Los Angeles--Now or Later? Forum

[Anonymous User]

If LA is the ultimate goal, is it worth starting out there at a V10 / V25 firm?

Or, is there more value in starting at a V5 / V15 NYC firm and trying to lateral out there later?

[Anonymous User]

Depends on the firm. There's a big difference between QE/GDC/OMM, bigger branch offices like Sidley/Kirkland, and tiny branch offices like Wilmer. In most cases the answer would be to start in LA, though.

[Anonymous User]

Depends on the firm. There's a big difference between QE/GDC/OMM, bigger branch offices like Sidley/Kirkland, and tiny branch offices like Wilmer. In most cases the answer would be to start in LA, though.

This would be the first bracket of firms you mentioned (the ones born in California).

[Anonymous User]

Depends on the firm. There's a big difference between QE/GDC/OMM, bigger branch offices like Sidley/Kirkland, and tiny branch offices like Wilmer. In most cases the answer would be to start in LA, though.

This would be the first bracket of firms you mentioned (the ones born in California).

I don't see any reason not to take the LA firm then unless your NY offer is from Wachtell or you're particularly uneasy about the LA firm (Latham). You'd be lateraling into the same spot you'd be at, minus 3-4 years of building relationships and connections, and plus the uncertainty of the lateral process.

[Anonymous User]

Also, if you want to do lit, it's going to be harder to lateral before you take the CA bar. I met with a legal headhunter who said that you pretty much have to already have passed the CA bar if you want to lateral into lit in CA from NYC. Corporate is a bit easier.

Basically, if you know you want to end up in LA eventually, there is no real benefit to working in NYC first, unless its like Wachtell. The exit options boost from going to a NYC V5 over an LA V10/25 are mostly going to be limited to NYC (think banks/financial services companies), which if you want to be in LA aren't useful.

[Anonymous User]

Why uneasy about Latham? Is it just LA or the firm generally? It's not 2008 anymore...?

[Anonymous User]

For lit I think it wouldn't disadvantage by starting in LA. For corp I've heard that there's some advantage to starting in NY

[Anonymous User]

Why uneasy about Latham? Is it just LA or the firm generally? It's not 2008 anymore...?

Two parts, I guess. One would just be anecdotal, that I've heard poor things generally about being an associate at the firm. Second, 2008 was not really an aberration for Latham: as Rayiner has repeatedly pointed out they follow a consistent track of increasing leverage followed by mass layoffs.

[Anonymous User]

Depends on the firm. There's a big difference between QE/GDC/OMM, bigger branch offices like Sidley/Kirkland, and tiny branch offices like Wilmer. In most cases the answer would be to start in LA, though.

This would be the first bracket of firms you mentioned (the ones born in California).

I don't see any reason not to take the LA firm then unless your NY offer is from Wachtell or you're particularly uneasy about the LA firm (Latham). You'd be lateraling into the same spot you'd be at, minus 3-4 years of building relationships and connections, and plus the uncertainty of the lateral process.

Not OP but very interested in this as well. So my LA choice is Latham, and my NYC choice is ranked lower (V40). Having a very hard time deciding...Liked people from both places, and obviously both will be sweatshops.

[ph14]

If LA is the ultimate goal, is it worth starting out there at a V10 / V25 firm?

Or, is there more value in starting at a V5 / V15 NYC firm and trying to lateral out there later?

OP, generally speaking, pick the LA firm if you want to end up in LA.

First, you're being very vague here. You're posting anonymous. Tell us what firms you are deciding between. Tell us your goals, practice interests, and what you are looking for in a firm. That's really the only way we can give you good advice on which firm to pick. For example, if you are picking between Latham and a NY firm, this choice should probable come down to culture. LA has a reputation for being very social. If you aren't going to be happy in that type of environment, it would probably be better not to subject yourself to that unhappiness, even if you did want to work in LA.

