Top Law Schools

Title kind of says it all, but trying to decide between these three in Palo Alto. I'm interested in corporate pretty generally (i.e. not married to emerging companies or pe but don't hate anything either).

Anyone have any insights/differentiating factors? I know the office sizes vary somewhat dramatically, but I'm not entirely sure how that would necessarily make a huge difference for my day to day etc.

My take is that, all else equal, it's generally preferable to be in a firm's HQ than a small satellite office. Being in a small satellite limits the number of seniors you have easy access to, and thus potentially limits the quality/variety/even quantity of work you get and your chances of staying at the firm long-term.

Which is right for you really depends on what type of work you want to do and where you see yourself long term. If you're looking to do three years and then go in house, WSGR is probably your best bet, as it should be pretty easy to get a GC or AGC spot with one of the clients you work with there. Also, if it turns out that you hate EC/VC work, you should be able to lateral to general corporate at other SV firms pretty easily - I don't know that the inverse is true with STB or Kirkland.

Otherwise, go STB if you want cap markets (have heard great things about STB's Palo Alto office FWIW) or Kirkland if you want PE.

If you want EC/VC, obviously WSGR, but that firm seems to be having problems. So, despite the satellite status of the other two, I would go with STB or K&E.

Anonymous User wrote:If you want EC/VC, obviously WSGR, but that firm seems to be having problems. So, despite the satellite status of the other two, I would go with STB or K&E.

What problems?

Agree with the concerns regarding WSGR. You'll get comparable PE M&A experience at STB and K&E. STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience. As a junior you want to extract as much training from the firm as you can to make you marketable for your inevitable exit, and I think STB will give you more diverse experience overall than your other two options. All three will give you great exit opportunities in time, but your deal sheet will often times dictate what the universe of those opportunities is. Go with the option that gives you the best overall deal sheet experience.

Congrats on the great options.

I'd reiterate the HQ office advice above, and I'd strongly recommend focusing on the work you want to do and what type of client you want to represent. If issuers/companies, go WSGR. If banks/underwriters, go STB. If PE, go K&E. (Yes, there is overlap across firms, but you know how people like to put things in simple little boxes.) You'll find great training and deal flow at all three of those firms, and hopefully people you enjoy working with. I know attorneys at all three firms who enjoy their work and seem like they would be good teammates.

To the poster above who said "STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience" - that's just blatantly absurd. I respect Josh Bonnie and Kevin Kennedy as much as anyone, but you're going to be underwriter side all day out of STB PA. If you want company side, WSGR is easy choice for cap markets.

WSGR, not remotely close. Put it this way -- K&E and STB have satellites in PA to support their tech work. WSGR has an entire law firm built on tech work. If you want to be at K&E or STB, go to NY (or Chicago too for K&E).

I have actually heard that all of the class of 2015 at STB Palo Alto have departed the firm; I think there were like 9 in total. Take that for what it's worth.

Anonymous User wrote:Congrats on the great options.

I'd reiterate the HQ office advice above, and I'd strongly recommend focusing on the work you want to do and what type of client you want to represent. If issuers/companies, go WSGR. If banks/underwriters, go STB. If PE, go K&E. (Yes, there is overlap across firms, but you know how people like to put things in simple little boxes.) You'll find great training and deal flow at all three of those firms, and hopefully people you enjoy working with. I know attorneys at all three firms who enjoy their work and seem like they would be good teammates.

To the poster above who said "STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience" - that's just blatantly absurd. I respect Josh Bonnie and Kevin Kennedy as much as anyone, but you're going to be underwriter side all day out of STB PA. If you want company side, WSGR is easy choice for cap markets.

I think Josh Bonnie is an east coast guy, no? Anyways, the point was that overall deal experience is better at STB given these options (K&E doesn't have the cap mkts practice that STB has, and WSGR doesn't have the PE M&A practice that STB has, which may or may not be OPs cup of tea, although their inclusion of K&E leads me to believe that it must be). Although it certainly is inaccurate to say that STB PA doesn't rep issuers, although agree it leans towards uw counsel. Give me different options to choose from and I could come out differently.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Congrats on the great options.

