Top Law Schools

I have the opportunity to go from the headquarters of a vault 100 firm to a smaller office of a vault 10 firm. This is in Texas. I do finance work now and would continue to do so at the new firm. My guess is deal flow and hours would be similar to the job now; pay would be higher in three to four years but comparable now. The people are fine at the new firm and I think their prospects are generally positive.

Having trouble concentrating on work and wanted to throw the topic out here. General advice? Questions I should ask that I may not have thought of?

it looks bad

Do you want to be in Texas - especially long term? Or do you want to be where you are now?

Yeah, it'll look bad, but your QOL should make up for that if you have a strong locational pref.

Would it look bad if you were applying to lateral as a first year to an unequivocally better firm?

Anonymous User wrote:Would it look bad if you were applying to lateral as a first year to an unequivocally better firm?

yes if your only reason is a higher vault ranking.

What are your reasons other than vault ranking?

gk101 wrote: yes if your only reason is a higher vault ranking.

El Pollito wrote:What are your reasons other than vault ranking?

It wouldn't be something like STB -> Skadden. This would be from non-NY to NY for transactional. That seems to me like it's reasonable to do and firms should understand the reason.

You had better be really sure you want to be at the new firm for a while before making this move. Changing markets is something that future employers will understand, but changing firms a second time in too short a time frame will raise red flags for the future. You don't want to do anything to make it look like you 1) don't like any of the biglaw firms you have worked for so far or 2) are just trying to hit the reset button too many times. The former indicates that biglaw isn't right for you and the latter indicates that you are a problem.

I don't know how long it takes to get rid of the shadow of an early move, but you will most likely need to stay at your new firm quite a bit longer than you would have to stay at your current firm. Otherwise future potential employers are likely going to see you as a risk.

OP here, sorry got busy for a few hours.

The move is roughly equivalent to a V&E to Skadden move.

I wouldn't be changing markets (one firm is headquartered in town and the other is a NY firm with an office in town) and I haven't sought out the move. Partner at the v10 firm was impressed with my work and invited me to dinner and made an offer.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, sorry got busy for a few hours.

The move is roughly equivalent to a V&E to Skadden move.

I wouldn't be changing markets (one firm is headquartered in town and the other is a NY firm with an office in town) and I haven't sought out the move. Partner at the v10 firm was impressed with my work and invited me to dinner and made an offer.

I assume the partner was adverse to you when he observed your work product, right?

I ask because there are potential ethical consideration that may be at issue. Would you be conflicted out of a bunch of matters? Is your firm mostly plaintiff/target side whereas the V10 is more defense/buyer side?

El Pollito wrote:What are your reasons other than vault ranking?

I'm not unhappy at my current firm. I have a ton of responsibility for a first year and we have a good practice in the area of finance I am in. The firm that made me the offer is elite in the practice area, though. Exit options are better and are more varied than at my current firm if/when its time to jump ship in a few years.

I don't want to just be chasing prestige, but the deal lists and league tables tell a pretty clear story.

Anonymous User wrote:

El Pollito wrote:What are your reasons other than vault ranking?

I'm not unhappy at my current firm. I have a ton of responsibility for a first year and we have a good practice in the area of finance I am in. The firm that made me the offer is elite in the practice area, though. Exit options are better and are more varied than at my current firm if/when its time to jump ship in a few years.

I don't want to just be chasing prestige, but the deal lists and league tables tell a pretty clear story.

If you plan on sticking around at the new firm for a few years then I don't see a problem with making a move. If you're looking to exit in a few years and someone asks why you lateralled so early on, your story is legit.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, sorry got busy for a few hours.

The move is roughly equivalent to a V&E to Skadden move.

I wouldn't be changing markets (one firm is headquartered in town and the other is a NY firm with an office in town) and I haven't sought out the move. Partner at the v10 firm was impressed with my work and invited me to dinner and made an offer.

I assume the partner was adverse to you when he observed your work product, right?

I ask because there are potential ethical consideration that may be at issue. Would you be conflicted out of a bunch of matters? Is your firm mostly plaintiff/target side whereas the V10 is more defense/buyer side?

