Top Law Schools

When choosing between a NYC V50 firm and a secondary market firm it's clear that the take-home pay after student loans and cost of living are factored in will be much higher in the secondary market than at the NYC firm. That, combined with considering the QOL factor, the decision seems to point distinctly to the secondary market firm. But, considering that I may not be cut out for big law life forever, I'm still thinking about potential exit options (lateral/in house/big gov) down the road.

To what extent does a NYC firm truly offer more/better exit options than working at a regionally strong secondary market firm? Is it worth the severe cut in take home pay?

Probably not but you really need to say more about the firms at issue what you want to do etc.

okaygo wrote:When choosing between a NYC V50 firm and a secondary market firm it's clear that the take-home pay after student loans and cost of living are factored in will be much higher in the secondary market than at the NYC firm. That, combined with considering the QOL factor, the decision seems to point distinctly to the secondary market firm. But, considering that I may not be cut out for big law life forever, I'm still thinking about potential exit options (lateral/in house/big gov) down the road.

To what extent does a NYC firm truly offer more/better exit options than working at a regionally strong secondary market firm? Is it worth the severe cut in take home pay?

Great question. Would love to hear what others say. I think the answer will be "depends." What are your goals? Where do you want to end up long term? What does your SO/family say? What practice area are you in? All those questions need to be answered to really know.

I had hoped to keep it general because a) I do not want to out myself and b) I thought the advice could potentially be useful for many 2Ls making this decision as well. The firms are both solid options in terms of giving me the experience I would want for my desired practice area.

I think there is unlikely to be a measurable difference, especially if you want to stay in the market where you're thinking of accepting. You shouldn't work in NY just because you think it might give you some nebulous boost later.

Totally depends on what practice area you want to do and what you want to exit into

okaygo wrote:I had hoped to keep it general because a) I do not want to out myself

You know you could have posted anonymously.

Assuming you want to do corporate law, NY has more jobs so easier to lateral, whether it be to another firm (super easy) or in-house.

KMart wrote:

okaygo wrote:I had hoped to keep it general because a) I do not want to out myself

You know you could have posted anonymously.

I know, but I felt that the b) of that post kind of precluded the addition of specificity.

Thanks for the advice everyone! I am more interested in litigation though, if that helps in any advice.

I think you really need to be more specific to get worthwhile advice. There are just too many factors to consider to give a one size fits all answer.

Asking a vague question like this to a forum full of law students/lawyers and expecting them to give anything beyond "It depends" is kinda a fool's errand IMO.

The lack of ability to give me a definitive answer is actually partially giving me the answer that I was looking for.

Okay ill give an answer

Secondary market over new york. It's difficult to imagine what new york offers to a young litigator that a good firm in another market does not.

NYC sucks for litigation. Securities/finance litigation is so narrow, go on for year and never go to trial and it's the bulk of what NYC firms do. I guess it's prestigious so you can go clerk and then get a job somewhere else but why waste time in NY to begin with?

The #1 factor should be the extent to which you want to live and/or practice in NYC, followed closely by the extent to which it's important for your practice preferences to be in or near NYC.

But if you're looking at this from a dollars and cents point of view, think long term. NYC salaries and bonuses tend to progress tremendously faster than other markets, and there really are a wealth of exit opportunities.

I faced a similar dilemma and chose secondary market for better life quality, the ability to buy a McMansion and lake house as a junior associate, and the ability to obtain much more substantive work than I would as a young lawyer in NYC. You'd soon realize that increased pay does not necessarily equate to happiness. My circumstance may be different but I am not looking to exit after 2-5 years. This played a significant role in choosing a firm.

Anonymous User wrote:I faced a similar dilemma and chose secondary market for better life quality, the ability to buy a McMansion and lake house as a junior associate, and the ability to obtain much more substantive work than I would as a young lawyer in NYC. You'd soon realize that increased pay does not necessarily equate to happiness. My circumstance may be different but I am not looking to exit after 2-5 years. This played a significant role in choosing a firm.

I did the same thing but in a tertiary market (not because of the McMansion and lake house stuff because I mostly focused on loans, but the other stuff). I did decide to exit after three years, and the substantive work experience, client contact, and early contact with other firms led to better exit opportunities than I think I would have had coming out of a V50 in NYC as a litigator. Ended up at a dream job in a major market.