Which firm(s)? (Texas or NYC)? Forum

[Anonymous User]

MVP 2L here, finally wrapped up my callbacks and here are my options. Any advice is appreciated.

- If you're selecting Texas, I made it where you can pick two Texas options (for first and second half firms)


Offers:

Willkie (NYC)
Vinson & Elkins (Houston)
Baker Botts (Houston)
Andrews Kurth (Houston)
Bracewell & Giuliani (Houston)

- Vinson & Elkins/Baker Botts are first-half firms in Texas
- Andrews Kurth/Bracewell are second-half firms in Texas

More information:

As of right now I don't really have a preference for corporate or litigation. I initially thought I'd like litigation the most, but corporate sounds attractive as well. In terms of geography, I'm originally from the South but I'm fairly open to New York or Texas.

So, any thoughts on NYC vs. Texas given the firms that I have? Is Willkie worth taking over my current Texas options?

If you vote for Texas can you explain which firm(s) you think are best for someone without a strong preference for litigation over corporate, and vice versa.

Please don't quote, thanks for the help!

[BigZuck]

Don't think anyone can make the NY vs Houston choice for you, that's for you to decide.

Of these, I personally would go for a V&E/AK summer, if purely just based on culture/my super limited perception of the firms based on OCI and the research I did leading up to it. All good firms though so congrats on having some really good options. BB might be better for someone who is a total toss up between lit and corp than V&E though.

[Anonymous User]

I would split summers between V&E and Kurth or BB. Top Texas firms, with the opportunity to work at two of them. Especially if you're a toss-up between Lit and Corp, they seem to be the best option.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the responses. Is AK or Bracewell particularly strong in litigation? They seem very comparable to me in practice area strengths.

Also, should I even be considering Willkie over the Texas firms? It seems like a great firm but I'm just not sure if it makes sense over V&E/Baker/etc

[Anonymous User]

I'm facing a similar decision with regard to NY firms vs. V&E/Latham/K&E/etc in Houston, except I never got a chance to interview with second-half firms, and I think it just comes down to whether you would prefer to be in NY or TX. I don't think it's a question of whether Willkie is "worth it" so much as where you want to live.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the responses. Is AK or Bracewell particularly strong in litigation? They seem very comparable to me in practice area strengths.

Also, should I even be considering Willkie over the Texas firms? It seems like a great firm but I'm just not sure if it makes sense over V&E/Baker/etc

AK has a very good lit practice I believe, and BB has a great one as well (I think its larger). And I also do think Willkie is a fine firm and if you were between all NY offices of these firms, I would say go with Willkie. But the cache that these firms have in Texas beats the cache that Willkie has in NY. Personally I would do V&E and whatever firm you think you fit best with between Kurth and BB. Bracewell, although good, is not of the caliber of your other firms.

Something to consider as well is that your 160k in Texas will go A LOT farther than your 160k in NY.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for breaking down the different markets, I appreciate it. Also, unfortunately, Baker Botts is first-half only, so I would have to choose between Baker Botts v. V&E for the first half. And AK v. Bracewell for the second.

[Anonymous User]

Can the people voting Willkie say why that firm over the Texas ones? thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Can the people voting Willkie say why that firm over the Texas ones? thanks!

They're probably just voting Willkie because they didn't read your post (they just saw Willkie and went with the TLS circle-jerk)

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for breaking down the different markets, I appreciate it. Also, unfortunately, Baker Botts is first-half only, so I would have to choose between Baker Botts v. V&E for the first half. And AK v. Bracewell for the second.

I think the clear move here is V&E and AK then, or at least thats what I would do.

[BigZuck]

Can the people voting Willkie say why that firm over the Texas ones? thanks!

It's because it's not in TX

Seriously, the NY/TX thing is something you have to figure out for yourself, there's no reason to pick between the two places other than personal preference.

[Anonymous User]

I chose BB because I loved the people there and they are very strong in lit, which I did have a preference for. Also, they are more of a national name than V&E.

