Top Law Schools

Any reason to go if there are other viable options? Issue is, across the board BB seems to be a great place to work, but their NY satellite office is largely weak.

Depends on what your other viable options are, but it's not great for a young lawyer to start his career at a place like the New York offices of firms like Baker Botts, Vinson Elkins, etc.

Other viable options are all V50 or V25 NY firms. I'm thinking about this solely on enjoyability scale. But I do think you are right.

capnhook wrote:Any reason to go if there are other viable options? Issue is, across the board BB seems to be a great place to work, but their NY satellite office is largely weak.

If you say so. If you absolutely need to slave away in MFH for a poor salary/col value until you burn out, seems like its quasi-Midwestern sensibilities and personnel would make it a better place to work than the majority of the sweatshops you'll be looking at.

stratocophic wrote:

capnhook wrote:Any reason to go if there are other viable options? Issue is, across the board BB seems to be a great place to work, but their NY satellite office is largely weak.

If you say so. If you absolutely need to slave away in MFH for a poor salary/col value until you burn out, seems like its quasi-Midwestern sensibilities and personnel would make it a better place to work than the majority of the sweatshops you'll be looking at.

Not really sure what you are getting at with this statement. Interested in your opinion though. So let's try again ... plain english.

stratocophic wrote:

capnhook wrote:Any reason to go if there are other viable options? Issue is, across the board BB seems to be a great place to work, but their NY satellite office is largely weak.

If you say so. If you absolutely need to slave away in MFH for a poor salary/col value until you burn out, seems like its quasi-Midwestern sensibilities and personnel would make it a better place to work than the majority of the sweatshops you'll be looking at.

I worked in MFH over the summer and while the work can seem overwhelming at times, I'm pretty sure nearly ever single person I worked with would rather be doing what they're doing now than working in midlaw in Kansas City. Because even if you burn out after a few years, you've probably worked on some big fucking deals with some top-notch people and now have a great line on your resume. I also happen to think it's the greatest city in the world, so maybe different strokes for different folks here.

Other viable options are all V50 or V25 NY firms. I'm thinking about this solely on enjoyability scale. But I do think you are right.

Any chance you can give me an idea of firms? I mean, I might rather work at BB NY than Cadwalader or dla piper.

capnhook wrote:

stratocophic wrote:

capnhook wrote:Any reason to go if there are other viable options? Issue is, across the board BB seems to be a great place to work, but their NY satellite office is largely weak.

If you say so. If you absolutely need to slave away in MFH for a poor salary/col value until you burn out, seems like its quasi-Midwestern sensibilities and personnel would make it a better place to work than the majority of the sweatshops you'll be looking at.

Not really sure what you are getting at with this statement. Interested in your opinion though. So let's try again ... plain english.

Lol fair enough.

People I interviewed with were all originally from the Midwest except like 1, very friendly and I liked them. Nobody was there on the Friday I interviewed bc they all evidently just bounce out on Thursday and work from home on Fridays so it's a ghost town, and they didn't seem as harried as attorneys in other NY firms. As a result if you've got to work in Manhattan for peanuts relative to your apartment cost and the federal, state, and city taxes, it seems like a more pleasant place to make the 160 than the likes of Cadwalder or W&C. As far as work goes, the office was once an IP boutique before BB acquired it. IP focus is still there to some degree, along with some of the original boutique attorneys. Don't know why they wouldn't be doing high level work, given cross-office staffing (I think BB does this?) and also can't imagine BB wasting a stock of IP attorneys in NY on simple matters when they're a strong IP firm

Anonymous User wrote:

stratocophic wrote:

capnhook wrote:Any reason to go if there are other viable options? Issue is, across the board BB seems to be a great place to work, but their NY satellite office is largely weak.

If you say so. If you absolutely need to slave away in MFH for a poor salary/col value until you burn out, seems like its quasi-Midwestern sensibilities and personnel would make it a better place to work than the majority of the sweatshops you'll be looking at.

I worked in MFH over the summer and while the work can seem overwhelming at times, I'm pretty sure nearly ever single person I worked with would rather be doing what they're doing now than working in midlaw in Kansas City. Because even if you burn out after a few years, you've probably worked on some big fucking deals with some top-notch people and now have a great line on your resume. I also happen to think it's the greatest city in the world, so maybe different strokes for different folks here.

Other viable options are all V50 or V25 NY firms. I'm thinking about this solely on enjoyability scale. But I do think you are right.

Any chance you can give me an idea of firms? I mean, I might rather work at BB NY than Cadwalader or DLA Piper.

Eh I'll be doing the same caliber stuff I'd have done in NY but in a cheaper city with the same salary, but different strokes is TCR. Lol at working KC midlaw, I'd have sucked it up and done NY before I'd have done that. I just like to needle the NY contingent. Do feel for you guys re: salary though, y'all ought to be making more given the hours and COL

stratocophic wrote:Eh I'll be doing the same caliber stuff I'd have done in NY but in a cheaper city with the same salary, but different strokes is TCR. Lol at working KC midlaw, I'd have sucked it up and done NY before I'd have done that. I just like to needle the NY contingent. Do feel for you guys re: salary though, y'all ought to be making more given the hours and COL

Eh, the pay isn't really that bad. $160k/yr will get me pretty much everything I want even with the higher COL. And the exit options out of NYC biglaw are typically more prestigious and pay bigger salaries than the exit options out of smaller markets, so you've got that too. Maybe you would be doing the same caliber stuff in NY than you do now, but I know for certain that if I went to one of the best firms in say, St. Louis, I would be sacrificing a lot in terms of the kind of work. I was working on ten-digit deals as a summer associate, and was on a conference call with an SEC Commissioner for another case. But then again, OP's situation might be more like your's than like mine. BB NY is not exactly loaded with front-page-newsworthy deals, so maybe it is more fair to be comparing BB NY to opportunities in smaller markets.

