NRF v. VE (Houston) Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
hakeemthedream
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:45 pm
NRF v. VE (Houston)
Found today I have two offers for summer first-half; Houston; solely interested in litigation; what do I do; please help/give me reasoning why I should choose either firm?
-
DoubleChecks
- Posts: 2328
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm
Re: NRF v. VE (Houston)
My gut was to say VE, but you did say solely interested in litigation...hmm...hakeemthedream wrote:Found today I have two offers for summer first-half; Houston; solely interested in litigation; what do I do; please help/give me reasoning why I should choose either firm?
Last I heard, VE and BB were gearing away from litigation, while I do know NRF, or at least FJ, always had a soft spot for litigation in its practice haha. Probably part of the reason why their finances somewhat tanked a few years ago.
I would check to see NRF's financial stability (Houston office specifically) and confirm that they are still very much focused on litigation. If those pan out, I'd take NRF over VE. Getting BB or VE lit offers are harder today due to their focus shifting away from it...and it is troublesome to be in a practice group the firm itself views as "not the future" in its strategic focus.
-
BigZuck
- Posts: 11730
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am
Re: NRF v. VE (Houston)
^ this post pretty much aligns with what Ive heard
I think I'd probably take the V&E offer and try to convince myself to at least be open to transactional work
I think I'd probably take the V&E offer and try to convince myself to at least be open to transactional work
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432509
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NRF v. VE (Houston)
I turned down V&E because I was litigation focused.Same reasons as above poster. I would have taken NRF over V&E. One thing to ask is how many of their 1Ls they offered last year (I'm assuming you're a 1L). If there's no meaningful difference in those numbers, take NRF.
-
BearLaw
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:23 pm
Re: NRF v. VE (Houston)
If you seriously want Litigation, take NRF. If you think you might want to try transactional, at all, go V&E. V&E is head and shoulders above NRF in transactional work in Houston, but they have almost no litigation department anymore.
I know NRF had at least one 1L last summer, and invited them back for their 2L summer. Not sure how many others they may have had, or V&E numbers.
PM me if you want more insight about Houston firms.
I know NRF had at least one 1L last summer, and invited them back for their 2L summer. Not sure how many others they may have had, or V&E numbers.
PM me if you want more insight about Houston firms.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
hakeemthedream
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:45 pm
Re: NRF v. VE (Houston)
Right on. Thanks for the advice guys, much appreciated.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432509
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NRF v. VE (Houston)
Word on the street is that NRF over-hired 2Ls to its corporate/M&A sections this year and they might not even be making many/any offers next year for corporate.
