Top Law Schools

Hi all -- I have offers at Baker & McKenzie's Chicago office and at the top firm in a secondary market (think Bryan Cave St. Louis, Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis, Shook Hardy in KC etc.). I'd prefer Chicago, but wanted to get some opinions on the pros and cons of being at a megafirm like Baker vs. the top shop in a smaller, less desirable (for me) market.

Thanks.

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all -- I have offers at Baker & McKenzie's Chicago office and at the top firm in a secondary market (think Bryan Cave St. Louis, Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis, Shook Hardy in KC etc.). I'd prefer Chicago, but wanted to get some opinions on the pros and cons of being at a megafirm like Baker vs. the top shop in a smaller, less desirable (for me) market.

Thanks.

Nothing to add but also interested in this opinion. Would like to do corporate, PEG/M&A with an eventual move to in-house (or ownership) after a few years.

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all -- I have offers at Baker & McKenzie's Chicago office and at the top firm in a secondary market (think Bryan Cave St. Louis, Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis, Shook Hardy in KC etc.). I'd prefer Chicago, but wanted to get some opinions on the pros and cons of being at a megafirm like Baker vs. the top shop in a smaller, less desirable (for me) market.

Thanks.

Would you rather be a small fish in a big pond or be a big fish in a smaller pond? If you had any other offer in Chicago, id say go, but Baker, although HQd in Chicago, does has some serious problems/drawbacks.

OP i'd go with your city preference, so here chicago. 2P i would probably go city preference as well although if it's the secondary it's a harder call.

i just don't think you'll have enough info to really compare the two office environments or exit opportunities without working in both, so even if TLS anecdata leans in favor of "best firm in smaller city = better lifestyle / work / whatever" the level of generality is too high to rely on. markets vary, firms within them vary, practice groups within them vary, partners within them vary etc - not just lifestyle while you're there, but also in terms of exit opportunities afterwards. (btw the firms you listed as possible secondaries vary widely in terms of practice group allocation, firm structure etc, which probably impact this analysis more than the level of generality you're asking about does)

my gut says the office environments aren't that different... probably looking at 200-300 attys in each office, and the three firms in secondaries you mentioned aren't going to be much of an improvement for partnership odds (3% at baker vs what, ~10% max at the others? probably not even that). partnership is still very unlikely and any upside is offset once you factor in the guaranteed associate salary differential of ~$40k/yr which easily outpaces COL adjustments, at least from chi to the secondaries you mentioned.

so basically though there are reasons for some to take top secondary over baker chi, the main one (geographic preference) cuts the other way for OP, and any others at the level of generality you're requesting would be very speculative. you'd basically need to fear working at baker for some reason to punt to a less preferential geographic location imo. earlier anon is hinting that maybe you should, so i'd pursue that intel over fish/pond metaphors.

i know you posted this because the info you really need (baker chi vs other firm in other city, go!!) is basically nonexistent, so no shots fired for asking. i'd just be cautious of getting chased off a clear geographic preference by vague structural insights. congrats on the offers!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all -- I have offers at Baker & McKenzie's Chicago office and at the top firm in a secondary market (think Bryan Cave St. Louis, Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis, Shook Hardy in KC etc.). I'd prefer Chicago, but wanted to get some opinions on the pros and cons of being at a megafirm like Baker vs. the top shop in a smaller, less desirable (for me) market.

Thanks.

Would you rather be a small fish in a big pond or be a big fish in a smaller pond? If you had any other offer in Chicago, id say go, but Baker, although HQd in Chicago, does has some serious problems/drawbacks.

OP here. Thanks. Would you please elaborate some of those drawbacks?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all -- I have offers at Baker & McKenzie's Chicago office and at the top firm in a secondary market (think Bryan Cave St. Louis, Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis, Shook Hardy in KC etc.). I'd prefer Chicago, but wanted to get some opinions on the pros and cons of being at a megafirm like Baker vs. the top shop in a smaller, less desirable (for me) market.

Thanks.

Would you rather be a small fish in a big pond or be a big fish in a smaller pond? If you had any other offer in Chicago, id say go, but Baker, although HQd in Chicago, does has some serious problems/drawbacks.

OP here. Thanks. Would you please elaborate some of those drawbacks?

Yea:

One of the big aspects that should be kept in mind with Baker is the size of the firm and the financial implications that come with that. Their business model may or may not be sustainable in the long run and they do not have a 100% offer rate for this reason. Along with this is the industry perspective of Baker. Sure its a fine firm, but they are not the top in Chicago and do not work with top clients (other than doing *some* work for Boeing). If you're at Dorsey, you'd be doing Target, 3M, the Twins, General Mills, UnitedHealthcare, and Best Buy (I think Dorsey currently represents 10 of the 14 Fortune 500s in Minnesota; and I think the Vikings are represented by Briggs). This just personal preference but I would rather be getting high exposure to those clients (the nature of regional biglaw is often less hierarchy and more exposure when you're younger) then middle market work in Chicago. The one caveat is tax, if you want to be a tax lawyer, Baker's group is very highly respected in the field.

If you read through some of the other threads (just scroll down to the Baker v. Willkie), associates do not speak very highly of Baker when it comes to their attorneys or their work product.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all -- I have offers at Baker & McKenzie's Chicago office and at the top firm in a secondary market (think Bryan Cave St. Louis, Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis, Shook Hardy in KC etc.). I'd prefer Chicago, but wanted to get some opinions on the pros and cons of being at a megafirm like Baker vs. the top shop in a smaller, less desirable (for me) market.

Thanks.

Would you rather be a small fish in a big pond or be a big fish in a smaller pond? If you had any other offer in Chicago, id say go, but Baker, although HQd in Chicago, does has some serious problems/drawbacks.

OP here. Thanks. Would you please elaborate some of those drawbacks?

Yea:

One of the big aspects that should be kept in mind with Baker is the size of the firm and the financial implications that come with that. Their business model may or may not be sustainable in the long run and they do not have a 100% offer rate for this reason. Along with this is the industry perspective of Baker. Sure its a fine firm, but they are not the top in Chicago and do not work with top clients (other than doing *some* work for Boeing). If you're at Dorsey, you'd be doing Target, 3M, the Twins, General Mills, UnitedHealthcare, and Best Buy (I think Dorsey currently represents 10 of the 14 Fortune 500s in Minnesota; and I think the Vikings are represented by Briggs). This just personal preference but I would rather be getting high exposure to those clients (the nature of regional biglaw is often less hierarchy and more exposure when you're younger) then middle market work in Chicago. The one caveat is tax, if you want to be a tax lawyer, Baker's group is very highly respected in the field.

If you read through some of the other threads (just scroll down to the Baker v. Willkie), associates do not speak very highly of Baker when it comes to their attorneys or their work product.

The only mention of a no-offer I can find is an ATL writer mentioning he was no-offered. Not sure when that was. Recent offer rates have been 100%, per NALP and firm-provided info.