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

[Anonymous User]

^^ Thank you for the post, at this point I'm pretty much only thinking about the Texas firms. Now I just have to decide whether I want to hedge my bets on liking corporate work and selecting V&E/AK, because it doesn't appear that I'll have much of an option to do really sophisticated litigation work at these corporate-oriented firms

[Anonymous User]

I would do the V&E and AK split.

[Anonymous User]

I really don't think Wilkie will make you any more attractive as a candidate (for lateral purposes) than the Texas firms you are interested in. This decision should really be made based on personal preference as to where you want to live. And if you have loans, I would definitely think hard about going to Texas as opposed to NYC. Trust me...

[Anonymous User]

Re: B&G v. AK for transactional

Based on conversations I have had with folks at both offices I believe AK mostly does securities/cap markets work and real estate and they are very strong in those practice areas. I think B&G probably has a more varied transactional practice. Both are great firms.

[Anonymous User]

Re: B&G v. AK for transactional

Based on conversations I have had with folks at both offices I believe AK mostly does securities/cap markets work and real estate and they are very strong in those practice areas. I think B&G probably has a more varied transactional practice. Both are great firms.

Interesting, thanks for this. Would you say that AK or Bracewell has a stronger litigation practice? Or are there particular litigation areas that the firms are stronger in?

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

I really don't think Wilkie will make you any more attractive as a candidate (for lateral purposes) than the Texas firms you are interested in. This decision should really be made based on personal preference as to where you want to live. And if you have loans, I would definitely think hard about going to Texas as opposed to NYC. Trust me...

I'm pretty much only considering Texas at this point. I do have student loans, and family there, so it is becoming more of a no-brainer.

Here's where I'm struggling:

Do I want to hedge my bets on liking corporate work or not?

From what I've gathered: V&E has an excellent corporate practice, but the litigation practice isn't something they're looking to build (i.e., not an option). Baker Botts is good in corporate and litigation, but not an all-star in either practice area, and has a very distinct, conservative culture.

I have to choose between one of the two firms.

[Anonymous User]

I really don't think Wilkie will make you any more attractive as a candidate (for lateral purposes) than the Texas firms you are interested in. This decision should really be made based on personal preference as to where you want to live. And if you have loans, I would definitely think hard about going to Texas as opposed to NYC. Trust me...

I'm pretty much only considering Texas at this point. I do have student loans, and family there, so it is becoming more of a no-brainer.

Here's where I'm struggling:

Do I want to hedge my bets on liking corporate work or not?

From what I've gathered: V&E has an excellent corporate practice, but the litigation practice isn't something they're looking to build (i.e., not an option). Baker Botts is good in corporate and litigation, but not an all-star in either practice area, and has a very distinct, conservative culture.

I have to choose between one of the two firms.

You could hedge by doing a BB/AK split. AK has a really strong corporate practice and is just a touch below V&E in capital markets. Then BB would have your bases covered by being good in litigation.

The only problem (or possibly plus, depending on your personality) would be how well you fit in with the conservative culture. People who like it describe it as professional and family-oriented. You don't feel the need to go out to happy hours to guarantee good work, and you can go home to spend time with your family instead of drinking. People who don't like it describe it as buttoned-up, nerdy, and stuffy. Attorneys at V&E describe themselves as more social and better at getting clients. Attorneys at BB claim to be better lawyers; they just have to retain their institutional clients.

They're both top-notch in TX, so you just have to decide which is a better fit for you. With AK, you could get a flavor of V&E's fratty culture and high-level corporate work while still having BB's good litigation practice to fall back on. Or you could also do V&E/BG for the same reasons.

[Stanford4Me]

May want to look into pay scale as well.

My roommate is starting at VE and indicated they're on the NY scale while BB may be on some modified scale that pays less. I'm no longer in the "big law" circle, so I'm not entirely sure.

[Anonymous User]

May want to look into pay scale as well.

My roommate is starting at VE and indicated they're on the NY scale while BB may be on some modified scale that pays less. I'm no longer in the "big law" circle, so I'm not entirely sure.

