Top Law Schools

I graduated top 5% from a law school in the upper half of the T14. Now clerking on a non flyover nonfeeder CoA, and thinking of joining a smaller but well regarded litigation firm in a major (SF/LA/NYC) market.

Will I be shooting myself down the road for lateral opportunities (AUSA/other gov/ in house) by working for the smaller name and not choosing a SullCrom or Paul Weiss or something?

I’d like to think at this stage the rest of my resume would carry the water for me but law is such an old school prestige obsessed profession that who knows.

Anonymous User wrote:I graduated top 5% from a law school in the upper half of the T14. Now clerking on a non flyover nonfeeder CoA, and thinking of joining a smaller but well regarded litigation firm in a major (SF/LA/NYC) market.

Will I be shooting myself down the road for lateral opportunities (AUSA/other gov/ in house) by working for the smaller name and not choosing a SullCrom or Paul Weiss or something?

I’d like to think at this stage the rest of my resume would carry the water for me but law is such an old school prestige obsessed profession that who knows.

There are lots of factors involved, some of which are personal to you. But what "carries water" at the more prestigious firms are the networking opportunities with people who've been AUSAs, have friends who are in-house, etc. So I don't think it's something you can discount. Often these hard-to-get gigs are not just a matter of your resume but who can you get to know, and there's better chances of that at places like S&C, DPW, Cravath, etc.

OP, PM me. I did something similar.

Anonymous User wrote:I graduated top 5% from a law school in the upper half of the T14. Now clerking on a non flyover nonfeeder CoA, and thinking of joining a smaller but well regarded litigation firm in a major (SF/LA/NYC) market.

Will I be shooting myself down the road for lateral opportunities (AUSA/other gov/ in house) by working for the smaller name and not choosing a SullCrom or Paul Weiss or something?

I’d like to think at this stage the rest of my resume would carry the water for me but law is such an old school prestige obsessed profession that who knows.

I would focus on people you click with and an area of law that you can stomach. And pay. Outside of that, you sound like you will have the pick of the litter. You can always work at Paul Weiss and then lateral down? But working at the best carries some weight. Working for McKinsey might land you places where Accenture will not. Working at Goldman Sachs might get you a look...It is like going to Yale. You might get a look because you went to Yale.

Anon because this is based on my experience at USAOs. I don’t think there’s a cut and dried answer. I agree that for AUSA gigs (especially for USAOs in those markets), who you know can be *extremely* helpful. I don’t know that the name of the big firms matters per se so much as who you work with and who can put in a good name for you. So, a smaller and well regarded firm might be sufficient, depending on who’s there.

The other crucial thing is experience, and working for a smaller firm where you get more court time earlier might serve you better than being a cog in a huge shop.

I’ve also seen a lot of people take an AUSA gig somewhere less desirable and then move into the bigger city offices, and at that point I don’t think firm name really matters at all. (Many USAOs will not care at all what firm you were at, though admittedly SDNY/CDCA/NDCA are probably not among them.)

In any case, I tend to think you’re better off taking the gig that actually appeals to you now, rather than suffering for an undetermined potential future outcome, but that’s more a life philosophy than objective fact.

Was on the hiring committee in my previous firm and can hopefully provide some insight. . .

#1 factor is going to be practice group prestige, not overall firm prestige. There were candidates that got dung from top firms because they came from a particularly weak group within the top firm. That's biglaw -> biglaw, but everything I've seen and heard suggests that would apply to gov't and in-house as well. You're probably going to do better going tech in house from a top-notch tech trans group like WSGR rather than a more mediocre group from a more prestigious national firm. That said, if all else is equal, the bigger name (which will depend on market - what's big in NY might not be big in SF or LA) is probably better.

AUSA is a bit weirder. There, it isn't uncommon for smaller firms to have a real pipeline into the local AUSA office, e.g. Bird Marella (LA boutique firm) has sent a bunch of people to the AUSA's office in the recent past. As long as the firm has a strong connection, there's no harm in going to there if that's what you want to do. Going to a boutique or lower ranked firm that has no real connection to the local AUSA's office will probably harm your chances versus going to a higher ranked, more "prestigious" firm with no real connection, though.