Top Law Schools

deleted by user

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a midlevel biglaw associate. There's a city government agency (large city, NY/LA/SF) in my practice area that pays in the low six figures that I'm considering applying to. But I'm a little concerned about the prestige factor: how do people regard city government work? The people at the agency I met with seem to have a pretty impressive pedigree (former biglaw), but I haven't met everyone so I'm not sure that's true of everyone, or even the majority of attorneys at the agency.

I just don't want to throw away my years of experience in biglaw for a job anyone from a TTT could have gotten straight out of school. On the other hand, there aren't many good exit options for my practice area as far as quality of life is concerned. Am I insane for even considering this factor? Entirely possible law school/biglaw have poisoned my brain.

You forgot to ask for only v100 attorneys to respond to your question

legalpotato wrote:You forgot to ask for only v100 attorneys to respond to your question

FTFY.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a midlevel biglaw associate. There's a city government agency (large city, NY/LA/SF) in my practice area that pays in the low six figures that I'm considering applying to. But I'm a little concerned about the prestige factor: how do people regard city government work? The people at the agency I met with seem to have a pretty impressive pedigree (former biglaw), but I haven't met everyone so I'm not sure that's true of everyone, or even the majority of attorneys at the agency.

I just don't want to throw away my years of experience in biglaw for a job anyone from a TTT could have gotten straight out of school. On the other hand, there aren't many good exit options for my practice area as far as quality of life is concerned. Am I insane for even considering this factor? Entirely possible law school/biglaw have poisoned my brain.

I have heard good things about people who take city jobs at least in NYC. I have no idea about LA or SF. By good things I mean those people are apart of the network of power and influence of a city that does more business and has more people than many countries. I suppose there are "bad departments" though.

Lastly, if you have been in biglaw for 5 -7 years and are looking at the boot for failing to make partner or just leaving on your own due to burn out then I wouldn't worry about prestige. You have 5-7 years of prestige and now you are "giving back" or whatever line people use when they have gone far enough in their careers that they want to do their own thing for a bit.

Oh, and be wary. Politics will be all over that job.Be ready for the chance you cross the wrong person or your boss needs a scapegoat and you're it so you get the bad press and the boot. I'm not saying you'll make the Post, but you'll feel the heat from the folks who are, even if indirectly.

Best of luck (and try not to hate too much on the TTT folks as they likely voted for your future boss's boss.)

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a midlevel biglaw associate. There's a city government agency (large city, NY/LA/SF) in my practice area that pays in the low six figures that I'm considering applying to. But I'm a little concerned about the prestige factor: how do people regard city government work? The people at the agency I met with seem to have a pretty impressive pedigree (former biglaw), but I haven't met everyone so I'm not sure that's true of everyone, or even the majority of attorneys at the agency.

I just don't want to throw away my years of experience in biglaw for a job anyone from a TTT could have gotten straight out of school. On the other hand, there aren't many good exit options for my practice area as far as quality of life is concerned. Am I insane for even considering this factor? Entirely possible law school/biglaw have poisoned my brain.

As a partner in one of the cities you are referencing, it's honestly amusing that someone considering washing out of biglaw as a midlevel associate is worried that the next job they take will be viewed as insufficiently "prestigious." Dude, at the end of the day, your resume will show that you were unable or unwilling to progress further in your current line of work. So it's pretty funny that you are still concerned with "prestige."

FWIW, the people at the (top regarded) city government agency in my city - which you may or may not be referencing - are viewed as perfectly "prestigious" in the sense that they are respected by their biglaw equivalents (and the most elite unit in the relevant agency is sufficiently so that many biglaw attorneys would not be hired there). But frankly, the folks doing well there are working well beyond the minimum expectations and are not overly concerned with so-called "quality of life". (Some of the folks in the relevant office have actually transitioned back to the private sector for lower hours.)

At the end of the day: take the job you want. But if you want to be at a "prestigious" job and viewed as working towards the top of this profession, then get rid of the concerns about quality of life and stay committed to your career. OTOH, if you want to focus of quality of life, then own that choice and own the fact that your resulting career trajectory is frankly not going to be all that "prestigious" and the fact that you're QOL-focused is going to show on your resume (and lead to your washing out of elite jobs, whether those jobs are in the private or public sector).