As I understand, BB pays roughly NY scale, but instead has a system of something like:

1st yr = level 1 + a small bonus
2nd yr = level 1 + a bigger bonus
3rd yr = level 2 + a smaller bonus
4th yr = level 2 + a bigger bonus
etc

If what I understand is true, it works out to basically the same salary, EXCEPT your comp is basically deferred until bonus time, so if you quit before a bonus you would have made below market in your last year

I would love to hear if this is still true or if anything here is off-base though.

[Anonymous User]

I really don't think Wilkie will make you any more attractive as a candidate (for lateral purposes) than the Texas firms you are interested in. This decision should really be made based on personal preference as to where you want to live. And if you have loans, I would definitely think hard about going to Texas as opposed to NYC. Trust me...

I'm pretty much only considering Texas at this point. I do have student loans, and family there, so it is becoming more of a no-brainer.

Here's where I'm struggling:

Do I want to hedge my bets on liking corporate work or not?

From what I've gathered: V&E has an excellent corporate practice, but the litigation practice isn't something they're looking to build (i.e., not an option). Baker Botts is good in corporate and litigation, but not an all-star in either practice area, and has a very distinct, conservative culture.

I have to choose between one of the two firms.

You could hedge by doing a BB/AK split. AK has a really strong corporate practice and is just a touch below V&E in capital markets. Then BB would have your bases covered by being good in litigation.

The only problem (or possibly plus, depending on your personality) would be how well you fit in with the conservative culture. People who like it describe it as professional and family-oriented. You don't feel the need to go out to happy hours to guarantee good work, and you can go home to spend time with your family instead of drinking. People who don't like it describe it as buttoned-up, nerdy, and stuffy. Attorneys at V&E describe themselves as more social and better at getting clients. Attorneys at BB claim to be better lawyers; they just have to retain their institutional clients.

They're both top-notch in TX, so you just have to decide which is a better fit for you. With AK, you could get a flavor of V&E's fratty culture and high-level corporate work while still having BB's good litigation practice to fall back on. Or you could also do V&E/BG for the same reasons.

I think BB/AK makes the most sense in terms of giving me options, though I'm not sure how well I click with BB people. So you're saying that BG has a stronger litigation practice then AK?


Do any of these firms vary dramatically in terms of exit options on the litigation/corporate sides? I imagine it's pretty hard to say one way or another, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

[Anonymous User]

May want to look into pay scale as well.

My roommate is starting at VE and indicated they're on the NY scale while BB may be on some modified scale that pays less. I'm no longer in the "big law" circle, so I'm not entirely sure.

Very interesting. Thanks for the heads up!

My OCS said that V&E was only known when it was representing Enron (before the downfall), but now nobody really talks about them after Enron. Also, that Baker Botts is more well-known nationally. Is there any truth to this or is it complete OCS-quackery ?

[BVest]

May want to look into pay scale as well.

My roommate is starting at VE and indicated they're on the NY scale while BB may be on some modified scale that pays less. I'm no longer in the "big law" circle, so I'm not entirely sure.

Very interesting. Thanks for the heads up!

My OCS said that V&E was only known when it was representing Enron (before the downfall), but now nobody really talks about them after Enron. Also, that Baker Botts is more well-known nationally. Is there any truth to this or is it complete OCS-quackery ?

V&E definitely took a beating from Enron. It came in two parts: one was for its role in Enron's practices of creating off-books partnerships to move major liabilities into, and the other was from the simple fact that one of their largest, if not their largest, clients went tits up in a matter of days.

I can't speak to whether your CSO is being hyperbolic or not though. That was a while ago, V&E has extracted themselves from the mess now, and it's not as if V&E went the way of Arthur Andersen. (I'm sure you've heard of "The Big Four" accounting firms. When I was growing up, they were referred to as "The Big Five." Enron changed that, and not because of a merger).

ETA: I tried to find how big Enron was as a client. According to this 2002 NYT piece, Enron was 8% of V&E's 2001 revenue. (By contrast, according to this Bloomberg story, Enron was less than 1% of Arthur Andersen's revenue, but AA's clear wrongdoing is what brought them crashing down.)

[Anonymous User]

I really don't think Wilkie will make you any more attractive as a candidate (for lateral purposes) than the Texas firms you are interested in. This decision should really be made based on personal preference as to where you want to live. And if you have loans, I would definitely think hard about going to Texas as opposed to NYC. Trust me...

