Is it generally possible to lateral to CA (LA & Bay) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Title Q pretty much..

Primarily, do CA firms generally view a lateral from NYC BigLaw to CA BigLaw as perfectly acceptable, or would they have a strong preference for someone from in-state?

If yes to that, what about from another major market, i.e. Philly/ATL/TX to CA?

Trying to figure out bidding, how much I want to play it safe and bid NYC versus try and get a CA offer off the bat from OCI. I would really prefer not to work in NYC at all, but my school feeds very strongly into NY and it is definitely the safest option. However, I really would like to make it back to CA at least one day.

If I were to speculate, I don't see why it would matter where you are coming from as long as you have the relevant skill set. Just for example: why should it matter that you at are trying lateral as an IP Litigator from K&E NY versus MoFo, under the assumption that you would have the same experience at either (maybe bad assumption for these particular firms idk, but my general point) . I mean you clearly demonstrate that you want to be at the firm&location if you are trying to lateral in. Am I off-base on this thought process?

If it matters, I go to an upper T14 that feeds heavily into NY, 1L SA in a non-NY V100, but below average 1st semester grades (non-diverse). I grew up in the Bay

[Tiago Splitter]

The belief among CA recruiters is that it's easier to lateral from NY to CA if you're in corporate rather than litigation, in large part because it's more important for litigators to have passed the bar exam. Their view is that you should try especially hard to start off in CA if you want to litigate.

[Anonymous User]

Caveat: I am a law student so I could be wrong on this.

My impression is that it really depends on the market and what kind of work you do. For example, the last couple years have been pretty bananas for SV corporate work and there have been a lot of laterals hired (many from NY). This makes it hard to predict whether you'll have an easy or hard time lateraling since you'll be at the whim of the market. I think that corporate will generally be easier than litigation, though not exactly for the reasons set out by tiago. To me it seems that NY litigators seem to be do more doc review whereas NY corporate attorneys are more likely to handle higher level stuff, meaning that there is value to bringing in a corporate NY person to CA but there is not as much value to bringing a litigation NY person to CA.

Why can't you bid both NY and CA? Do you have an offer to return to your 1L firm? It seems to me that you should feasibly be able to bid for 2 cities during OCI.

[ChardPennington]

My experience interviewing in LA and SF is that neither place cared much about "ties to the area" (though some people disagree with me on this re: SF, so ymmv), so if you have biglaw experience, good references, and you've passed the CA bar, I don't see what the problem would be. If you're doing lit in SF, it would probably be helpful if your experience was in IP.

[Anonymous User]

My experience interviewing in LA and SF is that neither place cared much about "ties to the area" (though some people disagree with me on this re: SF, so ymmv), so if you have biglaw experience, good references, and you've passed the CA bar, I don't see what the problem would be. If you're doing lit in SF, it would probably be helpful if your experience was in IP.

I will soon be a SF Biglaw associate and interviewed with firms in both LA, SF, and a few other markets. I disagree with the bold: in my experience, of the major markets, SF firms cared the most about ties to SF in particular (not even just California). Even though I am a SF native, it appears that the local firms held the fact that I went to undergrad or law school outside of California against me. It was a real challenge getting any SF offers. LA firms cared a bit less but still seemed to care.

OP: I think it's important to keep in mind that SF is a deceptively small legal market. LA is considerably bigger, but still not nearly as big as DC or of course NY. I've heard it's possible to lateral from NY and in my interview trail I have met a few NY to CA laterals. A few things make it easier: having a network of California biglaw attorneys, having already passed the California bar (though I think you can time your move to make this less of a problem), and doing the type of work that California firms do. So I think it's possible to lateral, but if this is what you want and you are able to land SF biglaw, it's much easier just if you are able to start here.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

A little off topic but I would be more focused on gaming OCI if I were you. Definitely mass mail NYC firms (I'm assuming you're probably at a northeast "t7") 2-3 weeks before OCI. If you can get a decent number of interviews that will free you up to bid more on CA firms, which would be great because, in my experience, if you are in the northeast some of the CA firms may hesitate flying you out or even contacting you on a mass mailer whereas the NYC firms probably won't.

