Top Law Schools

Hi y'all! Would it be a bad idea to choose Fenwick over MoFo or Cooley for start up corporate work? I'm ultimately interested in clean tech. Does anyone know anything really good about Fenwick to ease my hesitation? Thanks for your advice/ words of wisdom in advance!

My friend is there an he was very close to the top of our class at a t14, he obviously had almost every option available to him for corporate work. Don’t know anything other than that. I’m a litigator.

Isn't Fenwick generally considered top dogs along with Gunderson, Cooley, and WSGR at least for tech/start-up work? I'm admittedly not an expert, but facially, it doesn't seem crazy at all.

BrainsyK wrote:Isn't Fenwick generally considered top dogs along with Gunderson, Cooley, and WSGR at least for tech/start-up work? I'm admittedly not an expert, but facially, it doesn't seem crazy at all.

Hey! Thanks for you reply. it is. But it's ranked 79 on Vault while the others are in the 20s. I wonder if there's something that sets the others apart since there's such a wide difference in ranking. For example, are there less resources or what else could this be indicative of?

(I'm a 1L so I don't know that much about law firms)

Cooley and Fenwick are more or less equals for corporate, although Cooley has a larger and more established NY office (to the extent you care, which you shouldn't because both have CA heavy practices). Cooley has a much more established life science practice, but you want cleantech.

Mofo is a lit powerhouse in the bay area. It's not really in the same tier as Fenwick and Cooley for corporate work.

8green wrote:

BrainsyK wrote:Isn't Fenwick generally considered top dogs along with Gunderson, Cooley, and WSGR at least for tech/start-up work? I'm admittedly not an expert, but facially, it doesn't seem crazy at all.

Hey! Thanks for you reply. it is. But it's ranked 79 on Vault while the others are in the 20s. I wonder if there's something that sets the others apart since there's such a wide difference in ranking. For example, are there less resources or what else could this be indicative of?

(I'm a 1L so I don't know that much about law firms)

Woah! You're emphasizing Vault way too much! Assuming you want to be in Northern California, the Vault rankings are completely irrelevant to you. Try Chambers and Partners at Chambers.com to scout out a firm's strengths in a practice area and in the state where you have an offer. That is by far the most important factor. I'm no expert on NorCal biglaw so maybe someone else can intervene with better advice. I'll repeat because it's worth repeating: Do not pick firms purely based on Vault rankings or even with as much weight as you're currently giving it.

Oh my word, no. To be honest, though, I do not know much about clean tech practices, specifically. I also am not at Fenwick, so I do not know about its clean tech practice. That being said, if you want to do emerging companies/startup/tech work of any kind in the Bay Area you would never be wrong to go with Fenwick. They compete with Cooley and WSGR for the same clients. IMO those are the top dogs in that area.

Gunderson is good if you're *sure* you want to do earlier stage companies (they skew earlier stage and VC fund representation) and Goodwin holds its own.

Ignore vault and go with Fenwick if you like it. You may want to probe a bit more to at least see how many lawyers in each of Cooley and Fenwick do clean tech. Headcount will probably be a pretty good indicator of strength of practice in this particular instance.

8green wrote:

BrainsyK wrote:Isn't Fenwick generally considered top dogs along with Gunderson, Cooley, and WSGR at least for tech/start-up work? I'm admittedly not an expert, but facially, it doesn't seem crazy at all.

Hey! Thanks for you reply. it is. But it's ranked 79 on Vault while the others are in the 20s. I wonder if there's something that sets the others apart since there's such a wide difference in ranking. For example, are there less resources or what else could this be indicative of?

(I'm a 1L so I don't know that much about law firms)

No you wouldn't be crazy. Fenwick is one of the best Silicon Valley tech firms and works on some of the most high-profile deals.

Vault rankings are of limited use. (For example, nobody thinks Jones Day is better than W&C.)

8green wrote:

BrainsyK wrote:Isn't Fenwick generally considered top dogs along with Gunderson, Cooley, and WSGR at least for tech/start-up work? I'm admittedly not an expert, but facially, it doesn't seem crazy at all.

Hey! Thanks for you reply. it is. But it's ranked 79 on Vault while the others are in the 20s. I wonder if there's something that sets the others apart since there's such a wide difference in ranking. For example, are there less resources or what else could this be indicative of?

(I'm a 1L so I don't know that much about law firms)

First (and most importantly), the others ITT are correct that Vault rankings are meaningless for non-NYC BigLaw.

Second, your assertion that Fenwick is ranked 79 on Vault "while the others are in the 20s" is actually wrong. Fenwick is #79 in the Vault Law 100. Gunderson isn't even in the V100. Gunderson is ranked #18 in the NorCal Vault list, where Fenwick clocks in at #4. Gunderson is listed at #26 in the General Corporate Practice list, while Fenwick snags #20 in the same ranking. So as far as Vault goes, Fenwick > Gunderson. (Note: I'm not saying Vault is right! I'm just saying that the assertion that Fenwick loses badly in the Vault race is wrong.)

I work for one of the non-Fenwick firms you have named. I'm not in your practice area so I won't weigh in on what would be best for someone in your practice area. But I urge you to deemphasize Vault in your consideration of NorCal firms. I almost declined an offer to interview at my current firm years ago because I was concerned that it wasn't ranked highly enough on Vault. Would have been the biggest mistake of my professional career. Vault is East Coast oriented and highly based on reputation perceptions supplied by relatively inexperienced associates. It's debatable whether it has value in any market, but if it does, that market is New York and not the Bay Area. Don't give it another thought when evaluating firms here.

Chambers is a better approximation of Nor Cal emerging company practices than Vault. Vault is better suited for evaluating traditional NYC corporate practices, and so really shouldn't weigh into OP's calculus here. That said, I think there's room for disagreement with Chambers (I'd put Gunderson in Band 1, for example).

OP - I don't think you'd be crazy to choose Fenwick over MoFo or Cooley. Of the three, Fenwick and Cooley probably have the best practices for what you're interested in.

Have you gotten an offer at any of the above? 1L interviewing in the bay area as well and interested

Chiming in to say that Fenwick would definitely be a better choice than MoFo for startup work, and is certainly on par with (though smaller over all than) Cooley. I believe Cooley pays market bonuses while Fenwick does not always do so. Fenwick's MV office is a nice place to work (as is Cooley PA). MoFo's SV office is not really a thing--SF is more its jam.

I encourage you to be flexible to all tech work, and the cleantech specialty will come over time. Feel free to page or PM me if you want more insight.

All are great options if you're interviewing as a 1L for 1L summer. From a quality of life perspective, I'd pick Cooley or Fenwick over MoFo. MoFo is truly outstanding at securities/cap mkts and Asia work, in case that's your jam. GL!

no choosing fenwick isn't crazy. and just to update this, though i know this post is old, fenwick pays market bonus as well now. (6th year associate @ fenwick)