I'm pretty much only considering Texas at this point. I do have student loans, and family there, so it is becoming more of a no-brainer.

Here's where I'm struggling:

Do I want to hedge my bets on liking corporate work or not?

From what I've gathered: V&E has an excellent corporate practice, but the litigation practice isn't something they're looking to build (i.e., not an option). Baker Botts is good in corporate and litigation, but not an all-star in either practice area, and has a very distinct, conservative culture.

I have to choose between one of the two firms.

You could hedge by doing a BB/AK split. AK has a really strong corporate practice and is just a touch below V&E in capital markets. Then BB would have your bases covered by being good in litigation.

The only problem (or possibly plus, depending on your personality) would be how well you fit in with the conservative culture. People who like it describe it as professional and family-oriented. You don't feel the need to go out to happy hours to guarantee good work, and you can go home to spend time with your family instead of drinking. People who don't like it describe it as buttoned-up, nerdy, and stuffy. Attorneys at V&E describe themselves as more social and better at getting clients. Attorneys at BB claim to be better lawyers; they just have to retain their institutional clients.

They're both top-notch in TX, so you just have to decide which is a better fit for you. With AK, you could get a flavor of V&E's fratty culture and high-level corporate work while still having BB's good litigation practice to fall back on. Or you could also do V&E/BG for the same reasons.

I think BB/AK makes the most sense in terms of giving me options, though I'm not sure how well I click with BB people. So you're saying that BG has a stronger litigation practice then AK?


Do any of these firms vary dramatically in terms of exit options on the litigation/corporate sides? I imagine it's pretty hard to say one way or another, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

Not actually sure if there's an appreciable difference in litigation strength between BG and AK. I guess BG might have an edge? I was talking more about AK having a similar culture and similarly strong corporate practice as V&E.

I think you should either try to decide whether you fit in better with the people at V&E or the people at BB (big difference). Or if you have a slight preference for lit over corporate.

Also, I am almost certain that V&E and BB are basically the same in quality of exit options, though they obviously have different clients. They have been the top two firms in TX for decades and the only others at that level today are Latham Houston and GDC Dallas. This decision really comes down to fit and strength of litigation practice.

[Anonymous User]

May want to look into pay scale as well.

My roommate is starting at VE and indicated they're on the NY scale while BB may be on some modified scale that pays less. I'm no longer in the "big law" circle, so I'm not entirely sure.

Very interesting. Thanks for the heads up!

My OCS said that V&E was only known when it was representing Enron (before the downfall), but now nobody really talks about them after Enron. Also, that Baker Botts is more well-known nationally. Is there any truth to this or is it complete OCS-quackery ?

V&E definitely took a beating from Enron. It came in two parts: one was for its role in Enron's practices of creating off-books partnerships to move major liabilities into, and the other was from the simple fact that one of their largest, if not their largest, clients went tits up in a matter of days.

I can't speak to whether your CSO is being hyperbolic or not though. That was a while ago, V&E has extracted themselves from the mess now, and it's not as if V&E went the way of Arthur Andersen. (I'm sure you've heard of "The Big Four" accounting firms. When I was growing up, they were referred to as "The Big Five." Enron changed that, and not because of a merger).

ETA: I tried to find how big Enron was as a client. According to this 2002 NYT piece, Enron was 8% of V&E's 2001 revenue.

Wow thanks for the information. Yeah since it's been over a decade now so I assume the negative aspects surrounding the Enron/V&E debacle have faded.

Can anyone speak to how "fratty" V&E/AK actually are? I'm not sure what exactly that means since the firms are major law firms doing pretty top-notch work. Is it just that they have a lot of social events compared to BB/BG?

[Anonymous User]

Thank you! What do you think about doing a corporate rotation at V&E and doing a corporate/litigation rotation at AK for the summer? Would that be a very stupid move if I end up hating corporate work?

[Anonymous User]

May want to look into pay scale as well.

My roommate is starting at VE and indicated they're on the NY scale while BB may be on some modified scale that pays less. I'm no longer in the "big law" circle, so I'm not entirely sure.

Very interesting. Thanks for the heads up!