Second, Vault rankings are virtually meaningless. You really should rarely, if ever, pick your firm based on Vault rankings. Especially when you are not looking in the New York market. Especially when you are not looking at New York transactional work. This isn't like picking a law school at all. Arguably the best firms in LA might be lower ranked than a New York firm, but that doesn't make them less prestigious in general, especially in California and Los Angeles. For example, Munger, Tolles & Olson (one of the most selective firms in the country, currently ranked #2 for selectivity in Vault) is ranked #38 on Vault. It's arguably one of the best litigation firms in LA. Irell & Manella (again, one of the most selective firms in the entire country) is ranked #44. It is arguably one of the best litigation firms in LA generally, and is regarded as one of the top IP litigation firms in the entire country. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is #12 on Vault, but is arguably the best all-around firm in LA. A NY V5, or even V1, is not necessarily better.

Third, lateraling might not be as easy as you think. Moving offices might not be as easy as you think. If you want to end up in LA, you are at the very least making it more difficult on yourself. You could end up in LA now and take a lot out of the uncertainty out of the picture.

Fourth, many factors should and do go into picking a firm besides just trying to get "more value." I don't really get what you mean by that, but i'm presuming you mean lateral opportunities? You realize that for many people, your first lateral results in a substantial drop in Vault rankings. You can't just assume you'll easily be able to waltz into one of the most selective firms in Los Angeles (especially when you picked New York over LA previously). It won't be a complete bar, but I don't think it will be as easy as you are thinking, judging from your post.

Fifth, related to the above point, you should be making your firm decisions for other reasons here. New York and Los Angeles are two of the most different legal cultures in the United States (generally speaking; some satellite offices might be more similar to NY than other firms). There are differences in face time requirements, working hours, hierarchy, dynamics, etc. etc.

Sixth, the LA market is small, at least compared to NY. You are missing out on a few years of connecting with the legal community here, and the partners and associates in the offices out there. When I was doing interviews, it wasn't uncommon for lawyers to show their familiarity with lawyers at many other firms.

Seventh, I don't know where you get the notion that your legal training will be better in NY. You can absolutely work in LA without sacrificing one bit your legal practice. Sometimes LA firms are less leveraged as well, which probably results in more substantive assignments and better training (although of course this point is arguable and a huge generalization). Plus you get three plus years of familiarity with California law. Not all of your cases will be in federal court. California has a lot of very different laws compared to many other jurisdictions (e.g., California's Unfair Competition law).

[Anonymous User]

If you want to be in LA, then go to LA now. I think at some point you need to actually do what makes you happy and stop trying to set up the next stage of your life. Plus LA will give you LA connections which will help with LA in house (or whatever you want to do).

[Anonymous User]

I would say go LA now but make sure it's either an LA firm (Gibson, Latham, OMM, Munger, Irell) or a big satellite office of a NY firm.

[Anonymous User]

The only "big" NY satellite office in LA is Skadden, FWIW.

[anon168]

Why uneasy about Latham? Is it just LA or the firm generally? It's not 2008 anymore...?

Two parts, I guess. One would just be anecdotal, that I've heard poor things generally about being an associate at the firm. Second, 2008 was not really an aberration for Latham: as Rayiner has repeatedly pointed out they follow a consistent track of increasing leverage followed by mass layoffs.

Mass layoffs? Please explain. Even 2008 cannot be considered "mass".

[anon168]

If LA is the ultimate goal, is it worth starting out there at a V10 / V25 firm?

Or, is there more value in starting at a V5 / V15 NYC firm and trying to lateral out there later?

OP, generally speaking, pick the LA firm if you want to end up in LA.

First, you're being very vague here. You're posting anonymous. Tell us what firms you are deciding between. Tell us your goals, practice interests, and what you are looking for in a firm. That's really the only way we can give you good advice on which firm to pick. For example, if you are picking between Latham and a NY firm, this choice should probable come down to culture. LA has a reputation for being very social. If you aren't going to be happy in that type of environment, it would probably be better not to subject yourself to that unhappiness, even if you did want to work in LA.

