Page 1 of 1
Second-tier Chicago BigLaw vs. strong midsized firm
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:08 am
by Anonymous User
Hi all,
Recognizing the fact that there are many factors that can't be accounted for in a post like this, which is preferable, working at a non-Kirkland/Sidley/Mayer/Jenner/Winston Biglaw firm in Chicago, or at a strong regional firm in a secondary market? Is it true that it's easier to make partner in a secondary market?
Thanks!
Re: Second-tier Chicago BigLaw vs. strong midsized firm
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:40 am
by Cavalier
...
Re: Second-tier Chicago BigLaw vs. strong midsized firm
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:46 am
by Anonymous User
First-tier Chicago Biglaw: Kirkland
Second-tier Chicago Biglaw: Everyone else.
KIRKLAND SHATTERS
Re: Second-tier Chicago BigLaw vs. strong midsized firm
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:11 am
by Anonymous User
Cavalier wrote:You seem to be worried about not being at a top-tier firm in your market, which is just silly. You shouldn't avoid a location just because you won't be at the very top if that's where you want to live. Partnership prospects vary from firm to firm. Check the partner:associate ratio for both firms to get an idea.
My worry isn't so much about not being at a "top-tier" firm in my market, as the overall cost/benefit when comparing a "secondary" BigLaw job to a strong regional job. I'm operating under the assumption that work/life balance and partnership prospects are better at the regional firm, and as such I'm wondering whether the higher pay/career opportunities/"prestige" of a secondary BigLaw job outweighs that.
Re: Second-tier Chicago BigLaw vs. strong midsized firm
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:44 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Cavalier wrote:You seem to be worried about not being at a top-tier firm in your market, which is just silly. You shouldn't avoid a location just because you won't be at the very top if that's where you want to live. Partnership prospects vary from firm to firm. Check the partner:associate ratio for both firms to get an idea.
My worry isn't so much about not being at a "top-tier" firm in my market, as the overall cost/benefit when comparing a "secondary" BigLaw job to a strong regional job. I'm operating under the assumption that work/life balance and partnership prospects are better at the regional firm, and as such I'm wondering whether the higher pay/career opportunities/"prestige" of a secondary BigLaw job outweighs that.
Some would say that working in a smaller market allows you to get substantive work faster, which would make you more attractive as a lateral when you hit years 4-6.