I think V&E would be a mistake if you could potentially end up hating corporate, but that's just my 2L opinion. In the end though, I really just loved the people at BB, everyone was incredibly friendly, especially the associates!

[Anonymous User]

I'm sort of in the same boat deciding between a couple similarly ranked NYC firms and TX firms (albeit in Dallas). My concern with the TX firms is that the seem to much more readily no-offer SAs than New York firms. Also, I heard that Wilkie publicly aims for 100% offer rates. How much do people think the concern of a no-offer should come into play here?

[Anonymous User]

Can the people voting Willkie say why that firm over the Texas ones? thanks!

It's because it's not in TX

Seriously, the NY/TX thing is something you have to figure out for yourself, there's no reason to pick between the two places other than personal preference.

I'm not 100% sure that I agree - I'm also a Texan with various NYC corporate offers, and I don't buy that there's "no reason" to pick other than personal preference. As someone from TX, it's quite clear that choosing NYC now doesn't totally foreclose TX jobs later, but it's less obvious that choosing TX now leaves open the door for me to go to NYC later.

So I think it's not purely personal preference but also how sure you are of that preference. If you know there is no chance you'll choose NYC, don't take it now. If you think you might - even barely - end up wanting to stay, it's probably much harder to lateral TX to NYC than vice versa.

[BigZuck]

Can the people voting Willkie say why that firm over the Texas ones? thanks!

It's because it's not in TX

Seriously, the NY/TX thing is something you have to figure out for yourself, there's no reason to pick between the two places other than personal preference.

I'm not 100% sure that I agree - I'm also a Texan with various NYC corporate offers, and I don't buy that there's "no reason" to pick other than personal preference. As someone from TX, it's quite clear that choosing NYC now doesn't totally foreclose TX jobs later, but it's less obvious that choosing TX now leaves open the door for me to go to NYC later.

So I think it's not purely personal preference but also how sure you are of that preference. If you know there is no chance you'll choose NYC, don't take it now. If you think you might - even barely - end up wanting to stay, it's probably much harder to lateral TX to NYC than vice versa.

Going to either market with the thought of maybe someday lateraling to the other is kind of bizarre IMO, especially given these specific firms. The OP has the best native TX firms to choose from and a solid NYC firm. They need to decide what they prefer on that front. Maybe I'm being overly flippant about the ease with which someone can make that decision but to me you've just got to figure out where you would prefer to live, make a choice, and proceed. If someone is really and truly 50/50 then I say flip a coin.

I do think it's important to note that the OP wouldn't potentially be passing on WLRK here. It's Willkie. However they would be passing on basically the very best Texas has to offer.

[Anonymous User]

BigZuck - totally 100% fair.

I was simply trying to layer my own experience with a similar decision - and was indeed fortunate enough to have offers from every firm I did a CB at, including much more highly regarded firms - but there are clear differences. While WFG is a great firm, you're right that it's not a slam-dunk to lateral into TX, whereas a WLRK, S&C, DPW, etc., might actually guarantee the ability to jump back into the very best TX firms.

So I think you're 100% right, there may be more of an irreversible decision here than I was acknowledging.

Edit: Even so, I think it's easier to make the move if you need to make the move during 3L recruiting out of NYC than out of TX. I love TX wholeheartedly, but especially if you want to do corporate work, I think it's hard to justify passing on a good NYC firm for Houston firms. And in my book, neither of the 2nd half firms are particularly compelling. Maybe it's just the attorneys I know at the more popular in the poll of those two options, but I think they're mediocre places at best. Sure, V&E and BB are great, but if we really think Bracewell Guiliani or Andrews Kurth are 'the very best Texas has to offer' or anything along those lines, we're shitting ourselves. They're nowhere close.

[clone22]

Honestly the whole nyc v. texas thing should come down to the question: Are you 100% sure that you want to spend your entire legal career in texas? If so, texas firms win heavily. If you're interested in being anywhere else, the nyc firm wins because it will give you the flexibility to migrate anywhere else within 3-5 years if you choose to leave nyc. Also I am not at all familiar with the compensation structure of the texas firms, but willkie is lockstep, which means everyone the same year receives the same salary and bonus. Does wonders for relieving billing pressure and general attorney niceness (other people are more willing to help you if they don't feel that spending an extra minute talking to you takes away from their bonus).