Second, Vault rankings are virtually meaningless. You really should rarely, if ever, pick your firm based on Vault rankings. Especially when you are not looking in the New York market. Especially when you are not looking at New York transactional work. This isn't like picking a law school at all. Arguably the best firms in LA might be lower ranked than a New York firm, but that doesn't make them less prestigious in general, especially in California and Los Angeles. For example, Munger, Tolles & Olson (one of the most selective firms in the country, currently ranked #2 for selectivity in Vault) is ranked #38 on Vault. It's arguably one of the best litigation firms in LA. Irell & Manella (again, one of the most selective firms in the entire country) is ranked #44. It is arguably one of the best litigation firms in LA generally, and is regarded as one of the top IP litigation firms in the entire country. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is #12 on Vault, but is arguably the best all-around firm in LA. A NY V5, or even V1, is not necessarily better.

Third, lateraling might not be as easy as you think. Moving offices might not be as easy as you think. If you want to end up in LA, you are at the very least making it more difficult on yourself. You could end up in LA now and take a lot out of the uncertainty out of the picture.

Fourth, many factors should and do go into picking a firm besides just trying to get "more value." I don't really get what you mean by that, but i'm presuming you mean lateral opportunities? You realize that for many people, your first lateral results in a substantial drop in Vault rankings. You can't just assume you'll easily be able to waltz into one of the most selective firms in Los Angeles (especially when you picked New York over LA previously). It won't be a complete bar, but I don't think it will be as easy as you are thinking, judging from your post.

Fifth, related to the above point, you should be making your firm decisions for other reasons here. New York and Los Angeles are two of the most different legal cultures in the United States (generally speaking; some satellite offices might be more similar to NY than other firms). There are large differences in

Sixth, the LA market is small, at least compared to NY. You are missing out on a few years of connecting with the legal community here, and the partners and associates in the offices out there. When I was doing interviews, it wasn't uncommon for lawyers to show their familiarity with lawyers at many other firms.

Seventh, I don't know where you get the notion that your legal training will be better in NY. You can absolutely work in LA without sacrificing one bit your legal practice. Sometimes LA firms are less leveraged as well, which probably results in more substantive assignments and better training (although of course this point is arguable and a huge generalization). Plus you get three plus years of familiarity with California law. Not all of your cases will be in federal court. California has a lot of very different laws compared to many other jurisdictions (e.g., California's Unfair Competition law).

+1

And let me just add an eighth point. If you start in NYC and then lateral in to LA, you will have to take 2 bar exams, and 2 of the most difficult ones out there (maybe the the 2 most difficult ones).

[Anonymous User]

I would say go LA now but make sure it's either an LA firm (Gibson, Latham, OMM, Munger, Irell) or a big satellite office of a NY firm.

How would Quinn Emanuel fit into this list? I get the cultural differences, but how does QE compare against these LA firms in terms of lateral prospects.....specifically QE v. Irell, Munger?

OP, I agree with others that starting in LA is favorable, especially to build one's network. That being said, I have a few friends who plan to stay in NY and lateral to LA later. I respect the desire to want to soak up NYC, but I wonder how much a young associate can really enjoy anyways?

[DODGERS3271]

Have a friend who started out in NY and is lateraling to LA after the first year in big law. Lateraling is definitely possible/feasible even after a very short time if you change your mind.

[Anonymous User]

I would say go LA now but make sure it's either an LA firm (Gibson, Latham, OMM, Munger, Irell) or a big satellite office of a NY firm.

How would Quinn Emanuel fit into this list? I get the cultural differences, but how does QE compare against these LA firms in terms of lateral prospects.....specifically QE v. Irell, Munger?

OP, I agree with others that starting in LA is favorable, especially to build one's network. That being said, I have a few friends who plan to stay in NY and lateral to LA later. I respect the desire to want to soak up NYC, but I wonder how much a young associate can really enjoy anyways?

