Top Law Schools

Is there a material cost to be paid by starting your career at a non-NYC office for corporate work? A lot of the NYC associates I've talked to have said that most of the offices outside of NYC that do M&A or PE or fund formation are just the local counsel for the deal since virtually all deals run through NYC to a degree. I'm not even sure what that even means (the local counsel part) or whether it's significant. I'd like to settle in Chicago long-term but am wiling to start in NYC if it's going to give me access to significantly better training. My two top options in Chicago are KE and Sidley and in NYC its DPW/Debevoise. Some people have told me that it's better to just start where you want to end up since you should never assume that you can lateral into a secondary market just because you started in NYC

So in sum, is the corporate work outside of NYC significantly less sophisticated? And if so, does it even matter?

TYIA

Anonymous User wrote:Is there a material cost to be paid by starting your career at a non-NYC office for corporate work? A lot of the NYC associates I've talked to have said that most of the offices outside of NYC that do M&A or PE or fund formation are just the local counsel for the deal since virtually all deals run through NYC to a degree. I'm not even sure what that even means (the local counsel part) or whether it's significant. I'd like to settle in Chicago long-term but am wiling to start in NYC if it's going to give me access to significantly better training. My two top options in Chicago are KE and Sidley and in NYC its DPW/Debevoise. Some people have told me that it's better to just start where you want to end up since you should never assume that you can lateral into a secondary market just because you started in NYC

So in sum, is the corporate work outside of NYC significantly less sophisticated? And if so, does it even matter?

TYIA

If you want corporate, the best place to start your legal career is NYC. Cutting edge corporate work in most corporate practice areas (high yield, capital markets, large public M&A, financial institutions, commercial real estate, project finance, etc.) are mostly done in NYC because of the continuing prominence of Wall Street and of NYC. If you just want to do private M&A, bankruptcy, etc., K&E in Chicago would be among the best. Choosing K&E in Chicago over DPW in NYC can be a good choice if you have compelling reasons for wanting to be in Chicago. You would have to weigh your reasons for wanting to be in Chicago against the complexity of the work and the choices of the types of corporate work you want to do.

Anonymous User wrote:Is there a material cost to be paid by starting your career at a non-NYC office for corporate work? A lot of the NYC associates I've talked to have said that most of the offices outside of NYC that do M&A or PE or fund formation are just the local counsel for the deal since virtually all deals run through NYC to a degree. I'm not even sure what that even means (the local counsel part) or whether it's significant. I'd like to settle in Chicago long-term but am wiling to start in NYC if it's going to give me access to significantly better training. My two top options in Chicago are KE and Sidley and in NYC its DPW/Debevoise. Some people have told me that it's better to just start where you want to end up since you should never assume that you can lateral into a secondary market just because you started in NYC

So in sum, is the corporate work outside of NYC significantly less sophisticated? And if so, does it even matter?

TYIA

Yes, there is a significant cost. K&E Chicago is among the handful of non NYC offices that are as strong as a decent NY office, though it wont be the same as starting as DPW/Deb, which are better than decent. But if you're 100% sure you want to end up in Chicago, I'm not sure you benefit from the opportunity that DPW would provide you.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is there a material cost to be paid by starting your career at a non-NYC office for corporate work? A lot of the NYC associates I've talked to have said that most of the offices outside of NYC that do M&A or PE or fund formation are just the local counsel for the deal since virtually all deals run through NYC to a degree. I'm not even sure what that even means (the local counsel part) or whether it's significant. I'd like to settle in Chicago long-term but am wiling to start in NYC if it's going to give me access to significantly better training. My two top options in Chicago are KE and Sidley and in NYC its DPW/Debevoise. Some people have told me that it's better to just start where you want to end up since you should never assume that you can lateral into a secondary market just because you started in NYC

So in sum, is the corporate work outside of NYC significantly less sophisticated? And if so, does it even matter?

TYIA

Yes, there is a significant cost. K&E Chicago is among the handful of non NYC offices that are as strong as a decent NY office, though it wont be the same as starting as DPW/Deb, which are better than decent. But if you're 100% sure you want to end up in Chicago, I'm not sure you benefit from the opportunity that DPW would provide you.

