Economic crisis: Which SV firm most likely to not fire associates? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all,

I'm interested in startup/VC practices and have offers from a variety of firms: WSGR, Cooley, Sidley, Orrick, Goodwin, Gunderson, Skadden, and Latham. Market turmoil has made me wonder about job security down the road.

Questions:

(1) Which firm is least likely to lay off (LO) associates?
(2) how much should this factor into my decision?
(3) Any thoughts about how to get better data?

Here's what I could dig up about the past. I couldn't find data on distributions across regions.

Cooley: 2001 (86/500 attorneys laid off). 2008 (82/725 laid off)
Gunderson: 2001 (14). 2008 (13).
Orrick: 2001 (0). 2008 (160).
Latham: 2001 (?). 2008 (190).
Goodwin: 2001 (?). 2008 (38 in Boston, 4 in CA)
Sidley: 2001 (?). 2008 (89)
Skadden: 2001 (?). 2008 (0)
Perkins: 2001 (?). 2008 (12).

[84651846190]

100% impossible to predict within any degree of acceptable accuracy. At some (most?) of these firms, there has been management changeover (most notably at Latham). There are innumerable other reasons why past layoffs do not predict future ones, but I'm too lazy to flesh them all out (and wouldn't have time to do that anyway).

[Desert Fox]

[Anonymous User]

bump

[WhiskeynCoke]

While your concerns are valid, this is a stupid way to pick your firm. Put simply, you can't tell which firm is most likely to fuck you over based on past data because many do so via stealth layoffs, etc. that aren't publicized. Also, any firm will readily shitcan you if economics demand it.

To address your underlying question (which firm to choose), you should pick based on practice area strength/focus & "fit"/culture. There are key differences amongst these firms and you should be educating yourself on this (i.e. do second looks).

1) If you're interested in start-up/VC practices, what are Skadden and Sidley doing on this list?
2) Do you have an industry preference re: Tech v. Life Sciences clients?
3) Would you rather be company-side or VC-side? Buy-side or sell-side?
4) Do you want to solely focus on early-stage companies? Do you prefer later stage companies (i.e. Uber-type clients)? Do you want a firm that has expertise with the full spectrum because you have no idea yet (likely)?

Just to throw out some examples, Gunderson focuses almost exclusively focuses on the earlier stage stuff (company & VC side), WSGR has a strong focus on Tech and has more mature clients (Twitter, etc.), Cooley does the full spectrum with an emphasis on Life Sciences (lots of IPOs), Latham does the full spectrum (somewhat) but tends to have more blue chip clients, etc....

Basically, what I'm saying is you need to do your homework here. The fact that you're considering Skadden for startup work is concerning.

[Anonymous User]

While your concerns are valid, this is a stupid way to pick your firm. Put simply, you can't tell which firm is most likely to fuck you over based on past data because many do so via stealth layoffs, etc. that aren't publicized. Also, any firm will readily shitcan you if economics demand it.

To address your underlying question (which firm to choose), you should pick based on practice area strength/focus & "fit"/culture. There are key differences amongst these firms and you should be educating yourself on this (i.e. do second looks).

1) If you're interested in start-up/VC practices, what are Skadden and Sidley doing on this list?
2) Do you have an industry preference re: Tech v. Life Sciences clients?
3) Would you rather be company-side or VC-side? Buy-side or sell-side?
4) Do you want to solely focus on early-stage companies? Do you prefer later stage companies (i.e. Uber-type clients)? Do you want a firm that has expertise with the full spectrum because you have no idea yet (likely)?

Just to throw out some examples, Gunderson focuses almost exclusively focuses on the earlier stage stuff (company & VC side), WSGR has a strong focus on Tech and has more mature clients (Twitter, etc.), Cooley does the full spectrum with an emphasis on Life Sciences (lots of IPOs), Latham does the full spectrum (somewhat) but tends to have more blue chip clients, etc....

Basically, what I'm saying is you need to do your homework here. The fact that you're considering Skadden for startup work is concerning.

