For the “Firm X or Firm Y” Posters Forum

[throwaway2]

I’m concerned by the recent “Firm X or Firm Y” posts that include students considering decent options when they have objectively better options. This was sparked by 2 separate threads considering White & Case offers with DPW/STB/PW offers on the table.

I’m saying this from a good place because I was scared when I saw those posts. It means (1) students genuinely think anecdotal cultural differences matter for these generic NYC big law decisions (2) and/or they’re not sure what resources to seek for objective answers.

(1) Cultural differences between firms are so wildly inconsistent depending on who you ask that it shouldn’t matter for generic NYC big law. The only material difference you should consider among firms is the overall structure, which can lend itself to larger cultural differences (e.g., forced rotations at Cravath, free-market at Kirkland/Cahill, etc.) Don’t even look at the quality-of-life metrics on Vault or other sites.

(2) When you are deciding between offers, you should literally go to Chambers and see where your firm fits within those bands. That’s why I was flabbergasted when I saw a litigation-related question being undecided between PW or White & Case for general lit aspirations and STB or White & Case for corporate. Obviously, that’s an imperfect way if you have more niche aspirations (White & Case is actually better for international arbitration), but if you’re already targeting something niche then you’d likely be familiar with those firms already. Just go to the best place you got into and that’s it.

[lolwutpar]

I disagree with basically everything you said and I think it's bad advice.

[Joachim2017]

I disagree with basically everything you said and I think it's bad advice.

OP gave reasons for his views and supported them with at least some detail. You just made a sweeping claim and left it there, as though you are some kind of authority by say-so (or maybe you just think we need to know that you disagree?!). Not sure who you think you are, but that carries 0 weight in my book.

[Sackboy]

I disagree with basically everything you said and I think it's bad advice.

First, your avatar is awesome.

Second, I personally agree with OP.

Beyond how a firm structures itself, as OP outlined, it's really hard to get a good feeling of a firm's culture. I work at a firm with a notoriously bad culture on TLS. My experience has been extremely pleasant. I'm sure you could ask someone in a different group at my firm and get a very different answer. The best you can do is ask how the culture in a specific group is in a specific office. Beyond that, culture conversations aren't super helpful.

I also generally agree that Chambers is a good metric for if your firm is well regarded in an area. That being said, I think people give too much weight to the difference between bands. I'd mostly just focus on if the firm shows up on Chambers in that area, whether that be in Band 1 or 4. If it's not on the list, I'd be skeptical of how well regarded the group is and how well the firm backs it.

[lolwutpar]

I disagree with basically everything you said and I think it's bad advice.

OP gave reasons for his views and supported them with at least some detail. You just made a sweeping claim and left it there, as though you are some kind of authority by say-so (or maybe you just think we need to know that you disagree?!). Not sure who you think you are, but that carries 0 weight in my book.

I'm a real biglaw attorney unlike most of the posters who post crap like OP.

[LBJ's Hair]

agree w/OP 100%

[lolwutpar]

(1) Cultural differences between firms are so wildly inconsistent depending on who you ask that it shouldn’t matter for generic NYC big law. The only material difference you should consider among firms is the overall structure, which can lend itself to larger cultural differences (e.g., forced rotations at Cravath, free-market at Kirkland/Cahill, etc.) Don’t even look at the quality-of-life metrics on Vault or other sites.

I disagree that "generic NYC big law" is even a thing. Despite what most people think, there are actual nuances between firms. See my post elsewhere about the huge difference not having a billable requirement is, for example. Another huge one is parental leave. Whether they should matter is up to you, but I think a lot of them do matter. I went from a firm with no billable requirements, tech stipends, free snacks, and discouraged working from home to a firm with a high billable requirement, basically no stipends or free anything and is fine with working from home. The work is largely the same but it's absolutely different. As much as I like working from home, I'd much prefer a firm like the first one rather than the second. Culturally, a white shoe NYC firm is quite different than one that is not, and that starts from the top down. Again, whether this is good or bad is up for debate, but it's different and affects your work environment and fringe benefits.

An incoming first year won't know ANY of these things. Most people don't unless you work for the firm. So, posts asking for input are appropriate unless you're just a prestige whore - my next point.

(2) When you are deciding between offers, you should literally go to Chambers and see where your firm fits within those bands. That’s why I was flabbergasted when I saw a litigation-related question being undecided between PW or White & Case for general lit aspirations and STB or White & Case for corporate. Obviously, that’s an imperfect way if you have more niche aspirations (White & Case is actually better for international arbitration), but if you’re already targeting something niche then you’d likely be familiar with those firms already. Just go to the best place you got into and that’s it.

Who gives a fuck unless you're a prestige whore? I'd rather go to a firm where the corporate group is in band 3 but not miserable than a group in band 1 but will suck the best years from your life. It's a consideration, but absolutely not the only consideration.

Don't just go to the best place you got into. That's a recipe for misery. Do your due diligence, which is what these posts are.

