Top Law Schools

I have noticed that a lot of discussion regarding relative strength of exit ops for senior associates has been centered around non-litigation positions.

My question is this: when you think about some of the really good exit ops for litigation senior associates (just spitballing: fortune 100 litigation counsel, ausa in competitive district, partner in midlaw or the like, academia, judge, etc.), how much of a difference is there from a resume-strength perspective (all other things being equal) between a litigator from, say, Morrison and foerster and, say, Quinn or something.

Assume we aren’t talking about any niche groups such as l&e or appellate or anything—just standard hybrid white collar/commercial lit associate.

How different would the exit ops of these two hypothetical senior associates be?

Can you put a finer point on your question? MoFo and Quinn are quite comparable firms (and I hope this thread doesn't become a MoFo v QE fight). In general, it's hard to say that a senior lit associate at either firm is much better positioned than the other.

The question also depends a lot on what practice area and what city. E.g., if you wanted to go into Fortune 100 tech in SF, MoFo is probably the better option. If you're looking at AUSA in NYC, perhaps Quinn is. But the answer really depends on where you are, what work you've done, and who you've done it with.

justanotherlurker wrote:Can you put a finer point on your question? MoFo and Quinn are quite comparable firms (and I hope this thread doesn't become a MoFo v QE fight). In general, it's hard to say that a senior lit associate at either firm is much better positioned than the other.

The question also depends a lot on what practice area and what city. E.g., if you wanted to go into Fortune 100 tech in SF, MoFo is probably the better option. If you're looking at AUSA in NYC, perhaps Quinn is. But the answer really depends on where you are, what work you've done, and who you've done it with.

OP here. Mofo’s lit reputation in my marker is lower than quinns, but maybe that was a bad example. Let’s say non-IP standard white collar/commercial lit hybrid from a Nixon Peabody or a mintz levin versus say a quinn or a Latham. If it’s easier to remove in house from the equation, that’s cool. What about the other exit ops? How much better positioned is the quinn/Latham lawyer than the Nixon Peabody/mintz lawyer?

Edit: may have gone too far in the other direction with my mofo replacement in the hypo. Really, I’m just trying to ask—of the market-paying biglaw Shops, how much of a benefit is there of exiting from one with a top reputation relative to this group versus a lower reputation relative to this group? Assuming one has good lit experience from a market firm, does the name of the firm even matter for lit exit ops?

I'm at a V60 firm. And I can't really speak to the top firms, but since I've been testing the waters, it seems that potential exit options care most about my experience. The USAO likely isn't going to want a senior associate that hasn't taken a depo. Same for some of the trial boutqiues. It's tough to tell.

4 year in lit. I'm not sure why OP is mixing white collar and lit as a "standard" thing. (E.g., "standard white collar/commercial lit hybrid"). I never do white collar -- it seems very different from the class actions/antitrust/products liability that animates most of my office.

My sense is not too much difference if you're coming from one of the well-respected major firms in the market you're looking for, but this isn't based on much. I think the bigger difference would be the better-regarded places may have more connections to whatever job you're looking for. The larger firms also need associates to leave for the business model to work, and setting them up with nice outside jobs keeps their reputations up and alumni happy (who then refer business back).

TLDR, prob some difference in terms of connections you'll make, but not a huge difference between well-respected shops in the market.

Anonymous User wrote: OP here. Mofo’s lit reputation in my marker is lower than quinns, but maybe that was a bad example. Let’s say non-IP standard white collar/commercial lit hybrid from a Nixon Peabody or a mintz levin versus say a quinn or a Latham. If it’s easier to remove in house from the equation, that’s cool. What about the other exit ops? How much better positioned is the quinn/Latham lawyer than the Nixon Peabody/mintz lawyer?

Edit: may have gone too far in the other direction with my mofo replacement in the hypo. Really, I’m just trying to ask—of the market-paying biglaw Shops, how much of a benefit is there of exiting from one with a top reputation relative to this group versus a lower reputation relative to this group? Assuming one has good lit experience from a market firm, does the name of the firm even matter for lit exit ops?

Again, it's not really clear what you're asking about. Ok, we're taking in house off the table. Do you mean smaller firm? Government? Or not practicing law at all (academia, policy...)?

In general, yes, you are more likely to have an easier time getting a new job after 6 years at Latham than Nixon Peabody. But this is sort of like saying "You are more likely to get a biglaw job at HLS than Georgetown Law." It's generally true, but it depends a lot on how well you did, who you know, what you want to do, etc.

As others have said, exit options depend much more on the skills you have, the clients you've worked with, the expertise you've developed.

justanotherlurker wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: OP here. Mofo’s lit reputation in my marker is lower than quinns, but maybe that was a bad example. Let’s say non-IP standard white collar/commercial lit hybrid from a Nixon Peabody or a mintz levin versus say a quinn or a Latham. If it’s easier to remove in house from the equation, that’s cool. What about the other exit ops? How much better positioned is the quinn/Latham lawyer than the Nixon Peabody/mintz lawyer?

