State of the Dallas Market 2020 Forum

[Anonymous User]

The real practical purpose of these threads is for 1Ls and 2Ls to take the pulse of the market and see which firms they should target. That being said, I don't see why any law student would pick Sidley, VE, or Winston over KE, Weil, or Gibson. Sidley/VE/Winston have all pushed start dates to 2021. KE/Weil/Gibson are letting associates start in the fall. As a law student, you won't find a more useful differentiator between firms that all otherwise follow the Cravath scale.

Regarding the bickering about "satellite offices" in this thread -- if you don't want to work in a satellite office, don't work in Dallas. Go to Houston.

As a COVID 2020 grad who chose Sidley/VE/Winston over KE/Weil/Gibson, I am DEFINITELY regretting my decision. Any spin on the situation is just that, a spin, and it's BS. Many firms are starting associates this fall and those that aren't are either (i) financially unhealthy or (ii) cheap as hell. That goes for all firms up and down the V list.

I'm a little closer to the decision making process on this for a firm (outside of Dallas) that is pushing off the starting dates until later. I realize this is frustrating as an incoming first year, but it's not that simple. There are going to be a lot of financially healthy firms that are conservative because they don't want to be forced to make the decision to fire folks unless its absolutely necessary, and there are going to be a lot of firms who overstretch to keep up with the joneses and pay later (look up the verb Latham if you want an example there).

I understand the rationale. But unless those conservative firms give substantial bonuses to first years once it becomes clear they weathered the storm (to make up for the late start and an advance instead of stipend), then it's still BS and I should've chosen the higher ranked firm and all 2Ls and 3Ls should write off firms that delayed with only a mere advance if they have other options.

[EDIT] -- the main point here is that current students have a clear metric with which to distinguish firms if they have the options. For example, VE's resting on the "best in Texas" claim and "the people" (if it was plausible before) doesn't hold up now. Incoming KE associates will come out tens of $thousands ahead and have 3 months more experience. KE and Latham are clearly a step above for incoming associates.

[Anonymous User]

The real practical purpose of these threads is for 1Ls and 2Ls to take the pulse of the market and see which firms they should target. That being said, I don't see why any law student would pick Sidley, VE, or Winston over KE, Weil, or Gibson. Sidley/VE/Winston have all pushed start dates to 2021. KE/Weil/Gibson are letting associates start in the fall. As a law student, you won't find a more useful differentiator between firms that all otherwise follow the Cravath scale.

Regarding the bickering about "satellite offices" in this thread -- if you don't want to work in a satellite office, don't work in Dallas. Go to Houston.

As a COVID 2020 grad who chose Sidley/VE/Winston over KE/Weil/Gibson, I am DEFINITELY regretting my decision. Any spin on the situation is just that, a spin, and it's BS. Many firms are starting associates this fall and those that aren't are either (i) financially unhealthy or (ii) cheap as hell. That goes for all firms up and down the V list.

I'm a little closer to the decision making process on this for a firm (outside of Dallas) that is pushing off the starting dates until later. I realize this is frustrating as an incoming first year, but it's not that simple. There are going to be a lot of financially healthy firms that are conservative because they don't want to be forced to make the decision to fire folks unless its absolutely necessary, and there are going to be a lot of firms who overstretch to keep up with the joneses and pay later (look up the verb Latham if you want an example there).

I understand the rationale. But unless those conservative firms give substantial bonuses to first years once it becomes clear they weathered the storm (to make up for the late start and an advance instead of stipend), then it's still BS and I should've chosen the higher ranked firm and all 2Ls and 3Ls should write off firms that delayed with only a mere advance if they have other options.

[EDIT] -- the main point here is that current students have a clear metric with which to distinguish firms if they have the options. For example, VE's resting on the "best in Texas" claim and "the people" (if it was plausible before) doesn't hold up now. Incoming KE associates will come out tens of $thousands ahead and have 3 months more experience. KE and Latham are clearly a step above for incoming associates.

And that last part is why I was counseling caution. That one metric is not as revealing as it may seem.

Latham specifically became a verb back in 2009/2010 not just because they had lots of layoffs. They were not the firm that laid off the most people total, or even the most people at once. They became a verb because, before they did their big public layoffs, they tried very hard to hide that the layoffs were necessary. They tried to project an image of being above it, hired on the same size class of new attorneys (based on memory for that one, I don't have a source), and tried to do stealth layoffs before facing reality. They cared more about their image to incoming attorneys and the legal market as a whole than making conservative, realistic moves to protect the associates they already had, so they gambled. And they lost.