Anonymous User wrote:

stratocophic wrote:Eh I'll be doing the same caliber stuff I'd have done in NY but in a cheaper city with the same salary, but different strokes is TCR. Lol at working KC midlaw, I'd have sucked it up and done NY before I'd have done that. I just like to needle the NY contingent. Do feel for you guys re: salary though, y'all ought to be making more given the hours and COL

Eh, the pay isn't really that bad. $160k/yr will get me pretty much everything I want even with the higher COL. And the exit options out of NYC biglaw are typically more prestigious and pay bigger salaries than the exit options out of smaller markets, so you've got that too. Maybe you would be doing the same caliber stuff in NY than you do now, but I know for certain that if I went to one of the best firms in say, St. Louis, I would be sacrificing a lot in terms of the kind of work. I was working on ten-digit deals as a summer associate, and was on a conference call with an SEC Commissioner for another case. But then again, OP's situation might be more like your's than like mine. BB NY is not exactly loaded with front-page-newsworthy deals, so maybe it is more fair to be comparing BB NY to opportunities in smaller markets.

Yeah if you're happy with the $ it's nbd then. With you there and good for you man, contentment's gonna make life in biglaw much easier


Fair enough, IP's maybe different from typical practice areas, opposing counsel on cases I worked on/saw going on were usual suspect NY/DC IP lit heavyweights. For trans or securities I guess it's pretty much ny tho so the location options aren't there, but in terms of lit staffing like I said, doubt BB is just letting ip attorneys cool their heels in office space like Rockefeller Center without putting them on the big cases that drive their practice. For a polisci dude or whatever yeah bb might not be the best place to start since you don't get the main advantage of working in Ny, but the bb name for ip is up there since they're (I think?) best in tx and a national firm and all that jazz

Lulz can't even think of anything in St. Louis where it'd be highest caliber of any practice area, maybe tobacco lit or something random. Thankfully other secondary markets =/= stl

stratocophic wrote:doubt BB is just letting ip attorneys cool their heels in office space like Rockefeller Center without putting them on the big cases that drive their practice

I think the main strategy of firms like BB in opening up and keeping NYC offices has a lot to do with keeping a presence in the biggest corporate market in the US. For example, some firms are pressured to open up certain overseas offices if peer firms are doing so, even if it's otherwise not that imperative to have a presence in that market. Plenty of businesses, even outside of law, will keep money-losers open to elevate the brand recognition of the firm.

FWIW It's not on NALP anymore, but BB-NY no offered the majority of it's summer 2009 class. I know this because a friend summered there that year.

Also,

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/08/no-offer ... nt-rising/

Anonymous User wrote:FWIW It's not on NALP anymore, but BB-NY no offered the majority of it's summer 2009 class. I know this because a friend summered there that year.

Also,

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/08/no-offer ... nt-rising/

Bump. Considering BB NY but worried about getting no-offered. Obviously the ATL article is dated to the crash and hopefully isn't indicative of hiring practices now.

http://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_p ... otts%22%7D

I'm not sure if I'm reading NALP correctly. It seems like in 2011 and 2012 they offered everyone. But for 2013 there are 3 new entry levels where there were 5 SAs the previous summer (I guess this doesn't necessarily mean they no-offered two people, if those people got offers but did clerkships or something else instead right?).

Generally, anyone have any more up-to-date information about BB NY?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:FWIW It's not on NALP anymore, but BB-NY no offered the majority of it's summer 2009 class. I know this because a friend summered there that year.

Also,

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/08/no-offer ... nt-rising/

Bump. Considering BB NY but worried about getting no-offered. Obviously the ATL article is dated to the crash and hopefully isn't indicative of hiring practices now.

http://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_p ... otts%22%7D

I'm not sure if I'm reading NALP correctly. It seems like in 2011 and 2012 they offered everyone. But for 2013 there are 3 new entry levels where there were 5 SAs the previous summer (I guess this doesn't necessarily mean they no-offered two people, if those people got offers but did clerkships or something else instead right?).

Generally, anyone have any more up-to-date information about BB NY?

Send me a PM. We can discuss further.

I worked in a similar situation this summer (NYC office of a V100 firm based outside of NY). There are benefits and drawbacks to working in that situation, but ultimately I am happy that I ended up where I did.

On the plus, you have a small firm mentality and collegiality, but still have the resources of a larger firm - you aren't fighting against 50 other summers for good work, because there are only 5-10 and you know everyone from the get go). I knew every single attorney within a month, and because of that could get work basically wherever I wanted. People are more willing to go to bat for you, and it's more personal. You're also quicker to get client-facing / higher level work, since the office is flatter.

On the minus, if the office is smaller, there's often (though not always) less high-profile work. I know that BB's NYC office is very dependent on Liberty Media, so consider what could happen if that one high-profile client drops the firm. Politically, more clout will always go to the hub (especially for B&B, which is a TX good-ole-boy firm), and you'll often be at the whim of those larger offices.

Offers could be a problem, since (at least at my summer firm) the smaller office has to get approval from the headquarters to give you an offer. You may be best friends with the NYC hiring partner, but to the headquarters, you're just a name / number on a piece of paper. That said, 2009 is an entirely different situation from 2014. When a firm takes on a summer, they expect / budget that they'll give them an offer. For the 2009 class, firms didn't truly understand how bad their business was until after they brought the summer associates on. Lots of firms, not only BB, had this problem. Absent a dramatic economic collapse (or you being a total fuckup, which I can't predict), I wouldn't worry too much about the offer rate.