Litigation exit options--Prestige or Substantive Experience Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hello,

I have the option to join a large V10 office in NY or a small V80 office in DC. Partnership is unrealistic at both firms. As a litigator most likely I will join a smaller firm after working as an associate at either of these. Which of these firms would best position me to do that?

The V10 is obviously more prestigious and has higher profile cases but it is larger and felt a lot more impersonal. The V80 has less high-profile cases but I have a fantastic relationship with the entire litigation team as I worked at that firm before law school; I know that at that firm I will be able to be a key part of cases and do more than doc review from day one.

I would welcome your thoughts on which firm would offer better exit options to smaller firms after 7-10 years.

Thanks.

[Old Gregg]

ive always found that truly smaller firms really dont like big firm experience all the time. when i was at a V10, i interviewed at this awesome boutique. you wouldnt believe the skepticism thrown at me simply because i came from such a large law firm. the interview lasted around 25 minutes and i was dinged the next morning.

i think in the lateraling process, the glitz and glamour of a V10 comes into play for exit options if you want to go (a) work for a client or (b) work for another high end sort of place. The brand really helps in those scenarios. for smaller firms where there's more of a focus on the bottom line, your skills are much more important. ive seen mediocre V10 lawyers lateral around for quite a while at other big law firms because the brand name and profile are impressive. but i rarely see mediocre V10 lawyers go to smaller boutiques where their skills are tested.

overall, if you think you will build up a better skillset and set of experiences at the V80, then i think that would be more helpful to take with you to the smaller firm down the line. if your goal is to lateral to a place like Sidley Austin or MoFo, then the V10 would be better. if you're planning a market switch, then the V10 would also be better. in different markets, better brand names help out because it gives you a value rather than lets you slide as an unknown quantity.

[09042014]

Hello,

I have the option to join a large V10 office in NY or a small V80 office in DC. Partnership is unrealistic at both firms. As a litigator most likely I will join a smaller firm after working as an associate at either of these. Which of these firms would best position me to do that?

The V10 is obviously more prestigious and has higher profile cases but it is larger and felt a lot more impersonal. The V80 has less high-profile cases but I have a fantastic relationship with the entire litigation team as I worked at that firm before law school; I know that at that firm I will be able to be a key part of cases and do more than doc review from day one.

I would welcome your thoughts on which firm would offer better exit options to smaller firms after 7-10 years.

Thanks.

Take the V80. You know what you are getting into.

Also if it's SRZ, it's the POTUS of hedge fund law so definitely take it.

[Anonymous User]

Hello,

I have the option to join a large V10 office in NY or a small V80 office in DC. Partnership is unrealistic at both firms. As a litigator most likely I will join a smaller firm after working as an associate at either of these. Which of these firms would best position me to do that?

The V10 is obviously more prestigious and has higher profile cases but it is larger and felt a lot more impersonal. The V80 has less high-profile cases but I have a fantastic relationship with the entire litigation team as I worked at that firm before law school; I know that at that firm I will be able to be a key part of cases and do more than doc review from day one.

I would welcome your thoughts on which firm would offer better exit options to smaller firms after 7-10 years.

Thanks.

Take the V80. You know what you are getting into.

Also if it's SRZ, it's the POTUS of hedge fund law so definitely take it.

SRZ is getting a remarkable amount of play on this forum lately. Alas, it's not SRZ.

Do other rankings besides Vault matter? The V80 has been ranked #1 on the AmLaw for something like 2 out of the past 3 years.

[Old Gregg]

Do other rankings besides Vault matter? The V80 has been ranked #1 on the AmLaw for something like 2 out of the past 3 years.

You just outed your firm...

if it's DLA Piper or Baker & McKenzie, avoid.

But other than that, rankings don't matter that much. I find that you can slice and dice firms in all sorts of different ways to make them come up #1 in something. focus on the experiences you'll get and the people you'll work with. the amount of difference that makes to one's outlook and career is way underrated on this forum compared to the impact of rankings and prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Do other rankings besides Vault matter? The V80 has been ranked #1 on the AmLaw for something like 2 out of the past 3 years.