The point is, if all you look at is this metric, you don't have a way of differentiating between the gamblers, and the firms who really are secure enough to hire a full class right now. Maybe it works out for all the gamblers this time (heck, I hope it does), but history says at least one or two will overextend themselves, and the associates will pay. And you should know that could happen in making the decision, and factor that into your risk analysis.

Which isn't to say ignore that a firm is delaying first year starts either. But do what you can to figure out the real motivation for both.

[Anonymous User]

The real practical purpose of these threads is for 1Ls and 2Ls to take the pulse of the market and see which firms they should target. That being said, I don't see why any law student would pick Sidley, VE, or Winston over KE, Weil, or Gibson. Sidley/VE/Winston have all pushed start dates to 2021. KE/Weil/Gibson are letting associates start in the fall. As a law student, you won't find a more useful differentiator between firms that all otherwise follow the Cravath scale.

Regarding the bickering about "satellite offices" in this thread -- if you don't want to work in a satellite office, don't work in Dallas. Go to Houston.

As a COVID 2020 grad who chose Sidley/VE/Winston over KE/Weil/Gibson, I am DEFINITELY regretting my decision. Any spin on the situation is just that, a spin, and it's BS. Many firms are starting associates this fall and those that aren't are either (i) financially unhealthy or (ii) cheap as hell. That goes for all firms up and down the V list.

I'm a little closer to the decision making process on this for a firm (outside of Dallas) that is pushing off the starting dates until later. I realize this is frustrating as an incoming first year, but it's not that simple. There are going to be a lot of financially healthy firms that are conservative because they don't want to be forced to make the decision to fire folks unless its absolutely necessary, and there are going to be a lot of firms who overstretch to keep up with the joneses and pay later (look up the verb Latham if you want an example there).

I understand the rationale. But unless those conservative firms give substantial bonuses to first years once it becomes clear they weathered the storm (to make up for the late start and an advance instead of stipend), then it's still BS and I should've chosen the higher ranked firm and all 2Ls and 3Ls should write off firms that delayed with only a mere advance if they have other options.

[EDIT] -- the main point here is that current students have a clear metric with which to distinguish firms if they have the options. For example, VE's resting on the "best in Texas" claim and "the people" (if it was plausible before) doesn't hold up now. Incoming KE associates will come out tens of $thousands ahead and have 3 months more experience. KE and Latham are clearly a step above for incoming associates.

And that last part is why I was counseling caution. That one metric is not as revealing as it may seem.

Latham specifically became a verb back in 2009/2010 not just because they had lots of layoffs. They were not the firm that laid off the most people total, or even the most people at once. They became a verb because, before they did their big public layoffs, they tried very hard to hide that the layoffs were necessary. They tried to project an image of being above it, hired on the same size class of new attorneys (based on memory for that one, I don't have a source), and tried to do stealth layoffs before facing reality. They cared more about their image to incoming attorneys and the legal market as a whole than making conservative, realistic moves to protect the associates they already had, so they gambled. And they lost.

The point is, if all you look at is this metric, you don't have a way of differentiating between the gamblers, and the firms who really are secure enough to hire a full class right now. Maybe it works out for all the gamblers this time (heck, I hope it does), but history says at least one or two will overextend themselves, and the associates will pay. And you should know that could happen in making the decision, and factor that into your risk analysis.

Which isn't to say ignore that a firm is delaying first year starts either. But do what you can to figure out the real motivation for both.

Reasonable and noted, thank you for the thoughtful response. I'll just end by noting we're only talking 3 months here. To a firm that is in any way reasonably healthy, that shouldn't be a lot. And if you narrow it to firms who deferred and compare stipend vs. advance, it's even smaller (is 10k per incoming head really going to make a difference between the firm floundering or not??). But to incoming associates this sum is everything given debt loads, rent, etc. Also the percentage play is in the "gambler's" favor if only one or a couple of the nondeferring firms ends up struggling (if they all do, then very likely the whole industry is and we're all doomed).

Also my point about later compensating via bonus because the firm took the conservative route and made it out just as healthy or stronger would give prospective associates assurance that the firm looks out for them. Otherwise the conservative argument is weak. But I get that firms don't have to because they'll always have a surplus of average graduates to fill their ranks. On this point I'm probably more annoyed with the charade that firms actually care about getting top talent early when they are in fact quite insulated and can make the cheap, "conservative" moves here with little consequence.