Top Law Schools

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:32 am**

T14 2L here considering offers from firms and looking for advice. Here's the scoop: I ultimately want to end up making a career in my large but non-NYC/CHI/DC/LA home market. I have offers from top firms in that market that do the work that want to do, but I also have some offers from more well known firms in NYC. The firms in NYC (for the most part) do that type of work at a higher level with bigger clients on more complex issues. I'm not a prestige type of person, but these firms have just about as much of that as you can get.

My question is whether there is a benefit to beginning at one of these NYC name-brand firms? I know there are a lot of laterals in my home market from NYC, and those types of people tend to do quite well (i.e. making partner, etc.). However, I'm not sure whether this is because they get better training/reputations from those NYC firms, or whether I'm just trying to pull a trend out where there isn't one. Also, it's entirely possible that these people simply couldn't handle the more intense NYC experience, and just changed markets for a change of pace (rather than using it as a starting point to boost their career). Does anybody see a reason why I should hold off on heading "home" by taking a job in NYC for a couple years? Does starting in NYC help open up other options in secondary markets outside of local firms (i.e. academic, judicial - I know it's a long shot, in house, or government)?

Some other relevant facts:
Yes, I'm comfortable living in NYC. However, it would take a substantial difference in career prospects to stop me from taking offers in my home market. I would also strongly consider a clerkship as a catalyst to moving markets. Finally, I'm fully aware of how difficult it is to make partner anywhere, so I'm only talking about increased chances, not guarantees.

Thanks!!

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:51 am**

Start in NYC for sure. Best training. It's where the big shit is happening. And in some ways it's better to lateral in to a secondary market firm bc you're NY-trained and have had 4 less years to piss people off (which makes partner easier since at a lot of firms every partner has a veto right).

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:28 am**

I think there's a difference between starting in NYC and going to what most people consider a secondary market vs. Chi/LA/SF/DC. The latter are major markets and if you want to end up there, start there. I am at a large firm in the latter and every partner I know started in the market not NYC. Also you want to build up contacts in the market you're going to end up in for exit opportunities and/or clients. Why be in NYC for a couple years when you could be making those connections

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:46 am**

Anonymous User wrote:I think there's a difference between starting in NYC and going to what most people consider a secondary market vs. Chi/LA/SF/DC. The latter are major markets and if you want to end up there, start there. I am at a large firm in the latter and every partner I know started in the market not NYC. Also you want to build up contacts in the market you're going to end up in for exit opportunities and/or clients. Why be in NYC for a couple years when you could be making those connections

What about other markets like Atlanta/Boston/Dallas/Houston/Philly/San Diego? I'm going to one of those eventually and am curious if you have opinions on those?

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:57 am**

Starting in NYC for training is flame. Starting in NYC for prestige is slightly more legitimate, but if you know where you want to be long term and have the chance to go there, you should probably just do it now.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:05 am**

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Starting in NYC for training is flame. Starting in NYC for prestige is slightly more legitimate, but if you know where you want to be long term and have the chance to go there, you should probably just do it now.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:07 am**

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Starting in NYC for training is flame. Starting in NYC for prestige is slightly more legitimate, but if you know where you want to be long term and have the chance to go there, you should probably just do it now.

I very much agree with this. NYC is great to the extent you just want to keep doors open. But if you know you want to be in a secondary market long term, then of course you should go that route.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:36 am**

OP, thanks for making this. I am in this exact same position, and I imagine many of our peers are as well and I'd like to see as many responses as possible.

How much does city matter vs. the firm though? For example, are exit opportunities the same out of Jones Day Cleveland as they are Jones Day New York/DC? Or is it because the huge clients are generally in NY that makes for the high prestige and exit opps out of there?

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:56 am**

Different Anon:

Would the same analysis apply for DC firms?

Serious Q: would going to Covington/Arnold & Porter/Williams & Connolly DC make it harder for me to lateral back into NYC or a secondary market later?

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:04 am**

I think this depends to some extent on whether you want to do corporate or litigation. Based on the clerkship mention, I'm guessing lit?

I am making a similar choice right now (V5 NYC or one of the top firms in a non-NYC major market). I will probably choose the V5 NYC firm, but I'll be doing corporate. If I were planning on lit, the decision would be very different.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:14 am**

Also checking in. While I'm pretty sure I want to return to my home/secondary market eventually, I can't say that I'm positive on that point. My thinking (perhaps incorrect) is that I can start in NYC and lateral to secondary market with much greater ease than I could do the inverse. Essentially if I want to do both I can have it one way but not the other. I understand that if I were 100% set on secondary market then starting there would be the right thing to do (I've been told as much by a number of associates and partners in that market, a number of whom started in NYC/DC/Chi.). Interested to gather more data points though.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:24 am**

I would start in the market paying cities over NYC, not sure about the others. Really, what are the odds you will want to lateral INTO NYC. That seems pretty unusual, and like a step down. Just "keeping all doors open" for the same of it seems like a worse idea than actually seizing what you want. Maybe the reason all those people are lateraling out of NYC is because they'd rather be somewhere else.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:31 am**

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Starting in NYC for training is flame. Starting in NYC for prestige is slightly more legitimate, but if you know where you want to be long term and have the chance to go there, you should probably just do it now.