[Anonymous User]

(1) Cultural differences between firms are so wildly inconsistent depending on who you ask that it shouldn’t matter for generic NYC big law. The only material difference you should consider among firms is the overall structure, which can lend itself to larger cultural differences (e.g., forced rotations at Cravath, free-market at Kirkland/Cahill, etc.) Don’t even look at the quality-of-life metrics on Vault or other sites.

I disagree that "generic NYC big law" is even a thing. Despite what most people think, there are actual nuances between firms. See my post elsewhere about the huge difference not having a billable requirement is, for example. Another huge one is parental leave. Whether they should matter is up to you, but I think a lot of them do matter. I went from a firm with no billable requirements, tech stipends, free snacks, and discouraged working from home to a firm with a high billable requirement, basically no stipends or free anything and is fine with working from home. The work is largely the same but it's absolutely different. As much as I like working from home, I'd much prefer a firm like the first one rather than the second. Culturally, a white shoe NYC firm is quite different than one that is not, and that starts from the top down. Again, whether this is good or bad is up for debate, but it's different and affects your work environment and fringe benefits.

An incoming first year won't know ANY of these things. Most people don't unless you work for the firm. So, posts asking for input are appropriate unless you're just a prestige whore - my next point.

(2) When you are deciding between offers, you should literally go to Chambers and see where your firm fits within those bands. That’s why I was flabbergasted when I saw a litigation-related question being undecided between PW or White & Case for general lit aspirations and STB or White & Case for corporate. Obviously, that’s an imperfect way if you have more niche aspirations (White & Case is actually better for international arbitration), but if you’re already targeting something niche then you’d likely be familiar with those firms already. Just go to the best place you got into and that’s it.

Who gives a fuck unless you're a prestige whore? I'd rather go to a firm where the corporate group is in band 3 but not miserable than a group in band 1 but will suck the best years from your life. It's a consideration, but absolutely not the only consideration.

Don't just go to the best place you got into. That's a recipe for misery. Do your due diligence, which is what these posts are.

I'm glad you gave some feedback, but am weirded out by your tirade. Also, do you really think I would have bothered to post that if I wasn't a big law attorney myself?

I don't disagree with the first part of your response at all and agree that those are important factors for some people. Yet I'm sure you realize that most posts on here are not seeking information about parental leave when requesting feedback about firm offers. That's almost never the case on here and, when it does happen, it's so specific that it's mentioned upfront in the initial post (e.g., "I'm wanting to have kids..."). The billable hours aspect is important to consider, though, but again sometimes is reflected with the prestige of the firm anyhow - not always. Most culture-based inquiries about a firm from law students on here are not that specific and they just want to know if it's a sweatshop or not.

You're right that people need to do their due diligence about deciding on a firm, but that is widely less complicated for most people seeking advice on here than you seem to imply. Yes, many people do care about the prestige of a firm and everyone implicitly does to a degree, actually. Where a firm's practice areas are ranked informs the kind of work an associate might have in that area (even their retention at the firms at times) and the kinds of exit opportunities they get (often leading to better quality of life).

I think this site's legal employment section is a valuable place for specific questions (like those you mentioned), posts trying to distinguish true peer firms for an offer that are less obvious (e.g., DPW v. STB for corporate), and lateral-related inquiries. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to simplify the decision-making process for the average law student who might overthink these kinds of decisions.

Edit: Anoned this response accidentally/I’m the initial poster. I should also clarify that I’m a queer woman of color who’s dealt with the kid thing before among other things in big law. While that doesn’t negate any other privileges I might have had in getting to where I am, many of my friends who dabbled in big law with intersectional identities still approached these purely NYC big law first-year associate-related decisions the same way.

[dyemond]

I’m concerned by the recent “Firm X or Firm Y” posts that include students considering decent options when they have objectively better options. This was sparked by 2 separate threads considering White & Case offers with DPW/STB/PW offers on the table.

I’m saying this from a good place because I was scared when I saw those posts. It means (1) students genuinely think anecdotal cultural differences matter for these generic NYC big law decisions (2) and/or they’re not sure what resources to seek for objective answers.

(1) Cultural differences between firms are so wildly inconsistent depending on who you ask that it shouldn’t matter for generic NYC big law. The only material difference you should consider among firms is the overall structure, which can lend itself to larger cultural differences (e.g., forced rotations at Cravath, free-market at Kirkland/Cahill, etc.) Don’t even look at the quality-of-life metrics on Vault or other sites.

This is a strange statement. Cultural differences do exist - certain firms are perceived as more "genteel" or "nice", and for some people, that means a less confrontational place, for others, it means a place where they won't learn and they'll just get iced instead of being told their work is garbage. Conversely, some places are "fratty" or "aggressive" and, again, for some it means that it's a place where hungry-types will thrive and receive real time and blunt feedback that will help them develop quickly (assuming they take criticism well), and for others, it's a place where they'll feel left behind due to social exclusion and a lack of structured environment. Differences are anecdotal, but they exist.