I'd reiterate the HQ office advice above, and I'd strongly recommend focusing on the work you want to do and what type of client you want to represent. If issuers/companies, go WSGR. If banks/underwriters, go STB. If PE, go K&E. (Yes, there is overlap across firms, but you know how people like to put things in simple little boxes.) You'll find great training and deal flow at all three of those firms, and hopefully people you enjoy working with. I know attorneys at all three firms who enjoy their work and seem like they would be good teammates.

To the poster above who said "STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience" - that's just blatantly absurd. I respect Josh Bonnie and Kevin Kennedy as much as anyone, but you're going to be underwriter side all day out of STB PA. If you want company side, WSGR is easy choice for cap markets.

I think Josh Bonnie is an east coast guy, no? Anyways, the point was that overall deal experience is better at STB given these options (K&E doesn't have the cap mkts practice that STB has, and WSGR doesn't have the PE M&A practice that STB has, which may or may not be OPs cup of tea, although their inclusion of K&E leads me to believe that it must be). Although it certainly is inaccurate to say that STB PA doesn't rep issuers, although agree it leans towards uw counsel. Give me different options to choose from and I could come out differently.

Fair enough - I'm the anon you're quoting. I was just reacting to your strong wording with similar hyperbole.

And yes, Josh Bonnie is based out of DC. Just mentioned those two as frequently cited players in STB's IPO practice (I assumed you were familiar based on your praise for STB cap markets), which is what I was referring to with my underwriter side comment. In the IPO context, your "leans toward uw counsel" comment is a pretty big understatement for STB PA, no? Let me know what company side IPOs the STB PA team has done recently. As someone in the market and practice area, I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, hopefully we can agree that all three of these options have merit - just depends on the work OP is interested in.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Congrats on the great options.

I'd reiterate the HQ office advice above, and I'd strongly recommend focusing on the work you want to do and what type of client you want to represent. If issuers/companies, go WSGR. If banks/underwriters, go STB. If PE, go K&E. (Yes, there is overlap across firms, but you know how people like to put things in simple little boxes.) You'll find great training and deal flow at all three of those firms, and hopefully people you enjoy working with. I know attorneys at all three firms who enjoy their work and seem like they would be good teammates.

To the poster above who said "STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience" - that's just blatantly absurd. I respect Josh Bonnie and Kevin Kennedy as much as anyone, but you're going to be underwriter side all day out of STB PA. If you want company side, WSGR is easy choice for cap markets.

I think Josh Bonnie is an east coast guy, no? Anyways, the point was that overall deal experience is better at STB given these options (K&E doesn't have the cap mkts practice that STB has, and WSGR doesn't have the PE M&A practice that STB has, which may or may not be OPs cup of tea, although their inclusion of K&E leads me to believe that it must be). Although it certainly is inaccurate to say that STB PA doesn't rep issuers, although agree it leans towards uw counsel. Give me different options to choose from and I could come out differently.

Fair enough - I'm the anon you're quoting. I was just reacting to your strong wording with similar hyperbole.

And yes, Josh Bonnie is based out of DC. Just mentioned those two as frequently cited players in STB's IPO practice (I assumed you were familiar based on your praise for STB cap markets), which is what I was referring to with my underwriter side comment. In the IPO context, your "leans toward uw counsel" comment is a pretty big understatement for STB PA, no? Let me know what company side IPOs the STB PA team has done recently. As someone in the market and practice area, I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, hopefully we can agree that all three of these options have merit - just depends on the work OP is interested in.

Lol, fair point--although it's TLS so hyperbole is the name of the game, no?

I think that's right, all three options have merit in their own right and it depends on OPs preferences for experience, which is not something I've suggested otherwise I don't think. I also think you're right that if we reduce the world of cap mkts to just IPOs, I'm not sure the STB PA office has done many issuer-side, other than the largest one in U.S. history a few years ago (although I think you tried to escape that low hanging fruit with your "recently" qualifier), but certainly are active on the uw front in many each year, which I think we all agree is the case.

Simpson associate here. Just wanted to pop in to note that the PA office is considered a very important satellite office. It’s not HQ by any means, and I respect the desire to be in HQ, but it is an influential outpost.

Also I don’t know why Kirkland’s PE M&A practice is getting more hype than Simpson’s in this thread. They’re both perennially at or near the top (often numbers 1 and 2) of the PE League charts in terms of $ volume of PE M&A. Difference is that K&E does a lot more deals, while Simpson does much bigger deals on average.

