OCI, why do firm rankings matter so much? Forum

[11law01]

Can someone please explain to a clueless rising 2L why firm rankings matter so much? I understand there is prestige involved and it may affect my future job opportunities if I decide to leave, but is there really a huge difference between say a V35 from and a V70? If I am correct they all pay the same starting salary and most have the same compensation structures.

I am asking because I have a close family friend that works at a firm ranked around V70. I have visited the firm multiple times and I really like it there, the office, the people, the culture etc. With my grades I will probably (hopefully) be able to muster up call backs from higher ranked firms.

Appreciate the help,

[Vincent Adultman]

They don't matter that much. How have you been on this site longer than a day and not found that out?

[11law01]

Appreciate the sarcasm.

[Vincent Adultman]

Appreciate the sarcasm.

It wasn't sarcasm. I'm being serious.

[existentialcrisis]

The "rankings" don't matter at all. There are definitely be some benefits (and also drawbacks) to going to a better or more prestigious firm, but the fact that one firm is a "VX" doesn't mean that it's necessarily more highly regarded than a "VX+20"

[Anonymous User]

For example, if you wanted to be a litigator in California, you'd be an idiot to turn down a "V90" firm - Keker & Van Nest - for virtually any other firm out there.

[PeanutsNJam]

Yeah, Vault rankings are meaningless, but that doesn't mean all firms that pay 180k are fungible (not that anybody ITT is saying this).

Ask your Skadden bro who brags about a "V5" job whether he can even get an interview with "V20" Williams and Connolly or "V40" Munger Tolles.

[cjw564]

V35 and V70 can be very different depending on what you want (not that one is necessarily better than the other). You should go to Munger over all V10's if you want to litigate in California. Irell, which is not as highly ranked, is better than Simpson Thatcher for IP Lit. However, the general rule of thumb is to go to the best firm for your intended practice area and Vault is accurate enough as far as general NY corporate is concerned. If you are interested in NY corporate (without any special affinity to a niche), higher ranked firms will give you better exit option and deal exposure on average (though it's very much possible for a White & Case associate to come out ahead of a DPW associate for NY corporate in the long run). At lower ranked firms, things can be very dead without ongoing deals (so a junior is constantly revolving between being insanely busy to having nothing to do all day) and you can get neurotic about filling that billable requirement at times. At a place like S&C, you will get some work even during down times so things are more stable and you won't worry about hitting the billable target as much. Also, it is generally easier to lateral from Cravath to Shearman than the other way around so even if things doesn't work out at CSM, you won't be taking a pay cut if you stay in private practice. However, if you are at a generic V100 in NY, you might have to go down to midlaw to stay in private practice which won't pay nearly as much.

[Anonymous User]

Having summered at two different firms of different vault ranking (1L SA - V50 - and 2L SA - V3) I think I've noticed a bit of difference. Albeit, take it for what it's worth as I have not worked as an associate at either firms (will start later this fall). I think the main difference comes down to the type of work that's in rotation. At V50, I felt that there was usually only a few "mega" deals/litigation and those associates that were working on those things were very busy, and often highly regarded. At V3, there were a lot more "mega" deals/litigation, and there were a lot more opportunities for an associate to be a part of those teams, regardless of how the partners perceived that associate. Of course, there were subtle differences in different associates' responsibility depending on seniority and perceived competence, but over all, there were more chances to be exposed to big deals/litigation that was making the news.

That also meant that at V50, I saw hours vary wildly among different associates; some worked to death while others had not enough work. At V3, most associates worked consistently hard (maybe to the ground). As for exit options, I also saw some pretty tangible differences. At V50, I saw some exit into "better" firms (higher vault ranking) but I also saw many having to lateral to smaller firms, and/or not get full credit for the years that they spent at V50. Very few associate at V50 have clerked, or left for clerkship. On the other hand, at V3, I saw that many exited to AUSA (I was in lit), comparable firms in other cities, or clerkships. I have seen many mid/senior associates at V3 get recruited for partnership (not sure if equity) at other Vault ranked firms.

So I don't think the common parable of TLS that all firms are fungible is entirely true. I think what it seemed to me was that the V3 firm just seemed to produce better outcomes on average, but there were obvious outliers. V50 firm, by no means, was a "sub par" firm -- only that there was a lot more variance in associate experience, competence, and outcome. The super stars will do well at any firm.

*Also, I want to note that ranking is not really uniform. What really matters is industry reputation, which is not always directly correlated to Vault ranking. As others have mentioned, Munger and Williams& Connolly (in lit) are highly regarded but they're not as highly ranked in Vault. However, the two firms I was at had a different reputation within the industry that was fairly reflected in the vault ranking. Again, that is not to say that V50 firm was a "bad" firm, but only that V3 firm had a stronger reputation overall.

