Top Law Schools

I'm unemployed at the moment, so I have to pick one or the other.

Job A:
Small, 3-person firm in Long Island, which would be about a 50-minute commute from my home in NYC everyday. From what I can tell about the firm's history, they have a steady flow of work from a decent book of clients, but the firm doesn't seem to be growing/improving, and there's no sign that it'll improve in the near future. I like the partner that I'd mostly be working with, but he merely seemed like a capable, and not awesome lawyer imo. The job pays well; I have no debt and I'd be able to live perfectly comfortable.

Job B:
Firm has 40-50 lawyers and is based in the Midwest. They happen to have a small, 3-lawyer office in Palo Alto, which is the office that I received an offer for. I've always wanted to live in San Francisco, but Palo Alto isn't quite San Francisco. The firm seems to have great growth prospects, and the partner running the Palo Alto office is really accomplished. The job pays $20k more than Job A; both jobs have an 1800 billable requirement, but Job B sounds like it'd be more stressful. I'd also have to take the CA bar in Feb.

***
I know that if I took Job A, my personal/social life would be peachy, as all my family and friends are in NY. I'm also a pretty hardcore New Yorker, and I'm happy with my life here in NY. However, I'm pretty personable and easy to get along with, so I'd probably be able to meet people out in California; it'd just be really nice to not have that pressure/stress. Everything about Job B makes me think that it'd be the right step for my career. I'm really scared that the exit options at Job A are poor, whereas I think I could lateral into another firm in CA (if I end up hating Job B) or back to NY (if I end up hating Palo Alto).

Basically, I feel like I'm uprooting my life just for the sake of my career, despite the fact that I like my life where I am. That being said, Palo Alto is far from a crappy place to live. I realize this is a pretty personal choice and it all depends on me, but I really respect the opinions here and was hoping you guys could lend some advice and tell me what you'd do. Thanks all.

I would personally go with job B. Job sounds better, Cali sounds fun. If you decide in 3-4 years you really want to be in NY, you will almost surely be able to make it happen if you focus on sending applications to NY firms, gov't agencies, etc (and you're patient).

To me, working for a super small firm very much gives the impression that you were not able to get anything else. I feel like a 40-50 person firm falls comfortably enough into midlaw that it looks a lot better on a resume. Just my two cents.

What do the firms do

What kind of work do you want to do

rad lulz wrote:What do the firms do

What kind of work do you want to do

both firms do IP; Job A will have a decent mix of trademark enforcement/litigation and patent pros, whereas Job B will mostly be IP litigation, with a focus on patent lit. I want to ultimately be an IP litigator, and am slightly more interested in copyright/trademark lit than patent lit.

Most of Job A's client base is small or mid-sized, whereas most of Job B's clients are mid-sized.

.

Job B is the clear choice, just make sure you bust your ass for the CA bar. Congrats on finding the elusive sweet spot between big work and big pay. It sounds like you'll have a chance to make a splash working in such a small office for what sounds like an up-and-coming firm. Just hope to god your coworkers are all reasonable because there's no way you'll be able to avoid any of them.

50 minute commute each way sucks.

Job B... I'm kind of surprised that you landed an offer at job B, though, since it sounds like you have no ties to SF (Cali firms care about ties, and I would think that a 40-50 attorney firm would def care about ties) or desire to live in SF.

XxSpyKEx wrote:Job B... I'm kind of surprised that you landed an offer at job B, though, since it sounds like you have no ties to SF (Cali firms care about ties, and I would think that a 40-50 attorney firm would def care about ties) or desire to live in SF.

OP here... that's one of the things that has me thinking that Job B is a really good opportunity. If I don't take this, I may never have a shot at moving to CA.

Anonymous User wrote:

XxSpyKEx wrote:Job B... I'm kind of surprised that you landed an offer at job B, though, since it sounds like you have no ties to SF (Cali firms care about ties, and I would think that a 40-50 attorney firm would def care about ties) or desire to live in SF.

OP here... that's one of the things that has me thinking that Job B is a really good opportunity. If I don't take this, I may never have a shot at moving to CA.

