1L with median grades - stay the course or return to consulting? Forum

[Anonymous User]

don't think he's chasing prestige for the sake of prestige but moreso putting himself in a position with business-oriented exit options.

This captures the essence of what I am trying to get at.

LOL@all the vault trolling in this thread--as if it really makes a difference whether you're at a V10, a V20, or a "lower V100." Getting a job at a "V5" is not the equivalent of getting into HYSCC for law school.

OP, you write that you're worried about only obtaining "some random BigLaw job." All big law jobs are "random" in the sense that you mean. Some of these top vault shops are horrible places to work for associates, and some of the lower-ranked (or even non-ranked) firms will offer better opportunities for young associates. Stop mindlessly chasing prestige.

This makes sense logically, but I think you're missing my point. On average, firms that are ranked higher on Vault (taking into account that Vault has its flaws and weaknesses) likely have stronger exit opportunities for the average Associate than do those which are lower down. As I am still unclear about which practice areas I want to focus in and I don't have an opportunity until fall recruiting to figure that out beyond talking to practicing attorneys, my working assumption right now is to find a firm that gives me wide latitude in terms what I can do AND where I can go from there. So while Gunderson may be fantastic for VC/Tech (as another poster mentioned), I would rather not focus in so narrowly at this stage on specific firms that are particularly strong at a few things while I am still gauging my options on a high level.

I do apologize if some of you feel frustrated with my trepidation. This is a unique situation for me as I have been pretty successful in the past at being able to map out where I wanted to go/what I wanted to do. I'm trying to manage my expectations as best I can while staying optimistic about the future.

Finally, @jbagelboy, that urge to return to consulting is definitely strong, but I hear ya on sticking it out through fall recruiting.

[kcdc1]

OP, I get that you're the type of person who chooses to attend HLS over taking a scholarship at "some random" T14, but I still object to this world view. I'm sure you'll receive and accept an offer at a firm that is very highly ranked by Vault.com. Maybe it will be a job where you will develop useful skills, will be reasonably happy, and where you will get calls from recruiters looking to fill other positions that interest you. And maybe a less prestigious firm would have been better on one or all of those counts.

[favabeansoup]

This makes sense logically, but I think you're missing my point. On average, firms that are ranked higher on Vault (taking into account that Vault has its flaws and weaknesses) likely have stronger exit opportunities for the average Associate than do those which are lower down. As I am still unclear about which practice areas I want to focus in and I don't have an opportunity until fall recruiting to figure that out beyond talking to practicing attorneys, my working assumption right now is to find a firm that gives me wide latitude in terms what I can do AND where I can go from there. So while Gunderson may be fantastic for VC/Tech (as another poster mentioned), I would rather not focus in so narrowly at this stage on specific firms that are particularly strong at a few things while I am still gauging my options on a high level.

OP there are plenty of firms with a wide variety of highly ranked practice areas. Look for firms that will let you rotate between these groups during the summer so you can actually find what you like and not get shoehorned into just one.

Again, stop caring so much about vault rankings. I would love to see a statistic that one's exit options in a V10 are significantly better than in a V25-50+. So I actually disagree that the "average" associate has a better shot. There's just too many factors in play, be it practice area or substantive work experience or ability to move elsewhere besides NY.

The vault ranking methodology is, completely, asking associates ( not partners) what law firms are the most prestigious. It's a stupid popularity contest that in no way ranks firms based on career outlook, exit options, substantive training, etc, which are all the much more important factors in a job hunt.

EDIT: for full clarification. It's literally "how prestigious is the firm on a 1-10 scale". No joke. That's the ranking system.

So yes, it's an easy list to look up and say hey I should go for the highest one, but that's the wrong way to do this. Picking the right law firm for you is hard and takes lots of research and talking with associates/partners. But you also couldn't be in a better position to do that. Median at HYS will put you in the running for basically anything you want. Most of the people in big law were lucky to get any job at all, you have the chance to get the job you actually want. Don't screw it up chasing a stupid sense of prestige.

