Prestige and career outlook Forum

[Anonymous User]

What is prestige? Does V10 vs. V50 vs. V100 have great impact on my future career?
I am in IP. How should I factor in the boutiques?

[Anonymous User]

What's axin veltrop like?

[fxb3]

This can open up a can of worms, and everyone has a different opinion, but my opinion (V20 senior associate) is essentially these couple of premises:

(1) Being in a good position for your future career depends on good experience. That's both "stand up" and "type of work/client."
(2) If you know or at least are pretty sure what kind of practice you want to do, practice group reputation/prestige matters more than overall firm prestige.
(3) Overall firm prestige can matter, but generally only in large swathes rather than specific rankings.
(4) "Even" a V100 firm has better lawyers than you from whom you can learn a lot, so don't be a prick and think that "only" a V10 will be valuable for you.


(1) means that if you want your future to be doing big complex commercial litigation for huge corporate clients, it's better to be doing depositions at a V20 than doc review at a V5. But it also means that it's better to be at a V50 even with not much "stand up" than to be a second year arguing motions for small regional clients at a V150. If you want your future to be being a public defender after paying off your loans, though, maybe the reverse is true and it's better to be getting trial experience at a V100 with some smaller clients and a great pro bono program than being a "litigator" churning discovery motions for an MDL at a V10. It's a balance.

(2) means that I know some excellent firms for specific practices in my city, places where I really respect the lawyers and think they would be a privilege to learn from, that aren't on the radar screen of far too many good law students because they are too focused on prestige.

(3) means that most people -- even in law -- just have general views of firms, like between ,"that's a great firm," "oh, sure, that's a good firm," and "not sure, think that firm's supposed to be ok." We don't focus nearly as much on the specific V number as you would think. (And the firms against whom I have seen us compete for, and lose, prospective clients are often a good bit "lower." Clients are more sophisticated than law students single mindedly focused on prestige.)

(4) means that you would rather your career be one where you make 3 lateral moves as a partner with a growing book, each to a higher-ranked firm with more PPP, than to start your career at Wachtell, not make partner, end up at a V50 as a senior associate, not make partner, and then a V100 as a perma-counsel. Not that I sniff at that, either. You'd still be a wealthy person and capable of a fulfilling life. But obsessing over where you start rather than the quality of work once you are anywhere is the wrong way to do it.

[Anonymous User]

This can open up a can of worms, and everyone has a different opinion, but my opinion (V20 senior associate) is essentially these couple of premises:

(1) Being in a good position for your future career depends on good experience. That's both "stand up" and "type of work/client."
(2) If you know or at least are pretty sure what kind of practice you want to do, practice group reputation/prestige matters more than overall firm prestige.
(3) Overall firm prestige can matter, but generally only in large swathes rather than specific rankings.
(4) "Even" a V100 firm has better lawyers than you from whom you can learn a lot, so don't be a prick and think that "only" a V10 will be valuable for you.


(1) means that if you want your future to be doing big complex commercial litigation for huge corporate clients, it's better to be doing depositions at a V20 than doc review at a V5. But it also means that it's better to be at a V50 even with not much "stand up" than to be a second year arguing motions for small regional clients at a V150. If you want your future to be being a public defender after paying off your loans, though, maybe the reverse is true and it's better to be getting trial experience at a V100 with some smaller clients and a great pro bono program than being a "litigator" churning discovery motions for an MDL at a V10. It's a balance.

(2) means that I know some excellent firms for specific practices in my city, places where I really respect the lawyers and think they would be a privilege to learn from, that aren't on the radar screen of far too many good law students because they are too focused on prestige.

(3) means that most people -- even in law -- just have general views of firms, like between ,"that's a great firm," "oh, sure, that's a good firm," and "not sure, think that firm's supposed to be ok." We don't focus nearly as much on the specific V number as you would think. (And the firms against whom I have seen us compete for, and lose, prospective clients are often a good bit "lower." Clients are more sophisticated than law students single mindedly focused on prestige.)

(4) means that you would rather your career be one where you make 3 lateral moves as a partner with a growing book, each to a higher-ranked firm with more PPP, than to start your career at Wachtell, not make partner, end up at a V50 as a senior associate, not make partner, and then a V100 as a perma-counsel. Not that I sniff at that, either. You'd still be a wealthy person and capable of a fulfilling life. But obsessing over where you start rather than the quality of work once you are anywhere is the wrong way to do it.

Everything about this post is wrong for transactional work.

[fxb3]

This can open up a can of worms, and everyone has a different opinion, but my opinion (V20 senior associate) is essentially these couple of premises:

(1) Being in a good position for your future career depends on good experience. That's both "stand up" and "type of work/client."
(2) If you know or at least are pretty sure what kind of practice you want to do, practice group reputation/prestige matters more than overall firm prestige.
(3) Overall firm prestige can matter, but generally only in large swathes rather than specific rankings.
(4) "Even" a V100 firm has better lawyers than you from whom you can learn a lot, so don't be a prick and think that "only" a V10 will be valuable for you.


