Top Law Schools

Hola.

I am looking for any meaningful information about the difference in exist options leaving from a v5 v a v20.

Anything more than, "I would assume v5 is better" would be greatly appreciated. I don't know what I would want to exit into but options include:
-Academia
-In House
-Boutiques
-Non-Law

Thank You.

I was under the impression that where the V5s really excelled at was placing you into financial institutions (e.g. S&C -> Goldman Sachs). That's why (some) people want V5 so much.

Anonymous User wrote:Hola.

I am looking for any meaningful information about the difference in exist options leaving from a v5 v a v20.

Anything more than, "I would assume v5 is better" would be greatly appreciated. I don't know what I would want to exit into but options include:
-Academia
-In House
-Boutiques
-Non-Law

Thank You.

The bolded is all there is to say

-Academia: doesn't matter; you need to clerk, write, and publish; more S&C/CSM/etc. alums are in academia because law review types who want NYC tend to go to those places.
-In House: at financial institutions, S&C/Wachtell would provide a significant boost; at a regular F500, the boost probably isn't as significant; it's mostly about the connections you build through your work, and S&C/CSM/Wachtell/etc. might provide opportunities to build those connections.
-Boutiques: for lateraling in general, certain firms (not necessarily V5) provide a boost; however, factors such as specific needs of target firms matter more.
-Non-Law: for finance, people who successfully made the switch tend to be from Wachtell/S&C/CSM, not sure if people at Wachtell/S&C/CSM tend to have qualifications financial institutions are looking for even prior to working at those firms or if those firms provide a boost; for other areas of non-law (politics, lobbying, etc.), probably doesn't matter, but I don't know for sure.

In general, practice area and experience are far more important than firm rank for exit options. It seems a lot of current law students overestimate the significance of vault rank. This is understandable since law school rank is so important. But I would recommend focusing more on going somewhere that lets you do the kind of work that will set you up for where you want to be longterm (i.e., don't do litigation if you hope to go in-house some day).

I have heard from a corporate partner with 25 years of experience that lit is actually more desirable for inhouse jobs right now.

The vault ranking itself is meaningless. Nobody refers to those in the working world, few people probably know what they mean.

So, the rankings don't matter, but they ARE still reflective - in some crude/broad manner - of reality. The reality is that Cravath is an exceptionally strong brand in the legal world, amongst its clients, lawyers at other firms, government agencies, judges, etc. Paul Hastings is also a strong brand in the legal world, but not quite on the same level. It's actually BETTER in some practice areas (employment law springs to mind) and probably some geographies (IIRC it's a California firm).

It's almost impossible to compare firms directly, you wind up finding apples and oranges even if you're looking at very similar firms (DPW does a lot of derivatives work that some of its peer firms don't touch, Cravath only started doing bankruptcy work very recently, Skadden has offices in tons of U.S. cities the other V5 firms don't, etc.).

If you know what practice area and geography you will be in, the chambers guide can be a very useful way to see what industry perception is within that field. If you don't, the vault rankings really aren't that helpful, but they're better than nothing.

One common trend is for lawyers at "better" firms with better practices to lateral to firms with good-but-not-as-good practices. You occasionally even see an associate from a firm with a top-flight practice lateral to another firm as a partner, or quickly becoming a partner shortly thereafter.

Anonymous User wrote:I have heard from a corporate partner with 25 years of experience that lit is actually more desirable for inhouse jobs right now.

I wouldn't bank on that. Statistically something like 2/3 of inhouse lawyers have corporate/transactional backgrounds despite the overwhelming majority of lawyers practicing in law firms being in litigation.

Anonymous User wrote:I have heard from a corporate partner with 25 years of experience that lit is actually more desirable for inhouse jobs right now.

That's absurd.

outed for anon abuse

What about government exit options? I'm also facing this question: I'm tempted to pass up a V5 offer for a couple of V20s that were better cultural fits (and have a bit more expertise in my areas of interest). Is that a dumb move?

Anonymous User wrote:What about government exit options? I'm also facing this question: I'm tempted to pass up a V5 offer for a couple of V20s that were better cultural fits (and have a bit more expertise in my areas of interest). Is that a dumb move?

