Top Law Schools

Hiya!

Need help figuring out what my options are. I'm thinking of leaving a firm called Wood Smith Henning & Berman. I'm a 2nd year in one of their So Cal Offices (Sorry gotta protect myself from being identified). Mostly Insurance D work. They pay like $90,000 and raise sucked this year. Only $6,000.00 raise. I'm went to law school in the Bay Area so I'm thinking of hiking back up there. Where can I realistically lateral to? My grades were so-so. Above a 3.0, but nothing like top 30% for law school. Like how much should I be looking for compensation in the next firm?

Any leads or recommendations or lateral advice would be awesome!! Thanks y'all!

That salary seems pretty low for a firm of that size. I'd recommend just resume blasting at places that are hiring, and consider getting help from a recruiter.

I know right? Should I find a similar sized insurance D firm? Or should I go smaller to a small firm that pays better?

Any recommended firms in the San Francisco Bay Area would be greatly appreciated!

I might try to get out of insurance d before you get too pigeon holed. The experience is relevant enough and I’m thinking you might be junior enough to spin it into sufficiently relevant experience for something that’s more traditionally commercial.

I'm going to assume that you're the same guy on other threads asking about San Francisco firms. Honestly, you might do better staying in SoCal than coming up to SF, as LA and SD have a substantially lower cost of living than SF.

What your current firm is paying you really isn't that off base for insurance defense firms up here in NorCal (but your effective take home would be less as you'd likely have higher fixed costs, all else equal). Also, I'd be surprised if a significant number of non-biglaw jobs offered anything but on the job training (to address your complaint in a previous thread that the firm wasn't really training you - IME, that's kinda par for the course).

The long-term plan for you should be to get out of insurance defense. That probably means making a series of moves. First move should be to move to a firm like Gordon Rees, that does some insurance defense, but also handles a wider array of litigation. Such a firm will give you the litigation experience you need to move on to a better shop down the line.

objctnyrhnr wrote:I might try to get out of insurance d before you get too pigeon holed. The experience is relevant enough and I’m thinking you might be junior enough to spin it into sufficiently relevant experience for something that’s more traditionally commercial.

I'm thinking same thing. I figure I can be okay if a firm does Insurance D but also does other work as opposed to my current place where I'm only doing insurance D. Would you recommend any other areas to consider besides commercial litigation?

SFSpartan wrote:I'm going to assume that you're the same guy on other threads asking about San Francisco firms. Honestly, you might do better staying in SoCal than coming up to SF, as LA and SD have a substantially lower cost of living than SF.

What your current firm is paying you really isn't that off base for insurance defense firms up here in NorCal (but your effective take home would be less as you'd likely have higher fixed costs, all else equal). Also, I'd be surprised if a significant number of non-biglaw jobs offered anything but on the job training (to address your complaint in a previous thread that the firm wasn't really training you - IME, that's kinda par for the course).

The long-term plan for you should be to get out of insurance defense. That probably means making a series of moves. First move should be to move to a firm like Gordon Rees, that does some insurance defense, but also handles a wider array of litigation. Such a firm will give you the litigation experience you need to move on to a better shop down the line.

The Small Firm SF thread is one I've been on. I might be on one other as well. I really appreciate the insight on the salary to cost analysis. I didn't realize they won't adjust for a higher local pay. Same on the non-big law jobs lack of "official" training so to speak. I guess with that knowledge in mind, that isn't as big of an issue as I thought.

I super appreciate your thought on a series of moves. Two questions. If I move to a firm like Gordon & Rees, how much should I expect to get paid and how long should I stay? The toughest question I have answering is "Why are you moving firms?" Second question is what other firms should I look for that would be like a Gordon & Rees? Because I was having doubts about being able to go from Insurance D straight to some super fancy big law firm too. (Who knew insurance D was such a trap?!)

Thank you all so much for all the help!!!

Anonymous User wrote:Hiya!

Need help figuring out what my options are. I'm thinking of leaving a firm called Wood Smith Henning & Berman. I'm a 2nd year in one of their So Cal Offices (Sorry gotta protect myself from being identified). Mostly Insurance D work. They pay like $90,000 and raise sucked this year. Only $6,000.00 raise. I'm went to law school in the Bay Area so I'm thinking of hiking back up there. Where can I realistically lateral to? My grades were so-so. Above a 3.0, but nothing like top 30% for law school. Like how much should I be looking for compensation in the next firm?

Any leads or recommendations or lateral advice would be awesome!! Thanks y'all!