Thanks so much for your thoughts. Responses to your questions below. Based on what you're saying, Cooley or GP might be the best bet?

1) If you're interested in start-up/VC practices, what are Skadden and Sidley doing on this list?

• I know Skadden isn't big in the ECVC space, but Sidley opened up an SV office in 2009 and has a sizable number of partners and associates (10-12 partners).

2) Do you have an industry preference re: Tech v. Life Sciences clients?

• Nope

3) Would you rather be company-side or VC-side? Buy-side or sell-side?

• Company side, but I'd ultimately want the option of doing either.

4) Do you want to solely focus on early-stage companies? Do you prefer later stage companies (i.e. Uber-type clients)? Do you want a firm that has expertise with the full spectrum because you have no idea yet (likely)?

• Full spectrum.

[Anonymous User]

I worked at Latham as a corporate paralegal during the downturn in SV. I would not EVER join that office under any circumstance. They lied to associates, threw them under the bus, did massive amounts of stealth layoffs (including, in some cases, giving no severance because attorneys with lower hours "should have known" they were going to be laid off), and when they did public layoffs, they added salt to the wound by telling several attorneys (who were good) that they were terrible and should re-evaluate why they were in law in the first place. So much of it was so highly unnecessary. Layoffs suck, but you don't need to be extra-awful to your employees who worked hard before $hit hit the fan.

I have also worked at WSGR. My understanding is that layoffs there were somewhat limited, but came in several waves over time, and, in some cases, did include first years. WSGR just had a very large summer class. Also, most WSGR associates are pretty unhappy--it's a cheap, perkless firm in terms of making it a nice place to work. They do dumb shit there like limit the number of copiers to encourage people to work paperlessly, but it really just makes staff and attys' lives more difficult. I would also not work there if you are a female associate--it's a pretty female-unfriendly environment, from what I experienced there. (Nothing overt, just a lot of women partners without kids or who wholly outsourced childcare to multiple au pairs.)

Your answers to the poster who asked you about the different types of practices shows that you still dont really get SV. So...do some homework before you show up. Just because a firm has an office in SV doesn't mean they have a presence or you'll ever work on SV-style work there. (Many "regular" clients need representation in SV.) So your answer about Sidley was nonsensical. You should learn what the difference between tech and life sciences would mean for you, as a corporate atty. (TCR - Lifesciences companies are often more of a bitch due to IP, JV agreements, and GCs who don't have strong corporate backgrounds). Understand that doing early stage companies limits you because you become "too expensive" to work on such matters, so full spectrum is the right answer.

[Anonymous User]

^^^^

To the above, how good is MoFo SF for "full spectrum?"

[Anonymous User]

I worked at Latham as a corporate paralegal during the downturn in SV. I would not EVER join that office under any circumstance. They lied to associates, threw them under the bus, did massive amounts of stealth layoffs (including, in some cases, giving no severance because attorneys with lower hours "should have known" they were going to be laid off), and when they did public layoffs, they added salt to the wound by telling several attorneys (who were good) that they were terrible and should re-evaluate why they were in law in the first place. So much of it was so highly unnecessary. Layoffs suck, but you don't need to be extra-awful to your employees who worked hard before $hit hit the fan.

I have also worked at WSGR. My understanding is that layoffs there were somewhat limited, but came in several waves over time, and, in some cases, did include first years. WSGR just had a very large summer class. Also, most WSGR associates are pretty unhappy--it's a cheap, perkless firm in terms of making it a nice place to work. They do dumb shit there like limit the number of copiers to encourage people to work paperlessly, but it really just makes staff and attys' lives more difficult. I would also not work there if you are a female associate--it's a pretty female-unfriendly environment, from what I experienced there. (Nothing overt, just a lot of women partners without kids or who wholly outsourced childcare to multiple au pairs.)