We represented different parties on the same side of a deal. Suffice it to say I would be conflicted out of one very specific matter, but not much else. Everyone gives broad waivers of conflicts anyway.

I know someone on firm number 4 in 3 years.

Desert Fox wrote:I know someone on firm number 4 in 3 years.

Trying to avoid that scenario, but I think that lateraling, even often, is not as detrimental to people's career as other itt seem to think.

Appreciate everyone's input. I am leaning towards lateraling over, but will continue to do my diligence for the next few days.

It's not necessarily detrimental to your career, but it will limit your development and opportunities at some point. I don't think there is a magic number of how many firms you can go through, but development is easier when you don't have to start over too many times as a junior. Also, many future opportunities, like exit options to clients of the firm and already miniscule partnership prospects, are largely dependent on developing real relationships. Again, there isn't a formula for this and you certainly aren't shooting yourself in the foot with one lateral move.

.

Kirkland SHATTERS THE MARKET.

OP, don't do this. Kirkland is a sweatshop. They're desperate for first-years and are making offers to anyone that has a pulse. It looks bad to move as a first year.

I think V&E -> STB/Kirkland/Latham Houston seems pretty common these days. I don't know what the standard advice is with respect to lateraling so early in your career, but it doesn't seem that a move like this would really raise eyebrows.

Anonymous User wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, sorry got busy for a few hours.

The move is roughly equivalent to a V&E to Skadden move.

I wouldn't be changing markets (one firm is headquartered in town and the other is a NY firm with an office in town) and I haven't sought out the move. Partner at the v10 firm was impressed with my work and invited me to dinner and made an offer.

I assume the partner was adverse to you when he observed your work product, right?

I ask because there are potential ethical consideration that may be at issue. Would you be conflicted out of a bunch of matters? Is your firm mostly plaintiff/target side whereas the V10 is more defense/buyer side?

We represented different parties on the same side of a deal. Suffice it to say I would be conflicted out of one very specific matter, but not much else. Everyone gives broad waivers of conflicts anyway.

I know two people (litigators) who have been told their conflicts would prevent them from lateraling to a number of firms, but maybe things are different for corporate.

crit_racer wrote:Kirkland SHATTERS THE MARKET.

OP, don't do this. Kirkland is a sweatshop. They're desperate for first-years and are making offers to anyone that has a pulse. It looks bad to move as a first year.

Not Kirkland. I have friends there and its just as bad in Houston as it is everywhere else, if anyone is wondering.

JusticeJackson wrote:First year, like you started 1 month ago? Or first year like you started 13 months ago? If 13 months, do you think the offer will be there in January, after you get your bonus?

Class of 13. Firm would pay me the full bonus regardless of when I started.

Anonymous User wrote:

crit_racer wrote:Kirkland SHATTERS THE MARKET.

OP, don't do this. Kirkland is a sweatshop. They're desperate for first-years and are making offers to anyone that has a pulse. It looks bad to move as a first year.

Not Kirkland. I have friends there and its just as bad in Houston as it is everywhere else, if anyone is wondering.

Any chance you could say more about this? I was hoping it would have more of a TX vibe since they pulled a bunch of people from V&E/BB. Does just as bad in Houston as it is everywhere else mean it's a sweatshop and has higher billables than other shops in town?

.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

crit_racer wrote:Kirkland SHATTERS THE MARKET.

OP, don't do this. Kirkland is a sweatshop. They're desperate for first-years and are making offers to anyone that has a pulse. It looks bad to move as a first year.

Not Kirkland. I have friends there and its just as bad in Houston as it is everywhere else, if anyone is wondering.

Any chance you could say more about this? I was hoping it would have more of a TX vibe since they pulled a bunch of people from V&E/BB. Does just as bad in Houston as it is everywhere else mean it's a sweatshop and has higher billables than other shops in town?

Yeah, hours are worse than Houston generally, but that is what you sign up for with them. Biggest problem is that the partners are psychos (screamers, mean-spirited) and the office is generally unfriendly and morale is low.

Maybe some people are more geared to it than others, but my two friends there are absolutely miserable.