Wilson Sonsini in S.V. Forum

[Anonymous User]

I've interviewed in Silicon Valley and by far most of the trash talking is directed at WSGR. I hear it's a sweat-shop, I hear it's past its prime, that it's totally lacking transparency, and I also hear it somehow doesn't pay well (??). With all that I'm wondering WHY people still choose it. I am curious what it's future is looking like and whether it is easily #1 in terms of career prospects and prestige for Silicon Valley. Anyone turn it down for a less prominent firm in the valley?

[adameus]

I've interviewed in Silicon Valley and by far most of the trash talking is directed at WSGR. I hear it's a sweat-shop, I hear it's past its prime, that it's totally lacking transparency, and I also hear it somehow doesn't pay well (??). With all that I'm wondering WHY people still choose it. I am curious what it's future is looking like and whether it is easily #1 in terms of career prospects and prestige for Silicon Valley. Anyone turn it down for a less prominent firm in the valley?

I turned it down for fenwick.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's a function of it being the top dog in the Valley - people always like comparing themselves and bashing the one on top. I in the end declined my offer but I think it's a great firm if you like what they specialized in (emerging companies) or want to be in the Valley. I think in general the bashing comes from people who hasn't worked there. In my interviews at other firms who had former Wilson people, everyone was positive about the firm and admire their stature in the Valley. That being said, it seems like it's not going to make a big difference if you choose one of its smaller rivals like fenwick or cooley over it.

[Anonymous User]

Here's my opinion for what it's worth. I have a somewhat non-traditional background with several years exp in the legal field per and post law school, and in BigLaw in particular. Did a lot of lit in CA and TX, among other places, and anytime there was a tech case or a new company involved, WSGR was there, and respected. They are THE firm in SV. That puts a target on their backs. How many people hate the most recent champion in the NBA or the NFL? Nobody's perfect, there are always flaws, and jealousy breeds contempt.

People go to WSGR because it has major connections in SV. You will work with high profile clients, you will get the perks and burdens of BigLaw, and if you leave the firm, there is a network to be built with some of the top companies in the world during your time in SV. I personally think WSGR would be a great place to work and almost accepted an offer there, before taking another firm for geographical/family preference reasons.

As an aside, you should ignore most of the stereotypes you hear on this board. Having spent 5+ years in BigLaw, the difference in hours outside of the V5/NYC and other traditionally heavy hours markets are negligible. Often firms keep pace not with their V rankings but rather with their competitors in a specific market. So choose the firm you like the most in the market you like the most and you will have a good starting point for a career.

[Anonymous User]

I've been told that the NY firms believe they are a cut above WSGR in terms of quality. Also that the Wilson associates themselves are not as "cream of the crop" as those going to NY firms such as Skadden.

Truth?

[Anonymous User]

Attorneys at wilson are billed out at much lower rates than v10 type firms. This reflects a client's willingness to pay, thus perceived value

[Anonymous User]

I've been told that the NY firms believe they are a cut above WSGR in terms of quality. Also that the Wilson associates themselves are not as "cream of the crop" as those going to NY firms such as Skadden.

Truth?

Same poster as directly above you. I think that there's some objective explanation to firms claiming this, just given the number of nearby elite law schools (T-14) that the NY market likely draws a higher percentage from (such as Yale, Harvard, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, etc etc etc) vs the number of T-14 schools near Silicon Valley (Stanford and Boalt). However, I don't think that the quality of attorneys at a firm equates to the number of nearby T-14s, but rather the quality of students the firm chooses to recruit. WSGR has a successful business model.

I think that NYC has some great firms, drawing from some great schools. But Google and other top companies don't go running to WSGR SV over an NYC firm simply for convenience sake (although operational costs associated with this certainly at least factor into the accounting). WSGR is a great firm located in a prime location and they have made a priority of targeting SV as their prime draw for target clients. No client wants to be at the bottom of a firm's list of priorities.

As for them being billed at a lower rate, this is more of a business model decision than a "perceived value" decision. There are a series of examples through the V100 of firms intentionally choosing to charger lower rates as part of their sales pitches. Clearly, some clients will want to go with the "brand name". Some will want to go with maximal value per dollar (however they choose to define this). At the end of the day, law is a business, and it all comes down to knowing your target.

[Anonymous User]

As for them being billed at a lower rate, this is more of a business model decision than a "perceived value" decision. There are a series of examples through the V100 of firms intentionally choosing to charger lower rates as part of their sales pitches. Clearly, some clients will want to go with the "brand name". Some will want to go with maximal value per dollar (however they choose to define this). At the end of the day, law is a business, and it all comes down to knowing your target.

Agree, kind of. HP is not going to use Wilson to acquire Palm. But many startups use Wilson for just about everything. Different work, different target. Other firms do more lucrative work. Not the be all end all.... just comes down to what you value

[Anonymous User]

As for them being billed at a lower rate, this is more of a business model decision than a "perceived value" decision. There are a series of examples through the V100 of firms intentionally choosing to charger lower rates as part of their sales pitches. Clearly, some clients will want to go with the "brand name". Some will want to go with maximal value per dollar (however they choose to define this). At the end of the day, law is a business, and it all comes down to knowing your target.

Agree, kind of. HP is not going to use Wilson to acquire Palm. But many startups use Wilson for just about everything. Different work, different target. Other firms do more lucrative work. Not the be all end all.... just comes down to what you value

^^ This. I know past and future SA's at Wilson in SV and they certainly had the stats and opportunity to go to other firms, but chose Wilson because Wilson did what they were more interested in or had a better reputation in the field they were interested in.

[Anonymous User]

If you look at pedigrees on the various firm sites, Wilson seems to have some of the "worst" (obviously good enough for big law but check out Skadden etc)

This may imply lower associate quality

[Anonymous User]

If you look at pedigrees on the various firm sites, Wilson seems to have some of the "worst" (obviously good enough for big law but check out Skadden etc)

This may imply lower associate quality

Not sure about Skadden, specifically, but to put things in perspective, WSGR's most recent summer class of about 37 had about 5 from outside the T14.

[Anonymous User]

People I know who chose Wilson Sonsini did so because they're interested in start-ups and entrepreneurial type things. I believe they have their eye on eventually latching onto a start-up as a GC. They're all techy people too.