Anonymous User wrote:As a partner in one of the cities you are referencing, it's honestly amusing that someone considering washing out of biglaw as a midlevel associate is worried that the next job they take will be viewed as insufficiently "prestigious." Dude, at the end of the day, your resume will show that you were unable or unwilling to progress further in your current line of work. So it's pretty funny that you are still concerned with "prestige."

OP: Thanks, sincerely, for reminding me of what I never want to become (and was closer than I'd like to becoming). I'm going to apply to the job and take it if I'm lucky enough to get it. Enjoy your elite "life," anonymous partner.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a midlevel biglaw associate. There's a city government agency (large city, NY/LA/SF) in my practice area that pays in the low six figures that I'm considering applying to. But I'm a little concerned about the prestige factor: how do people regard city government work? The people at the agency I met with seem to have a pretty impressive pedigree (former biglaw), but I haven't met everyone so I'm not sure that's true of everyone, or even the majority of attorneys at the agency.

I just don't want to throw away my years of experience in biglaw for a job anyone from a TTT could have gotten straight out of school. On the other hand, there aren't many good exit options for my practice area as far as quality of life is concerned. Am I insane for even considering this factor? Entirely possible law school/biglaw have poisoned my brain.

As a partner in one of the cities you are referencing, it's honestly amusing that someone considering washing out of biglaw as a midlevel associate is worried that the next job they take will be viewed as insufficiently "prestigious." Dude, at the end of the day, your resume will show that you were unable or unwilling to progress further in your current line of work. So it's pretty funny that you are still concerned with "prestige."

FWIW, the people at the (top regarded) city government agency in my city - which you may or may not be referencing - are viewed as perfectly "prestigious" in the sense that they are respected by their biglaw equivalents (and the most elite unit in the relevant agency is sufficiently so that many biglaw attorneys would not be hired there). But frankly, the folks doing well there are working well beyond the minimum expectations and are not overly concerned with so-called "quality of life". (Some of the folks in the relevant office have actually transitioned back to the private sector for lower hours.)

At the end of the day: take the job you want. But if you want to be at a "prestigious" job and viewed as working towards the top of this profession, then get rid of the concerns about quality of life and stay committed to your career. OTOH, if you want to focus of quality of life, then own that choice and own the fact that your resulting career trajectory is frankly not going to be all that "prestigious" and the fact that you're QOL-focused is going to show on your resume (and lead to your washing out of elite jobs, whether those jobs are in the private or public sector).

This is one of the most obnoxious posts I’ve seen on this forum. It’s truly pathetic that this makes you feel better about yourself.

WalnutSurprise wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a midlevel biglaw associate. There's a city government agency (large city, NY/LA/SF) in my practice area that pays in the low six figures that I'm considering applying to. But I'm a little concerned about the prestige factor: how do people regard city government work? The people at the agency I met with seem to have a pretty impressive pedigree (former biglaw), but I haven't met everyone so I'm not sure that's true of everyone, or even the majority of attorneys at the agency.

I just don't want to throw away my years of experience in biglaw for a job anyone from a TTT could have gotten straight out of school. On the other hand, there aren't many good exit options for my practice area as far as quality of life is concerned. Am I insane for even considering this factor? Entirely possible law school/biglaw have poisoned my brain.

As a partner in one of the cities you are referencing, it's honestly amusing that someone considering washing out of biglaw as a midlevel associate is worried that the next job they take will be viewed as insufficiently "prestigious." Dude, at the end of the day, your resume will show that you were unable or unwilling to progress further in your current line of work. So it's pretty funny that you are still concerned with "prestige."

FWIW, the people at the (top regarded) city government agency in my city - which you may or may not be referencing - are viewed as perfectly "prestigious" in the sense that they are respected by their biglaw equivalents (and the most elite unit in the relevant agency is sufficiently so that many biglaw attorneys would not be hired there). But frankly, the folks doing well there are working well beyond the minimum expectations and are not overly concerned with so-called "quality of life". (Some of the folks in the relevant office have actually transitioned back to the private sector for lower hours.)

