Top Law Schools

I have an offer from a S&C in New York and Ropes in Boston. I want to do litigation. My life is in Boston -- I go to school here, my significant other is here, we own a house here. I'm originally from NYC and love not being there. Is the boost of a top NYC firm like S&C really worth giving up my life here (for a few years) as opposed to staying and taking an offer from a great Boston firm? I don't know enough to say where I want to be career-wise in 5 or 10 years, but I'd imagine something like in-house or USAO. Would love to take the Ropes offer, just have this sinking feeling that I shouldn't be turning down a premier firm like S&C and the exit-opportunities that could come with it. Anyone's advice would be spectacular.

What boost? Ropes is the best brand in Boston and Boston is a major legal market. There is no reason to think S&C would be better for any reason in this case.

Seriously, unless you want exit options in New York then the only factor here should be city you prefer.

Editing to add more emphasis: Vault rankings are meaningless - not mostly meaningless, completely meaningless - when comparing firms in different cities.

Take Ropes and don't look back.

Anonymous User wrote:Take Ropes and don't look back.

Yes. No reason not to go to Ropes.

You cannot be serious.

OP here: thank you for making me feel a little bit more secure in my choice. Its hard when the S&C folks are in your ear saying you're about to make some sort of a big mistake. In the future I might want to go back to NYC, as thats where my parents and siblings are (as well as my spouse's). But that would be years down the road. The argument S&C is making goes something like: you can go NY to Boston easy, but you can't go the other way. Not sure to what extent that's true, or to whether it would matter to me personally.

LeDique wrote:You cannot be serious.

I'm seriously this confused by the whole process. I never expected having to make decisions like this -- barely expected to survive 1L -- so everything i know about biglaw comes from what I've learned in the past three weeks. Im beyond green.

-OP

It's probably true that NYC -> Boston is somewhat easier than Boston -> NYC, in general, but I wouldn't imagine coming out of Ropes Boston you would have any issues at all finding a gig in NYC.

Also, people in NYC are full of themselves.

Thanks again all, especially you sealocust. PLOT TWIST: I'm actually deciding between Ropes (litigation offer) and Wilmer if I choose Boston. Thoughts? -OP

Every word out of anyone at S&C's mouth that has anything remotely to do with recruiting needs to be taken with a NYC sized grain of salt.

For litigation, I would think Wilmer is the obvious choice.

Anonymous User wrote:For litigation, I would think Wilmer is the obvious choice.

I get that Wilmer is the obvious choice in that they have a larger litigation practice, if thats what you mean. Are there other reasons why Wilmer is an obvious choice? The way I see it, a small(er) but still strong litigation group could be better for someone wanting to do litigation in that there will be more opportunities for responsibility earlier. But I know literally nothing, hence my turning to TLS. -OP

Anonymous User wrote:For litigation, I would think Wilmer is the obvious choice.

I don't think Wilmer's an obvious choice at all. Frankly, my experience is that with the exception of IP work, where there really seems to be some hierarchy, there aren't clear tiers of litigation firms in Boston. It's easy to break down corporate practice areas and designate market leaders. You can sort of break down lit in the same way, but at most firms, general commercial lit is most of the work, and speciality groups (like white collar, environmental, employment) are all smaller. But I just don't think Wilmer and Ropes are that much different in litigation regards.

Now, the only thing I can think of that might separate them is if you're intereste in USAO, I think (and this is mostly a guy feeling) Wilmer is more likely to handle white collar stuff and have more USAO type work.

If you want lit, you have no exit options, so no reason to go to S&C.

It seems really clear you should pick Ropes. At the end of the day, you're the person who will be living in whichever city and working with attorneys in whichever firm. If you aren't happy it won't make a damn bit of difference whether your firm is V5 or V200. You are in a great position, congrats.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:For litigation, I would think Wilmer is the obvious choice.

I don't think Wilmer's an obvious choice at all. Frankly, my experience is that with the exception of IP work, where there really seems to be some hierarchy, there aren't clear tiers of litigation firms in Boston. It's easy to break down corporate practice areas and designate market leaders. You can sort of break down lit in the same way, but at most firms, general commercial lit is most of the work, and speciality groups (like white collar, environmental, employment) are all smaller. But I just don't think Wilmer and Ropes are that much different in litigation regards.

Now, the only thing I can think of that might separate them is if you're intereste in USAO, I think (and this is mostly a guy feeling) Wilmer is more likely to handle white collar stuff and have more USAO type work.

I think the bolded is actually the opposite of reality in Boston. So while I agree that Wilmer clearly has the edge in IP work, government enforcement/white collar would favor Ropes. That's based on observing recent USAO hiring and talking to former and current AUSAs.

Have no really informed views on the matter, but as a sports guy, I'd say go to Ropes over Wilmer for Lit and get in on the Aaron Hernandez case. That'd be legit. Good luck, OP. Congrats on the great opportunities that make this such a tough decision.

OP here -- thanks again to everyone for the advice and support. I feel incredibly fortunate to be in this position to begin with. It's not at all lost on my that things could have gone a different way and I'm thankful for the luck I've had.