(1) means that if you want your future to be doing big complex commercial litigation for huge corporate clients, it's better to be doing depositions at a V20 than doc review at a V5. But it also means that it's better to be at a V50 even with not much "stand up" than to be a second year arguing motions for small regional clients at a V150. If you want your future to be being a public defender after paying off your loans, though, maybe the reverse is true and it's better to be getting trial experience at a V100 with some smaller clients and a great pro bono program than being a "litigator" churning discovery motions for an MDL at a V10. It's a balance.

(2) means that I know some excellent firms for specific practices in my city, places where I really respect the lawyers and think they would be a privilege to learn from, that aren't on the radar screen of far too many good law students because they are too focused on prestige.

(3) means that most people -- even in law -- just have general views of firms, like between ,"that's a great firm," "oh, sure, that's a good firm," and "not sure, think that firm's supposed to be ok." We don't focus nearly as much on the specific V number as you would think. (And the firms against whom I have seen us compete for, and lose, prospective clients are often a good bit "lower." Clients are more sophisticated than law students single mindedly focused on prestige.)

(4) means that you would rather your career be one where you make 3 lateral moves as a partner with a growing book, each to a higher-ranked firm with more PPP, than to start your career at Wachtell, not make partner, end up at a V50 as a senior associate, not make partner, and then a V100 as a perma-counsel. Not that I sniff at that, either. You'd still be a wealthy person and capable of a fulfilling life. But obsessing over where you start rather than the quality of work once you are anywhere is the wrong way to do it.

Everything about this post is wrong for transactional work.

Fair. If not clear from my examples, I'm a litigator. Everything in this post is right for litigation. For transactional, I guess go with the Vault ranking and don't look back.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Really appreciate fxb3's response. Kind to comment how people in IP compare say Jones Day, Mayer Brown, or McDermott, against Fish or Finnegan?

[deuceindc]

What's axin veltrop like?

Feel free to PM with specific questions.

[jbagelboy]

This can open up a can of worms, and everyone has a different opinion, but my opinion (V20 senior associate) is essentially these couple of premises:

(1) Being in a good position for your future career depends on good experience. That's both "stand up" and "type of work/client."
(2) If you know or at least are pretty sure what kind of practice you want to do, practice group reputation/prestige matters more than overall firm prestige.
(3) Overall firm prestige can matter, but generally only in large swathes rather than specific rankings.
(4) "Even" a V100 firm has better lawyers than you from whom you can learn a lot, so don't be a prick and think that "only" a V10 will be valuable for you.


(1) means that if you want your future to be doing big complex commercial litigation for huge corporate clients, it's better to be doing depositions at a V20 than doc review at a V5. But it also means that it's better to be at a V50 even with not much "stand up" than to be a second year arguing motions for small regional clients at a V150. If you want your future to be being a public defender after paying off your loans, though, maybe the reverse is true and it's better to be getting trial experience at a V100 with some smaller clients and a great pro bono program than being a "litigator" churning discovery motions for an MDL at a V10. It's a balance.

(2) means that I know some excellent firms for specific practices in my city, places where I really respect the lawyers and think they would be a privilege to learn from, that aren't on the radar screen of far too many good law students because they are too focused on prestige.

(3) means that most people -- even in law -- just have general views of firms, like between ,"that's a great firm," "oh, sure, that's a good firm," and "not sure, think that firm's supposed to be ok." We don't focus nearly as much on the specific V number as you would think. (And the firms against whom I have seen us compete for, and lose, prospective clients are often a good bit "lower." Clients are more sophisticated than law students single mindedly focused on prestige.)

(4) means that you would rather your career be one where you make 3 lateral moves as a partner with a growing book, each to a higher-ranked firm with more PPP, than to start your career at Wachtell, not make partner, end up at a V50 as a senior associate, not make partner, and then a V100 as a perma-counsel. Not that I sniff at that, either. You'd still be a wealthy person and capable of a fulfilling life. But obsessing over where you start rather than the quality of work once you are anywhere is the wrong way to do it.

Everything about this post is wrong for transactional work.

Fair. If not clear from my examples, I'm a litigator. Everything in this post is right for litigation. For transactional, I guess go with the Vault ranking and don't look back.

even in transactional practice, vault is only worthwhile in broad swathes, not specific integers.

(especially since those rankings are subject to change every year.)

[wons]

Yes, but those broad swaths are more or less the most important consideration.

[jbagelboy]

Yea I mean we've had this conversation countless times on tls.. Yea no one is picking Milbank over Cleary, but the kids who went to Weil over Simpson and Kirkland cause it had a few extra slots in vault did so on a very questionable basis

[Anonymous User]

The Vault 100 is essentially worthless for IP firm rankings. The Vault IP rankings are really bad too. Use chambers and partners, and know which sub-field of IP law you're interested in. The top firms in Trademark prosecution are entirely different from the top IP lit firms which are different still than the top firms for IP transactional work.