Also as mentioned, willkie boasts that they give 100% offer rates (have for the last 8 summers, i believe), not sure what the texas firms are like.

Cheers

[de5igual]

Honestly the whole nyc v. texas thing should come down to the question: Are you 100% sure that you want to spend your entire legal career in texas? If so, texas firms win heavily. If you're interested in being anywhere else, the nyc firm wins because it will give you the flexibility to migrate anywhere else within 3-5 years if you choose to leave nyc. Also I am not at all familiar with the compensation structure of the texas firms, but willkie is lockstep, which means everyone the same year receives the same salary and bonus. Does wonders for relieving billing pressure and general attorney niceness (other people are more willing to help you if they don't feel that spending an extra minute talking to you takes away from their bonus).

Also as mentioned, willkie boasts that they give 100% offer rates (have for the last 8 summers, i believe), not sure what the texas firms are like.

Cheers

NYC isn't a golden ticket to lateral anywhere. VE/BB Houston probably has more portability than WFG.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly the whole nyc v. texas thing should come down to the question: Are you 100% sure that you want to spend your entire legal career in texas? If so, texas firms win heavily. If you're interested in being anywhere else, the nyc firm wins because it will give you the flexibility to migrate anywhere else within 3-5 years if you choose to leave nyc. Also I am not at all familiar with the compensation structure of the texas firms, but willkie is lockstep, which means everyone the same year receives the same salary and bonus. Does wonders for relieving billing pressure and general attorney niceness (other people are more willing to help you if they don't feel that spending an extra minute talking to you takes away from their bonus).

Also as mentioned, willkie boasts that they give 100% offer rates (have for the last 8 summers, i believe), not sure what the texas firms are like.

Cheers

As far as hours, at the TX firms OP would probably bill somewhere between 2100-2500. I believe WFG is probably more like 2500-2700. But someone can correct me if I am wrong.

The TX offer rates are going to be around 90% or so. Though I believe AK offered 100% for at least 1 recent summer class. If someone can honestly self assess that they are a bit socially awkward and don't have much experience in a professional environment, the 100% offer rate at WFG might be a pretty big factor.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly the whole nyc v. texas thing should come down to the question: Are you 100% sure that you want to spend your entire legal career in texas? If so, texas firms win heavily. If you're interested in being anywhere else, the nyc firm wins because it will give you the flexibility to migrate anywhere else within 3-5 years if you choose to leave nyc. Also I am not at all familiar with the compensation structure of the texas firms, but willkie is lockstep, which means everyone the same year receives the same salary and bonus. Does wonders for relieving billing pressure and general attorney niceness (other people are more willing to help you if they don't feel that spending an extra minute talking to you takes away from their bonus).

Also as mentioned, willkie boasts that they give 100% offer rates (have for the last 8 summers, i believe), not sure what the texas firms are like.

Cheers

As far as hours, at the TX firms OP would probably bill somewhere between 2100-2500. I believe WFG is probably more like 2500-2700. But someone can correct me if I am wrong.

The TX offer rates are going to be around 90% or so. Though I believe AK offered 100% for at least 1 recent summer class. If someone can honestly self assess that they are a bit socially awkward and don't have much experience in a professional environment, the 100% offer rate at WFG might be a pretty big factor.

You're wrong about Wilkie. 2500-2700 is significantly above what even the hardest working NYC firms get out of their associates on a consistent basis (i.e. you might hit that for a year if your group is slammed, but if you're doing 2600 consistently you're going to be among the top handful of billers in your class year). 2300-2400 more typical.

[Anonymous User]

I'm sort of in the same boat deciding between a couple similarly ranked NYC firms and TX firms (albeit in Dallas). My concern with the TX firms is that the seem to much more readily no-offer SAs than New York firms. Also, I heard that Wilkie publicly aims for 100% offer rates. How much do people think the concern of a no-offer should come into play here?