Your answers to the poster who asked you about the different types of practices shows that you still dont really get SV. So...do some homework before you show up. Just because a firm has an office in SV doesn't mean they have a presence or you'll ever work on SV-style work there. (Many "regular" clients need representation in SV.) So your answer about Sidley was nonsensical. You should learn what the difference between tech and life sciences would mean for you, as a corporate atty. (TCR - Lifesciences companies are often more of a bitch due to IP, JV agreements, and GCs who don't have strong corporate backgrounds). Understand that doing early stage companies limits you because you become "too expensive" to work on such matters, so full spectrum is the right answer.

THanks for the information. THis is really helpful.

(1) Could you say more about what kind of homework to do and how to do it (like what kinds of questions to look at, websites ,etc)? Your point about life sciences vs tech is really helpful for instance. I have been doing a lot of google searches and studying partner/associate profiles, but my sense is that you think that's not the right approach. Would appreciate a bit more guidance.

(2) did you have an opinion about Cooley?

[RedGiant]

THanks for the information. THis is really helpful.

(1) Could you say more about what kind of homework to do and how to do it (like what kinds of questions to look at, websites ,etc)? Your point about life sciences vs tech is really helpful for instance. I have been doing a lot of google searches and studying partner/associate profiles, but my sense is that you think that's not the right approach. Would appreciate a bit more guidance.

(2) did you have an opinion about Cooley?

1) This is not really stuff you'd find easily. I'd start by following TechCrunch, Re/Code, WSJ Digital (or whatever it's called now), Fortune Term Sheet newsletter and Fortune Data Sheet newsletter. If you have access to SV Business Journal, it does really in-depth profiles on GCs. For biotech, I like Fierce Biotech's newsletter.

2) Cooley is a good firm. It has a nice, friendly culture and people like working there. Some people think the friendliness is fake and there's still a tough environment underneath. I've never worked there (but have worked across from them a lot) and most people I've worked across from have been great. Cooley is also an old-school SV firm compared to some of the newer entrants like Latham or GP. Cooley also has a good cafeteria, FWIW.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks

[Anonymous User]

Big bump to this thread and huge thank-you to RedGiant and earlier posters.

I'm in a similar situation (albeit not as many offers as OP). Can someone comment on the risk exposure between native valley firms (W/C/F/G) and New York satellite offices (DPW/STB/Skadden)? My understanding is that DPW MP actually fared ok in the dot-com bust because of their expertise on debt-related work that nobody else knew how to do at the time (source: DPW interviewer). Wonder if anyone has more information for 2009-2010?

As for Cooley, the group that offered me does a lot of early stage work (company and VC). While I like tech work as personal interest, having a job during recession is absolutely the most important. My sense is that IPO and venture financing tend to dry up during recessions, especially tech busts. And in general, the work from company side won't be steady because the work will disappear when the company is bought (for financing) / IPOed (for IPO work), so partners are constantly on the lookout for new clients. (Source: various interviewers from W/C/F/G/M). The fact that some firms laid off first-years also makes me uneasy (read, firms having a larger class-size compared to previous year).

I am also considering some tax offers (deal support + independent revenue tax depts). It's actually a field I'm most interested in. My intuition is that tax withstand recession better than SV corporate. Would really appreciate if anyone has more information on the tax practices in SV.

[Anonymous User]

why are we talking like if we were about to be in a recession

[RedGiant]

Big bump to this thread and huge thank-you to RedGiant and earlier posters.

I'm in a similar situation (albeit not as many offers as OP). Can someone comment on the risk exposure between native valley firms (W/C/F/G) and New York satellite offices (DPW/STB/Skadden)?

I worked during the downturn in SV. While there are less financings overall, there's a lot of "company rep" work that you need to do, eventually, even if your clients are avoiding legal spend. A lot of places have to reprice their stock options, because underwater options are no incentive for employees. You will likely help with down round financings too, where the next round of financing is at a lower valuation. In my experience, if there's really a downturn, the VCs shut off the spigots to financing, but when push comes to shove and the company is faced with a shutdown decision, then the VCs will force really onerous terms on the next round. Down rounds can be pay-to-play, which may cause the non-playing, formerly preferred investors to be crammed down to common (so there's a bunch of admin work with the cap table, possibly cutting new certs, etc.). As an associate, you'd help with the numbers on this, and as a senior associate, negotiating the term sheets. Also, some clients really do shut down, so there's a lot involved with that too...layoff notices and labor stuff, dealing with residual IP, paying taxes, and finally dissolution of the corporate entity.

