Seattle v. SF Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:02 pm

Trying to decide between these two markets. Money is not the only driving force in my decision, but it's a factor. Just want to test a conclusion I've reached here. I know the market rate in Seattle (at least at Perkins) is $145k for first years and $160k in SF. At first, I thought, "that's probably more spending power in Seattle anyway, given the cost of living." But then I looked into the taxes! SF and California both levy income taxes, but neither Seattle nor Washington does.

Based on this calculator (https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes), it seems like Seattle first-years have more take home pay, period, not just more spending power. Am I right or missing something??

SFSpartan

Silver
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:01 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by SFSpartan » Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:20 pm

You are right. $145k in Seattle will go quite a bit farther than $160k in SF.

Also, as I'm sure you know, Perkins' home office is in Seattle. If that's your firm, you are probably better off being in the home office over a satellite.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:18 am

Something you might want to consider is that the pay gap may increase after the first year. The Seattle office might only raise salaries by 5-10k per year (pure speculation), whereas it looks like the CA offices follow NY lockstep (as of 2007): http://abovethelaw.com/2007/06/national ... alifornia/

dabigchina

Gold
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by dabigchina » Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:11 am

Don't underestimate how stupidly expensive the bay area is.

I understand Seattle is getting up there too. I also understand it is still not even close. I would take Seattle unless you have some compelling desire to be in the bay area outside of "it sounds chill."

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by rpupkin » Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:26 am

dabigchina wrote:Don't underestimate how stupidly expensive the bay area is.

I understand Seattle is getting up there too. I also understand it is still not even close. I would take Seattle unless you have some compelling desire to be in the bay area outside of "it sounds chill."
What is your understanding based on? I guess it depends on how you define "close," but Seattle is catching up fast. The housing market in Seattle is basically where San Francisco was about four years ago—somewhat cheaper than SF in 2016, but still quite pricey compared to most other non-NYC housing markets.

If you like Seattle, and if you can get a job there, then go. But I wouldn't assume that COL will be significantly cheaper than SF.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
postard

Bronze
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by postard » Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:56 am

Lived in both the Bay and Seattle relatively recently. I would guess that the average cost of living in Seattle is probably catching up with Oakland, but not with San Francisco or the South Bay. PDX, now that's still a relatively affordable city.

clshopeful

Bronze
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:15 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by clshopeful » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:04 am

I live in Seattle and I love it.. Water all around, awesome city, amazing summers. Winters can be gloomy and cold, but other than that it's great.. SF seems too packed for me. Seattle's legal market is getting stronger since the city is booming right now. I'd take 145 in SEA over 160 in SF any day

User avatar
kellyfrost

Platinum
Posts: 6362
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by kellyfrost » Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:27 am

Both cities are very expensive, very liberal, and gloomy.

Both cities have high crime rates and terrible traffic and even worse parking.


Both cities have good restaurants though.

I'm more of a suburb guy, so this is just my opinion.
Last edited by kellyfrost on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dabigchina

Gold
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by dabigchina » Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:53 am

rpupkin wrote:
dabigchina wrote:Don't underestimate how stupidly expensive the bay area is.

I understand Seattle is getting up there too. I also understand it is still not even close. I would take Seattle unless you have some compelling desire to be in the bay area outside of "it sounds chill."
What is your understanding based on? I guess it depends on how you define "close," but Seattle is catching up fast. The housing market in Seattle is basically where San Francisco was about four years ago—somewhat cheaper than SF in 2016, but still quite pricey compared to most other non-NYC housing markets.

If you like Seattle, and if you can get a job there, then go. But I wouldn't assume that COL will be significantly cheaper than SF.
http://sf.curbed.com/2015/9/3/9924268/s ... r-new-high

SF's Median rent is 2x Seattle's.

ETA: Seattle's rent increased on average 8% YOY in 2015. SF's increased 10%+. I don't think it's "catching up fast." I don't think it's catching up at all.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:23 pm

OP here. I should clarify that the choice is not Perkins SF v. Perkins Seattle. It's Perkins Seattle v. SF lit boutique (think Keker/Shartsis/Durie/Farella). Sorry for that ambiguity.

And my hesitation re: the $ not just about today, but long term. If I wanna eventually leave firm life for gov't, I think I could afford that in Seattle, but not SF. Given that reality, I think I want to end up in the PNW (i.e., Seattle or Portland) long term, so it probably makes more sense to just go there right off the bat. I think going AUSA in D. Oregon or W.D. Wa. is gonna be easier from Perkins than SF, right? But the boutique practice (direct partner/client contact, substantive work) is still a big pull...