At the end of the day: take the job you want. But if you want to be at a "prestigious" job and viewed as working towards the top of this profession, then get rid of the concerns about quality of life and stay committed to your career. OTOH, if you want to focus of quality of life, then own that choice and own the fact that your resulting career trajectory is frankly not going to be all that "prestigious" and the fact that you're QOL-focused is going to show on your resume (and lead to your washing out of elite jobs, whether those jobs are in the private or public sector).

This is one of the most obnoxious posts I’ve seen on this forum. It’s truly pathetic that this makes you feel better about yourself.

I have never worked/interacted with a partner that would talk like a freshman frat bro like this.

hatelawandgoinghome wrote:

WalnutSurprise wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As a partner in one of the cities you are referencing, it's honestly amusing that someone considering washing out of biglaw as a midlevel associate is worried that the next job they take will be viewed as insufficiently "prestigious." Dude, at the end of the day, your resume will show that you were unable or unwilling to progress further in your current line of work. So it's pretty funny that you are still concerned with "prestige."

FWIW, the people at the (top regarded) city government agency in my city - which you may or may not be referencing - are viewed as perfectly "prestigious" in the sense that they are respected by their biglaw equivalents (and the most elite unit in the relevant agency is sufficiently so that many biglaw attorneys would not be hired there).

This is one of the most obnoxious posts I’ve seen on this forum. It’s truly pathetic that this makes you feel better about yourself.

I have never worked/interacted with a partner that would talk like a freshman frat bro like this.

Given the interest from hatelaw and Walnut, I took a quick gander at Anon's post history, which, while not definitive by any means, makes it plausible that they are actually a partner as they assert.

That said, their logic above confuses me a bit. Anon begins by blasting OP for considering "washing out" into city government, then notes that the "top regarded city government agency" in their market is "perfectly prestigious," in fact even more prestigious than the average BigLaw gig.

WalnutSurprise wrote: This is one of the most obnoxious posts I’ve seen on this forum. It’s truly pathetic that this makes you feel better about yourself.

It's definitely obnoxious but it makes a decent point: you're either all aboard the "prestige" train or you're not. The prestige train involves general misery, low quality of life, high stress, etc. The other train is the opposite, but it also has those pesky TTT grads aboard (yuck!!!). Pick your poison. But you can't really have it both ways.

It's not the most obnoxious post. There are others far more obnoxious.
Gresham's Law: low quality copper coins drive out more valuable gold coins. The same law applies to posts.

shock259 wrote:

WalnutSurprise wrote: This is one of the most obnoxious posts I’ve seen on this forum. It’s truly pathetic that this makes you feel better about yourself.

It's definitely obnoxious but it makes a decent point: you're either all aboard the "prestige" train or you're not. The prestige train involves general misery, low quality of life, high stress, etc. The other train is the opposite, but it also has those pesky TTT grads aboard (yuck!!!). Pick your poison. But you can't really have it both ways.

I agree, think partner was giving OP a healthy reality check: If you want QoL, get off the prestige train. It's an accoutrement of power/$$$, and you rarely get that working 9-6.

QContinuum wrote:

hatelawandgoinghome wrote:

WalnutSurprise wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As a partner in one of the cities you are referencing, it's honestly amusing that someone considering washing out of biglaw as a midlevel associate is worried that the next job they take will be viewed as insufficiently "prestigious." Dude, at the end of the day, your resume will show that you were unable or unwilling to progress further in your current line of work. So it's pretty funny that you are still concerned with "prestige."

FWIW, the people at the (top regarded) city government agency in my city - which you may or may not be referencing - are viewed as perfectly "prestigious" in the sense that they are respected by their biglaw equivalents (and the most elite unit in the relevant agency is sufficiently so that many biglaw attorneys would not be hired there).

This is one of the most obnoxious posts I’ve seen on this forum. It’s truly pathetic that this makes you feel better about yourself.