[favabeansoup]

^ accidental anon

[L’Étranger]

I'm sure some of y'all will read this post with derision

Yes

[ruski]

exit options have nothing to do with vault rankings, especially the type you're talking about. the only non-inhouse better exit option a v5 would give you over a v100 is to be an ibanker, which doesn't sound like something you want to do. sorry but working at STB does not mean yo'rer going to have PE shops begging you to join them (unless you mean as in-house counsel). The people who have gotten really interesting exit options (i.e. the business side of venture capital, other bus dev roles, etc.) have all done it through connections in my experience. I know someone at a v120 (if that exits) who is now heading up a PE's NY office (worked for an overseas PE firm at said firm very closely for several years as counsel, and they offered him the role; believe it or not v120s do represent PE firms and HFs, just not the ones you've heard of, and arguably you'll get better client contact at these firms). I've also seen some associates at some v5s who left to be hf analysts. no doubt their firm name carried weight but I personally know these kids came from affluent backgrounds whose dads had connections. my point is (non-inhouse) exit options from the legal field seem to be more driven my connections than vault ranking. even inhouse exit options don't seem to be correlated with vault. I can't tell you how many times I've looked up a GC or AGC's linkedin profile after working on a deal with them, and seen they come from a regular v100 firm

[Anonymous User]

I was median and H with a consulting background. I got 4 V15 callbacks, including Boies, and accepted a V10 offer. Many people in my position did much better.

[lawlorbust]

LOL@all the vault trolling in this thread--as if it really makes a difference whether you're at a V10, a V20, or a "lower V100." Getting a job at a "V5" is not the equivalent of getting into HYSCC for law school.

OP, you write that you're worried about only obtaining "some random BigLaw job." All big law jobs are "random" in the sense that you mean. Some of these top vault shops are horrible places to work for associates, and some of the lower-ranked (or even non-ranked) firms will offer better opportunities for young associates. Stop mindlessly chasing prestige.

I don't get this post at all.

There are problems with (1) mindlessly trying to get the most highly ranked firm and (2) not recognizing that any "law firm ranking" is going to be flawed and arbitrary. But it's at the very least a good shorthand for recognizing that there is a hierarchy of legal work and it's insane to think that not an important factor in thinking about whether to enter/continue with law school.

Please explain what "hierarchy of legal work" means. I've been practicing law for years and I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Sure. From weakest to strongest propositions:

(1) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are both "legal work"
(2) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are, however, different kinds of "legal work"
(3) Insurance defense is a shittier form of "legal work" than SCOTUS appellate practice is.

-> There is a hierarchy of legal work.

[rpupkin]

LOL@all the vault trolling in this thread--as if it really makes a difference whether you're at a V10, a V20, or a "lower V100." Getting a job at a "V5" is not the equivalent of getting into HYSCC for law school.

OP, you write that you're worried about only obtaining "some random BigLaw job." All big law jobs are "random" in the sense that you mean. Some of these top vault shops are horrible places to work for associates, and some of the lower-ranked (or even non-ranked) firms will offer better opportunities for young associates. Stop mindlessly chasing prestige.

I don't get this post at all.

There are problems with (1) mindlessly trying to get the most highly ranked firm and (2) not recognizing that any "law firm ranking" is going to be flawed and arbitrary. But it's at the very least a good shorthand for recognizing that there is a hierarchy of legal work and it's insane to think that not an important factor in thinking about whether to enter/continue with law school.

Please explain what "hierarchy of legal work" means. I've been practicing law for years and I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Sure. From weakest to strongest propositions:

(1) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are both "legal work"
(2) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are, however, different kinds of "legal work"
(3) Insurance defense is a shittier form of "legal work" than SCOTUS appellate practice is.

-> There is a hierarchy of legal work.

Ironic example. The strongest SCOTUS appellate practices are generally not at V10 firms. If you can't provide an actual definition of "hierarchy of legal work"--and I suspect you can't--why don't you provide an example of "shitty versus non-shitty forms of legal work" that actually correlates to Vault rankings and the opportunities an associate might have in practice?

[kotor]

Geography makes a big difference, too. Your calculus should depend on whether you're attending H or S (can't be Y, else you wouldn't yet have grades) and which market you're targeting. A "random" job on the West Coast differs from a "random" job in NYC, DC, or Boston.

[lawlorbust]

LOL@all the vault trolling in this thread--as if it really makes a difference whether you're at a V10, a V20, or a "lower V100." Getting a job at a "V5" is not the equivalent of getting into HYSCC for law school.