I voted for Willkie because I personally know two people who got no-offered from one of the Texas firms you listed, and I get the impression that it's not entirely unusual there. Willkie has had 100% offers for . . . 9 years now, I think? Maybe 10? If you pick Willkie, you basically know you will have a job when you graduate. At the Texas firms, you might be taking more of a gamble.

Also, I don't know the details of how the summer program at any of the TX firms works, but at Willkie, you will get to rotate through different departments and see which clicks best with you (rather than doing one assignment here, one there, you can spend 3 weeks in litigation, then 3 weeks in corporate, then 3 weeks in, like, tax. Or bankruptcy. Or litigation again. Whatever).

That said, if you really want to live in Texas, go to Texas.

[Anonymous User]

I voted for Willkie because I personally know two people who got no-offered from one of the Texas firms you listed, and I get the impression that it's not entirely unusual there. Willkie has had 100% offers for . . . 9 years now, I think? Maybe 10? If you pick Willkie, you basically know you will have a job when you graduate. At the Texas firms, you might be taking more of a gamble.

Also, I don't know the details of how the summer program at any of the TX firms works, but at Willkie, you will get to rotate through different departments and see which clicks best with you (rather than doing one assignment here, one there, you can spend 3 weeks in litigation, then 3 weeks in corporate, then 3 weeks in, like, tax. Or bankruptcy. Or litigation again. Whatever).

That said, if you really want to live in Texas, go to Texas.

Thanks for the post. I think most of the Texas firms allow me to rotate as well, though I'm not sure about Baker Botts/Vinson and Elkins. Right now my biggest concern is doing V&E/AK and hating corporate work. Or going to Baker Botts and not liking the culture.

Also, for the people voting Bracewell, I would love to hear why you picked it over Andrews Kurth.

Edit: yeah, the no offers are also a concern I'm having. I think my odds should be better by splitting though, hopefully

[mw115]

Take my words as a grain of salt since I summered fairly long ago, but my perception was that Bracewell & AK are pretty similar. Bracewell is slightly better in (and more committed to) lit, AK is slightly better in corporate. However, in the process of interviewing I thought the firms cultures were vastly different...

Gross over-generalization: I think BG & BB have similar cultures and that AK and V&E are similar.

[Anonymous User]

Bump. Anymore thoughts.?

[Stanford4Me]

I agree a lot with with BigZuck has said in this thread and will +1 him.

You will have to do some self assessment on where you want your career to go and where you see yourself working. I don't agree with people in here who seem to downplay the ability of associates lateraling from Texas firms to other markets -- I personally know of three Dallas-based attorneys, two of whom lateraled out to SF/Silicon Valley firms and one of whom lateraled to Cravath in NYC, all three of whom had less than 3 years of experience at their first firms. Would it be easier to lateral from NYC to Texas? Probably, but I'm not sure what tangible benefit one would get from working in NYC if they know going in they want to lateral out to TX.

Take this with a grain of salt, but a not-insignificant number of my friends who worked in NYC decided very quickly that they were going to lateral to other markets because they were unhappy with working in NYC. Other anecdotal evidence has shown that off all my friends who work at large firms (spread across the West Coast, Texas, DC, and NYC), my friends in NYC are the most vocal about how unhappy they are. Again, take that with a grain of salt, but maybe it's something to consider...I don't know.

In terms of your TX offers, it's a little difficult to answer since you're not sure what you want your practice to be. BB and VE are both great options both of whom obviously are well known in TX. VE tends to be a little more corporate. I personally liked to culture of VE over BB, but I interviewed in Dallas. I don't know too much about AK other than that I have a friend in their Dallas office who likes it.

Ultimately, I guess I would say you need to determine first where you want to work (TX/NYC). Once you've done that, I'd advise VK/AK if you choose TX. Understand that that's based mostly anecdotal experience with the firms and friends who work there. The fact that you're splitting mitigates the risk of a no-offer.

Not sure how helpful this was, but maybe there was something in there of value to you.