IPOs have historically been more cyclical...they just came back in 2011 after being almost dead for ~8-9 years! But companies do need financing regardless of the rates/terms they need to pay to get it--the market adjusts, somewhat. Overall, firms that have offices elsewhere (the satellite NY firms in SV) will have other revenue to smooth a really bad Valley contraction. However, frankly, if SV is suffering, so will those other offices. Personally, in my experiences watching atty layoffs, I would rather position myself to be in a smaller office of a bigger firm (so NY satellite offices) rather than one of many at F/C/WSGR/Gundo. Partners feel much worse laying off associates that they know have busted their asses for them, instead of anonymous kids who work in the other side of a giant building.

Know that the NY satellite offices have slightly different practices than the Valley firms--more late stage and public company work, more capital markets work, more M&A. I have worked across from Skadden and DPW, never Simpson, in SV (and I have done a lot of deals). Doesn't really mean anything other than that I saw Skadden and DPW at the Printer and whatnot. Personally, I have found DPW to treat its associates better than Skadden (at least that was true when I was in NY), but one of my friends' wives has been at Skadden SV for years and she likes it. So...anecdata suggests they're both probably fine. The NY firms will probably have to have layoffs too, if there's a big downturn. When I was at Latham in 2009, the layoffs were more pronounced in certain offices, but as a show of solidarity, the firm made nearly every office conduct them.

I am not in CA anymore, and I had the chance to throw some 3L resumes out there and perhaps move back to CA, but what's going on there makes me really, really nervous, so I am staying put and will lateral after the bloodbath. That's just me though. Hope this helps.

[Anonymous User]

Big bump to this thread and huge thank-you to RedGiant and earlier posters.

I'm in a similar situation (albeit not as many offers as OP). Can someone comment on the risk exposure between native valley firms (W/C/F/G) and New York satellite offices (DPW/STB/Skadden)?

I worked during the downturn in SV. While there are less financings overall, there's a lot of "company rep" work that you need to do, eventually, even if your clients are avoiding legal spend. A lot of places have to reprice their stock options, because underwater options are no incentive for employees. You will likely help with down round financings too, where the next round of financing is at a lower valuation. In my experience, if there's really a downturn, the VCs shut off the spigots to financing, but when push comes to shove and the company is faced with a shutdown decision, then the VCs will force really onerous terms on the next round. Down rounds can be pay-to-play, which may cause the non-playing, formerly preferred investors to be crammed down to common (so there's a bunch of admin work with the cap table, possibly cutting new certs, etc.). As an associate, you'd help with the numbers on this, and as a senior associate, negotiating the term sheets. Also, some clients really do shut down, so there's a lot involved with that too...layoff notices and labor stuff, dealing with residual IP, paying taxes, and finally dissolution of the corporate entity.

IPOs have historically been more cyclical...they just came back in 2011 after being almost dead for ~8-9 years! But companies do need financing regardless of the rates/terms they need to pay to get it--the market adjusts, somewhat. Overall, firms that have offices elsewhere (the satellite NY firms in SV) will have other revenue to smooth a really bad Valley contraction. However, frankly, if SV is suffering, so will those other offices. Personally, in my experiences watching atty layoffs, I would rather position myself to be in a smaller office of a bigger firm (so NY satellite offices) rather than one of many at F/C/WSGR/Gundo. Partners feel much worse laying off associates that they know have busted their asses for them, instead of anonymous kids who work in the other side of a giant building.