The other side of the coin is that I think I'll have a better work/life situation at Perkins...

Thanks for weighing in, everybody.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I should clarify that the choice is not Perkins SF v. Perkins Seattle. It's Perkins Seattle v. SF lit boutique (think Keker/Shartsis/Durie/Farella). Sorry for that ambiguity.

And my hesitation re: the $ not just about today, but long term. If I wanna eventually leave firm life for gov't, I think I could afford that in Seattle, but not SF. Given that reality, I think I want to end up in the PNW (i.e., Seattle or Portland) long term, so it probably makes more sense to just go there right off the bat. I think going AUSA in D. Oregon or W.D. Wa. is gonna be easier from Perkins than SF, right? But the boutique practice (direct partner/client contact, substantive work) is still a big pull...

The other side of the coin is that I think I'll have a better work/life situation at Perkins...

Thanks for weighing in, everybody.
I know a few who have gone the Perkins route in Seattle and they don't really have a work/life situation, just a work situation.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:15 pm

I think the actual firm makes a difference. Keker is far, far superior to any of the others you mentioned.

SLS_AMG

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by SLS_AMG » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:51 pm

clshopeful wrote:I live in Seattle and I love it.. Water all around, awesome city, amazing summers. Winters can be gloomy and cold, but other than that it's great.. SF seems too packed for me. Seattle's legal market is getting stronger since the city is booming right now. I'd take 145 in SEA over 160 in SF any day
Interesting. I'd take 145 in SF over 160 in Seattle any day. But I guess I just put a high value on living in SF.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by rpupkin » Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:22 pm

dabigchina wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
dabigchina wrote:Don't underestimate how stupidly expensive the bay area is.

I understand Seattle is getting up there too. I also understand it is still not even close. I would take Seattle unless you have some compelling desire to be in the bay area outside of "it sounds chill."
What is your understanding based on? I guess it depends on how you define "close," but Seattle is catching up fast. The housing market in Seattle is basically where San Francisco was about four years ago—somewhat cheaper than SF in 2016, but still quite pricey compared to most other non-NYC housing markets.

If you like Seattle, and if you can get a job there, then go. But I wouldn't assume that COL will be significantly cheaper than SF.
http://sf.curbed.com/2015/9/3/9924268/s ... r-new-high

SF's Median rent is 2x Seattle's.

ETA: Seattle's rent increased on average 8% YOY in 2015. SF's increased 10%+. I don't think it's "catching up fast." I don't think it's catching up at all.
Two things. First, I was commenting on home prices, not rent. My sister and her husband bought a home in Seattle last month, and I was stunned to hear how expensive it's become. Second, that rent comparison is misleading. Seattle has proportionally more areas that an urban professional would never live. I mean, if you doubled the size of Hunters Point in SF, the median rent of the city would significantly decrease—but that wouldn't tell you much about how much a lawyer will likely pay to live in SF.

Look, rent/real estate is definitely cheaper in Seattle than SF. But when you view it in light of the lower pay for lawyers there, I'm not sure you really come out ahead in Seattle. Not anymore.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I should clarify that the choice is not Perkins SF v. Perkins Seattle. It's Perkins Seattle v. SF lit boutique (think Keker/Shartsis/Durie/Farella). Sorry for that ambiguity.

And my hesitation re: the $ not just about today, but long term. If I wanna eventually leave firm life for gov't, I think I could afford that in Seattle, but not SF. Given that reality, I think I want to end up in the PNW (i.e., Seattle or Portland) long term, so it probably makes more sense to just go there right off the bat. I think going AUSA in D. Oregon or W.D. Wa. is gonna be easier from Perkins than SF, right? But the boutique practice (direct partner/client contact, substantive work) is still a big pull...

The other side of the coin is that I think I'll have a better work/life situation at Perkins...

Thanks for weighing in, everybody.
I know a few who have gone the Perkins route in Seattle and they don't really have a work/life situation, just a work situation.
Damn. Not what I wanted to hear. So, the 1850 hours requirement is just for show?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:35 pm

rpupkin wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
dabigchina wrote:Don't underestimate how stupidly expensive the bay area is.

I understand Seattle is getting up there too. I also understand it is still not even close. I would take Seattle unless you have some compelling desire to be in the bay area outside of "it sounds chill."
What is your understanding based on? I guess it depends on how you define "close," but Seattle is catching up fast. The housing market in Seattle is basically where San Francisco was about four years ago—somewhat cheaper than SF in 2016, but still quite pricey compared to most other non-NYC housing markets.