Honestly though, don't know what you're expecting. You had undistinguished grades from law school, and I'm going to assume you didn't attend Stanford or Cal either. You landed a job I'm going to assume was your best offer, which pays better than law school grad average and a $6000 raise seems generous enough for insurance defense as a 2nd year.

Do you even have any lateral offers or prospects, or are you just kinda spitballing hoping random posters will name mid-law firms? Have you reached out yourself? Sent in applications?

malibustacy wrote: Honestly though, don't know what you're expecting. You had undistinguished grades from law school, and I'm going to assume you didn't attend Stanford or Cal either. You landed a job I'm going to assume was your best offer, which pays better than law school grad average and a $6000 raise seems generous enough for insurance defense as a 2nd year.

Do you even have any lateral offers or prospects, or are you just kinda spitballing hoping random posters will name mid-law firms? Have you reached out yourself? Sent in applications?

Got pals who make way more than I do with just as undistinguished grades as you say. I'll admit for locale the pay is fine-ish, but hence the thought of moving back up to San Fran. Just started my lateral process hence the questions about the mid-law firms. While I've looked into the matter myself, I also wanted to seek out advice in case I didn't think of something. When you say reached out, to whom are you talking about? Random firms? Its easy enough to apply for the more well known firms, but those are usually Big Law and not mid-law.

Anonymous User wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:I might try to get out of insurance d before you get too pigeon holed. The experience is relevant enough and I’m thinking you might be junior enough to spin it into sufficiently relevant experience for something that’s more traditionally commercial.

I'm thinking same thing. I figure I can be okay if a firm does Insurance D but also does other work as opposed to my current place where I'm only doing insurance D. Would you recommend any other areas to consider besides commercial litigation?

Commercial lit really seems to me like the obvious jump. Once you hit commercial lit at a midlaw firm, you could set your sights on biglaw for the next move. Why wouldn’t that just be the obvious play?

Anonymous User wrote:

SFSpartan wrote:I'm going to assume that you're the same guy on other threads asking about San Francisco firms. Honestly, you might do better staying in SoCal than coming up to SF, as LA and SD have a substantially lower cost of living than SF.

What your current firm is paying you really isn't that off base for insurance defense firms up here in NorCal (but your effective take home would be less as you'd likely have higher fixed costs, all else equal). Also, I'd be surprised if a significant number of non-biglaw jobs offered anything but on the job training (to address your complaint in a previous thread that the firm wasn't really training you - IME, that's kinda par for the course).

The long-term plan for you should be to get out of insurance defense. That probably means making a series of moves. First move should be to move to a firm like Gordon Rees, that does some insurance defense, but also handles a wider array of litigation. Such a firm will give you the litigation experience you need to move on to a better shop down the line.

The Small Firm SF thread is one I've been on. I might be on one other as well. I really appreciate the insight on the salary to cost analysis. I didn't realize they won't adjust for a higher local pay. Same on the non-big law jobs lack of "official" training so to speak. I guess with that knowledge in mind, that isn't as big of an issue as I thought.

I super appreciate your thought on a series of moves. Two questions. If I move to a firm like Gordon & Rees, how much should I expect to get paid and how long should I stay? The toughest question I have answering is "Why are you moving firms?" Second question is what other firms should I look for that would be like a Gordon & Rees? Because I was having doubts about being able to go from Insurance D straight to some super fancy big law firm too. (Who knew insurance D was such a trap?!)

Thank you all so much for all the help!!!

No worries. Salaries might scale up a tiny bit, but they don't fully scale up (primarily because COL in the Bay Area has gone up dramatically in the last 10 years as real estate prices have risen. FWIW, I'm pretty sure Wood Smith's Walnut Creek office pays like $10k more to first years than the SoCal offices, so those people are probably better off in SoCal.

Objectnyrr is giving you good advice re: moving to midlaw commercial litigation. To the extent you make that move, or try to move to a big Insurance D firm that also has other lit. practices (i.e. Gordon Rees), I think you need to sell (a) being interested in litigation; and (b) wanting to do more commercial litigation. That's a defensible reason to switch firms. It would also be helpful if you have family up here.

Final point - you might consider waiting a year or so to transfer firms. You're not in a bad place right now, and folks might assume that you're getting fired if you start looking now (assuming by "second year" you meant that you graduated law school in 2017). Years 3-5 are when your options really start to open up, and moving as a third year will mean you can spend a couple years wherever you go before deciding whether you want to move again.

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:I might try to get out of insurance d before you get too pigeon holed. The experience is relevant enough and I’m thinking you might be junior enough to spin it into sufficiently relevant experience for something that’s more traditionally commercial.