OP here. I don't think i can say that i'm 100% sure that I want to end up in Chicago. I just love the city and my SO has roots here. That said, neither of us are completely married to the region. Do you think that exiting into a different market from NYC is as easy as people seem to think? What are the consequences of being trained in a weaker corporate practice?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is there a material cost to be paid by starting your career at a non-NYC office for corporate work? A lot of the NYC associates I've talked to have said that most of the offices outside of NYC that do M&A or PE or fund formation are just the local counsel for the deal since virtually all deals run through NYC to a degree. I'm not even sure what that even means (the local counsel part) or whether it's significant. I'd like to settle in Chicago long-term but am wiling to start in NYC if it's going to give me access to significantly better training. My two top options in Chicago are KE and Sidley and in NYC its DPW/Debevoise. Some people have told me that it's better to just start where you want to end up since you should never assume that you can lateral into a secondary market just because you started in NYC

So in sum, is the corporate work outside of NYC significantly less sophisticated? And if so, does it even matter?

TYIA

Yes, there is a significant cost. K&E Chicago is among the handful of non NYC offices that are as strong as a decent NY office, though it wont be the same as starting as DPW/Deb, which are better than decent. But if you're 100% sure you want to end up in Chicago, I'm not sure you benefit from the opportunity that DPW would provide you.

OP here. I don't think i can say that i'm 100% sure that I want to end up in Chicago. I just love the city and my SO has roots here. That said, neither of us are completely married to the region. Do you think that exiting into a different market from NYC is as easy as people seem to think? What are the consequences of being trained in a weaker corporate practice?

Exiting into Chicago from NYC is easy - but exiting into Kirkland or Sidley is no guarantee (far from it, in fact).

The consequence of being trained in a weaker corporate practice is that you wont be as good at transactional work as someone who was trained in a better practice (marginally true) and potential employers will think of you as less well trained as someone from a better practice (sadly, very true). But if your goals in life end at the Wisconsin border, I'm not sure whether you are disadvantaged starting your career at the best firm in Chicago.

Is picking Sidley over K&E a big mistake? Have gotten a much better feel for the folks at Sidley and literally every attorney I've asked for advice has emphasized that despite K&E being #1 in Chicago for corporate work, people there are generally unhappy across the board and the difference between the two firms is not that stark, though it does exist.

Anonymous User wrote:Is picking Sidley over K&E a big mistake? Have gotten a much better feel for the folks at Sidley and literally every attorney I've asked for advice has emphasized that despite K&E being #1 in Chicago for corporate work, people there are generally unhappy across the board and the difference between the two firms is not that stark, though it does exist.

I don't know if it would be a mistake but Kirkland runs Chicago.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is picking Sidley over K&E a big mistake? Have gotten a much better feel for the folks at Sidley and literally every attorney I've asked for advice has emphasized that despite K&E being #1 in Chicago for corporate work, people there are generally unhappy across the board and the difference between the two firms is not that stark, though it does exist.

I don't know if it would be a mistake but Kirkland runs Chicago.

OP (of the thread, not the question above) here. I also like Sidley better than KE blahhhh

ETA: Just looked at the AmLaw Corporate Scorecard...nvm.

Sorry to hijack, but super interested in this question for SF. I know that a lot of stuff out there seems to be geared towards VC/startup work, but that just seems like a terrible thing to do at the start of your career. Is there really no M&A or finance work being done out of the Bay Area? Do I really have to go to LA, that beleaguered hellhole, for this?

NYC really only has a strong edge in some areas of finance/capital markets (but not all, e.g. NYC does almost no VC). For M&A, I've always heard there is little substantial difference between Chicago and New York, and I'd be surprised if SF were different as well. There's probably a little difference when it comes to e.g. Philly/Dallas/Houston/Atlanta but almost wherever you work, your bread and butter will be the nearby Fortune 500 companies.

The notion that it's either NYC or Peoria is a false dichotomy. Firms like Sidley/K&E/Skadden Chicago are never going to be local counsel -- they've priced themselves out of that line of work. Also the notion that the "experience" or "training" is superior in NYC is laughable -- you're doing cross reference checks either way dudes.

