Top Law Schools

Don't care that much about prestige...Looking to enjoy myself as much as possible and hopefully stay in Biglaw for the long haul. Which firm do people think would be the better choice? Thanks!

Bump. I am not the OP but might as well be.

Same here. Not OP, but facing a very similar decision.

Bump. What are the real world drawbacks to PBWT over PW? Practice area diversity is one; exit opportunities is another, potentially, though this seems to be less clear-cut than people would make it seem. Otherwise, PBWT seems to be far less of a sweatshop, equally good for pro bono, likely to be better for getting real responsibility on cases, and a more viable place to remain for the long haul. Other than give or take 75 slots in the Vault rankings, am I missing something?

.

okinawa wrote:Patterson gave out umbrellas, but then they ran out. And honestly, they were cheap umbrellas. Paul Weiss had those really nice water bottles that are sturdy but so light! Or was that Paul Hastings? Either way.

Also, QoL v. exit options etc etc

Worst criteria for choosing a firm ever.

Anonymous User wrote:Bump. What are the real world drawbacks to PBWT over PW? Practice area diversity is one; exit opportunities is another, potentially, though this seems to be less clear-cut than people would make it seem. Otherwise, PBWT seems to be far less of a sweatshop, equally good for pro bono, likely to be better for getting real responsibility on cases, and a more viable place to remain for the long haul. Other than give or take 75 slots in the Vault rankings, am I missing something?

I don't think there are significant exit option differences between Patterson Belknap and Paul Weiss, assuming you're in litigation. Not that exit options for litigators (other than firms) really exist anyway.

I would take PBWT in a heartbeat if I planned to be a litigator. They seem like an amazing place to be, and the Vault ranking hardly does them justice.

Okay, given the OP's stated goals, Patterson is the better choice (I voted for it), but I made the opposite decision for myself. First of all, Paul Weiss has some of the best connections to government of any NY firm -- it sends a good number of lawyers through the USAO and SEC every year, and you'd be kidding yourself if you thought those open channels didn't make a big difference. Also, the Paul Weiss name would definitely carry better outside of NY should you want those options, especially in certain practice areas where PW has a good presence and PBWT doesn't have any.

Finally, a couple of current Patterson associates have told me that the firm is actively trying to shed its lifestyle reputation. This was sort of troubling to me -- if you have the ability to operate profitably as a lifestyle firm, why would you change your model? Patterson doesn't currently have the same support structure/staff as Paul Weiss, but that's okay when a firm is really committed to associate satisfaction. I just wasn't assured that things would continue to be that way.

That said, it's a close and tough decision, hence why I'm recommending PBWT to OP if he intends to stay for an extended period of time.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Bump. What are the real world drawbacks to PBWT over PW? Practice area diversity is one; exit opportunities is another, potentially, though this seems to be less clear-cut than people would make it seem. Otherwise, PBWT seems to be far less of a sweatshop, equally good for pro bono, likely to be better for getting real responsibility on cases, and a more viable place to remain for the long haul. Other than give or take 75 slots in the Vault rankings, am I missing something?

I don't think there are significant exit option differences between Patterson Belknap and Paul Weiss, assuming you're in litigation. Not that exit options for litigators (other than firms) really exist anyway.

I would take PBWT in a heartbeat if I planned to be a litigator. They seem like an amazing place to be, and the Vault ranking hardly does them justice.

Are you serious? Litigators can exit to USAO's and the SEC, which in a lot of ways, are probably the best exit options available because once you've done either of those things, firms clamor to hire you on as a partner. Not to mention what they can do for political aspirations. The problem with corporate is that the likely exit option leads to significantly less pay, and lessens your ability to transition back into a firm--being in house counsel. I'm interested in corporate too but I've noticed that this board has an obsession with corporate; maybe it stems from the obsession with vault since vault focuses on corporate rankings.

if you have the ability to operate profitably as a lifestyle firm, why would you change your model?

...uhhh maybe it's because the partners want to make even more money? Why on earth would they possibly do that?!?!??!?!?!?!

Wondering if anyone has any thoughts to add to this thread after a year. Trying to make this decision right now.

+1

Blindmelon wrote:

okinawa wrote:Patterson gave out umbrellas, but then they ran out. And honestly, they were cheap umbrellas. Paul Weiss had those really nice water bottles that are sturdy but so light! Or was that Paul Hastings? Either way.

Also, QoL v. exit options etc etc

WorstBest criteria for choosing a firm ever.