I'm thinking same thing. I figure I can be okay if a firm does Insurance D but also does other work as opposed to my current place where I'm only doing insurance D. Would you recommend any other areas to consider besides commercial litigation?

Commercial lit really seems to me like the obvious jump. Once you hit commercial lit at a midlaw firm, you could set your sights on biglaw for the next move. Why wouldn’t that just be the obvious play?

Because I don't know as much to know it's obvious?

SFSpartan wrote: No worries. Salaries might scale up a tiny bit, but they don't fully scale up (primarily because COL in the Bay Area has gone up dramatically in the last 10 years as real estate prices have risen. FWIW, I'm pretty sure Wood Smith's Walnut Creek office pays like $10k more to first years than the SoCal offices, so those people are probably better off in SoCal.

Objectnyrr is giving you good advice re: moving to midlaw commercial litigation. To the extent you make that move, or try to move to a big Insurance D firm that also has other lit. practices (i.e. Gordon Rees), I think you need to sell (a) being interested in litigation; and (b) wanting to do more commercial litigation. That's a defensible reason to switch firms. It would also be helpful if you have family up here.

Final point - you might consider waiting a year or so to transfer firms. You're not in a bad place right now, and folks might assume that you're getting fired if you start looking now (assuming by "second year" you meant that you graduated law school in 2017). Years 3-5 are when your options really start to open up, and moving as a third year will mean you can spend a couple years wherever you go before deciding whether you want to move again.

That's a good point on COL. It was crazy expensive for apartments when I was there as a student. I've been looking at job boards and haven't come across something for commercial litigation in my year range as a lot of them seem to want 5+ years. Would it be a bad idea to move to a midlaw like a Gordon Rees or something similar (btw how does one figure out which firms fall under "mid law" short of word of mouth?) in a practice area that is not commercial litigation? Like what about something like class action? IP litigation? Or L&E litigation? I'm seeing a lot of postings for those types oddly enough.

Would it be recommended to do like 2 years or 3 years? or longer for that midlaw jump? I've heard people can move as 3rd to 5th year. But is it true that we're screwed after year 5? Like firms don't want to touch year 5 onwards unless you have book of business, etc.?

Thanks again guys! This has been super helpful.

Anonymous User wrote:

SFSpartan wrote: No worries. Salaries might scale up a tiny bit, but they don't fully scale up (primarily because COL in the Bay Area has gone up dramatically in the last 10 years as real estate prices have risen. FWIW, I'm pretty sure Wood Smith's Walnut Creek office pays like $10k more to first years than the SoCal offices, so those people are probably better off in SoCal.

Objectnyrr is giving you good advice re: moving to midlaw commercial litigation. To the extent you make that move, or try to move to a big Insurance D firm that also has other lit. practices (i.e. Gordon Rees), I think you need to sell (a) being interested in litigation; and (b) wanting to do more commercial litigation. That's a defensible reason to switch firms. It would also be helpful if you have family up here.

Final point - you might consider waiting a year or so to transfer firms. You're not in a bad place right now, and folks might assume that you're getting fired if you start looking now (assuming by "second year" you meant that you graduated law school in 2017). Years 3-5 are when your options really start to open up, and moving as a third year will mean you can spend a couple years wherever you go before deciding whether you want to move again.

That's a good point on COL. It was crazy expensive for apartments when I was there as a student. I've been looking at job boards and haven't come across something for commercial litigation in my year range as a lot of them seem to want 5+ years. Would it be a bad idea to move to a midlaw like a Gordon Rees or something similar (btw how does one figure out which firms fall under "mid law" short of word of mouth?) in a practice area that is not commercial litigation? Like what about something like class action? IP litigation? Or L&E litigation? I'm seeing a lot of postings for those types oddly enough.

Would it be recommended to do like 2 years or 3 years? or longer for that midlaw jump? I've heard people can move as 3rd to 5th year. But is it true that we're screwed after year 5? Like firms don't want to touch year 5 onwards unless you have book of business, etc.?

Thanks again guys! This has been super helpful.

Of the non-commercial lit option you listed, IP lit is probably best, followed by defense side L&E (I don't think plaintiff's L&E would be very helpful). Years 3-5 are when you are the most marketable, so if you're looking to move, I'd try to do so as a third year.

SFSpartan wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

SFSpartan wrote: No worries. Salaries might scale up a tiny bit, but they don't fully scale up (primarily because COL in the Bay Area has gone up dramatically in the last 10 years as real estate prices have risen. FWIW, I'm pretty sure Wood Smith's Walnut Creek office pays like $10k more to first years than the SoCal offices, so those people are probably better off in SoCal.