On the Ropes v. Wilmer side of things: Ropes has been very intensive with putting me in front of partners, following up with emails, generally recruiting heavily and showing lots of interest since my offer. I haven't heard much of anything from Wilmer since the offer dinner. My thought is that such things shouldn't really be persuasive when it comes to making a decision -- the fact that a firm seems to "want you bad" at this juncture surely has no bearing on your experience as a SA or Junior Associate, right? That said, its hard not to see it as a plus -- if nothing else, its nice. But on the other hand, I'm always wary when I feel like someone is trying to sell me something. To what extent would you factor these different "recruiting stlyes" into your decision, assuming everything else is basically the same?

Anonymous User wrote:OP here -- thanks again to everyone for the advice and support. I feel incredibly fortunate to be in this position to begin with. It's not at all lost on my that things could have gone a different way and I'm thankful for the luck I've had.

On the Ropes v. Wilmer side of things: Ropes has been very intensive with putting me in front of partners, following up with emails, generally recruiting heavily and showing lots of interest since my offer. I haven't heard much of anything from Wilmer since the offer dinner. My thought is that such things shouldn't really be persuasive when it comes to making a decision -- the fact that a firm seems to "want you bad" at this juncture surely has no bearing on your experience as a SA or Junior Associate, right? That said, its hard not to see it as a plus -- if nothing else, its nice. But on the other hand, I'm always wary when I feel like someone is trying to sell me something. To what extent would you factor these different "recruiting stlyes" into your decision, assuming everything else is basically the same?

I'd factor it in to the extent that it reflects on the personalities of the people you'll be working with. Like I had some conversations with lawyers at some firms in the recruiting process where they were giving me the hard sell in a kind of obnoxious way... putting down the competition, saying you'd have to be crazy to go to X firm, etc. Sounds a little like your S&C experience actually. But yeah as far as whether one recruiting department has its shit together better than the other... would try to ignore that.

I'm facing a similar decision and the rough and tumble of NY just doesn't seem worth it when you have fantastic options in your market of choice. Congrats!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:For litigation, I would think Wilmer is the obvious choice.

I don't think Wilmer's an obvious choice at all. Frankly, my experience is that with the exception of IP work, where there really seems to be some hierarchy, there aren't clear tiers of litigation firms in Boston. It's easy to break down corporate practice areas and designate market leaders. You can sort of break down lit in the same way, but at most firms, general commercial lit is most of the work, and speciality groups (like white collar, environmental, employment) are all smaller. But I just don't think Wilmer and Ropes are that much different in litigation regards.

Now, the only thing I can think of that might separate them is if you're intereste in USAO, I think (and this is mostly a guy feeling) Wilmer is more likely to handle white collar stuff and have more USAO type work.

They're actually really different on the litigation-side. Ropes is very transaction-focused and much of their litigation comes out of their transaction practice and clients (think M&A litigation). Wilmer is very litigation focused and is tops in IP and securities litigation. Neither firm does a lot of white-collar (its just not a big focus in Boston).

Also, general commercial lit is not the majority of work at either of the firm. There are just not that many places willing to pay big firm rates for contract disputes and the like (although each firm has a bit of this type of work).

Both are fantastic options, but I I generally tell people that Ropes is the transaction place to be, Wilmer is the lit. place to be, and Goodwin is a half step behind the two (not to say that there aren't other great firms here).

Wilmer > Ropes in Boston for litigation. It is the exact opposite for Corporate. If you have an option to go to Wilmer, I'd take it. If you are not totally sure what you want and think you'd want to explore both, then go to Ropes because Ropes litigation is better than Wilmer corporate.

Wilmer actually does have somewhat of Boston's only white collar practice that comes out of their strong DC presence.

p1arnold wrote:Wilmer > Ropes in Boston for litigation. It is the exact opposite for Corporate. If you have an option to go to Wilmer, I'd take it. If you are not totally sure what you want and think you'd want to explore both, then go to Ropes because Ropes litigation is better than Wilmer corporate.

Wilmer actually does have somewhat of Boston's only white collar practice that comes out of their strong DC presence.

Wilmer definitely gets unique government enforcement and regulatory work for Boston because of their DC presence but the white collar/government enforcement group at Ropes is probably a little ahead in Boston for amount/type of work in that area.

If by white collar you only mean representing individuals, Goodwin might have a slight edge.

p1arnold wrote:Wilmer > Ropes in Boston for litigation. It is the exact opposite for Corporate. If you have an option to go to Wilmer, I'd take it. If you are not totally sure what you want and think you'd want to explore both, then go to Ropes because Ropes litigation is better than Wilmer corporate.

Wilmer actually does have somewhat of Boston's only white collar practice that comes out of their strong DC presence.

Same anon as above. I thought this article, while not conclusive or anything, at least shows that Ropes is pretty strong in Boston for this type of work: http://www.law360.com/articles/407393/w ... ropes-gray

OP here -- thanks again everyone!

Here's a question I have: is it significant that Ropes' Boston office is the mothership, whereas Wilmer is more a dual-mothership between Boston and D.C.? I get the sense that certain key practice area (i.e. some appellate work) just isnt going to come through Boston, whereas with Ropes everything comes through that office. I'm leaning Ropes now, just seems like a strange choice to make for someone who is pretty hardcore about litigation (although I couldn't say at all what sort of litigation I'd most like to do).