Then mass mail all the firms in NYC/CA that you don't get bidding. I had good grades and like so many others only did a "tailored" mass mail before OCI started and really regretted it. A lot of OCI is a numbers game and you may not know how firms respond to you (CB/offer wise) until it's too late.

FYI, I really wanted CA, went pretty much all in on CA and it didn't pan out. So I think you're right to be somewhat risk adverse about going all out on CA--some people disagree with this but I know a lot of people that had good grades, were personable, confident people, and got nothing from CA. SV is hot and everyone and their mothers want to be there. I lost out to guys who owned their own funded startups or worked 3 years in VCs before law school. LA and SF are bigger and maybe you'll have more success in those markets if you're lit-focused. I was not.

[Anonymous User]

FYI, I really wanted CA, went pretty much all in on CA and it didn't pan out. So I think you're right to be somewhat risk adverse about going all out on CA--some people disagree with this but I know a lot of people that had good grades, were personable, confident people, and got nothing from CA. SV is hot and everyone and their mothers want to be there. I lost out to guys who owned their own funded startups or worked 3 years in VCs before law school. LA and SF are bigger and maybe you'll have more success in those markets if you're lit-focused. I was not.

While I generally agree with you post, I disagree with a some of the specifics in this paragraph.

It definitely doesn't take the kind of creds you mention nor do I think SV is "hot" in the sense that it is incredibly desirable by law students in relation to other markets. First, there are plenty of people without those kind of factors that get SV SAs. On top of that, SV is generally far less selective in terms of GPA/class rank than SF is. In my experience, most law students gunning for the Bay Area would much rather work in SF than SV (not to say that there aren't people who really want to work in SV, there are, but I don't think they predominate). I also don't think that SF is bigger than SV in terms of hiring since some of the biggest Bay Area SA classes are at SV firms, though I could be wrong on this since I haven't added up all the SAs for each area.

In general I think it is definitely easier to get an SA in SV than it is to get one in SF.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

FYI, I really wanted CA, went pretty much all in on CA and it didn't pan out. So I think you're right to be somewhat risk adverse about going all out on CA--some people disagree with this but I know a lot of people that had good grades, were personable, confident people, and got nothing from CA. SV is hot and everyone and their mothers want to be there. I lost out to guys who owned their own funded startups or worked 3 years in VCs before law school. LA and SF are bigger and maybe you'll have more success in those markets if you're lit-focused. I was not.

While I generally agree with you post, I disagree with a some of the specifics in this paragraph.

It definitely doesn't take the kind of creds you mention nor do I think SV is "hot" in the sense that it is incredibly desirable by law students in relation to other markets. First, there are plenty of people without those kind of factors that get SV SAs. On top of that, SV is generally far less selective in terms of GPA/class rank than SF is. In my experience, most law students gunning for the Bay Area would much rather work in SF than SV (not to say that there aren't people who really want to work in SV, there are, but I don't think they predominate). I also don't think that SF is bigger than SV in terms of hiring since some of the biggest Bay Area SA classes are at SV firms, though I could be wrong on this since I haven't added up all the SAs for each area.

In general I think it is definitely easier to get an SA in SV than it is to get one in SF.

Yeah those are good points. I would say that SV is generally less grade selective than other places--which in my case didn't actually help me. SV does probably have more SAs than SF, I shouldn't have lumped it in with LA. And I know that a lot of people without those factors get SV SAs.

I heard everyone saying that SV was the credited choice in the Bay Area because nobody wants to live there and they have huge SA classes but in my experience, going thru OCI last year, there were a lot of kids with exactly that attitude and plan going into OCI. On top of that, believe it or not, there are a lot of people that want to work for Google, VC firms, etc., and see one of these SV firms' corporate departments as the best way to do it. I could be wrong but based on my limited experience I think there are a lot more bodies trying to fill seats in those SV firms, at least on the corporate side, than there used to be.