[TheProsecutor]

This can open up a can of worms, and everyone has a different opinion, but my opinion (V20 senior associate) is essentially these couple of premises:

(1) Being in a good position for your future career depends on good experience. That's both "stand up" and "type of work/client."
(2) If you know or at least are pretty sure what kind of practice you want to do, practice group reputation/prestige matters more than overall firm prestige.
(3) Overall firm prestige can matter, but generally only in large swathes rather than specific rankings.
(4) "Even" a V100 firm has better lawyers than you from whom you can learn a lot, so don't be a prick and think that "only" a V10 will be valuable for you.


(1) means that if you want your future to be doing big complex commercial litigation for huge corporate clients, it's better to be doing depositions at a V20 than doc review at a V5. But it also means that it's better to be at a V50 even with not much "stand up" than to be a second year arguing motions for small regional clients at a V150. If you want your future to be being a public defender after paying off your loans, though, maybe the reverse is true and it's better to be getting trial experience at a V100 with some smaller clients and a great pro bono program than being a "litigator" churning discovery motions for an MDL at a V10. It's a balance.

(2) means that I know some excellent firms for specific practices in my city, places where I really respect the lawyers and think they would be a privilege to learn from, that aren't on the radar screen of far too many good law students because they are too focused on prestige.

(3) means that most people -- even in law -- just have general views of firms, like between ,"that's a great firm," "oh, sure, that's a good firm," and "not sure, think that firm's supposed to be ok." We don't focus nearly as much on the specific V number as you would think. (And the firms against whom I have seen us compete for, and lose, prospective clients are often a good bit "lower." Clients are more sophisticated than law students single mindedly focused on prestige.)

(4) means that you would rather your career be one where you make 3 lateral moves as a partner with a growing book, each to a higher-ranked firm with more PPP, than to start your career at Wachtell, not make partner, end up at a V50 as a senior associate, not make partner, and then a V100 as a perma-counsel. Not that I sniff at that, either. You'd still be a wealthy person and capable of a fulfilling life. But obsessing over where you start rather than the quality of work once you are anywhere is the wrong way to do it.

First, the notion that you know what type of work you'll be doing starting off is ridiculous. No way in the world can you assert that a V5 associate will be doing doc review while a V20 associate would be doing depositions. Without knowing what particular assignments you will get in advance, the truth of the matter is that it is better to be a V5 associate than a V100 associate as a starting point.

Second, the traditional exit options for junior litigators are: (1) lateral to another firm (2) a few in-house positions; (3) AUSA or DOJ; (4) clerking. Being at a more prestigious firm will make these options more attainable than being at a less prestigious firm.

Third, your WLRK hypo makes no sense. Associates at WLRK make as much as partners at some firms. No matter what you're considering, if you have WLRK as an option, take it. Aside from the compensation, you'll definitely have client contact as a first year and leave with great relationships. If you don't make partner there, you will somewhere else.

Having said all this, I think you're right, essentially. Work experience matters much more than vault ranking. With the exception of Wachtell and Williams & Connolly, I'm not sure any of the firms are any more prestigious than other firms. They're all pretty much interchangeable from an associate's point of view (at least within the V15-20). After that, I think there are probably significant differences in the perception of the firms and new associates should probably choose within that band, if possible (unless, obviously, they are going to a boutique. I also agree that for certain practice areas chambers is a better indicator of quality, but beware, those rankings are done almost purely on partner relationships. If a chambers partner is about to retire, for example, who knows what will happen with the relationships he/she has).

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Current fed gov attorney (and former fed clerk) here. Maybe my personal experience is unusual, but I have a really, really hard time imagining that firm prestige is anywhere near as important as some on here think it is (at least for purposes of government hiring). In all of the hiring conversations I've been a part of I've never once heard "firm prestige," or anything close to it, mentioned as a reason to hire or not hire someone. I doubt that most of our attorneys even know which firms are in the V10, V50, etc.

For us, experience is by far the most important thing (whether you have experience in our practice area, the amount of responsibility you've been given, the results you've achieved, etc.). Other types of "prestige" also matter a little (school rank, clerking, class rank, etc.) Other intangibles like why you wanna go government and how good of an interviewer you are play a huge role.

I can see this being way different if you are trying to lateral to another firm though.

[smallfirmassociate]

My opinion is that if you're asking this question, you are already on a career track of lifelong misery and spending far too much time worrying about your status. Of course I'm biased, as you can tell from my username.

But, you know, "exit options."

[run26.2]

My opinion is that if you're asking this question, you are already on a career track of lifelong misery and spending far too much time worrying about your status. Of course I'm biased, as you can tell from my username.

But, you know, "exit options."

Well at least OP is among good company.