My OCS said that V&E was only known when it was representing Enron (before the downfall), but now nobody really talks about them after Enron. Also, that Baker Botts is more well-known nationally. Is there any truth to this or is it complete OCS-quackery ?

V&E definitely took a beating from Enron. It came in two parts: one was for its role in Enron's practices of creating off-books partnerships to move major liabilities into, and the other was from the simple fact that one of their largest, if not their largest, clients went tits up in a matter of days.

I can't speak to whether your CSO is being hyperbolic or not though. That was a while ago, V&E has extracted themselves from the mess now, and it's not as if V&E went the way of Arthur Andersen. (I'm sure you've heard of "The Big Four" accounting firms. When I was growing up, they were referred to as "The Big Five." Enron changed that, and not because of a merger).

ETA: I tried to find how big Enron was as a client. According to this 2002 NYT piece, Enron was 8% of V&E's 2001 revenue.

Based off the league tables, I'm pretty sure V&E is killing it right now for corporate. V&E and Latham are basically in a tier of their own for transactional work in Houston. The energy boom in Houston has really allowed V&E's corporate department to surge ahead.

I'm also not sure if there's really a difference in national reputation between V&E and BB. They're basically the Harvard and Yale of Texas firms, though they are definitely known as TX firms and only really have satellite offices outside of TX. But maybe BB has an edge somewhere like Palo Alto because of its strong IP practice.

[Anonymous User]

Fratty just means more outgoing, more social, and more happy hours. For example, V&E holds a firmwide prom each February where they fly in lawyers from all the different offices, put them up in hotels, and rent out the Houston Museum. Apparently there are also practice group beerpong tournaments and chili cook-offs and other things like that.

During my CB dinner for BB, the associates told me they chose BB because they didn't feel pressured to go out to social events and schmooze outside of the office to get good work. Rather, they felt like the firm was a meritocracy, and if they did good work in the office, it didn't matter what they did outside of the office. They kept referring to "another firm in town" where their friends felt like they had to attend happy hours and connect with partners to get good work from those partners. Obviously, that other firm was V&E.

It really depends on your personality. I'm young, single, and fairly social, so V&E is more appealing to me. I would describe V&E as a friendly place to work with fewer introverted/nerdy-type personalities. They like to think they're better at client development. But people at BB like to point out that they focus on the work rather than the superfluous out-of-office events and are therefore better lawyers for it.

A lot of these are gross over-generalizations. You could say BB is family-oriented, respectful, and professional. BB lawyers go home to their families rather than to happy hours. Or you could say the work environment is buttoned-up, stuffy, nerdy, and oppressive. V&E is either fun, social, and friendly, or its fratty and cliquey. Really depends on the type of person you are. If you're familiar with NY firms, the analogy from a social perspective might be BB = S&C and V&E = Skadden.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you! What do you think about doing a corporate rotation at V&E and doing a corporate/litigation rotation at AK for the summer? Would that be a very stupid move if I end up hating corporate work?

It wouldn't be a stupid move. But honestly, you're probably going to end up choosing your first-half firm. So I would be sure to get a litigation rotation in there, regardless of whether you go with V&E or BB.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you! What do you think about doing a corporate rotation at V&E and doing a corporate/litigation rotation at AK for the summer? Would that be a very stupid move if I end up hating corporate work?

It wouldn't be a stupid move. But honestly, you're probably going to end up choosing your first-half firm. So I would be sure to get a litigation rotation in there, regardless of whether you go with V&E or BB.

Yeah I agree. So do you think it would look bad to rotate through lit/corp at V&E, assuming they aren't actively looking to build their litigation practice anymore? Apparently they hire based on practice area preferences, among other things

[Anonymous User]

Thank you! What do you think about doing a corporate rotation at V&E and doing a corporate/litigation rotation at AK for the summer? Would that be a very stupid move if I end up hating corporate work?

It wouldn't be a stupid move. But honestly, you're probably going to end up choosing your first-half firm. So I would be sure to get a litigation rotation in there, regardless of whether you go with V&E or BB.

Yeah I agree. So do you think it would look bad to rotate through lit/corp at V&E, assuming they aren't actively looking to build their litigation practice anymore? Apparently they hire based on practice area preferences, among other things

I'm not a hiring partner, so your guess is as good as mine, but I don't think it would look bad at all. First, I'm sure that there will be plenty of law students who will do a litigation rotation because most law students don't know what they want after just a year of law school. Second, I would be surprised if they really aren't actively looking to build their litigation practice.