Also, on the public side, take into account the fact that Simpson has been Microsoft’s counsel for a couple of sizeable acquisitions in the past few years (LinkedIn, GitHub) and a lot of that work is handled by PA.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Congrats on the great options.

I'd reiterate the HQ office advice above, and I'd strongly recommend focusing on the work you want to do and what type of client you want to represent. If issuers/companies, go WSGR. If banks/underwriters, go STB. If PE, go K&E. (Yes, there is overlap across firms, but you know how people like to put things in simple little boxes.) You'll find great training and deal flow at all three of those firms, and hopefully people you enjoy working with. I know attorneys at all three firms who enjoy their work and seem like they would be good teammates.

To the poster above who said "STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience" - that's just blatantly absurd. I respect Josh Bonnie and Kevin Kennedy as much as anyone, but you're going to be underwriter side all day out of STB PA. If you want company side, WSGR is easy choice for cap markets.

I think Josh Bonnie is an east coast guy, no? Anyways, the point was that overall deal experience is better at STB given these options (K&E doesn't have the cap mkts practice that STB has, and WSGR doesn't have the PE M&A practice that STB has, which may or may not be OPs cup of tea, although their inclusion of K&E leads me to believe that it must be). Although it certainly is inaccurate to say that STB PA doesn't rep issuers, although agree it leans towards uw counsel. Give me different options to choose from and I could come out differently.

Fair enough - I'm the anon you're quoting. I was just reacting to your strong wording with similar hyperbole.

And yes, Josh Bonnie is based out of DC. Just mentioned those two as frequently cited players in STB's IPO practice (I assumed you were familiar based on your praise for STB cap markets), which is what I was referring to with my underwriter side comment. In the IPO context, your "leans toward uw counsel" comment is a pretty big understatement for STB PA, no? Let me know what company side IPOs the STB PA team has done recently. As someone in the market and practice area, I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, hopefully we can agree that all three of these options have merit - just depends on the work OP is interested in.

Lol, fair point--although it's TLS so hyperbole is the name of the game, no?

I think that's right, all three options have merit in their own right and it depends on OPs preferences for experience, which is not something I've suggested otherwise I don't think. I also think you're right that if we reduce the world of cap mkts to just IPOs, I'm not sure the STB PA office has done many issuer-side, other than the largest one in U.S. history a few years ago (although I think you tried to escape that low hanging fruit with your "recently" qualifier), but certainly are active on the uw front in many each year, which I think we all agree is the case.

In all honesty, I wasn't aware - which one was that? (I saw STB repped First Data in 2015, but something more recent?) If I was OP, I still think I'd be more concerned about recent deal flow, but that is admittedly some cool trivia.

And agreed, not fair of me to reduce cap markets to just IPOs/equity. Great point. I haven't met many law students that were pumped about the prospect of doing debt offerings, but that might be of interest to OP. Forgive yet another generalization.

Best of luck with your decision, OP!

Also, to the Simpson associate poster above, is there truth to that rumor above about losing an entire class year of associates? Just curious. I worked across from a couple of your associates who left since November (pleasure to work across from them), but didn't realize it wiped a whole year out.

Wsgr and it's not even close. You would be a fool to choose a satellite office with 70 people over a hq with 300+ attornies.

Even if you absolutely positively wanted to do cap markets work, you would still be better served going to wsgr. The only reason I could see stb being worth it is if you absolutely wanted to do sponsor sider pe work for some reason.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Congrats on the great options.

I'd reiterate the HQ office advice above, and I'd strongly recommend focusing on the work you want to do and what type of client you want to represent. If issuers/companies, go WSGR. If banks/underwriters, go STB. If PE, go K&E. (Yes, there is overlap across firms, but you know how people like to put things in simple little boxes.) You'll find great training and deal flow at all three of those firms, and hopefully people you enjoy working with. I know attorneys at all three firms who enjoy their work and seem like they would be good teammates.

To the poster above who said "STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience" - that's just blatantly absurd. I respect Josh Bonnie and Kevin Kennedy as much as anyone, but you're going to be underwriter side all day out of STB PA. If you want company side, WSGR is easy choice for cap markets.