Edit: may have gone too far in the other direction with my mofo replacement in the hypo. Really, I’m just trying to ask—of the market-paying biglaw Shops, how much of a benefit is there of exiting from one with a top reputation relative to this group versus a lower reputation relative to this group? Assuming one has good lit experience from a market firm, does the name of the firm even matter for lit exit ops?

Again, it's not really clear what you're asking about. Ok, we're taking in house off the table. Do you mean smaller firm? Government? Or not practicing law at all (academia, policy...)?

In general, yes, you are more likely to have an easier time getting a new job after 6 years at Latham than Nixon Peabody. But this is sort of like saying "You are more likely to get a biglaw job at HLS than Georgetown Law." It's generally true, but it depends a lot on how well you did, who you know, what you want to do, etc.

As others have said, exit options depend much more on the skills you have, the clients you've worked with, the expertise you've developed.

So you see the difference between a Latham and a Nixon to be tantamount to the difference between a HLS and a Georgetown? Interesting. I hadn’t heard that before, but it makes some sense.

Anonymous User wrote:

justanotherlurker wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: OP here. Mofo’s lit reputation in my marker is lower than quinns, but maybe that was a bad example. Let’s say non-IP standard white collar/commercial lit hybrid from a Nixon Peabody or a mintz levin versus say a quinn or a Latham. If it’s easier to remove in house from the equation, that’s cool. What about the other exit ops? How much better positioned is the quinn/Latham lawyer than the Nixon Peabody/mintz lawyer?

Edit: may have gone too far in the other direction with my mofo replacement in the hypo. Really, I’m just trying to ask—of the market-paying biglaw Shops, how much of a benefit is there of exiting from one with a top reputation relative to this group versus a lower reputation relative to this group? Assuming one has good lit experience from a market firm, does the name of the firm even matter for lit exit ops?

Again, it's not really clear what you're asking about. Ok, we're taking in house off the table. Do you mean smaller firm? Government? Or not practicing law at all (academia, policy...)?

In general, yes, you are more likely to have an easier time getting a new job after 6 years at Latham than Nixon Peabody. But this is sort of like saying "You are more likely to get a biglaw job at HLS than Georgetown Law." It's generally true, but it depends a lot on how well you did, who you know, what you want to do, etc.

As others have said, exit options depend much more on the skills you have, the clients you've worked with, the expertise you've developed.

So you see the difference between a Latham and a Nixon to be tantamount to the difference between a HLS and a Georgetown? Interesting. I hadn’t heard that before, but it makes some sense.

In the universe of law firms (of which there are thousands of all shapes and sizes), the V100 could probably be roughly analogized to the T14, sure. And if that's helpful in answering your question, glad to be of service.

justanotherlurker wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

justanotherlurker wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: OP here. Mofo’s lit reputation in my marker is lower than quinns, but maybe that was a bad example. Let’s say non-IP standard white collar/commercial lit hybrid from a Nixon Peabody or a mintz levin versus say a quinn or a Latham. If it’s easier to remove in house from the equation, that’s cool. What about the other exit ops? How much better positioned is the quinn/Latham lawyer than the Nixon Peabody/mintz lawyer?

Edit: may have gone too far in the other direction with my mofo replacement in the hypo. Really, I’m just trying to ask—of the market-paying biglaw Shops, how much of a benefit is there of exiting from one with a top reputation relative to this group versus a lower reputation relative to this group? Assuming one has good lit experience from a market firm, does the name of the firm even matter for lit exit ops?

Again, it's not really clear what you're asking about. Ok, we're taking in house off the table. Do you mean smaller firm? Government? Or not practicing law at all (academia, policy...)?

In general, yes, you are more likely to have an easier time getting a new job after 6 years at Latham than Nixon Peabody. But this is sort of like saying "You are more likely to get a biglaw job at HLS than Georgetown Law." It's generally true, but it depends a lot on how well you did, who you know, what you want to do, etc.

As others have said, exit options depend much more on the skills you have, the clients you've worked with, the expertise you've developed.

So you see the difference between a Latham and a Nixon to be tantamount to the difference between a HLS and a Georgetown? Interesting. I hadn’t heard that before, but it makes some sense.

In the universe of law firms (of which there are thousands of all shapes and sizes), the V100 could probably be roughly analogized to the T14, sure. And if that's helpful in answering your question, glad to be of service.

Does it follow, then, that if one is at a v30, there really is no point in trying to “transfer” to a Kirkland/Latham/whatever purely for exit ops, all other things (QOL, experience, etc.) being equal?