This. Don't overthink it folks.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:52 am**

lol @ biglaw "training" being a reason to spend years in a market you don't actually want to practice in.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:03 pm**

Worse hours, probably less client contact, maybe in a different specialty, and not establishing contacts where you want to build your career? NYC sounds like a GREAT place for you to go. Really the only caveat is if you change your mind about wanting to be in your market long term, as that might be a tougher transition

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:10 pm**

JamMasterJ wrote:Worse hours, probably less client contact, maybe in a different specialty, and not establishing contacts where you want to build your career? NYC sounds like a GREAT place for you to go. Really the only caveat is if you change your mind about wanting to be in your market long term, as that might be a tougher transition

I understand these are all drawbacks. Really I guess I just want to live and work in NYC for a few years. I know a lot of people, including future-me, might think that's stupid. Also, even when factoring in much cheaper COL, compensation in secondary market does not keep pace.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:12 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:I think this depends to some extent on whether you want to do corporate or litigation. Based on the clerkship mention, I'm guessing lit?

I am making a similar choice right now (V5 NYC or one of the top firms in a non-NYC major market). I will probably choose the V5 NYC firm, but I'll be doing corporate. If I were planning on lit, the decision would be very different.

OP anon here: how would lit change your decision?

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:19 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:Worse hours, probably less client contact, maybe in a different specialty, and not establishing contacts where you want to build your career? NYC sounds like a GREAT place for you to go. Really the only caveat is if you change your mind about wanting to be in your market long term, as that might be a tougher transition
I understand these are all drawbacks. Really I guess I just want to live and work in NYC for a few years. I know a lot of people, including future-me, might think that's stupid. Also, even when factoring in much cheaper COL, compensation in secondary market does not keep pace.

What are you using to calculate the difference in COL? I was using http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/ which shows a 145k starting salary in Pittsburgh is equal to 335k in NYC. Now if an associate were to make it to their year 7 or 8 in NYC they will probably outpace that Pittsburgh associate--but early on out of law school it seems the money goes so, so much further in those smaller regional markets than NYC. Am I missing something?

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:27 pm**

I'm corporate and I just chose a large local firm in a small market (home) over an NYC v5 after summering at both. For me, it came down to where I wanted to be longer term and where I could see my self being happy short term. It wasn't easy and even attorneys at my small market firm said that the v5 was the better choice from purely a work experience point of view. But it came down to other factors for me, and the work experience would still be great.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:32 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:Worse hours, probably less client contact, maybe in a different specialty, and not establishing contacts where you want to build your career? NYC sounds like a GREAT place for you to go. Really the only caveat is if you change your mind about wanting to be in your market long term, as that might be a tougher transition
I understand these are all drawbacks. Really I guess I just want to live and work in NYC for a few years. I know a lot of people, including future-me, might think that's stupid. Also, even when factoring in much cheaper COL, compensation in secondary market does not keep pace.
What are you using to calculate the difference in COL? I was using http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/ which shows a 145k starting salary in Pittsburgh is equal to 335k in NYC. Now if an associate were to make it to their year 7 or 8 in NYC they will probably outpace that Pittsburgh associate--but early on out of law school it seems the money goes so, so much further in those smaller regional markets than NYC. Am I missing something?

Using anon b/c smaller markets are smaller, so I wont specify which market I'm comparing, but using that calculator and inputting Brooklyn (would live in BK or Jersey) basically puts comp in NYC and secondary market the same in year one. By year two it isn't keeping pace. Lots of secondary markets are attractive places to live/work and have a glut of local/regional law students who are more than happy to take market pay. Note, comp isn't a primary concern of mine, just a marginal one.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:34 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:Worse hours, probably less client contact, maybe in a different specialty, and not establishing contacts where you want to build your career? NYC sounds like a GREAT place for you to go. Really the only caveat is if you change your mind about wanting to be in your market long term, as that might be a tougher transition
I understand these are all drawbacks. Really I guess I just want to live and work in NYC for a few years. I know a lot of people, including future-me, might think that's stupid. Also, even when factoring in much cheaper COL, compensation in secondary market does not keep pace.
What are you using to calculate the difference in COL? I was using http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/ which shows a 145k starting salary in Pittsburgh is equal to 335k in NYC. Now if an associate were to make it to their year 7 or 8 in NYC they will probably outpace that Pittsburgh associate--but early on out of law school it seems the money goes so, so much further in those smaller regional markets than NYC. Am I missing something?
Using anon b/c smaller markets are smaller, so I wont specify which market I'm comparing, but using that calculator and inputting Brooklyn (would live in BK or Jersey) basically puts comp in NYC and secondary market the same in year one. By year two it isn't keeping pace. Lots of secondary markets are attractive places to live/work and have a glut of local/regional law students who are more than happy to take market pay. Note, comp isn't a primary concern of mine, just a marginal one.

yeah this is a good point--I hadn't been putting in Brooklyn, only Manhattan, and I didn't realize what a huge difference that can make. I'm with you on the compensation thing (I would like to pay off my loans), but I am more interested in the possible benefits for the latter part of my career that may be derived from NYC over a regional market

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:43 pm**

OP, I just read through your post a few times and I'm still looking for a compelling reason for you to go to nyc.