I think Josh Bonnie is an east coast guy, no? Anyways, the point was that overall deal experience is better at STB given these options (K&E doesn't have the cap mkts practice that STB has, and WSGR doesn't have the PE M&A practice that STB has, which may or may not be OPs cup of tea, although their inclusion of K&E leads me to believe that it must be). Although it certainly is inaccurate to say that STB PA doesn't rep issuers, although agree it leans towards uw counsel. Give me different options to choose from and I could come out differently.

Fair enough - I'm the anon you're quoting. I was just reacting to your strong wording with similar hyperbole.

And yes, Josh Bonnie is based out of DC. Just mentioned those two as frequently cited players in STB's IPO practice (I assumed you were familiar based on your praise for STB cap markets), which is what I was referring to with my underwriter side comment. In the IPO context, your "leans toward uw counsel" comment is a pretty big understatement for STB PA, no? Let me know what company side IPOs the STB PA team has done recently. As someone in the market and practice area, I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, hopefully we can agree that all three of these options have merit - just depends on the work OP is interested in.

Lol, fair point--although it's TLS so hyperbole is the name of the game, no?

I think that's right, all three options have merit in their own right and it depends on OPs preferences for experience, which is not something I've suggested otherwise I don't think. I also think you're right that if we reduce the world of cap mkts to just IPOs, I'm not sure the STB PA office has done many issuer-side, other than the largest one in U.S. history a few years ago (although I think you tried to escape that low hanging fruit with your "recently" qualifier), but certainly are active on the uw front in many each year, which I think we all agree is the case.

Much of the work on the Alibaba ipo was done in NY and the partner who brought in that work retired

dabigchina wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Congrats on the great options.

I'd reiterate the HQ office advice above, and I'd strongly recommend focusing on the work you want to do and what type of client you want to represent. If issuers/companies, go WSGR. If banks/underwriters, go STB. If PE, go K&E. (Yes, there is overlap across firms, but you know how people like to put things in simple little boxes.) You'll find great training and deal flow at all three of those firms, and hopefully people you enjoy working with. I know attorneys at all three firms who enjoy their work and seem like they would be good teammates.

To the poster above who said "STB is the only one of the three that will give you great capital markets experience" - that's just blatantly absurd. I respect Josh Bonnie and Kevin Kennedy as much as anyone, but you're going to be underwriter side all day out of STB PA. If you want company side, WSGR is easy choice for cap markets.

I think Josh Bonnie is an east coast guy, no? Anyways, the point was that overall deal experience is better at STB given these options (K&E doesn't have the cap mkts practice that STB has, and WSGR doesn't have the PE M&A practice that STB has, which may or may not be OPs cup of tea, although their inclusion of K&E leads me to believe that it must be). Although it certainly is inaccurate to say that STB PA doesn't rep issuers, although agree it leans towards uw counsel. Give me different options to choose from and I could come out differently.

Fair enough - I'm the anon you're quoting. I was just reacting to your strong wording with similar hyperbole.

And yes, Josh Bonnie is based out of DC. Just mentioned those two as frequently cited players in STB's IPO practice (I assumed you were familiar based on your praise for STB cap markets), which is what I was referring to with my underwriter side comment. In the IPO context, your "leans toward uw counsel" comment is a pretty big understatement for STB PA, no? Let me know what company side IPOs the STB PA team has done recently. As someone in the market and practice area, I'm genuinely curious.

Regardless, hopefully we can agree that all three of these options have merit - just depends on the work OP is interested in.

Lol, fair point--although it's TLS so hyperbole is the name of the game, no?

I think that's right, all three options have merit in their own right and it depends on OPs preferences for experience, which is not something I've suggested otherwise I don't think. I also think you're right that if we reduce the world of cap mkts to just IPOs, I'm not sure the STB PA office has done many issuer-side, other than the largest one in U.S. history a few years ago (although I think you tried to escape that low hanging fruit with your "recently" qualifier), but certainly are active on the uw front in many each year, which I think we all agree is the case.

Much of the work on the Alibaba ipo was done in NY and the partner who brought in that work retired

"Much of the work", not quite. Sure, some of the work was out of NY and China. There were three NY attorneys (specialists) listed on the deal announcement. Four Hong Kong attorneys as well (makes sense given Alibaba's location). Then there were 7 PA attorneys, which included the main US corporate team and several specialists.

Anyways, none of this matters and it's pointless to keep going. OP has a choice to make, good luck!