Know that the NY satellite offices have slightly different practices than the Valley firms--more late stage and public company work, more capital markets work, more M&A. I have worked across from Skadden and DPW, never Simpson, in SV (and I have done a lot of deals). Doesn't really mean anything other than that I saw Skadden and DPW at the Printer and whatnot. Personally, I have found DPW to treat its associates better than Skadden (at least that was true when I was in NY), but one of my friends' wives has been at Skadden SV for years and she likes it. So...anecdata suggests they're both probably fine. The NY firms will probably have to have layoffs too, if there's a big downturn. When I was at Latham in 2009, the layoffs were more pronounced in certain offices, but as a show of solidarity, the firm made nearly every office conduct them.

I am not in CA anymore, and I had the chance to throw some 3L resumes out there and perhaps move back to CA, but what's going on there makes me really, really nervous, so I am staying put and will lateral after the bloodbath. That's just me though. Hope this helps.

Thanks a ton redgiant. So to summarize, there is work to be done during an SV downturn, BUT, if job safety were your concern, going to one of the non-native SV firms less dependent on the tech sector is probably better (Skadden, DPW, maybe also sidley austin, goodwin procter)?

Gah, the hardest part of this is that it feels weird to choose a firm betting on whether the tech sector is going to go bust anytime soon. Given Goodwin's relatively strong presence in the valley despite being a non-valley native, perhaps they're the best bet given how fiscally conservative they are. You won't be getting the best emerging companies opportunities like you would at Cooley, but at least they'd be more likely to survive a downturn (but this is discounting the possibility that GP just shuts down their entire SV office). What do you think?

[WhiskeynCoke]

Big bump to this thread and huge thank-you to RedGiant and earlier posters.

I'm in a similar situation (albeit not as many offers as OP). Can someone comment on the risk exposure between native valley firms (W/C/F/G) and New York satellite offices (DPW/STB/Skadden)?

I worked during the downturn in SV. While there are less financings overall, there's a lot of "company rep" work that you need to do, eventually, even if your clients are avoiding legal spend. A lot of places have to reprice their stock options, because underwater options are no incentive for employees. You will likely help with down round financings too, where the next round of financing is at a lower valuation. In my experience, if there's really a downturn, the VCs shut off the spigots to financing, but when push comes to shove and the company is faced with a shutdown decision, then the VCs will force really onerous terms on the next round. Down rounds can be pay-to-play, which may cause the non-playing, formerly preferred investors to be crammed down to common (so there's a bunch of admin work with the cap table, possibly cutting new certs, etc.). As an associate, you'd help with the numbers on this, and as a senior associate, negotiating the term sheets. Also, some clients really do shut down, so there's a lot involved with that too...layoff notices and labor stuff, dealing with residual IP, paying taxes, and finally dissolution of the corporate entity.

IPOs have historically been more cyclical...they just came back in 2011 after being almost dead for ~8-9 years! But companies do need financing regardless of the rates/terms they need to pay to get it--the market adjusts, somewhat. Overall, firms that have offices elsewhere (the satellite NY firms in SV) will have other revenue to smooth a really bad Valley contraction. However, frankly, if SV is suffering, so will those other offices. Personally, in my experiences watching atty layoffs, I would rather position myself to be in a smaller office of a bigger firm (so NY satellite offices) rather than one of many at F/C/WSGR/Gundo. Partners feel much worse laying off associates that they know have busted their asses for them, instead of anonymous kids who work in the other side of a giant building.

Know that the NY satellite offices have slightly different practices than the Valley firms--more late stage and public company work, more capital markets work, more M&A. I have worked across from Skadden and DPW, never Simpson, in SV (and I have done a lot of deals). Doesn't really mean anything other than that I saw Skadden and DPW at the Printer and whatnot. Personally, I have found DPW to treat its associates better than Skadden (at least that was true when I was in NY), but one of my friends' wives has been at Skadden SV for years and she likes it. So...anecdata suggests they're both probably fine. The NY firms will probably have to have layoffs too, if there's a big downturn. When I was at Latham in 2009, the layoffs were more pronounced in certain offices, but as a show of solidarity, the firm made nearly every office conduct them.