OP, you write that you're worried about only obtaining "some random BigLaw job." All big law jobs are "random" in the sense that you mean. Some of these top vault shops are horrible places to work for associates, and some of the lower-ranked (or even non-ranked) firms will offer better opportunities for young associates. Stop mindlessly chasing prestige.

I don't get this post at all.

There are problems with (1) mindlessly trying to get the most highly ranked firm and (2) not recognizing that any "law firm ranking" is going to be flawed and arbitrary. But it's at the very least a good shorthand for recognizing that there is a hierarchy of legal work and it's insane to think that not an important factor in thinking about whether to enter/continue with law school.

Please explain what "hierarchy of legal work" means. I've been practicing law for years and I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Sure. From weakest to strongest propositions:

(1) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are both "legal work"
(2) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are, however, different kinds of "legal work"
(3) Insurance defense is a shittier form of "legal work" than SCOTUS appellate practice is.

-> There is a hierarchy of legal work.

Ironic example. The strongest SCOTUS appellate practices are generally not at V10 firms. If you can't provide an actual definition of "hierarchy of legal work"--and I suspect you can't--why don't you provide an example of "shitty versus non-shitty forms of legal work" that actually correlates to Vault rankings and the opportunities an associate might have in practice?

Honestly, I think you're being pedantic. I didn't claim that there's an objective, "actual definition" of a "hierarchy of legal work" that goes down from V1 to V100; I just made the weaker claim that there is a generally accepted understanding that legal work is not the same, that some legal work is more desirable than others, and that the vault rankings are a (very) imperfect correlation of that "hierarchy."

Does the vault list correlate to that hierarchy? It's far, far from perfect, but in the context of general corporate and litigation work it's much better than no guide at all. Your argument is that being an associate at WLRK (#1) is the same as Troutman Sanders (#99), or at least that someone's outcomes and experiences from those places are basically "random." It's pretty easy to carve out exceptions where it's particularly bad to rely on the vault list -- as you say, with particular practice areas like appellate work, or if you're looking for work outside a major legal market since the rankings are very regionally biased. But the point is that the rankings are helpful as a starting point for discussion, and to carve out exceptions as pertinent to the discussion at hand, or even more fundamentally as a shorthand that law firms are not the same.

If someone here ever argues that Skadden is better than STB because vault says it's so, then I think your points are relevant. But that's very, very far from what I think the OP is talking about.

** To respond to your point about appellate practice, the Legal500 list of Band 1 / Band 2 firms is Gibson (#11), Latham (#10), Mayer (#34), Sidley (#17), Wilmer (#21), A&P (#25), Hogan (#33), Jenner (#54), Jones Day (#19), Quinn (#15), K&S (#50), Kirkland (#7), and W&C (#18), and three boutiques that are too small to be ranked (Bancoft, Kellogg Huber, Robbins Russell). I tend to think that this supports my argument for imperfect correlation (as opposed to the strawman argument that WLRK must be the best at everything because it's #1).

[rpupkin]

Ironic example. The strongest SCOTUS appellate practices are generally not at V10 firms. If you can't provide an actual definition of "hierarchy of legal work"--and I suspect you can't--why don't you provide an example of "shitty versus non-shitty forms of legal work" that actually correlates to Vault rankings and the opportunities an associate might have in practice?

Honestly, I think you're being pedantic. I didn't claim that there's an objective, "actual definition" of a "hierarchy of legal work" that goes down from V1 to V100; I'm just made the weaker claim that there is a generally accepted understanding that legal work is not the same, that some legal work is more desirable than others, and that the vault rankings are a (very) imperfect correlation of that "hierarchy."

Does the vault list correlate to that hierarchy? It's far, far from perfect, but in the context of general corporate and litigation work it's much better than no guide at all. Your argument is that being an associate at WLRK (#1) is the same as Troutman Sanders (#99).

You accuse me of "being pedantic" and then write this? No, I do not think that being an associate at WLRK is the same as being an associate at Troutman Sanders, but my reasons for thinking that have nothing to do with Vault.

By the way, I am being genuine when I say that I don't know what you mean by "hierarchy of legal work." I think you might mean that the higher ranked vault firms tend to have bigger clients and higher billing rates. That's probably true, but--if that's what you mean--I'm not sure those things are something that a young associate should want. Working at a highly leveraged firm with big clients often means years of performing essentially clerical work, with no client contact and minimal skill development. If you're thinking about a long-term career in the profession, I'm not sure that running to a V10 (or V15 or V20) law firm is the right choice.