I have never worked/interacted with a partner that would talk like a freshman frat bro like this.

Given the interest from hatelaw and Walnut, I took a quick gander at Anon's post history, which, while not definitive by any means, makes it plausible that they are actually a partner as they assert.

That said, their logic above confuses me a bit. Anon begins by blasting OP for considering "washing out" into city government, then notes that the "top regarded city government agency" in their market is "perfectly prestigious," in fact even more prestigious than the average BigLaw gig.

Partner anon here: there isn't any tension in the logic. I referred to the OP as "washing out" because they wanted to leave biglaw for quality of life reasons, not because they were considering city government. I have a lot of respect for government attorneys (including those in strong local government offices), think there are a variety of government jobs that are as or more "prestigious" than biglaw, and know that many of those jobs (usually the ones viewed as "prestigious") require intense hours, often just as intense as biglaw. (If you are a trial lawyer, for instance, the fact that you work for the government doesn't give you a pass on the hours associated with trial.) Hope that clarifies the seeming tension.

As for the OP, I'm glad I could remind you of what you don't ever want to become, but you likewise remind me of what I am glad I'm not: someone deciding career trajectory based on "prestige" and the "pedigree" of their future colleagues rather than choosing jobs based on enthusiasm for the work. (As unlikely as it may seem, I picked biglaw and stuck with it because I found an area I was genuinely excited about and enjoy the work, so (while I work a lot of hours and the job can be stressful), I feel like I've got a great QOL.)

I should have been more restrained in my tone, but was honestly pretty amazed to see someone several years out of law school claiming to be making job decisions based on whether the relevant job would have been offered to "anyone from a TTT...straight out of school." Apologies to the others who found the post intemperate.

Anonymous User wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

hatelawandgoinghome wrote:

WalnutSurprise wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As a partner in one of the cities you are referencing, it's honestly amusing that someone considering washing out of biglaw as a midlevel associate is worried that the next job they take will be viewed as insufficiently "prestigious." Dude, at the end of the day, your resume will show that you were unable or unwilling to progress further in your current line of work. So it's pretty funny that you are still concerned with "prestige."

FWIW, the people at the (top regarded) city government agency in my city - which you may or may not be referencing - are viewed as perfectly "prestigious" in the sense that they are respected by their biglaw equivalents (and the most elite unit in the relevant agency is sufficiently so that many biglaw attorneys would not be hired there).

This is one of the most obnoxious posts I’ve seen on this forum. It’s truly pathetic that this makes you feel better about yourself.

I have never worked/interacted with a partner that would talk like a freshman frat bro like this.

Given the interest from hatelaw and Walnut, I took a quick gander at Anon's post history, which, while not definitive by any means, makes it plausible that they are actually a partner as they assert.

That said, their logic above confuses me a bit. Anon begins by blasting OP for considering "washing out" into city government, then notes that the "top regarded city government agency" in their market is "perfectly prestigious," in fact even more prestigious than the average BigLaw gig.

Partner anon here: there isn't any tension in the logic. I referred to the OP as "washing out" because they wanted to leave biglaw for quality of life reasons, not because they were considering city government. I have a lot of respect for government attorneys (including those in strong local government offices), think there are a variety of government jobs that are as or more "prestigious" than biglaw, and know that many of those jobs (usually the ones viewed as "prestigious") require intense hours, often just as intense as biglaw. (If you are a trial lawyer, for instance, the fact that you work for the government doesn't give you a pass on the hours associated with trial.) Hope that clarifies the seeming tension.

As for the OP, I'm glad I could remind you of what you don't ever want to become, but you likewise remind me of what I am glad I'm not: someone deciding career trajectory based on "prestige" and the "pedigree" of their future colleagues rather than choosing jobs based on enthusiasm for the work. (As unlikely as it may seem, I picked biglaw and stuck with it because I found an area I was genuinely excited about and enjoy the work, so (while I work a lot of hours and the job can be stressful), I feel like I've got a great QOL.)