I am not in CA anymore, and I had the chance to throw some 3L resumes out there and perhaps move back to CA, but what's going on there makes me really, really nervous, so I am staying put and will lateral after the bloodbath. That's just me though. Hope this helps.

Thanks a ton redgiant. So to summarize, there is work to be done during an SV downturn, BUT, if job safety were your concern, going to one of the non-native SV firms less dependent on the tech sector is probably better (Skadden, DPW, maybe also sidley austin, goodwin procter)?

Gah, the hardest part of this is that it feels weird to choose a firm betting on whether the tech sector is going to go bust anytime soon. Given Goodwin's relatively strong presence in the valley despite being a non-valley native, perhaps they're the best bet given how fiscally conservative they are. You won't be getting the best emerging companies opportunities like you would at Cooley, but at least they'd be more likely to survive a downturn (but this is discounting the possibility that GP just shuts down their entire SV office). What do you think?

The reason this feels weird is because, as I say above, its a fucking stupid way to pick your firm. If the tech sector blows up, everyone is fucked. Whether you get thrown under the bus will turn much more on who has your back at your firm.

As for your assessment of Goodwin v. Cooley, you basically just pulled this entirely out of your ass. I'm not sure what you mean by "the best emerging companies opportunities." Cooley is more established (native) in SV and thus has a slightly better-regarded practice, but the work will be very similar. The main differences are that Cooley does more IPOs, is far more selective in hiring, and has a less fratty culture than Goodwin.

In terms of economics, I'd say Cooley is probably the safer firm because Goodwin has grown super fast in the Valley in the last 5 years. They are also almost entirely dependent on a small handful of partners pulling in a stream of tech clients. For example, if Anthony McCusker leaves Goodwin, you're probably getting laid off.

Just to remind you of what I keep saying, every firm will readily fuck you if economics demand it:

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/03/nationwi ... ys-off-30/
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/nationwi ... san-diego/

I repeat, base your decision on practice area strength/focus and culture/ "fit."

[Anonymous User]

great thanks, I agree!

[Anonymous User]

Big bump to this thread and huge thank-you to RedGiant and earlier posters.

I'm in a similar situation (albeit not as many offers as OP). Can someone comment on the risk exposure between native valley firms (W/C/F/G) and New York satellite offices (DPW/STB/Skadden)?

I worked during the downturn in SV. While there are less financings overall, there's a lot of "company rep" work that you need to do, eventually, even if your clients are avoiding legal spend. A lot of places have to reprice their stock options, because underwater options are no incentive for employees. You will likely help with down round financings too, where the next round of financing is at a lower valuation. In my experience, if there's really a downturn, the VCs shut off the spigots to financing, but when push comes to shove and the company is faced with a shutdown decision, then the VCs will force really onerous terms on the next round. Down rounds can be pay-to-play, which may cause the non-playing, formerly preferred investors to be crammed down to common (so there's a bunch of admin work with the cap table, possibly cutting new certs, etc.). As an associate, you'd help with the numbers on this, and as a senior associate, negotiating the term sheets. Also, some clients really do shut down, so there's a lot involved with that too...layoff notices and labor stuff, dealing with residual IP, paying taxes, and finally dissolution of the corporate entity.

IPOs have historically been more cyclical...they just came back in 2011 after being almost dead for ~8-9 years! But companies do need financing regardless of the rates/terms they need to pay to get it--the market adjusts, somewhat. Overall, firms that have offices elsewhere (the satellite NY firms in SV) will have other revenue to smooth a really bad Valley contraction. However, frankly, if SV is suffering, so will those other offices. Personally, in my experiences watching atty layoffs, I would rather position myself to be in a smaller office of a bigger firm (so NY satellite offices) rather than one of many at F/C/WSGR/Gundo. Partners feel much worse laying off associates that they know have busted their asses for them, instead of anonymous kids who work in the other side of a giant building.

