Top Law Schools

V10 = Los Angeles (Kirkland/Latham)
V50 = NorCal (Cooley/WSGR/Orrick)
I am interested in litigation (non-IP)

Allow me to preface by stating that I personally do not enjoy most of LA. I have family and friends all over CA, and am wrapping up the OCI process at a T14 on the east coast, so thought it prudent to blanket the whole state with applications. I grew up in SoCal, and the culture/smog/water vampires in LA generally bother me. I'm also a parent, and have to worry about raising a family in a decent neighborhood. Hence, Biglaw aspirations. So, the V10 in LA is an amazing career opportunity that I am having trouble reconciling with unrelated factors.

On the other hand, the V50 in NorCal is: 1) closer to my in-laws for babysitting; 2) closer to most of my friend network (and where I went to undergrad); 3) involves "sexy" tech work; and, 4) has great clout in the region. It **appears** to be less of a grind than the V10, and some weekends off here and there would be great for a young parent like me.

Is it a major mistake to give up the connections/exit opportunities/hands-on experience of a V10 in a less desirable market for a V50, especially considering my preferences are based on so many soft factors in the same state? Long-term, I could see myself going in-house with a client, clerking, or lateraling to the gov't for additional lit experience. Thanks!

Ah to have these options! I think if you plan on getting out f biglaw...v10.

What? No, the right answer here is the NorCal firm 10000000000%. Not even a question.

Don't make life decisions based on Vault rankings. All the firms you mentioned are excellent. Pick the one you like most based on the factors that matter to you.

V# is NY skewed

the V10 could still have better exit options for the practice group you want in California markets...but I don't think V[lower number] is necessarily the right way to gauge that. I may be wrong.

Different market, but I chose a v60 over a v10 and don't regret it for a second. Interesting work, much more responsibility and opportunities to do work way above my pay grade that I would never have gotten at a v10.

Choose a V80 in secondary market over a V10. Don't regret it for a second. Love the people I work with and am close to friends/family. Would 100% make the same choice again.

OP here. These are great and thoughtful responses, and I really appreciate it. In TLS of all places.

Anonymous User wrote:What? No, the right answer here is the NorCal firm 10000000000%. Not even a question.

This seems like the most specific answer. What makes you say that? What if the NorCal firm has more limited options in terms of junior associate participation and general litigation opportunities?

In general, how much better is a V10 than a V50 for overall career prospects? Especially if your plan is to do 3-5 years then move on? Don't mean to hijack OPs thread, but in a very similar situation.

I have next to zero authority on this, but every piece of advice I've ever gotten was to ignore Vault overall rankings if you get outside NYC transactional work. There isn't some demonstrable difference being a lit associate at Latham in SF compared to doing lit at WSGR in SF just because Latham is the much bigger and more recognizable firm, particularly when you're talking about specific practice groups (this was meant to be illustrative, not particularly specific to the practice groups at either of those firms). What matters is the work you do, the clients you work for, and your ability to leverage your experience into something else if you're a short-timer in Biglaw.

Those Norcal firms aren't really known for their general lit. If you were trying to do corporate, I would say WSGR/Cooley would be a great choice. I'm not sure I would recommend going those firms for lit.

However, it sounds like you have ties. Do what works for you personally.

Anonymous User wrote:In general, how much better is a V10 than a V50 for overall career prospects? Especially if your plan is to do 3-5 years then move on? Don't mean to hijack OPs thread, but in a very similar situation.

It depends on where (geographically) you want to exit and what practice group you are interested in.

UVA2B wrote:I have next to zero authority on this, but every piece of advice I've ever gotten was to ignore Vault overall rankings if you get outside NYC transactional work. There isn't some demonstrable difference being a lit associate at Latham in SF compared to doing lit at WSGR in SF just because Latham is the much bigger and more recognizable firm, particularly when you're talking about specific practice groups (this was meant to be illustrative, not particularly specific to the practice groups at either of those firms). What matters is the work you do, the clients you work for, and your ability to leverage your experience into something else if you're a short-timer in Biglaw.

I believe TITCR.

The Vault rankings don't really reflect much except for the strength of a firm's traditional NYC corporate practice. WSGR, Cooley, and Orrick all have a steady flow of good work. If NorCal is where you want to be, then these seem like good options.