It's pointless to talk about exit opportunities without knowing the exact firms. W&C/WilmerHale/Covington are going to give you better exit opportunities to sought after government positions compared to Wachtell. On the other hand, Debevoise wouldn't give you better exit opportunities.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What about government exit options? I'm also facing this question: I'm tempted to pass up a V5 offer for a couple of V20s that were better cultural fits (and have a bit more expertise in my areas of interest). Is that a dumb move?

It's pointless to talk about exit opportunities without knowing the exact firms. W&C/WilmerHale/Covington are going to give you better exit opportunities to sought after government positions compared to Wachtell. On the other hand, Debevoise wouldn't give you better exit opportunities.

Fair enough: DPW, LW, Wilmer, Debevoise, O'Melveny. Interest down the line in SEC, Commerce, FTC, State. As a side note, I'm wondering what makes you say that Debevoise's exit opps are not as good, as I thought they were particularly supportive and good about keeping in contact with their alumni.

Are any of these generalizations based on hard, robust data?

Anonymous User wrote:Are any of these generalizations based on hard, robust data?

Yes - especially on the corporate size, prestige is code for PPP/RPL/gross revenue, the size of the merger/capital markets deal/loan facility, dollars at stake in the litigation, and size/reach of the clients.

When somebody calls firm XYZ more prestigious than firm ABC, it is often predicated on the dollar signs involved (big companies as clients, big salaries for those in house lawyers, big law suits, big deals, big partner pay checks).

Obviously there's more to it, but it's hardly totally divorced from data.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What about government exit options? I'm also facing this question: I'm tempted to pass up a V5 offer for a couple of V20s that were better cultural fits (and have a bit more expertise in my areas of interest). Is that a dumb move?

It's pointless to talk about exit opportunities without knowing the exact firms. W&C/WilmerHale/Covington are going to give you better exit opportunities to sought after government positions compared to Wachtell. On the other hand, Debevoise wouldn't give you better exit opportunities.

Fair enough: DPW, LW, Wilmer, Debevoise, O'Melveny. Interest down the line in SEC, Commerce, FTC, State. As a side note, I'm wondering what makes you say that Debevoise's exit opps are not as good, as I thought they were particularly supportive and good about keeping in contact with their alumni.

It all depends. If all of the firms you listed are in New York, and you're looking at corporate as opposed to litigation, go to DPW or Debevoise (and DPW wins if you like both equally). If the firms aren't in DC or you aren't looking at corporate, it's a different kettle of fish entirely (hence my long screed about why vault rankings alone don't tell you much)

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I have heard from a corporate partner with 25 years of experience that lit is actually more desirable for inhouse jobs right now.

That's absurd.

my guess is that he meant that it's more desirable for inhouse than it used to be. I would not say compared to corporate though

thesealocust wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What about government exit options? I'm also facing this question: I'm tempted to pass up a V5 offer for a couple of V20s that were better cultural fits (and have a bit more expertise in my areas of interest). Is that a dumb move?

It's pointless to talk about exit opportunities without knowing the exact firms. W&C/WilmerHale/Covington are going to give you better exit opportunities to sought after government positions compared to Wachtell. On the other hand, Debevoise wouldn't give you better exit opportunities.

Fair enough: DPW, LW, Wilmer, Debevoise, O'Melveny. Interest down the line in SEC, Commerce, FTC, State. As a side note, I'm wondering what makes you say that Debevoise's exit opps are not as good, as I thought they were particularly supportive and good about keeping in contact with their alumni.

It all depends. If all of the firms you listed are in New York, and you're looking at corporate as opposed to litigation, go to DPW or Debevoise (and DPW wins if you like both equally). If the firms aren't in DC or you aren't looking at corporate, it's a different kettle of fish entirely (hence my long screed about why vault rankings alone don't tell you much)

NY litigation. What kettle of fish are we talking about? Thanks for your help BTW

OP here:

NYC, Litigation.

So, The consensus I am hearing seems to be that...
1. The generalizations people toss around apply more to corporate attorneys
2. The differences are most defined in terms of transferring to in-house financial institutions
3. It is not insane to take a v20 over a v5...

Are we pretty sure 3 is correct?

JamMasterJ wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I have heard from a corporate partner with 25 years of experience that lit is actually more desirable for inhouse jobs right now.