It's true that DPW outclasses Sidley & Kirkland when you look at the Chambers bands, but to base your decision on that alone is silly, because each firm will be doing some front-page WSJ work and some midcap work for companies no one's ever heard of -- and when you start working you'll realize that it doesn't matter at all if your client is JPMorgan or some tractor manufacturer in Tulsa.

I feel like the common sense to go where you'll be happy somehow gets ironed out of law students by the prestige whoring, so it bears emphasis: Go where you'll be happy. Honestly, dude, go to Sidley. Being in a city you like with people you know will make you a lot happier than knowing you're in at a Chambers band 1 firm.

WhirledWorld wrote:NYC really only has a strong edge in some areas of finance/capital markets (but not all, e.g. NYC does almost no VC). For M&A, I've always heard there is little substantial difference between Chicago and New York, and I'd be surprised if SF were different as well. There's probably a little difference when it comes to e.g. Philly/Dallas/Houston/Atlanta but almost wherever you work, your bread and butter will be the nearby Fortune 500 companies.

The notion that it's either NYC or Peoria is a false dichotomy. Firms like Sidley/K&E/Skadden Chicago are never going to be local counsel -- they've priced themselves out of that line of work. Also the notion that the "experience" or "training" is superior in NYC is laughable -- you're doing cross reference checks either way dudes.

It's true that DPW outclasses Sidley & Kirkland when you look at the Chambers bands, but to base your decision on that alone is silly, because each firm will be doing some front-page WSJ work and some midcap work for companies no one's ever heard of -- and when you start working you'll realize that it doesn't matter at all if your client is JPMorgan or some tractor manufacturer in Tulsa.

I feel like the common sense to go where you'll be happy somehow gets ironed out of law students by the prestige whoring, so it bears emphasis: Go where you'll be happy. Honestly, dude, go to Sidley. Being in a city you like with people you know will make you a lot happier than knowing you're in at a Chambers band 1 firm.

I don't think it's silly at all. While the work may not be substantively any better from an associate's perspective at DPW, potential employers' perceptions of that work will indeed be different. And that is something to consider.

SLS_AMG wrote:

WhirledWorld wrote:It's true that DPW outclasses Sidley & Kirkland when you look at the Chambers bands, but to base your decision on that alone is silly, because each firm will be doing some front-page WSJ work and some midcap work for companies no one's ever heard of -- and when you start working you'll realize that it doesn't matter at all if your client is JPMorgan or some tractor manufacturer in Tulsa.

I don't think it's silly at all. While the work may not be substantively any better from an associate's perspective at DPW, potential employers' perceptions of that work will indeed be different. And that is something to consider.

Depends on the employer. If you know you want to be seconded or work in-house at Morgan Stanley, by all means, go to DPW. But don't go to DPW because they're advising Comcast on the Time Warner deal -- because 1) there's no guarantee you'll ever work on anything like that and 2) who you work for matters a lot less to your future employer than what you learned to do for that employer.

That's not to say Chambers bands don't matter for your next job -- they do. But law students tend to overthink their importance -- after all, if you go to a top 3 law school, you have a ~90% shot at biglaw; if you go to a T6, it's more like 60%; if T10, then maybe 40%, etc. But biglaw exit jobs (in-house gigs/government/other firms) don't look at it that way at all, where DPW associates trump Latham associates because V5 > V10. It's not like law school where you have giant exit ramps leading droves to their next job -- your post biglaw job is far more likely to come from networking than the names on your resume.

K&E is at the top of Chicago and is harder to get than the mentioned NY firms (it's around the CSM/S&C level of selectivity at my school). I don't think this should influence your decision, but you could probably move from K&E Chicago to NY firms, but there are a lot of people trying to get into Chicago from NY so Kirkland is more selective on that end, too.

Another thing to consider is exit options. Lots of funds and companies in Chicago use Kirkland because they can meet in person (though they certainly represent NY companies, too) so people usually exit into Chicago. It's harder to exit from NYC->Chicago in house because your clients are generally in NYC.