I should have been more restrained in my tone, but was honestly pretty amazed to see someone several years out of law school claiming to be making job decisions based on whether the relevant job would have been offered to "anyone from a TTT...straight out of school." Apologies to the others who found the post intemperate.

Fair enough. You make a good point, and good for you for finding a job you’re genuinely excited about in biglaw.

This is OP. While the way I worded my original post may have made it seem otherwise, I'm not exclusively concerned with the prestige of the job. There are many other factors I'm considering, including above all the meaningfulness of the work. The only reason I thought to bring up prestige at all is that I've read several disparaging posts on these forums, including posts more or less explicitly stating that local government work is for people who aren't capable of doing biglaw, or that it's an option for people who strike out at OCI, or have median grades at schools outside of the T1, etc. That said, the way it was written, my original post does demonstrate a concern with prestige that I would have found alienating even a couple of years ago, and I understand why it drew some of the negative reactions it did.

As to the partner's followup: People reacted poorly to his original post because it was dripping with contempt for anyone leaving biglaw for quality of life reasons ("your resume will show that you were unwilling or unable to progress"; people who want QOL will "wash[] out of elite jobs"). (The implication of course being that he, the partner, has made the correct decision in his career by not letting petty concerns like quality of life interfere with the pursuit of elite prestige.) Setting aside the fact that there are perfectly well-regarded exit options from many biglaw practices that do in fact offer a good quality of life (including federal government outside of certain busier agencies, regulatory jobs, etc.), anonymous partner seems to be oblivious to the fact that most people who leave biglaw do so as midlevels, and that seeing all such people as "washouts" evinces an elitism that belies the more reasonable tone he attempts in his second post.

Finally and not to belabor the point, but his second post is also internally inconsistent. In the first paragraph he says he referred to me as a "washout" because I was leaving biglaw for quality of life; in the second paragraph he says he was disgusted with me because I'm exclusively concerned with prestige. Well, which is it? Am I "deciding career trajectory based on 'prestige'"? Or am I looking only for quality of life?

I think the answer is that anonymous partner is just looking for a reason to disparage anyone who leaves biglaw (whatever the reason) because that gives him the opportunity to brag about the fact that he stuck it out (sacrificing his life in the process). It's this quality that people were reacting to in his original post and the second post does not convincingly demonstrate that he was really only adopting this attitude in disgusted reaction to my OP. (Note also the typical partner behavior of externalizing blame--it's not, "I was wrong to say this," it's "Look at what this other person made me do.")

But congratulations on finding your calling, anonymous partner. Isn't it funny that it turned out to be exactly what other people told you to do?

Anonymous User wrote: But congratulations on finding your calling, anonymous partner. Isn't it funny that it turned out to be exactly what other people told you to do?

This is unnecessarily harsh. Yes, the partner was a bit of a dick in the original post. But he apologized and clarified in his second post. And like I mentioned before, I think he made good points.

I don't think you can make any sort of inference as to the partner's goals (bragging about "making it" or whatever at the expense of his quality of life). If he enjoys biglaw, let him enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, don't do biglaw and go do whatever you want to do. Simple as that. I think you may want to consider whether you have some insecurities about leaving biglaw, and whether people will view you as a failure or whatever. But you shouldn't. There's no shame in leaving. But there's also no shame in staying. Life is short and do whatever makes you happy.

I left and I couldn't be happier. Do biglaw partners or whatever view me as a failure? I don't know, and I also don't really care. Outside of this weird fucking microcosm, no one cares. About any of this shit. And none of it matters.

shock259 wrote:Outside of this weird fucking microcosm, no one cares. About any of this shit. And none of it matters.

This is true, and it barely matters in microcosm. My partner mentor said something about prestige being a cheap excuse to get more work for less money. People don't talk about prestige unless they have nothing else to talk about.

That said, I feel bad for anon partner. My old firm had partners like that, and they hated each other. Everyone wanted a bigger share of the pie, so they would bicker, scheme or even complain to their own associates about how so-en-so is just the biggest [censored]. They also had the weirdest competitions. One of them took it as source of pride/ a badge of resilience that he missed his son's birthday because of work, and another was talking about how her last three husbands were all [censored] before rattling off her own qualifications. Again, not saying their life decisions were wrong, but I hope I "wash out" before I turn into one of them.