Objectnyrr is giving you good advice re: moving to midlaw commercial litigation. To the extent you make that move, or try to move to a big Insurance D firm that also has other lit. practices (i.e. Gordon Rees), I think you need to sell (a) being interested in litigation; and (b) wanting to do more commercial litigation. That's a defensible reason to switch firms. It would also be helpful if you have family up here.

Final point - you might consider waiting a year or so to transfer firms. You're not in a bad place right now, and folks might assume that you're getting fired if you start looking now (assuming by "second year" you meant that you graduated law school in 2017). Years 3-5 are when your options really start to open up, and moving as a third year will mean you can spend a couple years wherever you go before deciding whether you want to move again.

That's a good point on COL. It was crazy expensive for apartments when I was there as a student. I've been looking at job boards and haven't come across something for commercial litigation in my year range as a lot of them seem to want 5+ years. Would it be a bad idea to move to a midlaw like a Gordon Rees or something similar (btw how does one figure out which firms fall under "mid law" short of word of mouth?) in a practice area that is not commercial litigation? Like what about something like class action? IP litigation? Or L&E litigation? I'm seeing a lot of postings for those types oddly enough.

Would it be recommended to do like 2 years or 3 years? or longer for that midlaw jump? I've heard people can move as 3rd to 5th year. But is it true that we're screwed after year 5? Like firms don't want to touch year 5 onwards unless you have book of business, etc.?

Thanks again guys! This has been super helpful.

Of the non-commercial lit option you listed, IP lit is probably best, followed by defense side L&E (I don't think plaintiff's L&E would be very helpful). Years 3-5 are when you are the most marketable, so if you're looking to move, I'd try to do so as a third year.

Echo the above, but I’m thinking that some commercial lit stuff will emerge in your areA. I suggest commercial lit because it’s sufficiently broad that you can move in a number of directions and you’re sufficiently early on that it’s feasible. By contrast, if you began in say L and E, might be tough to move to say white collar down the line. Additionally, as a very general matter, commercial lit skills are pretty widely applicable to later on make a move into government, for example. LE has some viable exit options, too, don’t get me wrong, but intuitively I think they might be narrower. IP would be great if you could swing it from your current position, but without knowing more about your background, I wouldn’t be super optimistic that you can.

Gordon Rees is on par with Lewis Brisbois so I don't really know why you would seek them unless you get a Big Law group, although they might pay slightly higher. Gordon Rees is a large insurance defense firm and is not a mid law firm but the pay ain't big law

sparty99 wrote:Gordon Rees is on par with Lewis Brisbois so I don't really know why you would seek them unless you get a Big Law group, although they might pay slightly higher. Gordon Rees is a large insurance defense firm and is not a mid law firm but the pay ain't big law

I'm gonna ask the dumb question. How do we figure out what is or is not a mid law firm?

objctnyrhnr wrote: Echo the above, but I’m thinking that some commercial lit stuff will emerge in your areA. I suggest commercial lit because it’s sufficiently broad that you can move in a number of directions and you’re sufficiently early on that it’s feasible. By contrast, if you began in say L and E, might be tough to move to say white collar down the line. Additionally, as a very general matter, commercial lit skills are pretty widely applicable to later on make a move into government, for example. LE has some viable exit options, too, don’t get me wrong, but intuitively I think they might be narrower. IP would be great if you could swing it from your current position, but without knowing more about your background, I wouldn’t be super optimistic that you can.

That's a fair point. Although I figure without having those latin honors or top 15% of class rankings there's minimal chance of hitting big law anytime soon. And yea I don't have the background to pull of IP for the foreseeable future. I was thinking LE has in-house in-roads for exit options?

SFSpartan wrote: Of the non-commercial lit option you listed, IP lit is probably best, followed by defense side L&E (I don't think plaintiff's L&E would be very helpful). Years 3-5 are when you are the most marketable, so if you're looking to move, I'd try to do so as a third year.

I second Spartan. I think class action and securities can be very limiting so L&E or IP may be best.

Anonymous User wrote:

sparty99 wrote:Gordon Rees is on par with Lewis Brisbois so I don't really know why you would seek them unless you get a Big Law group, although they might pay slightly higher. Gordon Rees is a large insurance defense firm and is not a mid law firm but the pay ain't big law

I'm gonna ask the dumb question. How do we figure out what is or is not a mid law firm?

That is really not important. What is important is what you do, opportunity for growth, pay, etc.