I think Orrick is prob the best one for lit up there . But a lot of it is still IP

Vault rankings mean little. Munger or Keker would not be v10 but would be better than any v10 for lit.

i generally think socal is better for raising families.

socal is moderately cheaper; SF/SV area housing prices are nuts even by cali standards

if you go latham, you can also try lateraling over to the OC office which would open up a lot of great neighborhoods/school districts and is generally cheaper than LA

candidlatke wrote:i generally think socal is better for raising families.

socal is moderately cheaper; SF/SV area housing prices are nuts even by cali standards

if you go latham, you can also try lateraling over to the OC office which would open up a lot of great neighborhoods/school districts and is generally cheaper than LA

Basically came in here to say this. SF/SV is pretty unlivable IMO. If you have no debt/little debt/lots of savings/super rich family/very well paid SO, SF/SV is fine. If you have debt and a family, SF/SV gets very difficult to live in, even on a biglaw salary. Buying a home is much more doable in the LA-area I think.

That being said I've heard those two LA offices can be grinds and I think the SV firms may be a little less so on the lit side at the very least.

So I don't know if it's an easy choice. But I definitely get strongly preferring the Bay to LA. I feel the same.

Check Chambers, way more reputable than vault.

There's a good chance the v50 is higher than the v10.

Does the calculation change if the V10 is in a "lesser" market (Boston, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, etc.) and the V50 is in NYC? In terms of general exit option flexibility for corporate work

Anonymous User wrote:Does the calculation change if the V10 is in a "lesser" market (Boston, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, etc.) and the V50 is in NYC? In terms of general exit option flexibility for corporate work

Depends on the market and the size & type of work at the satellite office. V rankings - insofar as they are useful - are only useful in comparing NY transactional shops to each other and so trying to use V rankings to compare one firm's non-NY satellite office to another firm's NY office is pretty unhelpful.

I'm late to this thread and most of my thoughts have already been covered by others in one form or another, but I'll pile on.

Although it is true that vault rankings are largely meaningless for west-coast lit, and although you shouldn't work in LA if you don't want to live there, your NorCal options aren't great for someone interested in general lit. Fenwick and Cooley have great corporate practices and solid IP lit, but neither is particularly strong for general commercial lit in NorCal. As lolwat suggested, Orrick is the best of the three for general lit, though it might be hard to avoid IP entirely there.

The draw of Kirkland and Latham isn't their vault rankings or prestige; rather, it's the fact that their LA offices have sizable general lit practices. But I'll add--and this is entirely anecdotal and perhaps unfair--that neither office has a good reputation for associate lifestyle. So that's another factor: I'd rather work at any of your three NorCal options for lifestyle/culture reasons alone.

Anyway, I think you have a less-than-clear choice, but I'd probably go with Orrick if I were you. And just to take the pressure off a bit: if you have the credentials to get offers at all those firms, you'll likely be in a position to go elsewhere after next summer if you decide that it's not the right fit.

Congrats on the offers and good luck!

...

Anonymous User wrote:So I have offers from Cahill NY and K&E Boston and don't know which to take. I'm not committed to any city, except that I know NY has a leg up on the competition. I think K&E brings an opportunity to help grow the office from the ground floor though. And my thinking is that if I don't like Boston, I could try lateralling within the firm back to NY. What do you guys think?

I think you should start your own thread.

rpupkin wrote:I'm late to this thread and most of my thoughts have already been covered by others in one form or another, but I'll pile on.

Although it is true that vault rankings are largely meaningless for west-coast lit, and although you shouldn't work in LA if you don't want to live there, your NorCal options aren't great for someone interested in general lit. Fenwick and Cooley have great corporate practices and solid IP lit, but neither is particularly strong for general commercial lit in NorCal. As lolwat suggested, Orrick is the best of the three for general lit, though it might be hard to avoid IP entirely there.

The draw of Kirkland and Latham isn't their vault rankings or prestige; rather, it's the fact that their LA offices have sizable general lit practices. But I'll add--and this is entirely anecdotal and perhaps unfair--that neither office has a good reputation for associate lifestyle. So that's another factor: I'd rather work at any of your three NorCal options for lifestyle/culture reasons alone.

Anyway, I think you have a less-than-clear choice, but I'd probably go with Orrick if I were you. And just to take the pressure off a bit: if you have the credentials to get offers at all those firms, you'll likely be in a position to go elsewhere after next summer if you decide that it's not the right fit.

Congrats on the offers and good luck!

FTW.

Latham and Kirkland provide horrible lifestyles in LA--this is not anecdotal; I'm talking a super duper high r-squared. Latham has low face time requirement, but that's about it.

rpupkin wrote:I think you should start your own thread.

Sure, but I have the same Vault conundrum though. It seems crazy to turn down a V10, but it's in another market, so it might not matter.