ETA: an SF SA may still be harder to get, tho, idk. I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks a lot for all the great replies here. To the ones saying start in the CA market I want, trust me, I would LOVE to. Just hear a lot of stories of people gunning for CA that strike out, whereas it seems like pretty much everyone at my school that just goes NY ends up with something. Balancing act I suppose, and once I know whether my 1L firm (east coast) makes return offers it may make balancing this a little easier.

This strategy seems like it could definitely help alleviate some of the risk of using OCI bids on CA:

A little off topic but I would be more focused on gaming OCI if I were you. Definitely mass mail NYC firms (I'm assuming you're probably at a northeast "t7") 2-3 weeks before OCI. If you can get a decent number of interviews that will free you up to bid more on CA firms, which would be great because, in my experience, if you are in the northeast some of the CA firms may hesitate flying you out or even contacting you on a mass mailer whereas the NYC firms probably won't.

Then mass mail all the firms in NYC/CA that you don't get bidding. I had good grades and like so many others only did a "tailored" mass mail before OCI started and really regretted it. A lot of OCI is a numbers game and you may not know how firms respond to you (CB/offer wise) until it's too late.

Question about that though. Most of the NY firms will be at OCI, so won't a lot of them say to just bid on us? What can you say in a cover letter to get them to interview you outside of OCI without seeming like there's other people you would rather bid on?

[Anonymous User]

Recently lateraled into the CA market. Factors that helped me find a good landing spot (there are plenty of bad ones, and everyone has the memo on the good ones, and the market is competitive, so...):

1) Experience at a top, national law firm (this set would include, say, Gibson Dunn in NYC but not Greenberg Traurig in Miami). You absolutely need to be coming from a top law firm. This wasn't true about two years ago, but the good firms to work at in CA are becoming hugely snobby. I would say that my former firm was arguably the lowest ranked firm my new firm would dip to for new hires (and I was toward the edge of the V15).

2) CA bar. This isn't a necessity, but it's a huge plus. Shows commitment to the market, makes these firms not have to worry about you showing up for a few months, then peacing for a few months, and then coming back. Makes these firms not have to worry about paying for your shit during that time (and, believe me, these firms care). I even think that CA bar passage helps go toward making ties to the market.

3) Ties to the market.

4) Experience that is at or above your class year. The experience you should have amassed by the time you shoot your materials out should be at or above what someone in your class year is doing. If not, firms will think you're getting pushed out.

5) A solid law school pedigree. Come from a top law school.

6) Applicable, transferable and/or demonstrated experience. Interested in doing corporate? Have lots of public company, fund formation or capital markets experience. All of those practices are hugely valued and transferable into the CA market. Credit/Debt Finance? Not so much. Hedge funds? Not so much. Derivatives? Not so much. These latter practice groups won't necessarily hold you back, but expect to be docked a year or two if you want to be able to make the move.

Want to do litigation? Being a techie and having practiced IP surely helps. Don't know about regular litigation, though market isn't looking good.

Market is getting tough, tough, tough. The jobs are here, but it's like the secret is out and there are so many applications per position. I got my job after hustling for more than six months and doing a very targeted search. In connection with that, if you already have an attorney contact in the firm's office to which you're applying, then skip the headhunter for that office. Some firm's don't want to pay headhunter fees, and that might be the one thing that gives you an edge.

In terms of caliber of candidates, on the corporate end, I've encountered laterals (both hired and interviewing) from Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Davis Polk, Simpson, Cleary... you get the picture. It's tough.

[echooo23]

Recently lateraled into the CA market. Factors that helped me find a good landing spot (there are plenty of bad ones, and everyone has the memo on the good ones, and the market is competitive, so...):

1) Experience at a top, national law firm (this set would include, say, Gibson Dunn in NYC but not Greenberg Traurig in Miami). You absolutely need to be coming from a top law firm. This wasn't true about two years ago, but the good firms to work at in CA are becoming hugely snobby. I would say that my former firm was arguably the lowest ranked firm my new firm would dip to for new hires (and I was toward the edge of the V15).