As someone who's spent some limited amount of time in the LA market, the feeling I got was that Irell and especially Munger were considered of a class higher than the rest. QE would be on the level of Gibson, which itself would be above Latham/OMM. These are pretty fine distinctions, though.

[desertlaw]

Have a friend who started out in NY and is lateraling to LA after the first year in big law. Lateraling is definitely possible/feasible even after a very short time if you change your mind.

I've heard this too. But doing that just seems to be wasting a year in NYC (unless you wanted to live in NYC just for the culture/experience) because it puts you behind in terms of developing a reputation in your LA office and networking in LA.

[rayiner]

Why uneasy about Latham? Is it just LA or the firm generally? It's not 2008 anymore...?

Two parts, I guess. One would just be anecdotal, that I've heard poor things generally about being an associate at the firm. Second, 2008 was not really an aberration for Latham: as Rayiner has repeatedly pointed out they follow a consistent track of increasing leverage followed by mass layoffs.

Mass layoffs? Please explain. Even 2008 cannot be considered "mass".

Latham went down from over 2,100 attorneys to 1,900. Almost all of that was associates. Their leverage dropped from ~5 before the recession to just over 4. That's "mass." They also had smaller, but still news-making layoffs after the early 2000's recession and after the early 1990's recession.

People go to Latham because they find it difficult to believe that a firm ranked in the V10 could suck more than a firm ranked in the V50, etc, but Latham is the "real deal." They've chosen to base their firm on cyclical practices, bulking up when times are good and slimming down when times are bad. All firms are cyclical to some extent, but most are run much more conservatively. Not because they're better or nicer or whatever, but because they've chosen a different economic model that favors stability and diversified counter-cyclical practices.

EDIT: Corrected numbers.

[anon168]

Why uneasy about Latham? Is it just LA or the firm generally? It's not 2008 anymore...?

Two parts, I guess. One would just be anecdotal, that I've heard poor things generally about being an associate at the firm. Second, 2008 was not really an aberration for Latham: as Rayiner has repeatedly pointed out they follow a consistent track of increasing leverage followed by mass layoffs.

Mass layoffs? Please explain. Even 2008 cannot be considered "mass".

Latham went down from like 2,200 attorneys to 1,800. Almost all of that was associates. Their leverage dropped from ~5 before the recession to just over 3. That's "mass." They also had smaller, but still news-making layoffs after the early 2000's recession and after the early 1990's recession.

People go to Latham because they find it difficult to believe that a firm ranked in the V10 could suck more than a firm ranked in the V50, etc, but Latham is the "real deal." They've chosen to base their firm on cyclical practices, bulking up when times are good and slimming down when times are bad. All firms are cyclical to some extent, but most are run much more conservatively. Not because they're better or nicer or whatever, but because they've chosen a different economic model that favors stability and diversified counter-cyclical practices.

Where are you getting the numbers that LW went from 2200 to 1800?

The great layoffs of 2009 saw LW let go about 190 lawyers, or about 12-15% of their total lawyers.

By comparison, White & Case laid off 200 lawyers, which I believe at the time was about 15% of their total lawyers.

Similarly, OMM laid off 90 lawyers, which on a percentage basis is higher than both LW and White & Case.

None of this is to defend LW, or any other firm, but just to point out that LW was and is not unique in how it adjusts its leverage ratio. It should be applauded for it. It's either that, or the Dewey model. Take your pick. LW just gets called out more because it's big and it was very public about what it did. And if a firm is going to lay you off, better that they do it publicly, so when you go looking for a job, you have nothing to explain.

And let's face it, no matter where you go, as a young associate at biglaw you're just a number. As fungible and dispensable as the pens you find in the supply room. The sooner you come to grips with that the better it is for your career and peace of mind. It's the bargain you make for going to biglaw.

[rayiner]

[quote="anon168"]I was wrong about the 2200 to 1800. It was ~2100 to 1880. This was their Am Law reported head count in FY 2008 and FY 2009. US offices showed starker declines: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... 5#11202090

See the September 16, 2010 update. Major offices like NY/Chicago/DC got hosed.