That's absurd.

my guess is that he meant that it's more desirable for inhouse than it used to be. I would not say compared to corporate though

I don't think that's a fair reading of that statement. Also, I don't see what's wrong with my assertion that it's a completely absurd statement. Ask any litigation associate with 2+ years experience who has tried to find an in-house job how desirable biglaw litigation experience is. I cannot tell you how many disgruntled litigation associates I've known who desperately want to get out and have no place to go. The few I've known who found in-house jobs were incredibly lucky.

In short, if you start in litigation at a big firm, you better really like doing litigation at a firm (and be ok with the life sacrifices it requires).

Anonymous User wrote:OP here:

NYC, Litigation.

So, The consensus I am hearing seems to be that...
1. The generalizations people toss around apply more to corporate attorneys
2. The differences are most defined in terms of transferring to in-house financial institutions
3. It is not insane to take a v20 over a v5...

Are we pretty sure 3 is correct?

If V20 is Paul Weiss and V5 is not WLRK/CSM then it probably won't matter as far as exit options go. PW for lit is as good as Skadden, DPW, and Sullcrom. If V20 means something like White & Case then I would say stick with V5.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here:

NYC, Litigation.

So, The consensus I am hearing seems to be that...
1. The generalizations people toss around apply more to corporate attorneys
2. The differences are most defined in terms of transferring to in-house financial institutions
3. It is not insane to take a v20 over a v5...

Are we pretty sure 3 is correct?

Eh, no.

1. I wouldn't say that. It's a big easier to pinpoint examples for corporate, but I don't agree with your statement as a generality. Not all litigation firms practices are created equal, and if anything litigators are even more prestige/pedigree obsessed (see, e.g., clerkships)

2. What? No. The "top" NYC firms have strong financial institution clients and thus probably exit options relative to other firms. That's hardly where the differences are most defined, it's just one example of how the "top" NYC firms may stand out.

3. Sure, it's not insane, but of the firms you listed there are pretty obvious differences in quality. The last time I checked, Chambers band 1 litigation firms in NY were S&C, Skadden, DPW, Cravath and Paul Weiss. I don't remember where the other firms you listed were, which is telling in and of itself.

If you want somebody to quantify the difference between a band 1, band 2, and band 3 firm, you won't be able to. But don't mistake that for there being no difference.

Question: How heavily should one be considering Chambers state rankings that likely correlate to a different office within that state? For example, if you are interested in two firms' Bay Area offices, should Banking/Finance Bands for California come into your thinking (seeing as almost all that work is in L.A.)?

Anonymous User wrote:Question: How heavily should one be considering Chambers state rankings that likely correlate to a different office within that state? For example, if you are interested in two firms' Bay Area offices, should Banking/Finance Bands for California come into your thinking (seeing as almost all that work is in L.A.)?

Read who the ranked practitioners are for that firm and what office they practice out of. The work generally follows the big names.

thesealocust wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here:

NYC, Litigation.

So, The consensus I am hearing seems to be that...
1. The generalizations people toss around apply more to corporate attorneys
2. The differences are most defined in terms of transferring to in-house financial institutions
3. It is not insane to take a v20 over a v5...

Are we pretty sure 3 is correct?

Eh, no.

1. I wouldn't say that. It's a big easier to pinpoint examples for corporate, but I don't agree with your statement as a generality. Not all litigation firms practices are created equal, and if anything litigators are even more prestige/pedigree obsessed (see, e.g., clerkships)

2. What? No. The "top" NYC firms have strong financial institution clients and thus probably exit options relative to other firms. That's hardly where the differences are most defined, it's just one example of how the "top" NYC firms may stand out.

3. Sure, it's not insane, but of the firms you listed there are pretty obvious differences in quality. The last time I checked, Chambers band 1 litigation firms in NY were S&C, Skadden, DPW, Cravath and Paul Weiss. I don't remember where the other firms you listed were, which is telling in and of itself.

If you want somebody to quantify the difference between a band 1, band 2, and band 3 firm, you won't be able to. But don't mistake that for there being no difference.

Cleary is Band 1 Lit in NY now, as well.

As are Debevoise and Simpson, apparently.