2) CA bar. This isn't a necessity, but it's a huge plus. Shows commitment to the market, makes these firms not have to worry about you showing up for a few months, then peacing for a few months, and then coming back. Makes these firms not have to worry about paying for your shit during that time (and, believe me, these firms care). I even think that CA bar passage helps go toward making ties to the market.

3) Ties to the market.

4) Experience that is at or above your class year. The experience you should have amassed by the time you shoot your materials out should be at or above what someone in your class year is doing. If not, firms will think you're getting pushed out.

5) A solid law school pedigree. Come from a top law school.

6) Applicable, transferable and/or demonstrated experience. Interested in doing corporate? Have lots of public company, fund formation or capital markets experience. All of those practices are hugely valued and transferable into the CA market. Credit/Debt Finance? Not so much. Hedge funds? Not so much. Derivatives? Not so much. These latter practice groups won't necessarily hold you back, but expect to be docked a year or two if you want to be able to make the move.

Want to do litigation? Being a techie and having practiced IP surely helps. Don't know about regular litigation, though market isn't looking good.

Market is getting tough, tough, tough. The jobs are here, but it's like the secret is out and there are so many applications per position. I got my job after hustling for more than six months and doing a very targeted search. In connection with that, if you already have an attorney contact in the firm's office to which you're applying, then skip the headhunter for that office. Some firm's don't want to pay headhunter fees, and that might be the one thing that gives you an edge.

In terms of caliber of candidates, on the corporate end, I've encountered laterals (both hired and interviewing) from Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Davis Polk, Simpson, Cleary... you get the picture. It's tough.

Can you explain what you mean by bad landing spots, and which firms are bad/good? If you prefer, please PM. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Avoid transplants to the extent their mothership is a sweatshop or in a sweatshop market. I think going to places like Weil or S&C in the Bay Area is dumb. But a lot of the local shops are more Californian in attitude and are therefore slightly easier to work for (though risk is higher if economy tanks).

[oblig.lawl.ref]

OP here. Thanks a lot for all the great replies here. To the ones saying start in the CA market I want, trust me, I would LOVE to. Just hear a lot of stories of people gunning for CA that strike out, whereas it seems like pretty much everyone at my school that just goes NY ends up with something. Balancing act I suppose, and once I know whether my 1L firm (east coast) makes return offers it may make balancing this a little easier.

This strategy seems like it could definitely help alleviate some of the risk of using OCI bids on CA:

A little off topic but I would be more focused on gaming OCI if I were you. Definitely mass mail NYC firms (I'm assuming you're probably at a northeast "t7") 2-3 weeks before OCI. If you can get a decent number of interviews that will free you up to bid more on CA firms, which would be great because, in my experience, if you are in the northeast some of the CA firms may hesitate flying you out or even contacting you on a mass mailer whereas the NYC firms probably won't.

Then mass mail all the firms in NYC/CA that you don't get bidding. I had good grades and like so many others only did a "tailored" mass mail before OCI started and really regretted it. A lot of OCI is a numbers game and you may not know how firms respond to you (CB/offer wise) until it's too late.

Question about that though. Most of the NY firms will be at OCI, so won't a lot of them say to just bid on us? What can you say in a cover letter to get them to interview you outside of OCI without seeming like there's other people you would rather bid on?

Yeah that's a problem but I don't know of any way to avoid that. I wouldn't be stingy in applying. Apply widely. Lots will probably say wait til OCI but any that give you early interviews will help.

Also, if possible, can the person who recently lateraled PM me?

[Anonymous User]

4) Experience that is at or above your class year. The experience you should have amassed by the time you shoot your materials out should be at or above what someone in your class year is doing. If not, firms will think you're getting pushed out.

Assuming a lateral candidate has experience above class year, how would one go about demonstrating that? For example, let's say I'm an M&A associate and have marked up a transaction document cover-to-cover and that is above my class year. Do I just include that on my resume, or go about this in another way? Thanks!

[jarofsoup]

CA bar membership I think is the biggest boost.