Top Law Schools

I've done a lot of weighing professional options at various firms i'm considering. I'm looking to go into a sub-practice of litigation and all of my choices are strong in that area. The firms in DC are strongest, with NY and SF a very close second, Chicago is in the mix because of COL/QOL. Now I need to really buckle down on choosing a city. I'm a bit older, so I'd like to choose a city where I can stay long term. Not really looking for the few years in NYC and then transfer to some other place.

NYC -
Pros:Amazing city with lots to do and is always fun to visit. Have never lived there.

Cons: Exceedingly expensive, poor living conditions (small, cramped). Working hours are not my favorite (would rather get in somewhat earlier and leave somewhat earlier). Lawyers are second class citizens to finance guys.

San Francisco -
Pros: Much more livable city than New York. Has access to more outdoor activities and good weather. More West Coast attitude. Better mix of interesting tech companies as clients. Have never lived there.

Cons: Very expensive, almost up to NYC levels. Feels like you need a car to really enjoy all that it has to offer. Kind of hard to get around. Lawyers are second class citizens to tech guys.

DC -
Pros: I like the city and lived there for a long time. Work is top notch here. Much more affordable than SF and NY (given my good understanding of DC and relatively outsider view of NY/SF). Feels like lawyers run the city.

Cons: I lived there for a long time and am kind of tired of DC. A little worried that the insanely competitive DC-type law students will annoy me. Weather is not that great.

Chicago-
Pros: Most affordable city of all, good pay too. Fun city that I've enjoyed living in. Probably the most regular working hours and good mix of people. Lawyers have a pretty good life relative to your average professional.

Cons: Work is good but not as exciting as the other cities. Weather is terrible. I can probably return here even if I don't like my 2L SA.

Tell me where i'm wrong, or which one you would pick and why.

I would pick SF but that's because I'm a Californian. I also doubt you're going to get much meaningful information from this thread.

It seems like you're mostly leaning Chicago and what's holding you back is that the firm is not as well regarded as your other options. Hours/pay/fit/preferences all seem to point to Chicago for you. I'd probably recommend you take Chicago because of that.

You should go to North Dakota.
Pros: low cost of living
Cons: low prevalence of everything else

bk187 wrote:I would pick SF but that's because I'm a Californian. I also doubt you're going to get much meaningful information from this thread.

It seems like you're mostly leaning Chicago and what's holding you back is that the firm is not as well regarded as your other options. Hours/pay/fit/preferences all seem to point to Chicago for you. I'd probably recommend you take Chicago because of that.

Thanks. TBH the main reason holding me back from taking Chicago is an outstanding 1L SA return offer that I really like. I know that I can go back if I don't like whatever firm I end up at, and I might even go back even if I do like my 2L SA. Being in Chicago means taking an option for another city off the table come 3L year. The main reasons to take the Chicago offer are that it would provide me with another very good, very different option in the city.

You have a post grad offer from your 1L firm? If that's the case I might lean towards DC since it seems like your second preference from the OP. While I haven't looked at the 3LOLCI thread much it seems like there might be a possibility to trade for an NYC firm if you really hate your 2L summer experience.

You came to TLS to get advice on which city you would like living in the most? WTF? Pretty sure that basically anyone in your real life could give better advice than us.

Don't forgot that in SF there is a high probability of a large earthquake that will cause substantially more damage than the earthquake of 1986.

Anonymous User wrote:SF: Lawyers are second class citizens to tech guys.

(Also, to the extremely limited extent that (some) lawyers are "second class citizens" to (some) tech guys: there are going to be much richer people than you in any major city. How is this part of your decision making process?)

crit_racer wrote:You came to TLS to get advice on which city you would like living in the most? WTF? Pretty sure that basically anyone in your real life could give better advice than us.

I have friends in each of these cities who are trying hard to convince me that their city is the best and I should work there.

bk187 wrote:You have a post grad offer from your 1L firm? If that's the case I might lean towards DC since it seems like your second preference from the OP. While I haven't looked at the 3LOLCI thread much it seems like there might be a possibility to trade for an NYC firm if you really hate your 2L summer experience.

Yeah, well nothing is worth totally banking on but it seems pretty solid. I loved it there and am not burning any bridges.

I grew up in SF and have lived in DC. I think you have a fair assessment of those cities (and someone is correct that SF is due for the next Big One in about 30-40 years or so based on historical models). I love SF and I'm about to accept an offer in Palo Alto, and I think your decision depends on what you want. For example, how close will your family be? Are you looking to settle down and have a family in this new place? (DC would be bad for that in some ways given how transient it is.) How important is it to be in an area that isn't going to be suffering as much from climate change? (Big point for SF.) Stuff in SF is expensive, but I think lawyers do well there as long as you don't expect a Pacific Heights palace.

Sounds like DC has the right mix of COL and work for you. Sounds like you're a great candidate for 3L trade-up, though. K&E/Sidley are always hiring.