WhirledWorld wrote:NYC really only has a strong edge in some areas of finance/capital markets (but not all, e.g. NYC does almost no VC). For M&A, I've always heard there is little substantial difference between Chicago and New York, and I'd be surprised if SF were different as well. There's probably a little difference when it comes to e.g. Philly/Dallas/Houston/Atlanta but almost wherever you work, your bread and butter will be the nearby Fortune 500 companies.

The notion that it's either NYC or Peoria is a false dichotomy. Firms like Sidley/K&E/Skadden Chicago are never going to be local counsel -- they've priced themselves out of that line of work. Also the notion that the "experience" or "training" is superior in NYC is laughable -- you're doing cross reference checks either way dudes.

It's true that DPW outclasses Sidley & Kirkland when you look at the Chambers bands, but to base your decision on that alone is silly, because each firm will be doing some front-page WSJ work and some midcap work for companies no one's ever heard of -- and when you start working you'll realize that it doesn't matter at all if your client is JPMorgan or some tractor manufacturer in Tulsa.

I feel like the common sense to go where you'll be happy somehow gets ironed out of law students by the prestige whoring, so it bears emphasis: Go where you'll be happy. Honestly, dude, go to Sidley. Being in a city you like with people you know will make you a lot happier than knowing you're in at a Chambers band 1 firm.

This is just plain wrong. NYC dominance in public company M&A is overwhelming, and that's the single most important (and lucrative) transactional legal field.

gfd973 wrote:Sorry to hijack, but super interested in this question for SF. I know that a lot of stuff out there seems to be geared towards VC/startup work, but that just seems like a terrible thing to do at the start of your career. Is there really no M&A or finance work being done out of the Bay Area? Do I really have to go to LA, that beleaguered hellhole, for this?

The NYC satellites in SF are largely doing NYC-style work.

Anonymous User wrote:K&E is at the top of Chicago and is harder to get than the mentioned NY firms (it's around the CSM/S&C level of selectivity at my school). I don't think this should influence your decision, but you could probably move from K&E Chicago to NY firms, but there are a lot of people trying to get into Chicago from NY so Kirkland is more selective on that end, too.

Another thing to consider is exit options. Lots of funds and companies in Chicago use Kirkland because they can meet in person (though they certainly represent NY companies, too) so people usually exit into Chicago. It's harder to exit from NYC->Chicago in house because your clients are generally in NYC.

Less selective than any of the V6 save Skadden at my school. And sure, you can probably go from Kirkland Chicago to a New York firm in general, but lol at thinking you're gonna go from Kirkland Chicago to CSM/S&C/DPW/STB.

Anonymous User wrote: lol at thinking you're gonna go from Kirkland Chicago to CSM/S&C/DPW/STB.

I know attorneys who have had offers to move to many of the above firms from Kirkland Chicago.

NY is widely known as being less selective which is why it's common for people go to NY hoping to move to Chicago. It's quite rare that anyone goes to Chicago hoping to move to NY (though it does happen for personal reasons on occasion).

gfd973 wrote:Sorry to hijack, but super interested in this question for SF. I know that a lot of stuff out there seems to be geared towards VC/startup work, but that just seems like a terrible thing to do at the start of your career. Is there really no M&A or finance work being done out of the Bay Area? Do I really have to go to LA, that beleaguered hellhole, for this?

Same question, but for Houston. Would it be better to go with a V5 in NY for the training or just start out straight at a firm like V&E?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is picking Sidley over K&E a big mistake? Have gotten a much better feel for the folks at Sidley and literally every attorney I've asked for advice has emphasized that despite K&E being #1 in Chicago for corporate work, people there are generally unhappy across the board and the difference between the two firms is not that stark, though it does exist.

I don't know if it would be a mistake but Kirkland runs Chicago.

This is an utter flame. K&E is definitely the #1 firm in Chicago but it's silly to pretend like Sidley isn't a close #2. Look at Chambers for Illinois - Sidley actually has more Band 1 rankings.

Surprised no one has mentioned DE here. I'd say that's second best to NY.