If you like Seattle, and if you can get a job there, then go. But I wouldn't assume that COL will be significantly cheaper than SF.
http://sf.curbed.com/2015/9/3/9924268/s ... r-new-high

SF's Median rent is 2x Seattle's.

ETA: Seattle's rent increased on average 8% YOY in 2015. SF's increased 10%+. I don't think it's "catching up fast." I don't think it's catching up at all.
Two things. First, I was commenting on home prices, not rent. My sister and her husband bought a home in Seattle last month, and I was stunned to hear how expensive it's become. Second, that rent comparison is misleading. Seattle has proportionally more areas that an urban professional would never live. I mean, if you doubled the size of Hunters Point in SF, the median rent of the city would significantly decrease—but that wouldn't tell you much about how much a lawyer will likely pay to live in SF.

Look, rent/real estate is definitely cheaper in Seattle than SF. But when you view it in light of the lower pay for lawyers there, I'm not sure you really come out ahead in Seattle. Not anymore.
i wanna push back just a bit. looking at zillow, there are houses (not condos) you can buy in capitol hill for <$800k. you're not gonna find something like that in SF for anything close. and people keep forgetting the impact of state/local taxes between the two places. Seattle first-year starting at $145 is taking home the same pay as SF first-year making $160.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I should clarify that the choice is not Perkins SF v. Perkins Seattle. It's Perkins Seattle v. SF lit boutique (think Keker/Shartsis/Durie/Farella). Sorry for that ambiguity.

And my hesitation re: the $ not just about today, but long term. If I wanna eventually leave firm life for gov't, I think I could afford that in Seattle, but not SF. Given that reality, I think I want to end up in the PNW (i.e., Seattle or Portland) long term, so it probably makes more sense to just go there right off the bat. I think going AUSA in D. Oregon or W.D. Wa. is gonna be easier from Perkins than SF, right? But the boutique practice (direct partner/client contact, substantive work) is still a big pull...

The other side of the coin is that I think I'll have a better work/life situation at Perkins...

Thanks for weighing in, everybody.
I know a few who have gone the Perkins route in Seattle and they don't really have a work/life situation, just a work situation.
Damn. Not what I wanted to hear. So, the 1850 hours requirement is just for show?
Recently talked to an in-house attorney that left Perkins Seattle - said point blank he/she wouldn't have had a second kid if he/she had stayed at Perkins.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:15 pm

1850 billable hours is the requirement. Do you know how many hours you have to work to be able to "bill" 1850, especially after a partner via down your hours on the bill?

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by rpupkin » Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:i wanna push back just a bit. looking at zillow, there are houses (not condos) you can buy in capitol hill for <$800k. you're not gonna find something like that in SF for anything close. and people keep forgetting the impact of state/local taxes between the two places. Seattle first-year starting at $145 is taking home the same pay as SF first-year making $160.
The state-income-taxes point is a fair one. (Though—if you're interested in home ownership—property taxes are higher in Washington.) And certainly a first-year associate at Perkins in Seattle will have more buying power than a first-year associate in SF. But, as others have mentioned, the couple of firms in Seattle that at least start close to market don't escalate lockstep in the same way as SF firms do. In SF, big law firms mostly follow NYC base salaries and bonuses. Not so in Seattle. By the time you're a mid-level associate, the difference between Seattle and SF compensation will likely be in the $50k-$100k range. At that point, I'm not sure the lower COL in Seattle compensates for the income disparity.

As I keep saying, you should move to Seattle if you would prefer to live there and if you have a good job offer. But I wouldn't do it for financial reasons. Seattle isn't Atlanta (where the COL is so much lower that it really does make up for below-market compensation.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:39 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:i wanna push back just a bit. looking at zillow, there are houses (not condos) you can buy in capitol hill for <$800k. you're not gonna find something like that in SF for anything close. and people keep forgetting the impact of state/local taxes between the two places. Seattle first-year starting at $145 is taking home the same pay as SF first-year making $160.
The state-income-taxes point is a fair one. (Though—if you're interested in home ownership—property taxes are higher in Washington.) And certainly a first-year associate at Perkins in Seattle will have more buying power than a first-year associate in SF. But, as others have mentioned, the couple of firms in Seattle that at least start close to market don't escalate lockstep in the same way as SF firms do. In SF, big law firms mostly follow NYC base salaries and bonuses. Not so in Seattle. By the time you're a mid-level associate, the difference between Seattle and SF compensation will likely be in the $50k-$100k range. At that point, I'm not sure the lower COL in Seattle compensates for the income disparity.