[runinthefront]

Vault rankings, when viewed as large bands instead of discrete numerical rankings, are pretty good indicators for strength and prestige of corporate/transactional practice groups among NYC-based firms.

They're not good for much else.

And if you know that you want to do a particular type of transactional/corporate work, Vault becomes even less useful.

[Anonymous User]

The Vault ranking circlejerk is one of the more bizarre aspects of this place. Maybe it's because I don't travel in the rarified air of most TLSers but I have worked in various capacities at law firms large (V100) and small and also inhouse, and yet have never heard anyone mention vault in real life.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of law firms in this country but TLS acts like only a dozen or so matter, and everything else is scraps.

My friend works for this firm https://www.fdh.com, which isn't vault ranked and starts at $155K (basically market before last summer), a salary the overwhelming majority of law grads would kill to get. Another works for a shareholder derivative boutique, gets a similar salary, and travels all over the place for appearances and depositions. But by TLS standards, these are TTT firms.

I know little about corporate so I am curious: what does the V10 associate who works on say, American Airline's merger with United, get that my friend at fdh doesn't, beside a few grands more and a whole lot of hours?

[californiauser]

The Vault ranking circlejerk is one of the more bizarre aspects of this place. Maybe it's because I don't travel in the rarified air of most TLSers but I have worked in various capacities at law firms large (V100) and small and also inhouse, and yet have never heard anyone mention vault in real life.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of law firms in this country but TLS acts like only a dozen or so matter, and everything else is scraps.

My friend works for this firm https://www.fdh.com, which isn't vault ranked and starts at $155K (basically market before last summer), a salary the overwhelming majority of law grads would kill to get. Another works for a shareholder derivative boutique, gets a similar salary, and travels all over the place for appearances and depositions. But by TLS standards, these are TTT firms.

I know little about corporate so I am curious: what does the V10 associate who works on say, American Airline's merger with United, get that my friend at fdh doesn't, beside a few grands more and a whole lot of hours?

Based on a cursory glance, it looks like a large portion of their associates worked at V50 firms before going there. You answered your own question: exit opportunities. Lots of law students would gladly trade $20k for 25% fewer hours. It's really hard to find these kinds of job opportunities in law school, so people go to Vault firms.

[cjw564]

The Vault ranking circlejerk is one of the more bizarre aspects of this place. Maybe it's because I don't travel in the rarified air of most TLSers but I have worked in various capacities at law firms large (V100) and small and also inhouse, and yet have never heard anyone mention vault in real life.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of law firms in this country but TLS acts like only a dozen or so matter, and everything else is scraps.

My friend works for this firm https://www.fdh.com, which isn't vault ranked and starts at $155K (basically market before last summer), a salary the overwhelming majority of law grads would kill to get. Another works for a shareholder derivative boutique, gets a similar salary, and travels all over the place for appearances and depositions. But by TLS standards, these are TTT firms.

I know little about corporate so I am curious: what does the V10 associate who works on say, American Airline's merger with United, get that my friend at fdh doesn't, beside a few grands more and a whole lot of hours?

I don't belong to the ranking-trumps-all camp. In fact, I generally abhor the over-reliance on rankings at all levels of the legal circle. However, I would like to challenge the harmful notion that you seems to support (correct me if I am wrong), that V5 firms and fdh are interchangeable for an average law student without special circumstances. This is not an attack on your friend's firm and I am sure the firm has a great practice that gives associates great training and deal experience. However, there are significant differences between the firms at a junior level.

As you have pointed out, pay is different at V5 and FDH, so everything else being equal, an average student should lean V5 given that FDH likely still demands similar number of billable hours from juniors. Secondly, smaller law firms like fdh (and many in the bottom half of the V100) simply do not get enough mandates on public company transactions for many associates to be exposed to the quarks of public transactions (liked the hypothetical United American merger), which is meaningfully different from private transactions. Since most good inhouse positions are with public companies, associates from lower ranked firms will be at a disadvantage recruiting for those positions. A person from Skadden can also form better connections with inhouse attorneys at public companies because he gets to work with them, whereas an associate from fdh would be spending most of his time with private equity professionals. When recruiting for a position at GE, a Skadden associates who might have already worked with GE's team will most likely get a leg-up. Thirdly, of the first three associates on the website of FDH, one lateralled from STB and another lateralled from Skadden. I can bet my house that it is not as likely if one wants to lateral from FDH to those firms. Finally, if you are interested in an international career, top firms have global presence and are much more visible in cross-border deals. Foreign headhunters do not care about the nuance of the American legal industry and brand name is very important to them (often times it is the only metric during the selection process).