[lawlorbust]

I was responding to this claim earlier:

LOL@all the vault trolling in this thread--as if it really makes a difference whether you're at a V10, a V20, or a "lower V100." Getting a job at a "V5" is not the equivalent of getting into HYSCC for law school.

By the way, I am being genuine when I say that I don't know what you mean by "hierarchy of legal work." I think you might mean that the higher ranked vault firms tend to have bigger clients and higher billing rates. That's probably true, but--if that's what you mean--I'm not sure those things are something that a young associate should want. Working at a highly leveraged firm with big clients often means years of performing essentially clerical work, with no client contact and minimal skill development. If you're thinking about a long-term career in the profession, I'm not sure that running to a V10 (or V15 or V20) law firm is the right choice.

Those are fair points. But the other posters who mentioned that they got V10 offers from HYS with median grades were responding directly to OP's question about exit options. You might disagree (strongly?) with the implicit assumption that generic V10 = better exit options than generic V100, but it's pretty reasonable shorthand that falls short of "vault trolling."

[rpupkin]

I was responding to this claim earlier:

LOL@all the vault trolling in this thread--as if it really makes a difference whether you're at a V10, a V20, or a "lower V100." Getting a job at a "V5" is not the equivalent of getting into HYSCC for law school.

Understood. I stand by that statement, for the reasons I've stated ITT. And, of course, what I wrote earlier does not mean that I think that being an associate at WLRK is the same as Troutman Sanders. We could cherry pick firms and play that game in both directions.

[L’Étranger]

LOL@all the vault trolling in this thread--as if it really makes a difference whether you're at a V10, a V20, or a "lower V100." Getting a job at a "V5" is not the equivalent of getting into HYSCC for law school.

OP, you write that you're worried about only obtaining "some random BigLaw job." All big law jobs are "random" in the sense that you mean. Some of these top vault shops are horrible places to work for associates, and some of the lower-ranked (or even non-ranked) firms will offer better opportunities for young associates. Stop mindlessly chasing prestige.

I don't get this post at all.

There are problems with (1) mindlessly trying to get the most highly ranked firm and (2) not recognizing that any "law firm ranking" is going to be flawed and arbitrary. But it's at the very least a good shorthand for recognizing that there is a hierarchy of legal work and it's insane to think that not an important factor in thinking about whether to enter/continue with law school.

Please explain what "hierarchy of legal work" means. I've been practicing law for years and I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Sure. From weakest to strongest propositions:

(1) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are both "legal work"
(2) Insurance defense and SCOTUS appellate practice are, however, different kinds of "legal work"
(3) Insurance defense is a shittier form of "legal work" than SCOTUS appellate practice is.

-> There is a hierarchy of legal work.

Are you an associate? I can make an argument that as an associate, insurance defense work is not shittier.

As an associate you'll have a way more significant role on an insurance defense case than on a Supreme Court case. That is, while I assume you mean to say that the outcome of a Supreme Court case has greater impact on the world than an insurance defense case and is therefore greater, you as an associate will likely have a greater impact on the insurance case and it will be a more positive experience in that way.

Generally, legal work is what you make of it as an attorney. It actually does not matter where you are. If you engage intellectually the work you do, whatever it is, it will be mentally stimulating. If you don't, it won't be.

[donde]

What type of exit ops are you interested in? If litigation, median @ HLS is generally fine, but may foreclose opportunities for the most competitive post-law school positions (e.g., DC/9/2 clerkships, DOJ Honors Program, Bristow fellow, return to legal academia).

If corporate, I think consulting exit ops are better than biglaw. As someone who made the switch from high business (BB/Consulting) to law (now a corporate mid-level at a top firm), I'm finally resigned to the realization that the business side is infinitely more interesting and I probably never should have gone to law school. If you want to be general counsel at a mid-to-large sized company, then vault prestige largely does not matter and the best path is to develop strong client relationships, gun hard for partnership, and then lateral in-house as a partner, or get very lucky and join/excel a quickly growing startup as as their first or second lawyer and grow as the company grows (Cooley/Gunderson/Fenwick/Wilson probably best for this).