As I keep saying, you should move to Seattle if you would prefer to live there and if you have a good job offer. But I wouldn't do it for financial reasons. Seattle isn't Atlanta (where the COL is so much lower that it really does make up for below-market compensation.)
Anyone know what the post-first-year pay scale is at Perkins Seattle? I just tried to Google it and came up dry.

clshopeful

Bronze
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:15 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by clshopeful » Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I should clarify that the choice is not Perkins SF v. Perkins Seattle. It's Perkins Seattle v. SF lit boutique (think Keker/Shartsis/Durie/Farella). Sorry for that ambiguity.

And my hesitation re: the $ not just about today, but long term. If I wanna eventually leave firm life for gov't, I think I could afford that in Seattle, but not SF. Given that reality, I think I want to end up in the PNW (i.e., Seattle or Portland) long term, so it probably makes more sense to just go there right off the bat. I think going AUSA in D. Oregon or W.D. Wa. is gonna be easier from Perkins than SF, right? But the boutique practice (direct partner/client contact, substantive work) is still a big pull...

The other side of the coin is that I think I'll have a better work/life situation at Perkins...

Thanks for weighing in, everybody.
I know a few who have gone the Perkins route in Seattle and they don't really have a work/life situation, just a work situation.
my former boss used to work at Perkins. Said it was fucking miserable.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:i wanna push back just a bit. looking at zillow, there are houses (not condos) you can buy in capitol hill for <$800k. you're not gonna find something like that in SF for anything close. and people keep forgetting the impact of state/local taxes between the two places. Seattle first-year starting at $145 is taking home the same pay as SF first-year making $160.
The state-income-taxes point is a fair one. (Though—if you're interested in home ownership—property taxes are higher in Washington.) And certainly a first-year associate at Perkins in Seattle will have more buying power than a first-year associate in SF. But, as others have mentioned, the couple of firms in Seattle that at least start close to market don't escalate lockstep in the same way as SF firms do. In SF, big law firms mostly follow NYC base salaries and bonuses. Not so in Seattle. By the time you're a mid-level associate, the difference between Seattle and SF compensation will likely be in the $50k-$100k range. At that point, I'm not sure the lower COL in Seattle compensates for the income disparity.

As I keep saying, you should move to Seattle if you would prefer to live there and if you have a good job offer. But I wouldn't do it for financial reasons. Seattle isn't Atlanta (where the COL is so much lower that it really does make up for below-market compensation.)
Anyone know what the post-first-year pay scale is at Perkins Seattle? I just tried to Google it and came up dry.
Datapoint: I was visiting Perkins Seattle last year and they had a flyer posted in the cafeteria looking for a 2-4th year patent attorney for $130k (this was prior to the $145k bump). It seemed absurdly low.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 09, 2016 5:57 pm

clshopeful wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I should clarify that the choice is not Perkins SF v. Perkins Seattle. It's Perkins Seattle v. SF lit boutique (think Keker/Shartsis/Durie/Farella). Sorry for that ambiguity.

And my hesitation re: the $ not just about today, but long term. If I wanna eventually leave firm life for gov't, I think I could afford that in Seattle, but not SF. Given that reality, I think I want to end up in the PNW (i.e., Seattle or Portland) long term, so it probably makes more sense to just go there right off the bat. I think going AUSA in D. Oregon or W.D. Wa. is gonna be easier from Perkins than SF, right? But the boutique practice (direct partner/client contact, substantive work) is still a big pull...

The other side of the coin is that I think I'll have a better work/life situation at Perkins...

Thanks for weighing in, everybody.
I know a few who have gone the Perkins route in Seattle and they don't really have a work/life situation, just a work situation.
my former boss used to work at Perkins. Said it was fucking miserable.
any chance you can elaborate?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 09, 2016 7:56 pm

The quality of litigation work in SF seems to be a step above that in Seattle. Add on the fact that you are considering a boutique that may be well regarded (some in your list are clearly a step above) and it seems easy from a career perspective to say that SF will probably give you better opportunities. I don't think you should let money drive the decision too much unless you are older with a family.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Seattle v. SF

Post by rpupkin » Mon May 09, 2016 8:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:The quality of litigation work in SF seems to be a step above that in Seattle.
What does this mean?

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”