OP here, this is all actually pretty damn helpful, so thank you. In terms of my preferences, I don't love EC/VC work (and have actually worked on it before). I'd prefer bigger companies or banks, which doesn't exactly knock WSGR out.

I think I really like K&E, but am hung up on them not having a capital markets practice like Simpson. I don't know much about what Kirkland's practice looks like "in action" (since I mean to be fair how could I?) and that gives me a little bit of pause since there is a lot less variety out of that office and if I hated the work I'd be outright screwed, but I have to think with the SF office so near I'd be able to find something.

WSGR v. STB: Does the analysis change for litigation?

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, this is all actually pretty damn helpful, so thank you. In terms of my preferences, I don't love EC/VC work (and have actually worked on it before). I'd prefer bigger companies or banks, which doesn't exactly knock WSGR out.

I think I really like K&E, but am hung up on them not having a capital markets practice like Simpson. I don't know much about what Kirkland's practice looks like "in action" (since I mean to be fair how could I?) and that gives me a little bit of pause since there is a lot less variety out of that office and if I hated the work I'd be outright screwed, but I have to think with the SF office so near I'd be able to find something.

If you want capital markets I actually think WSGR is easy here. The not loving EC/VC thing is a downside but STB did like Sonos this year (UW-side). That was it for equity cap markets I think. Maybe another follow on or some weird farming or industrial concern or pharma company. Meanwhile WSGR has done Dropbox, Pluralsight, Zuora, Zsacaler, MongoDB, just filed EventBrite and SurveyMonkey and have a dozen others in the pipeline, all on a mix of UW and company side. I'm sure I'm missing some. That's what we're talking about here.

Banks are increasingly turning away from STB/DPW in SV and towards Fenwick/WSGR/Cooley/Goodwin for public offerings. Even on the debt/credit side of cap markets WSGR has been busy.

I would worry about getting screwed going into PE and/or KE SF. I've seen PE tangentially (as a summer associate and one deal as a junior) and I would not want to do it for any meaningful amount of time. The downside on WSGR is that you will probably have to do some EC/VC work.

Overall though, I never understand how someone picks SV firms over non-SV firms in the Bay Area. I'm biased because I picked one but I honestly don't get it at all.

Anonymous User wrote:Overall though, I never understand how someone picks SV firms over non-SV firms in the Bay Area. I'm biased because I picked one but I honestly don't get it at all.

With you up until that last part.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, this is all actually pretty damn helpful, so thank you. In terms of my preferences, I don't love EC/VC work (and have actually worked on it before). I'd prefer bigger companies or banks, which doesn't exactly knock WSGR out.

I think I really like K&E, but am hung up on them not having a capital markets practice like Simpson. I don't know much about what Kirkland's practice looks like "in action" (since I mean to be fair how could I?) and that gives me a little bit of pause since there is a lot less variety out of that office and if I hated the work I'd be outright screwed, but I have to think with the SF office so near I'd be able to find something.

I would worry about getting screwed going into PE and/or KE SF. I've seen PE tangentially (as a summer associate and one deal as a junior) and I would not want to do it for any meaningful amount of time. The downside on WSGR is that you will probably have to do some EC/VC work.

What did you think were the issues/drawbacks with PE work?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, this is all actually pretty damn helpful, so thank you. In terms of my preferences, I don't love EC/VC work (and have actually worked on it before). I'd prefer bigger companies or banks, which doesn't exactly knock WSGR out.

I think I really like K&E, but am hung up on them not having a capital markets practice like Simpson. I don't know much about what Kirkland's practice looks like "in action" (since I mean to be fair how could I?) and that gives me a little bit of pause since there is a lot less variety out of that office and if I hated the work I'd be outright screwed, but I have to think with the SF office so near I'd be able to find something.

If you want capital markets I actually think WSGR is easy here. The not loving EC/VC thing is a downside but STB did like Sonos this year (UW-side). That was it for equity cap markets I think. Maybe another follow on or some weird farming or industrial concern or pharma company. Meanwhile WSGR has done Dropbox, Pluralsight, Zuora, Zsacaler, MongoDB, just filed EventBrite and SurveyMonkey and have a dozen others in the pipeline, all on a mix of UW and company side. I'm sure I'm missing some. That's what we're talking about here.

Banks are increasingly turning away from STB/DPW in SV and towards Fenwick/WSGR/Cooley/Goodwin for public offerings. Even on the debt/credit side of cap markets WSGR has been busy.

