Top Law Schools

Considering the low pass rate for the Californian bar, is it possible to be just NY qualified attorney (junior) in a BigLaw SanFran office?

Braddy55 wrote:Considering the low pass rate for the Californian bar, is it possible to be just NY qualified attorney (junior) in a BigLaw SanFran office?

Possible to get the job but you’ll likely be required to take and pass the CA bar to keep it.

Anonymous User wrote:Possible to get the job but you’ll likely be required to take and pass the CA bar to keep it.

Unless you fall into a few specific exceptions, you'll have to take and pass the CA bar to practice long-term in CA, otherwise you'd be committing UPL.

The two main exceptions I can think of are working in-house (but you say you want biglaw), and doing only patent prosecution (assuming you're a member of the patent bar).

Thanks guys. Interesting thoughts.

But curious as to why CA bar is really needed for more transactional practices like M&A, VC financing etc -- at end of the day the partner will sign off on advice. Wouldn't NY bar be sufficient?

Of course getting the CA bar is the most ideal, and if one is unable to get it that begs the question how 'smart' enough are you for BigLaw, but just trying to figure out possibilities.

The CA bar has a 1 day attorney exam you might qualify for if you’ve practiced for 5 years. I hear it’s easier. I’m planning on taking it if I’m offered a job at the USAO.

Braddy55 wrote:. . . at end of the day the partner will sign off on advice. Wouldn't NY bar be sufficient?

What you are describing is a paralegal position. There's nothing wrong with that if it's the career path you want - you could practice in any state under direct attorney supervision without having to take the bar.

is the lateral market for SF/LA/Palo Alto competitive?

Braddy55 wrote:Thanks guys. Interesting thoughts.

But curious as to why CA bar is really needed for more transactional practices like M&A, VC financing etc -- at end of the day the partner will sign off on advice. Wouldn't NY bar be sufficient?

Of course getting the CA bar is the most ideal, and if one is unable to get it that begs the question how 'smart' enough are you for BigLaw, but just trying to figure out possibilities.

Some of it derives from local ethical rules. For instance, people who practice only in federal court (say, bankruptcy) don't usually have to be admitted in the state in which the federal court sits (you can appear in federal court in, say, Colorado, based on being admitted in NY state). But California is an exception to this - to be admitted to appear in federal court in CA you need to be admitted in state court in CA, because of the California rules.

I get it that it doesn't make much sense to worry about this for transactional practices where you don't appear in court, but it's just what the rule is. You're not going to get a firm to agree to make an exception.

Anonymous User wrote:The CA bar has a 1 day attorney exam you might qualify for if you’ve practiced for 5 years. I hear it’s easier. I’m planning on taking it if I’m offered a job at the USAO.

It’s just the California essays w/o the MBE

Anonymous User wrote:The CA bar has a 1 day attorney exam you might qualify for if you’ve practiced for 5 years. I hear it’s easier. I’m planning on taking it if I’m offered a job at the USAO.

I had to for that very reason. It’s not “easier.” It’s hust less. And most people will actually advocate for taking the full exam to get the objective boost because the essays are all over the place. I think it’ll be a close call for me. And for what it’s worth, the pass rate in that is lower.

Anonymous User wrote:

Braddy55 wrote:. . . at end of the day the partner will sign off on advice. Wouldn't NY bar be sufficient?

What you are describing is a paralegal position. There's nothing wrong with that if it's the career path you want - you could practice in any state under direct attorney supervision without having to take the bar.

Maybe my understanding is a little off -- but I thought for transactional practice groups (M&A, ECM etc) you never sign off on anything. You wouldn't sign your name off on a client memo; you would never sign off on a Share Purchase Agreement as a client's legal advisor, or sign listing forms for an IPO -- why would a partner trust you to sign off on things for their client? Although, when it draws closer to promotions to counsel or partner level the ability to sign off on work becomes important. Again, my understanding is probably wrong. Thanks for the insightful answers though.

Anonymous User wrote:is the lateral market for SF/LA/Palo Alto competitive?

Yes. Smaller markets are by nature more competitive, and these markets are highly sought after.

Braddy55 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Braddy55 wrote:. . . at end of the day the partner will sign off on advice. Wouldn't NY bar be sufficient?

What you are describing is a paralegal position. There's nothing wrong with that if it's the career path you want - you could practice in any state under direct attorney supervision without having to take the bar.

Maybe my understanding is a little off -- but I thought for transactional practice groups (M&A, ECM etc) you never sign off on anything. You wouldn't sign your name off on a client memo; you would never sign off on a Share Purchase Agreement as a client's legal advisor, or sign listing forms for an IPO -- why would a partner trust you to sign off on things for their client? Although, when it draws closer to promotions to counsel or partner level the ability to sign off on work becomes important. Again, my understanding is probably wrong. Thanks for the insightful answers though.

Who signs a doc (like an S-1 for an IPO) is important for liability to the client and the SEC, it does not mean that the lawyers who do not sign the document aren’t practicing law.