Know that the NY satellite offices have slightly different practices than the Valley firms--more late stage and public company work, more capital markets work, more M&A. I have worked across from Skadden and DPW, never Simpson, in SV (and I have done a lot of deals). Doesn't really mean anything other than that I saw Skadden and DPW at the Printer and whatnot. Personally, I have found DPW to treat its associates better than Skadden (at least that was true when I was in NY), but one of my friends' wives has been at Skadden SV for years and she likes it. So...anecdata suggests they're both probably fine. The NY firms will probably have to have layoffs too, if there's a big downturn. When I was at Latham in 2009, the layoffs were more pronounced in certain offices, but as a show of solidarity, the firm made nearly every office conduct them.

I am not in CA anymore, and I had the chance to throw some 3L resumes out there and perhaps move back to CA, but what's going on there makes me really, really nervous, so I am staying put and will lateral after the bloodbath. That's just me though. Hope this helps.

Thanks a ton redgiant. So to summarize, there is work to be done during an SV downturn, BUT, if job safety were your concern, going to one of the non-native SV firms less dependent on the tech sector is probably better (Skadden, DPW, maybe also sidley austin, goodwin procter)?

Gah, the hardest part of this is that it feels weird to choose a firm betting on whether the tech sector is going to go bust anytime soon. Given Goodwin's relatively strong presence in the valley despite being a non-valley native, perhaps they're the best bet given how fiscally conservative they are. You won't be getting the best emerging companies opportunities like you would at Cooley, but at least they'd be more likely to survive a downturn (but this is discounting the possibility that GP just shuts down their entire SV office). What do you think?

The reason this feels weird is because, as I say above, its a fucking stupid way to pick your firm. If the tech sector blows up, everyone is fucked. Whether you get thrown under the bus will turn much more on who has your back at your firm.

As for your assessment of Goodwin v. Cooley, you basically just pulled this entirely out of your ass. I'm not sure what you mean by "the best emerging companies opportunities." Cooley is more established (native) in SV and thus has a slightly better-regarded practice, but the work will be very similar. The main differences are that Cooley does more IPOs, is far more selective in hiring, and has a less fratty culture than Goodwin.

In terms of economics, I'd say Cooley is probably the safer firm because Goodwin has grown super fast in the Valley in the last 5 years. They are also almost entirely dependent on a small handful of partners pulling in a stream of tech clients. For example, if Anthony McCusker leaves Goodwin, you're probably getting laid off.

Just to remind you of what I keep saying, every firm will readily fuck you if economics demand it:

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/03/nationwi ... ys-off-30/
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/nationwi ... san-diego/

I repeat, base your decision on practice area strength/focus and culture/ "fit."

How do you measure culture/fit? I had a my best callback experience at Orrick, but I don't know how much to weigh that or if that really means anything. I'm planning on emailing to talk to more partners and associates to see if I like them. How would you approach the fit question?

[RedGiant]

Gah, the hardest part of this is that it feels weird to choose a firm betting on whether the tech sector is going to go bust anytime soon. Given Goodwin's relatively strong presence in the valley despite being a non-valley native, perhaps they're the best bet given how fiscally conservative they are. You won't be getting the best emerging companies opportunities like you would at Cooley, but at least they'd be more likely to survive a downturn (but this is discounting the possibility that GP just shuts down their entire SV office). What do you think?

I don't think GP has appreciably worse emerging companies work than Cooley. Caine Moss has a great practice and GP is definitely sought out for good quality representation. Honestly, you seem like you're asking ME all this stuff, when you should be asking the firms more about their practices, how staffing works, which areas you'd get exposure to, whether you could work in a broad corporate practice or be more specialized. You need to better understand the differences between public company rep, and say, seed-stage work before you can pick firms. You can only learn this by asking tons of questions and going to lunch or having teleconferences with associates. Once you have the offer, there are no dumb questions (but try not to come off as a neurotic Chicken Little!). Good luck.