All of the challenges above can be overcome. To reiterate, I am not saying that your friend's firm is inherently worse than V10 or that every student should choose V5 over FDH (it is a very personal choice and for some students, FDH can be better than Cravath). I also do not mean to diss private equity as an exit option, it is a great business with many fulfilling opportunities for lawyers. However, it is undisputed that there are meaningful differences between Skadden and FDH that can impact one's career and for an average student, V5 most likely provides better opportunities compared to V50.

[cron1834]

As for exit options, I also saw some pretty tangible differences. At V50, I saw some exit into "better" firms (higher vault ranking) but I also saw many having to lateral to smaller firms, and/or not get full credit for the years that they spent at V50. Very few associate at V50 have clerked, or left for clerkship. On the other hand, at V3, I saw that many exited to AUSA (I was in lit), comparable firms in other cities, or clerkships. I have seen many mid/senior associates at V3 get recruited for partnership (not sure if equity) at other Vault ranked firms.

You saw all this in 10 weeks as a summer? And "saw" what class year credit, etc., people got after they lateraled? Color me skeptical.

Anyway, I agree with the general thrust here -- the highest ranked Vault firms seem to offer more than the lowest ranked firms, but there are obvious limitations to using Vault. It's hard to rank apples v. oranges, so

[favabeansoup]

The Vault ranking circlejerk is one of the more bizarre aspects of this place. Maybe it's because I don't travel in the rarified air of most TLSers but I have worked in various capacities at law firms large (V100) and small and also inhouse, and yet have never heard anyone mention vault in real life.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of law firms in this country but TLS acts like only a dozen or so matter, and everything else is scraps.

My friend works for this firm https://www.fdh.com, which isn't vault ranked and starts at $155K (basically market before last summer), a salary the overwhelming majority of law grads would kill to get. Another works for a shareholder derivative boutique, gets a similar salary, and travels all over the place for appearances and depositions. But by TLS standards, these are TTT firms.

I know little about corporate so I am curious: what does the V10 associate who works on say, American Airline's merger with United, get that my friend at fdh doesn't, beside a few grands more and a whole lot of hours?

First, I agree with you mostly.

I think it's important to think from the law student perspective though. A place like that firm your friend works at probably only takes 1-2 summer associates, if even. Meanwhile most of the V100 firms are taking 25, 50, or 100 kids in one office alone.

From a numbers perspective, it is just much easier to get jobs in biglaw than these market-ish paying firms with good QOL. Most biglaw associates want to go work at those firms after their 3-5 years in biglaw are up.

Also important to consider though that it will be a paycut. There is no way that firm is paying anywhere close to NY market for a 6-8 year senior associate. Seniors are getting like ~$400k. Sure cost of living differences, lower hours, all that, but substantial pay cut likely regardless.

But yeah, outside of NY big name corporate deal work, the whole Vault list is rather asinine. Plenty of wonderful firms out there people ignore for the sake of "prestige".

[malibustacy]

I agree partially with the OP and disagree partially.

As a whole, the legal education system has come to fixate on "rankings" in strange trends, whether for law schools or for law firms. Everyone first pretends like it matters, then later coolly pretend like they don't matter at all, even if the language (Such as T13 or V10) has permeated itself to the core of this industry. It's a relatively recent phenomenon too.

Most law schools, even the top national ones, used to be regional powerhouses, that would mostly draw and place students in their respective geographic areas. Law firms, while some have always been notable over the decades, have had very little to differentiate themselves. Famous lawyers notoriously tell stories of how they picked a firm back in the day after reading a brochure in the Career Services Office, or joined a firm where they had a good alumni mentor. The idea that some firm in California (such as Paul Hastings) can be compared to Paul, Weiss for example, would have been silly as comparing Apples and Oranges.

However, the last few decades have truly seen the rise of "national firms" and "international firms". Law firms have grown immensely through organic growth, mergers, or takeovers. Firms such as Kirkland, which only numbered less than 250 lawyers back before 1980, now push close to 2000. High level legal work is dominated by the larger firms, and to a large extent, they also dominate a sizable portion of the world's high stakes litigation, dealmaking and transactional work. Also, the meteoric rise of legal education costs, and high unemployment rates have made law student very risk adverse, and looking to "rankings" is a natural way for people to cope with uncertainty.

Yes, Vault is a garbage way to think about law firms. It is simply the result of a survey completed by associates, that tend to bias itself toward NY Corporate law firms. However, it's also dishonest to pretend that this is not how many people now conceptualize the legal industry.