Partner anon here: It's disappointing that multiple posters assumed, apparently based on the fact that I stated I was a partner, that I was male. The assumption is incorrect, but it happens too often on this board and I'd like to see it stop. If it weren't for that disappointing assumption, I wouldn't have responded further, but while I"m here:

Regarding the "washout" comment: I personally respect people who are willing to put in the work to advance along a top-notch trajectory (whether that's at a great municipal law office, a cutting-edge nonprofit, academia, biglaw, or anything else). I don't have the same degree of professional respect for people who leave any of those tracks seeking an easier, quality-of-life job. YMMV. There are plenty of others who judge harshly those of us who are full-steam ahead on our careers for supposedly "not having a life." And still others, arguably more mature than the rest of us, accept that some people are hard-charging professionals while other people seek more of a balance, and all of those options are okay. I just have a personal preference for the hard-charging professionals, and am not going to apologize for that.

And regarding the assertion that I'm doing "exactly what other people told [me] to do" - sorry, I didn't get that memo. I spent years of my career in government before joining my current biglaw firm, and I was harshly judged by many friends, family, and former colleagues for "selling out" by joining biglaw. I've since received plenty of criticism for being supposedly "too" focused on my job for other people's taste. I'm doing exactly what I want to do even though it frankly isn't winning any popularity contests, whether in RL or this thread. (That said, the final poster's observations at their firm really have no relevance to my life: the partners at my firm like each other and socialize together, don't complain about each other to associates, and the culture is one where people are encouraged to take time for their personal lives - arguably more so than I personally do.)

wat the actual fuck is a partner doing writing walls of text on TLS arguing with a bunch of burned out associates about whether biglaw is a good gig?

wishywashy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a midlevel biglaw associate. There's a city government agency (large city, NY/LA/SF) in my practice area that pays in the low six figures that I'm considering applying to. But I'm a little concerned about the prestige factor: how do people regard city government work? The people at the agency I met with seem to have a pretty impressive pedigree (former biglaw), but I haven't met everyone so I'm not sure that's true of everyone, or even the majority of attorneys at the agency.

I just don't want to throw away my years of experience in biglaw for a job anyone from a TTT could have gotten straight out of school. On the other hand, there aren't many good exit options for my practice area as far as quality of life is concerned. Am I insane for even considering this factor? Entirely possible law school/biglaw have poisoned my brain.

I have heard good things about people who take city jobs at least in NYC. I have no idea about LA or SF. By good things I mean those people are apart of the network of power and influence of a city that does more business and has more people than many countries. I suppose there are "bad departments" though.

Lastly, if you have been in biglaw for 5 -7 years and are looking at the boot for failing to make partner or just leaving on your own due to burn out then I wouldn't worry about prestige. You have 5-7 years of prestige and now you are "giving back" or whatever line people use when they have gone far enough in their careers that they want to do their own thing for a bit.

Oh, and be wary. Politics will be all over that job.Be ready for the chance you cross the wrong person or your boss needs a scapegoat and you're it so you get the bad press and the boot. I'm not saying you'll make the Post, but you'll feel the heat from the folks who are, even if indirectly.

Best of luck (and try not to hate too much on the TTT folks as they likely voted for your future boss's boss.)

I'm 1L so take this with a grain of salt but I was a paralegal for a former city bigwig who converted his job into a midlaw partnership - he brought in enough business to earn in the same range as a V10's PPP and looked to expand past that. So it's possible - if not likely. His law school was in the same range as Cooley.

Obviously atypical story but he also took a bunch of people from relevant departments (regulatory practice for a niche industry) as counsel and as of the time I worked one made partner in a couple of years - and the counsels got to leave their 9-5 for a more demanding but a significantly higher paid job.

The difference between the partners and the counsel was that the partners knew the relevant law inside out and all the legislators/regulators making it whereas the counsel knew the former.