Mintz Levin (Boston) vs. Foley Hoag (Boston) Forum

[RoyalSox]

So I'm trying to decide between Mintz Levin or foley hoag in Boston or Willkie in NYC. I'd like to move back to Boston, but also don't want to make a career blunder early since Mintz and Foley aren't on the same level as a Ropes or Goodwin. I'm really interested in VC/Startup/Emerging Company work, but am also interested in Private Equity work. I've liked the 'culture,' people, and could see myself at all three.

Am I crazy to go to Foley or Mintz right off the bat, or am I better off going to NYC first, get to do solid PE work at Willkie, and then look to lateral down the road? Or should I just start off in Boston? And if so should I go to Foley who seems to have the better VC/Startup work, or Mintz who seems to have a better, well rounded practice?

PM's with good details would be awesome.

Here's My general Pros/Cons

Foley
Pros:
-Good Startup work
-Generally seems to be a solid "lifestyle" firm (at least as much as you can get that with corporate)
-Seems to give 100% offers
Cons:
-Less national recognition
-Seems to be lower pay (1st 160, 2nd 165, 3rd 170)

Mintz
Pros:
-More well rounded corporate practice
-More national recognition (albeit obviously nowhere near Ropes/Goodwin)
-NYC payscale
Cons:
-Has a history of no-offering a few people (was 100% last year, but still fucking terrifying)
-Startup work doesn't seem to be as good as Foley, and seems to be strictly on the Company side

Willkie
Pros:
-Better high end work
-PREFTIGE
-100% firm
-Seemingly better exit options
Cons:
-No VC/Startup work (but I'd still be really interested in PE)
-NYC. far from a deal-breaker, but I definitely prefer Boston
-Hours will be much more brutal (seemingly)

[Anonymous User]

Made a very similar decision. Ended up going with Skadden in NY, for similar reasons as you listed for Wilkie.

[Anonymous User]

I would not assume you will work less hard in Boston than NYC. For whatever reason Boston is a particularly grueling Biglaw culture.

[RoyalSox]

Talking to associates at Mintz, they're billing 1900-2100 on average, vs. the 2400 average corporate folks in NYC keep telling me on second looks. While I understand thats still going to be brutal, it seems less so than NYC. Haven't gotten a chance to talk to people at Foley about hours.

If anyone has better insight here feel free to PM me.

[dixiecupdrinking]

My two cents, if you want to go to Boston, go to Boston. Willkie is not such a world beating firm that you need to rearrange your life over it. Caveat is I don't know much about your preferred practice area.

[Anonymous User]

What do you want to do long term?

[Anonymous User]

I don't know enough about either Boston firm, but I'm almost positive I would pick either of those over Willkie if you want to end up in Boston. Granted, I'm going to an entirely different major market so this is just a thought exercise from outside, but here's my thought:

You'd rather be in Boston short and long term. The Boston firms seem to do the type of work you want whereas Willkie does not. In theory the hours should be at least a little less horrible than NY, though I've heard Willkie is almost considered a lifestyle firm compared to the V10 NY offices, so this one may be a wash. I interviewed with a different Willkie office, and while they are definitely a great firm, I didn't get the sense that this would be like turning down Skadden or something far more prestigious. Willkie is a second (or third?) tier NY firm, which would be great if you wanted to be in NY. When you add the difficulty of lateraling to Boston from NY (hassle to interview; Willkie has no Boston office, so you can't just put in for a transfer), I would narrow this to the two Boston firms.

[RoyalSox]

What do you want to do long term?

Probably would like to go in-house. I'd like to make it to year 5ish and then reevaluate my circumstances. I *think* I'd prefer to stay with the firm longer in Boston than in NYC, but I honestly have no idea and am trying to stay pretty flexible to kind of let that decision come to me.

As far as what I'd like to do in-house, I think I'd prefer to be on the company side, but I'm definitely not closing off the possibility of going the VC/PE firm route (or even bank route if I wind up more interested in finance work).

