or not, stacks up against other firms in that city. some satellite offices are very highly regarded in their respective cities, others not so much so.

this is hard, though. if i stack PW's DC office against other firms in DC, it's not going to do very well. if that's evidence that the office does less interesting work or that associates or partners there have poorer exit options (than at the other DC firms), then you start to wonder why PW partners or associates would end up in that office. i hear PW's DC office is in some ways more selective (with regard to talent) than the NY office is. so... what's the deal? why are all these highly-credentialed attorneys working for PW in DC, instead of Hogan or Steptoe?

1. It's harder to get a job at every DC office of every firm. Supply and demand. It's not like Hogan and Steptoe are full of people they pulled off the street.
2. What does "it's not going to do very well" mean if it doesn't mean less interesting work and poorer exit options? Your logic is basically that the name brand somehow makes the office better than offices that are actually more highly regarded (note: I have no idea how these firms actually stack up, just using them as an example since previous poster referred to them specifically).

The answer is that if you're deciding between firms, compare them to their peers (whether by geography, practice area focus, prestige, whatever). Apples to apples.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: this is hard, though. if i stack PW's DC office against other firms in DC, it's not going to do very well. if that's evidence that the office does less interesting work or that associates or partners there have poorer exit options (than at the other DC firms), then you start to wonder why PW partners or associates would end up in that office. i hear PW's DC office is in some ways more selective (with regard to talent) than the NY office is. so... what's the deal? why are all these highly-credentialed attorneys working for PW in DC, instead of Hogan or Steptoe?

1. It's harder to get a job at every DC office of every firm. Supply and demand. It's not like Hogan and Steptoe are full of people they pulled off the street.
2. What does "it's not going to do very well" mean if it doesn't mean less interesting work and poorer exit options? Your logic is basically that the name brand somehow makes the office better than offices that are actually more highly regarded (note: I have no idea how these firms actually stack up, just using them as an example since previous poster referred to them specifically).

The answer is that if you're deciding between firms, compare them to their peers (whether by geography, practice area focus, prestige, whatever). Apples to apples.

By "it's not going to do very well" I just mean the PW DC office's Chambers ranking for litigation in DC (not even in a band) will be lower than Steptoe's DC office's ranking for litigation in DC (band 4). http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/42869

I am wondering, to use some of your words, whether name brand of the mothership in a particular area can make an office better than offices that are *higher ranked* in that particular practice in the region in question. From my perspective, this is not a crazy thing to wonder because I'm not sure what the practice area + region rankings mean. Do those rankings favor larger offices? Do they tend only to track matters that originate in DC (to stick with the example), ignoring matters that originate in NY, pieces of which are worked on in DC? When you have a satellite office that works very closely with the mothership office -- working on the regulatory components of the mothership office's big cases, say -- maybe the more relevant ranking to look at is the mothership office's ranking in its region. So, here, I might look at PW's band 1 litigation ranking for NY.

It doesn't seem implausible that a litigation attorney working in PW's DC office would have more interesting work and better exit options than a litigation attorney working in Steptoe's DC office. If the opposite is the case, then I think it may be difficult to explain movement of attorneys from PW's NY office to the DC office, summer splits between the offices, the fact that it can be harder to get a summer position with PW's DC office than with its NY office. I'm not saying these things can't be explained -- the high demand in DC idea may help -- but I don't yet understand them.