Shearman and sterling or fried frank?
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:05 pm
Alright tls, it's time to decide this week, and I've narrowed it to the two. Since your collective wisdom has never steered me wrong, especially since I've ignored it when it was obviously wrong, I'm seeking your input one last time!
A little about me (mostly unhelpful):
CCN, debt free merit scholar. I don't know whether I want to litigate or transact, which is a bullshit thing to claim to know as a 2L barring prior experience. I do think certain loose connections I have could make real estate an attractive choice, which favors fried frank, but I also have long term academic inclinations and there seem to be a good number of people publishing at Shearman and Sterling- and academia seems to be more friendly to litigators.
I don't plan to make partner, and that being the case, good exit options from biglaw are important to me if the professor thing doesn't work out. That's a reason to favor transactional.
I may clerk. That's a reason to favor litigation.
Now that my *totally* unclear career path is out on the table, which firm, basically in a vacuum, sounds like the better option?
Priorities are
A) quality of life in firm
B) quality of post firm life (aka exit options, largely determined by preftige of firm and practice group).
If your answer is aimed at helpfully disabusing me of the notion of work-life balance, please just don't hit submit to clutter the page. Everyone who has billed 2500 one year and 2100 another knows the difference. Responses from practicing attorneys strongly preferred.
Thanks!
A little about me (mostly unhelpful):
CCN, debt free merit scholar. I don't know whether I want to litigate or transact, which is a bullshit thing to claim to know as a 2L barring prior experience. I do think certain loose connections I have could make real estate an attractive choice, which favors fried frank, but I also have long term academic inclinations and there seem to be a good number of people publishing at Shearman and Sterling- and academia seems to be more friendly to litigators.
I don't plan to make partner, and that being the case, good exit options from biglaw are important to me if the professor thing doesn't work out. That's a reason to favor transactional.
I may clerk. That's a reason to favor litigation.
Now that my *totally* unclear career path is out on the table, which firm, basically in a vacuum, sounds like the better option?
Priorities are
A) quality of life in firm
B) quality of post firm life (aka exit options, largely determined by preftige of firm and practice group).
If your answer is aimed at helpfully disabusing me of the notion of work-life balance, please just don't hit submit to clutter the page. Everyone who has billed 2500 one year and 2100 another knows the difference. Responses from practicing attorneys strongly preferred.
Thanks!