Anonymous User wrote: I ultimately want to end up making a career in my large but non-NYC/CHI/DC/LA home market I have offers from top firms in that market that do the work that want to do, but I also have some offers from more well known firms in NYC. The firms in NYC (for the most part) do that type of work at a higher level with bigger clients on more complex issues. I'm not a prestige type of person, but these firms have just about as much of that as you can get.

You're not a prestige guy which takes away the biggest reason for anyone to go to nyc, but even if you were, the prestige play is probably the "top firms" in your home market assuming your home market really is a major secondary (i assume that you're the atl/philly/boston/texas/sd anon) and you really do have an offer from one of the top firms in that market (king & spaulding or alston bird in atl, morgan lewis or drinker biddle in philly, etc). Bc you know why? Most lawyers don't look at vault rankings and can't distinguish big nyc firm #1 that they have vaguely heard of from big nyc firm #2 that they've vaguely heard of. You apparently have a chance to start your career at a firm in your target market that every single lawyer in your target market knows and respects and which probably has lateral associates and partners all over that city. To the attorneys you will be working with if you go to that market, that firm carries more weight than a big nyc firm.

Anonymous User wrote:My question is whether there is a benefit to beginning at one of these NYC name-brand firms? I know there are a lot of laterals in my home market from NYC, and those types of people tend to do quite well (i.e. making partner, etc.). However, I'm not sure whether this is because they get better training/reputations from those NYC firms, or whether I'm just trying to pull a trend out where there isn't one. Also, it's entirely possible that these people simply couldn't handle the more intense NYC experience, and just changed markets for a change of pace (rather than using it as a starting point to boost their career). Does anybody see a reason why I should hold off on heading "home" by taking a job in NYC for a couple years? Does starting in NYC help open up other options in secondary markets outside of local firms (i.e. academic, judicial - I know it's a long shot, in house, or government)?

As people all over this thread are saying, the better training/better work rationale really doesn't make a ton of sense especially if your non-nyc option is also big fish, big pond biglaw. Starting in nyc does open up in house and judicial options if you want to go in house with an nyc corporation or be on the bench in ny or nj, but if you want to be a judge or in-house in your target market, you need to make connections with lawyers/clients in your target market.

Which brings me to the reason why you should take nyc: if you want to be a new york attorney, or if you want to be a target market attorney but struck out in your target market while doing wildly well in nyc. Neither one of those sounds like it's true. Nyc is definitely a great opportunity for you, but you'll never have a better opportunity than now if you want a big-time career in your target city.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:49 pm**

and bc it looks like people are justifying, I (above) used anon bc I probably shouldn't be seen talking you out of a big nyc firm. good luck!

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:35 pm**

Anonymous User wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:Worse hours, probably less client contact, maybe in a different specialty, and not establishing contacts where you want to build your career? NYC sounds like a GREAT place for you to go. Really the only caveat is if you change your mind about wanting to be in your market long term, as that might be a tougher transition
I understand these are all drawbacks. Really I guess I just want to live and work in NYC for a few years. I know a lot of people, including future-me, might think that's stupid. Also, even when factoring in much cheaper COL, compensation in secondary market does not keep pace.

Well... No, if you want to live and work in NYC then you obviously should. There's nothing stupid about that. What is stupid is turning down an opportunity to work where you want to work now, in order to get some sort of perceived cachet from working in NYC first.

Posted: **Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:33 pm**

OP, just to add my perspective. I'm coming off clerking, and would eventually want to end up in the small market where I grew up. It's smaller than the ones you've mentioned; first year associates start around $105/110k. They also don't pay any clerkship bonus.

I'm heading to NYC for a few years because money is just so much better. The cost of living calculators are really not accurate in many ways. Rent is obviously much higher, and taxes are higher, but most stuff, controlling for the same quality of stuff, doesn't cost that much more in New York than it does in suburbia. Plus you don't have to pay for a car. After 3-4 years of living in NYC, I should be able to have my student loans paid off and enough money for a 20% down payment on a 300k house, which is basically a mansion where I want to live. That kind of financial independence would probably take 8-10 years if I went straight into the small market, plus I get the benefit of getting to have a good time living in NYC for a few years. (Yes, I know the job will suck, but living in the city is at least fun.)

Top Law Schools

Starting career in NYC 1st Forum

Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st

Re: Starting career in NYC 1st