Chambers (https://www.chambersandpartners.com/128 ... torial/5/1) might be a better way to think about specialty practices, but it has its own set of problems. But in short, lateral opportunities are a lot better from "top" firms, they tend to be more financially stable during times of economic downturn, and you'll be involved (to varying degrees) with larger scale/more prolific deals with world renowned lawyers. Also, a lower ranked firm in a same geographic region isn't necessarily going to give you lifestyle advantages over a higher ranked firm like some people imagine. They all tend to work you to the bone anyhow, as much as they can.

[Anonymous User]

As for exit options, I also saw some pretty tangible differences. At V50, I saw some exit into "better" firms (higher vault ranking) but I also saw many having to lateral to smaller firms, and/or not get full credit for the years that they spent at V50. Very few associate at V50 have clerked, or left for clerkship. On the other hand, at V3, I saw that many exited to AUSA (I was in lit), comparable firms in other cities, or clerkships. I have seen many mid/senior associates at V3 get recruited for partnership (not sure if equity) at other Vault ranked firms.

You saw all this in 10 weeks as a summer? And "saw" what class year credit, etc., people got after they lateraled? Color me skeptical.

Anyway, I agree with the general thrust here -- the highest ranked Vault firms seem to offer more than the lowest ranked firms, but there are obvious limitations to using Vault. It's hard to rank apples v. oranges, so

"saw" is probably not the right word. I kept in touch with the associates at various levels (junior to the most senior associate i've known being a 6th year) in both firms, and that's what they told me, as they themselves were looking to lateral/their colleagues have lateraled.

[lawstudent1720]

Having summered at two different firms of different vault ranking (1L SA - V50 - and 2L SA - V3) I think I've noticed a bit of difference. Albeit, take it for what it's worth as I have not worked as an associate at either firms (will start later this fall). I think the main difference comes down to the type of work that's in rotation. At V50, I felt that there was usually only a few "mega" deals/litigation and those associates that were working on those things were very busy, and often highly regarded. At V3, there were a lot more "mega" deals/litigation, and there were a lot more opportunities for an associate to be a part of those teams, regardless of how the partners perceived that associate. Of course, there were subtle differences in different associates' responsibility depending on seniority and perceived competence, but over all, there were more chances to be exposed to big deals/litigation that was making the news.

That also meant that at V50, I saw hours vary wildly among different associates; some worked to death while others had not enough work. At V3, most associates worked consistently hard (maybe to the ground). As for exit options, I also saw some pretty tangible differences. At V50, I saw some exit into "better" firms (higher vault ranking) but I also saw many having to lateral to smaller firms, and/or not get full credit for the years that they spent at V50. Very few associate at V50 have clerked, or left for clerkship. On the other hand, at V3, I saw that many exited to AUSA (I was in lit), comparable firms in other cities, or clerkships. I have seen many mid/senior associates at V3 get recruited for partnership (not sure if equity) at other Vault ranked firms.

So I don't think the common parable of TLS that all firms are fungible is entirely true. I think what it seemed to me was that the V3 firm just seemed to produce better outcomes on average, but there were obvious outliers. V50 firm, by no means, was a "sub par" firm -- only that there was a lot more variance in associate experience, competence, and outcome. The super stars will do well at any firm.

*Also, I want to note that ranking is not really uniform. What really matters is industry reputation, which is not always directly correlated to Vault ranking. As others have mentioned, Munger and Williams& Connolly (in lit) are highly regarded but they're not as highly ranked in Vault. However, the two firms I was at had a different reputation within the industry that was fairly reflected in the vault ranking. Again, that is not to say that V50 firm was a "bad" firm, but only that V3 firm had a stronger reputation overall.

It's clear that Vault rankings are very important as people constantly refer to firms as V#, which is a shame since the ranking is only based on associates’ perspective of firms' prestige and reputation, and only the most well-known firms will get high rankings. Reputation ≠ quality. Also it’s a self-perpetuating system like the U.S. News and World Report undergraduate college rankings. TLSers are like high school students if they associated their colleges with their US News#.

Can you elaborate on this “V50” school you refer to?

[BlendedUnicorn]

Firm rankings matter a lot at OCI for two big reasons:

1: you have basically nothing else to go off at OCI and

2: higher ranked firms tend to hire more people and be more predictable about who they hire.

It's not like law school, where ranking almost predetermines your outcome, but in a vacuum it's *probably* better to go to a firm that has a good reputation in the place and practice group you want to be in (which is not the same thing as vault ranking). But individual experiences will vary so much that it makes sense to put yourself in the best position possible.