I would worry about getting screwed going into PE and/or KE SF. I've seen PE tangentially (as a summer associate and one deal as a junior) and I would not want to do it for any meaningful amount of time. The downside on WSGR is that you will probably have to do some EC/VC work.

Overall though, I never understand how someone picks SV firms over non-SV firms in the Bay Area. I'm biased because I picked one but I honestly don't get it at all.

The "if you want capital markets I actually think WSGR is easy here" couldn't be more wrong. Year to date in 2018, WSGR has advised on 12 IPOS (7 issuer and 5 UW side) and STB has advised on 12 IPOs (4 issuer and 8 UW).

STB did ADT, Brightview, Gates Industrial, Goosehead - the first 3 being each bigger in offering size than anything WSGR has done this year besides Dropbox.

FYI - MongoDB was 2017

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, this is all actually pretty damn helpful, so thank you. In terms of my preferences, I don't love EC/VC work (and have actually worked on it before). I'd prefer bigger companies or banks, which doesn't exactly knock WSGR out.

I think I really like K&E, but am hung up on them not having a capital markets practice like Simpson. I don't know much about what Kirkland's practice looks like "in action" (since I mean to be fair how could I?) and that gives me a little bit of pause since there is a lot less variety out of that office and if I hated the work I'd be outright screwed, but I have to think with the SF office so near I'd be able to find something.

I would worry about getting screwed going into PE and/or KE SF. I've seen PE tangentially (as a summer associate and one deal as a junior) and I would not want to do it for any meaningful amount of time. The downside on WSGR is that you will probably have to do some EC/VC work.

What did you think were the issues/drawbacks with PE work?

PE work can be like drinking from a fire hose, and the work can be unpredictable because PE clients tend to expect docs super fast (at least this is how the work looks from the outside - admittedly, I've done very little PE work myself)

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here, this is all actually pretty damn helpful, so thank you. In terms of my preferences, I don't love EC/VC work (and have actually worked on it before). I'd prefer bigger companies or banks, which doesn't exactly knock WSGR out.

I think I really like K&E, but am hung up on them not having a capital markets practice like Simpson. I don't know much about what Kirkland's practice looks like "in action" (since I mean to be fair how could I?) and that gives me a little bit of pause since there is a lot less variety out of that office and if I hated the work I'd be outright screwed, but I have to think with the SF office so near I'd be able to find something.

If you want capital markets I actually think WSGR is easy here. The not loving EC/VC thing is a downside but STB did like Sonos this year (UW-side). That was it for equity cap markets I think. Maybe another follow on or some weird farming or industrial concern or pharma company. Meanwhile WSGR has done Dropbox, Pluralsight, Zuora, Zsacaler, MongoDB, just filed EventBrite and SurveyMonkey and have a dozen others in the pipeline, all on a mix of UW and company side. I'm sure I'm missing some. That's what we're talking about here.

Banks are increasingly turning away from STB/DPW in SV and towards Fenwick/WSGR/Cooley/Goodwin for public offerings. Even on the debt/credit side of cap markets WSGR has been busy.

I would worry about getting screwed going into PE and/or KE SF. I've seen PE tangentially (as a summer associate and one deal as a junior) and I would not want to do it for any meaningful amount of time. The downside on WSGR is that you will probably have to do some EC/VC work.

Overall though, I never understand how someone picks SV firms over non-SV firms in the Bay Area. I'm biased because I picked one but I honestly don't get it at all.

The "if you want capital markets I actually think WSGR is easy here" couldn't be more wrong. Year to date in 2018, WSGR has advised on 12 IPOS (7 issuer and 5 UW side) and STB has advised on 12 IPOs (4 issuer and 8 UW).

STB did ADT, Brightview, Gates Industrial, Goosehead - the first 3 being each bigger in offering size than anything WSGR has done this year besides Dropbox.

FYI - MongoDB was 2017

Just to confirm, you were pointing out those STB deals just to highlight the offering sizes, right? Those were all cool deals (who doesn't love a commercial landscape services company), but literally none were out of STB PA.

Out of curiosity, and to give OP the relevant info for comparison, do you have the YTD stats for WSGR PA vs. STB PA?

For the record, yet again, STB has a terrific cap markets practice - I'm sure OP understands that by now.