Here is where I get a bit lost and can't totally judge the benefits of each firm. It seems like the general idea is that the more you get exposed to high end M&A/Corporate work, the better you understand the corporate governance stuff and general business side of things necessary to be a Deputy/Assistant GC or GC of a smaller company. But it seems like you'd get this as well with VC funding/startup work and being on a client team as it evolves from start up to its exit.

[jhett]

Client relationships matter as well. If you want to go in-house in the Boston area, then firms that have more Boston-based clients (i.e. not Wilkie) will allow you to make the transition easier because the clients know you and have worked with you.

Also Boston is a somewhat insular market. If you don't have highly desirable or specialized skills (i.e. you're just another fungible corp associate), then Boston firms may question why you want to lateral over from NYC.

I'd rule out Wilkie. As for Foley v. Mintz, based on what I know and what you said I'd go with Foley. It has a good culture, does the kind of work you want to do, seems to be doing well financially, and has historical 100% offers. I have interviewed with both and liked Foley better.

I think the main thing you need to do is get over the prestige whoring. Worshiping at the altar of Vault will be to your detriment given your goals.

[RoyalSox]

Friday morning bump.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Look, your reasons for considering Willkie here are bad. They seem to come down to some NYC/prestige fetishization - and Willkie is not even a particularly prestigious firm. It doesn't do what you're interested in. It's in the wrong city.

You're focusing on "exit options" like that's a thing you can objectively maximize. You can't. You will be closing some doors here no matter what you do. If you go to Willkie, it sounds like you'll likely close some doors you care more about. Don't go into this thinking that working in NYC big law will sufficiently impress people to let you do whatever you want afterward. It doesn't work that way -- exit options are a function of what you do, for what types of businesses, and who you know.

If you want to work in a certain industry or type of company, in a certain city, then you should accept a job at the firm that works with that industry and those companies and is located in that city. It doesn't guarantee that you'll be on the path you want long term, but, as I said, you need to close some doors here.

Tldr relax and go with Foley.

[Anonymous User]

I made a similar decision to you a few years ago. While I can't help you pick between Mintz and Foley, I would absolutely rule Willkie out.

If your goal is to do emerging company/VC work in Boston, it will be hard to ultimately satisfy both upon leaving Willkie. Willkie is a fine firm, but you will be facing two hurdles in a few years when you lateral: 1) moving to a Boston firm, where spots for midlevel laterals is limited everywhere (the firms just aren't very big here), and 2) switching practice areas, since Boston is a market where firms have dedicated VC/emerging company/tech/life sciences departments (your skills in M&A or PE would ultimately translate fine, but it's another question mark on your resume). You should not delay the inevitable when Mintz and Foley definitively provide what you want, both geographically and as a substantive legal practice.

Also, again, Willkie is a great firm, but it's not a "can't-miss" firm in NY. They have a strong general corporate practice, but I'm not under the impression that their PE is so robust that it would skyrocket your exit options. If it was STB or K&E in the PE world, it might be a different story.

And to the above posters regarding lifestyle: Boston might *think* it's a grueling biglaw culture, but it's nothing compared to New York. Trust me. In Boston, "grueling" means 1900-2100 billables. That's the bare minimum in New York, even at a firm like Willkie. Enjoy the softer hours and the lower cost of living (it's a lot lower than NY than you think).

[RoyalSox]

Awesome, thanks for the help everyone. I think everyone's thoughts here has also been my general position, I just wanted to make sure that it was the right thinking before I shut down everything in NYC. Now I just need to figure out the Boston thing, but also think I'm leaning Foley.

[RoyalSox]

Anyone in the know want to comment about Mintz vs. Foley now that it's down to them? I'm getting conflicting advice on my end and just want to confirm that Foley is a better choice. Would it change a whole lot if I wanted to keep my options open, but still being strictly corporate, rather than be focused on Startup/Emerging Company/VC work?