(2) When you are deciding between offers, you should literally go to Chambers and see where your firm fits within those bands. That’s why I was flabbergasted when I saw a litigation-related question being undecided between PW or White & Case for general lit aspirations and STB or White & Case for corporate. Obviously, that’s an imperfect way if you have more niche aspirations (White & Case is actually better for international arbitration), but if you’re already targeting something niche then you’d likely be familiar with those firms already. Just go to the best place you got into and that’s it.

This is, again, a strange way of looking at things. I'm sure S&C is "better" at MCHUGELARGE M&A but you may have liked the lawyers you interacted with at Cleary or Vinson or Choate Hall or whatever a lot more -- saying "but VAULT" is such a law school way of making decisions. If you're literally just looking to eat and pay rent with your prestige then hope you get a Cravath or Wachtell offer and call it a day. For anyone else, making reasoned decisions regarding a firm and the type of work it does is the actual sane way of going about it.

[LBJ's Hair]

This is, again, a strange way of looking at things. I'm sure S&C is "better" at MCHUGELARGE M&A but you may have liked the lawyers you interacted with at Cleary or Vinson or Choate Hall or whatever a lot more -- saying "but VAULT" is such a law school way of making decisions. If you're literally just looking to eat and pay rent with your prestige then hope you get a Cravath or Wachtell offer and call it a day. For anyone else, making reasoned decisions regarding a firm and the type of work it does is the actual sane way of going about it.

choosing your law firm based on how nice the lawyers were during recruiting and touchback is like choosing your law school based on how friendly the tour guide was at admitted students day. you should give absolutely zero weight to it. the partners are selling you. it's part of their job. not gonna tell you anything.

and look, culture is important, but people's experiences at the exact same law firm are going to vary dramatically by office, group, partner.

we're not (or I'm not) saying people should choose the Bad Culture Firm With Better Vault Rankings over the Good Culture Firm. we are saying it's frequently very hard to tell which firm is a Bad Culture Firm or a Good Culture Firm, and in many cases, there really isn't a Firm Culture - there's a collection of Group Cultures, all of which might be fairly dissimilar

given all that, and especially if you don't really know what practice you want to focus on, it's probably not worth looking at how you'll "fit" at Generic BigLaw Firm. you should go off other, more readily-discernible stuff - like Chambers, rotation vs free market, hours targets

EDIT: this isn't to say that anecdotal evidence is worthless. far from it. rather, it's to say that generalizations about "the junior associate experience at [Kirkland/S&C/whatever]" are.

[Elston Gunn]

Seems like there are two separate arguments:

(1) There are significant cultural and objective QoL differences between firms (hours req, parental leave, level of cheapness on fringe benefits, whether they have real or “unlimited” vacation days). Given this, it’s perfectly rational for law students making a choice to ask practicing lawyers, including on TLS, for insight about this stuff.

(2) Law students should include which firm’s attorneys they felt more comfortable with during interviews and/or second looks in making a decision.

I agree with (1) but not (2). In addition to the point that you’re meeting with people who are supposed to be selling the firm, it’s also just a tiny sample of the people who work at the firm to draw conclusions from.

[two post]

*serenely reading TLS, Zen-like, confident in my apriori preferences as to law firm's HR policies and structures, holding in my mind the two, perfectly balanced, truths: Vault rankings are meaningless, and significant early career decisions should be made on the basis of community-perceived prestige*

[LBJ's Hair]

*serenely reading TLS, Zen-like, confident in my apriori preferences as to law firm's HR policies and structures, holding in my mind the two, perfectly balanced, truths: Vault rankings are meaningless, and significant early career decisions should be made on the basis of community-perceived prestige*

we shit on Vault because it sometimes does a bad job measuring "prestige" and people freak out over sort of meaningless gradations, not because "firm prestige" as a concept is meaningless/has no credential value

also - Dril is funny, you are not

[nealric]

*serenely reading TLS, Zen-like, confident in my apriori preferences as to law firm's HR policies and structures, holding in my mind the two, perfectly balanced, truths: Vault rankings are meaningless, and significant early career decisions should be made on the basis of community-perceived prestige*

we shit on Vault because it sometimes does a bad job measuring "prestige" and people freak out over sort of meaningless gradations, not because "firm prestige" as a concept is meaningless/has no credential value

also - Dril is funny, you are not

Right. Whether a given firm went from #18 to #25 is completely meaningless. It won't impact your life at the firm in any way. But there is usually a big difference between a v5 and a firm consistently ranked in the 70s and 80s (though vault tends to get it wrong for certain niche firms that aren't as large). It's a silly methodology, but it can be a useful shorthand when discussing the differences between a firm that gets the very top public M&A deals and one that mostly does middle market work.

One difficulty in discussing differences between firms is that your experience can vary dramatically between offices, groups, and most importantly based on which specific partners you work for. Within the very same group in the same office, there may be one partner who respects your time and goes out of their way to mentor you and another who makes unreasonable demands and intentionally blows up your vacation. Which you work for may not even be fully under your control.