Latham LA vs. WSGR SV? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Would love to hear some thoughts on these two firms/offices. Both seem great and in the same "tier" of CA firms, and I feel like I really clicked with the associates at both CBs. Given how it's really a coin-flip for me right now, any seemingly insignificant piece of info might be helpful in my decision.

I'm 100% transactional, but don't really know what subgroup or industry I want to be in beyond that (e.g. it's not like I'm dying to work in Tech) and don't really have a strong preference between the two cities. I would love to hear your thoughts and anecdotes about the pros/cons of the two firms/offices, rumors about culture, the types of exits you can expect, living in LA v. Palo Alto, and anything else I should consider.

Thanks!

[OutoftheWoods]

After a range of stupid choice threads where there isn't even a choice involved, this is refreshing.

Very interesting dilemma here...both are very good. If you have no interest in start up work, Latham will probably be more broader. You don't have a preference of LA or SV? Any other reason to choose the other firm is honestly negligible over location. That should be the primary factor.

If you don't care about where you live, I'd go with Latham since it probably has the best exit options with the breadth of the practice. Also, I believe the hours are not as bad as WSGR (I've heard WSGR is a sweatshop basically).

[Anonymous User]

They are both elite corporate practices in CA and you will work a lot at both firms. Your choice should come down to:

(1) Location - LA and SV really could not be more different.
(2) Personality/Culture
(3) Do you want to exit to a tech company or to a big blue chip type of place?

[Anonymous User]

Latham still makes me kind of uneasy for how big on boom/bust they are.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone else with thoughts on this topic?

[Anonymous User]

As someone who's lived in both LA and SF, I think your decision should be made on the basis of location. If you go with WSGR, you will be likely to exit into a SV-based company. At Latham, more likely an LA firm / office. Both firms are great firms. The difference between LA and SF is the significant factor. Where do you want to live?

[jphiggo]

I agree with the above poster. Outside of the different types of practice areas of each firm, it seem geography would certainly be the biggest factor with this decision. I think if you can figure out which city you want to live and work in, you've solved this problem.

[iamgeorgebush]

After a range of stupid choice threads where there isn't even a choice involved, this is refreshing.

Very interesting dilemma here...both are very good. If you have no interest in start up work, Latham will probably be more broader. You don't have a preference of LA or SV? Any other reason to choose the other firm is honestly negligible over location. That should be the primary factor.

If you don't care about where you live, I'd go with Latham since it probably has the best exit options with the breadth of the practice. Also, I believe the hours are not as bad as WSGR (I've heard WSGR is a sweatshop basically).

Just to be clear, Wilson Sonsini Palo Alto does little "start-up work." Rather, that office mostly works with mature-stage tech companies like Google. If you do want to do start-up work, WSGR would be the better place (especially since their SF office does do quite a bit of start-up work, and you might be able to transfer after a couple years), but just realize that you probably won't be doing much of that as an associate in the Palo Alto office.

The real differences between the two, IMO, are tech v. non-tech (WSGR works primarily with tech companies, whereas Latham works with clients in a variety of different industries, including both public corporations and PE firms) and Silicon Valley v. LA. Personally, I would prefer LA to Palo Alto, but that's just me. Palo Alto is incredibly boring, so you'd probably be living in San Francisco and commuting. There are supposedly buses with WiFi that go to WSGR, so I guess you could bill your commute time, but it's definitely a downside IMO. If you were at Latham in LA, on the other hand, you could live downtown and walk to work or live in Echo Park or another neighborhood that's not too far away, so your commute wouldn't be as bad. Also, LA is cheaper than Palo Alto and San Francisco.

[jbagelboy]

(1) Location - LA and SV really could not be more different.

I mean, SV is basically Irvine, and Irvine is basically an extended suburb of LA. And Palo Alto is basically Pasadena. So I'm not sure I'd agree with this. LA just has other parts to it that are pretty different because it's such a massive and diverse place.

[Anonymous User]

OP-- did you make a decision yet? I'm in an almost identical situation and am curious about your thoughts.

[Anonymous User]

I have worked at Latham and WSGR, but both in SV as a paralegal for ~5 years total (but spent more time in SV legal world too). My group at WSGR had an ex-Latham LA associate. He ran screaming from there because he did debt work and that's mostly what the Latham LA office did and he hated the partners and the LA office. He had no opportunity to do other stuff. He was a good atty, nice guy and really didn't have nice things to say about it.

I can attest that WSGR works its associates very hard, but I bet Latham LA does too. To me, the difference would be the actual practices you'd be doing. Debt work is not mobile--it's hard to move in-house and your skillset is not very transferable. Also, if you are doing PE M&A work (which the LA office also does) that is more transferable, but...not all the way.

WSGR has a really broad practice in SV. The poster above that said that WSGR does very little startup work is completely off base. It all depends on which group you're in at WSGR. Certain groups do a lot of seed-stage work (but also a lot of that work is shunted down to paralegals for cost reasons). Many groups do a lot of mid-stage or late stage work. Certain groups do more public company work. It really depends where you end up at WSGR. Certainly the seed-stage work is a loss leader and those groups are less powerful politically within WSGR, but they are well regarded in the Valley. WSGR has a dream client list in terms of household names and the exit opportunities are absolutely excellent. That said, their classes are getting much larger so it's not going to be "as special" to be a WSGR associate on a go-forward basis. WSGR doesn't do much to help their associates move in-house, but once they know a WSGR associate is in the running, they will lobby hard for you. Many of my attorneys are at marquis SV corporate clients. Everyone's landed where they want. You can also lateral to other firms relatively easily too--WSGR is well-respected. Hope this helps. I would definitely drill down into what type of work you'd be doing at either place.

I also highly disagree with the folks that said Palo Alto is boring. It's not. There's so many tech folks that live in the Valley that it's pretty vibrant. SF is only 35 miles away, which is a lot during rush hour, but great on weekends. I'd live in the Valley and hang in the City on weekends. It's easy to do that and you'll want somewhere near WSGR to crash if you work there. The commute is not ideal.