As for OMM and White & Case, those aren't ostensibly "V10" firms.

Your false equivalency is misplaced. Your fate as an associate isn't just a matter of whether you're perceived as more or less fungible. It's also about whether the firm has a business model that requires it to take advantage of associate fungibility and to what degree. Latham's ostensible peer firms grew through the recession. None of the other V10 contracted dramatically.

Latham was famous in the 1990's for "being run like a corporation." One of the hallmarks of that is focus on the short-term to the detriment of the long-term. Most firms have layoffs when the economy gets bad. Latham's quickness to bulk-up to pursue potentially transient work, however, has made it the layoff leader among firms in its class for two decades: http://books.google.com/books?id=BvJHc7 ... fs&f=false

[Anonymous User]

I was wrong about the 2200 to 1800. It was ~2100 to 1880. This was their Am Law reported head count in FY 2008 and FY 2009. US offices showed starker declines: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... 5#11202090

See the September 16, 2010 update. Major offices like NY/Chicago/DC got hosed.

As for OMM and White & Case, those aren't ostensibly "V10" firms.

Your false equivalency is misplaced. Your fate as an associate isn't just a matter of whether you're perceived as more or less fungible. It's also about whether the firm has a business model that requires it to take advantage of associate fungibility and to what degree. Latham's ostensible peer firms grew through the recession. None of the other V10 contracted dramatically.

Latham was famous in the 1990's for "being run like a corporation." One of the hallmarks of that is focus on the short-term to the detriment of the long-term. Most firms have layoffs when the economy gets bad. Latham's quickness to bulk-up to pursue potentially transient work, however, has made it the layoff leader among firms in its class for two decades: http://books.google.com/books?id=BvJHc7 ... fs&f=false

I get the feeling that Latham gets crap mainly because it is ranked as a V10 which means some people think it is peers with DPW, Simpson, Cleary, etc. While it is a V10 firm, its peers are probably more along the lines of Weil, Debevoise, GDC, etc. It reminds me a lot of the bickering over law schools where the entire T14 is elite (just like all the firms mentioned above), but some people want to think that their MVPDCNG is a peer with CCN.

[rayiner]

I get the feeling that Latham gets crap mainly because it is ranked as a V10 which means some people think it is peers with DPW, Simpson, Cleary, etc. While it is a V10 firm, its peers are probably more along the lines of Weil, Debevoise, GDC, etc. It reminds me a lot of the bickering over law schools where the entire T14 is elite (just like all the firms mentioned above), but some people want to think that their MVPDCNG is a peer with CCN.

Debevoise, GDC, etc, didn't lay off hundreds of attorneys. They all grew their headcount through the recession. Latham's layoffs place it in the company of CWT, White & Case, etc.

Latham's big problem is that it straddles an uncomfortable place between the most elite firms and less elite firms. It does mega-M&A, but is behind quite a few firms on the totem pole for that work. It does mega-litigation, but is behind quite a few firms on the totem pole for that work. It's got the cost structure of a national firm, but is not a top-tier player in any market besides LA. When times are good, it can pick up a lot of work, but when times are bad, other firms are ahead in line for what little work is available.

Firms that are lower on the totem poll are actually better for associates in a way, both because they can't bulk up as much in good times and because partners don't have the same sorts of profitability expectations. Firms that don't play in the mega-M&A area to begin with can't be hurt when those deals dry up. I think a lot of law students are blinded by Latham's Vault ranking and think they'll be be safer there than at say Jones Day, Shearman, Milbank, Willkie, Cahill, Fried Frank, etc, etc, but the numbers say otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

Well I (not OP) want to work in LA, and the only offer I got from LA is from Latham. So I'm tempted to just bite the bullet and hope like hell that the next round of lathaming doesn't come until I've left. Would that be worse than going to a firm in another city and then try to lateral to a LA firm later?