You just outed your firm...

if it's DLA Piper or Baker & McKenzie, avoid.

But other than that, rankings don't matter that much. I find that you can slice and dice firms in all sorts of different ways to make them come up #1 in something. focus on the experiences you'll get and the people you'll work with. the amount of difference that makes to one's outlook and career is way underrated on this forum compared to the impact of rankings and prestige.

It's neither of those firms but I take your point re: experience. Appreciate the advice above as well about switching markets.

What is it about DLA or Baker that makes them undesirable?

[wons]

What is it about DLA or Baker that makes them undesirable?

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

[mw115]

You did just out your firm.

Anyway, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. You know you like working there; and if you like DC more than NYC having worked in DC will make it more likely.

[84651846190]

What is it about DLA or Baker that makes them undesirable?

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

In other words, they are eat-what-you-kill firms with fiefdoms of partners, in-fighting, backbiting, etc.

[Charger]

What is it about DLA or Baker that makes them undesirable?

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

In other words, they are eat-what-you-kill firms with fiefdoms of partners, in-fighting, backbiting, etc.

Recently I saw another thread about there only being a small handful of firms that are on partner lockstep. So, putting aside these small handful of firms, how are DLA or Baker different from most other firms in terms of eat-what-you-kill fiefdoms of in-fighting and backbiting?

[Anonymous User]

What is it about DLA or Baker that makes them undesirable?

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

In other words, they are eat-what-you-kill firms with fiefdoms of partners, in-fighting, backbiting, etc.

Recently I saw another thread about there only being a small handful of firms that are on partner lockstep. So, putting aside these small handful of firms, how are DLA or Baker different from most other firms in terms of eat-what-you-kill fiefdoms of in-fighting and backbiting?

2Ls should really do diligence on the American Lawyer archives etc about the range of forms of partner comp. It's not binary - lockstep or not. Very few firms are pure lockstep. Many firms are a mix of factors, effectively partial lockstep, where seniority is considered along with many other factors, such as book of business, intangibles, etc.

Then you have the gigantic firms. These firms are no longer law firms at all in the traditional sense - they don't share profits among the partners, but segregate by country, or even from office to office. Their comp is very close to pure EWYK. They don't do nearly as much adjusting of comp for the health of the firm - goosing bankruptcy comp in an up economy, or feeding cash to the tax guys who grease the rails for the M&A work - because there is no "firm", such as it is. The concept is that it is a brand and little clusters of partners and their fiefdom of associates operate mostly-autonomously within the brand, sharing facilities, support staff (what's left of it, anyways) and a firm name that gets them in the door to be hired. There's minimal meaningful collaboration and getting the work done as well as possible plays second fiddle to maximizing revenue of the fiefdom - i.e., if a projects mini-group gets a financing deal from one of its clients, it wont send the work to a financing partner (for fear the EWYK ramifications or that the client will be poached) but will try to do the deal themselves, even if hamhandedly.

[84651846190]

What is it about DLA or Baker that makes them undesirable?

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

In other words, they are eat-what-you-kill firms with fiefdoms of partners, in-fighting, backbiting, etc.

Recently I saw another thread about there only being a small handful of firms that are on partner lockstep. So, putting aside these small handful of firms, how are DLA or Baker different from most other firms in terms of eat-what-you-kill fiefdoms of in-fighting and backbiting?

One of the major differences is that some firms consistently have enough work to go around. Others don't. Things get pretty nasty when you have partners fighting over the same (small) group of clients. Also, I agree with much of what is posted in the post above.

[Anonymous User]

2Ls should really do diligence on the American Lawyer archives etc about the range of forms of partner comp. It's not binary - lockstep or not. Very few firms are pure lockstep. Many firms are a mix of factors, effectively partial lockstep, where seniority is considered along with many other factors, such as book of business, intangibles, etc.

Does American Lawyer have information on how origination credit, and other factors that lend themselves to partner infighting and politics, works among law firms? I couldn't seem to find it in the archives.