I missed the bit about you always wanting to live in SF when I read your OP before. Google maps says is SF a 38 minute drive from Palo Alto? It also says there's a train that's only 50 minutes. Can't you just live in SF and commute to PA?... Or live in PA and commute to SF when you want to go out? I mean 35-50 minutes really isn't that bad. It's basically the same commute you're looking at doing every single day to long island if you live in NY. Overall, I don't think this is even close. Job B sounds like a lot better of career opportunity.

XxSpyKEx wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

XxSpyKEx wrote:Job B... I'm kind of surprised that you landed an offer at job B, though, since it sounds like you have no ties to SF (Cali firms care about ties, and I would think that a 40-50 attorney firm would def care about ties) or desire to live in SF.

OP here... that's one of the things that has me thinking that Job B is a really good opportunity. If I don't take this, I may never have a shot at moving to CA.

I missed the bit about you always wanting to live in SF when I read your OP before. Google maps says is SF a 38 minute drive from Palo Alto? It also says there's a train that's only 50 minutes. Can't you just live in SF and commute to PA?... Or live in PA and commute to SF when you want to go out? I mean 35-50 minutes really isn't that bad. It's basically the same commute you're looking at doing every single day to long island if you live in NY. Overall, I don't think this is even close. Job B sounds like a lot better of career opportunity.

LOL. No offense, but its always funny when someone not from Cali says "Google maps says its only xx min commute."

As a Bay Area native, living in SF (where in SF?) and commuting to PA is more than 38 minutes with the traffic (even though you're essentially going against traffic, there will be pockets of traffic that you will hit). You're probably looking at a little less than an hour.

Cal Train will probably take an hour and 15 min total (getting to the station, etc.).

You're better off living in PA, or somewhere in between (San Mateo/Daly City), and going up into SF when you want to play.

Um...Palo Alto is pretty darn awesome. Tons of attys do commute every day. The trick is figuring out what time you need to be in the office...a lot of folks log on early and drive in after 9am, or leave really early (by 715) and get to PA by 830 or so. Traffic is not too bad unless you try to leave SF in the 8s or try to live "across" SF such that getting to 101 or 280 is a haul in SF, as SF traffic itself is bad.

Note that the COL in SF is really high, even by SF standards, right now....

Anonymous User wrote:

XxSpyKEx wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

XxSpyKEx wrote:Job B... I'm kind of surprised that you landed an offer at job B, though, since it sounds like you have no ties to SF (Cali firms care about ties, and I would think that a 40-50 attorney firm would def care about ties) or desire to live in SF.

OP here... that's one of the things that has me thinking that Job B is a really good opportunity. If I don't take this, I may never have a shot at moving to CA.

I missed the bit about you always wanting to live in SF when I read your OP before. Google maps says is SF a 38 minute drive from Palo Alto? It also says there's a train that's only 50 minutes. Can't you just live in SF and commute to PA?... Or live in PA and commute to SF when you want to go out? I mean 35-50 minutes really isn't that bad. It's basically the same commute you're looking at doing every single day to long island if you live in NY. Overall, I don't think this is even close. Job B sounds like a lot better of career opportunity.

LOL. No offense, but its always funny when someone not from Cali says "Google maps says its only xx min commute."

As a Bay Area native, living in SF (where in SF?) and commuting to PA is more than 38 minutes with the traffic (even though you're essentially going against traffic, there will be pockets of traffic that you will hit). You're probably looking at a little less than an hour.

Cal Train will probably take an hour and 15 min total (getting to the station, etc.).

You're better off living in PA, or somewhere in between (San Mateo/Daly City), and going up into SF when you want to play.

Yeah, but the OP is looking at spending a little less than an hour each way with his NYC option as well. Personally, I would just live in PA and commute to SF to go out. Even if you have a ton of free time, that'll probably only be 3-4 trip per week and pretty much all in non-rush hour traffic (i.e. weekends, evenings), where you can probably make that drive in 35 minutes or less.

Easy choice--job B.

Job A doesn't sound like there's much room to grow