Can't remember, which shithole was it that had a sign in the hospitality suite that they were forgoing swag to save the environment? That's like advertising yourself as the next Dewey.

Would also like to hear about this. Trying to decide between PBWT and Cleary, figure this topic is close enough.

I would trade any of my V5 offers to work at PBWT. I may even try again if I clerk. Not getting a callback from them was certainly the lowlight of my interview season.

If you want to do litigation, don't care about prestige, and don't have a specific practice of interest that PBWT does not offer then the decision seems like an easy one.

Anonymous User wrote:I would trade any of my V5 offers to work at PBWT. I may even try again if I clerk. Not getting a callback from them was certainly the lowlight of my interview season.

If you want to do litigation, don't care about prestige, and don't have a specific practice of interest that PBWT does not offer then the decision seems like an easy one.

But is it smart to at least consider something like prestige? Or maybe not prestige, as such, but exit options? I imagine the two go somewhat hand in hand, yes? In other words, do you take a big exit options hit at PBWT as compared to a place like Paul Weiss or Cleary or whatever?

Anonymous User wrote:But is it smart to at least consider something like prestige? Or maybe not prestige, as such, but exit options? I imagine the two go somewhat hand in hand, yes? In other words, do you take a big exit options hit at PBWT as compared to a place like Paul Weiss or Cleary or whatever?

Yeah I'd love to hear the answer to this, because in my mind it basically boils down to "how different are the exit options"? As someone who doesn't care about prestige, that's the only area I see where a V10 might have a leg up.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:But is it smart to at least consider something like prestige? Or maybe not prestige, as such, but exit options? I imagine the two go somewhat hand in hand, yes? In other words, do you take a big exit options hit at PBWT as compared to a place like Paul Weiss or Cleary or whatever?

Yeah I'd love to hear the answer to this, because in my mind it basically boils down to "how different are the exit options"? As someone who doesn't care about prestige, that's the only area I see where a V10 might have a leg up.

+1

FWIW I turned down an offer from Patterson Belknap last summer to go to a V10 in part because several trusted older attorneys (family friends) suggested that working at Patterson might be somewhat limiting my career opportunities. One of these lawyers used to work in NYC but hasn't for 10-15 years, the others have spent their careers in other east coast cities. The impression that gave me was that PBWT might not be a well-known commodity outside New York, which was a concern for me, since I'd like my next job to be elsewhere. They really couldn't articulate what exactly the difference is, just more of a "Patterson? That's a good firm, but it's no [V10 firm]."

That said, this is anecdotal, vague information; and, to be honest, though I liked my summer firm and will be returning, I do think sometimes about whether I made a mistake and if Patterson is as pleasant a place to work as it's made out to be. It does seem to offer a lot of unique things for a major NYC firm.

Those who got offers from PBWT this year: how long was the turnaround time between the interview & offer? Still waiting on them (I think in vain at this point)

Anonymous User wrote:Those who got offers from PBWT this year: how long was the turnaround time between the interview & offer? Still waiting on them (I think in vain at this point)

Took about a week. My impression was that their hiring committee doesn't meet all that frequently.

Facing a very similar decision as posters above. Choosing between Patterson, PW and a V5. Anybody have any additional thoughts on the differences between exit options at these places?

Anonymous User wrote:Facing a very similar decision as posters above. Choosing between Patterson, PW and a V5. Anybody have any additional thoughts on the differences between exit options at these places?

Exit options are hard to quantify and I think there's probably too much emphasis on them in discussion here. Who you meet, what kind of work you do, and how well you do it are probably going to have bigger impacts on your exit options than what firm you choose (at least as between two similarly well-regarded litigation firms.

PW supposedly has particularly good ties to government offices. I know a guy who picked PW over PBWT because his career goal was specifically to be an AUSA. I think that decision made sense, but it's not like that goal isn't attainable from PBWT.

PBWT is a fantastic place. Yes, it's Vault ranking is lower than PW or a V5, but Vault rankings are meaningless to your life as a young associate. The things that do matter - doing interesting work, early responsibility, and quality of life - is where PBWT excels. That said, PW is supposedly a nice place too.

I think it probably comes down to your career goals. Do you want to work in Big Law for a couple years, then get out? That would probably put a thumb on the scale for choosing the most prestigious place possible, since there might be better options there. Do you specifically want to go into government? PW's probably a safe bet. Do you want to stick around for a while in Big Law? Might want to go for PBWT.