Yeah, V&E has invested heavily in corporate, but Chambers still has them as band 1 for general commercial litigation in Texas. There are 50+ litigators in the Houston office alone, and that's not counting groups like appellate, IP, labor & employment, environmental, and other areas that probably have a decent amount of litigation spots. I agree with others that I would choose other firms over V&E if I were solely interested in lit, particularly the boutiques in Houston, but people are overstating things if they say V&E isn't looking to hire for litigation, period. It's not like V&E is some transactional boutique (especially not its headquarters in Houston).

90+% of SAs will get offers from V&E, and if you like litigation, do a rotation through litigation in addition to trying out some corporate work. The lit group might have been downsized over the past few years, but the firm will always need a strong energy litigation contingent to support the high-level transactional work it does.

[Anonymous User]

(1) How much better is V&E's corporate practice then BB's?

(2) Insanely subjective hypo but curious about peoples' opinions;

Curious as to how people view practice group optionality(i.e., ability to do litigation or corporate work full time) compared to how much you like about the people at a firm. If the people at a firm are "meh" but you have the option to do good lit/corp. work, is that more valuable then going to a firm where there are people you like a fair amount more but where you only have the option of doing very good corporate work?

[Anonymous User]

(1) How much better is V&E's corporate practice then BB's?

(2) Insanely subjective hypo but curious about peoples' opinions;

Curious as to how people view practice group optionality(i.e., ability to do litigation or corporate work full time) compared to how much you like about the people at a firm. If the people at a firm are "meh" but you have the option to do good lit/corp. work, is that more valuable then going to a firm where there are people you like a fair amount more but where you only have the option of doing very good corporate work?

(1) I think the consensus these days is that Latham and V&E are in the top tier for corporate. BB is close, though, and so is AK/BG. If you're really thinking you might want to litigate, a BB/AK split might be ideal since BB is strong in litigation and AK is very close to LW/V&E in corporate work while still having a culture similar to V&E.

(2) It's hard to get a sense of the people from a CB. You get to meet about 3-5% of the firm at a place like V&E or BB. Because of that, I would go to the firm where you have the option to do the best type of work you want to do, whether it be lit/corp. Or you can listen to anons like myself rave about V&E's culture and go there. The meh people/great work vs. great people/good work question is pretty tough to answer because my perception of great people is probably different from your perception of great people. The attorneys who came across as meh during CBs might turn out to be amazing when you get to know them better. Or you might barely ever see them again due to the size of the firm. And you're really splitting hairs here when it's V&E vs. BB. These two firms + Latham are the top in Houston. If you really wanted litigation, then the answer is probably Fulbright.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the post Anon ^^

I guess I'm just going to have to guess and take a leap at some point. I feel like V&E would be better for building a transactional career and that I would like the social events more, but I'm worried that the social atmosphere being a possible pre-req to getting ahead at the firm could add an extra layer of stress

[BigZuck]

Thanks for the post Anon ^^

I guess I'm just going to have to guess and take a leap at some point. I feel like V&E would be better for building a transactional career and that I would like the social events more, but I'm worried that the social atmosphere being a possible pre-req to getting ahead at the firm could add an extra layer of stress

I know it's an important decision and I think it's really cool that there has been so much analysis because it has hopefully helped a lot of current and future people, but...

For you personally I think you just have to make a decision. Take that leap of faith. You can worry about everything: offer rates, culture, lit vs corp, etc. but don't get paralyzed by that stuff. Go with your gut. You felt better about two firms in particular? Then split em! You wanna hedge the lit vs corp thing a bit? Then choose your top choice and split with the other firm that tends to do more of the opposite. You've got great choices. Now choose two of them!

I know, easy for me to say and I'm right there with you, I totally understand the anxiety, second guessing, etc. But at some point you've just gotta take the plunge, you know? And just think that once you do, you can really and truly start 2LOLing. Or improving your bluebooking skills. Or whatever you want to do that isn't all this job search stuff.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you Zuck! Gonna sleep on it and go with my gut