NYC V10 vs Mid/Mountain West Midlaw? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all, would really appreciate anyone and everyone's insight on this.

Background: I am a HYPSM grad, now a 2L at T14. I spent my 1L summer at a sizable (think 500+ attorney) secondary market Midlaw firm, that is considered to be a blue-blood firm, and one of the best in its market.

I also find myself in the very fortunate position to have V10 offers in NYC.

Right now, I plan to summer at a V10 in NYC and do a few weeks at my 1L firm after the V10 program ends.

Thoughts on 1L firm: I really enjoyed the Midlaw firm experience and can see myself working there and hopefully thriving in the smaller legal market. My 1L firm definitely invests in its associates; there are far more partners than associates in the office I summered in, and they clearly want competent associates to develop and become partners. Pay would be starting around 120k, with much lower cost of living area, but also with smaller salary increases compared to the Cravath scale. Work is standard for secondary markets -- impressive projects locally, but nothing on the scale of NYC biglaw.

Thoughts on V10 firms: I like the firms, I've clicked with everyone I've met with through the interview process, and I have had prior connections/mentors with midlevel associates at each firm before starting law school, so I think I have a fairly clear-minded perspective on the firms. I know the model is that I'll be out in a few years -- but I think maybe I should do it first for the experience, and second for the market pay. Would a few years in NYC as an associate still serve me well in the long-run?

My long term goals are to move back to the secondary market and practice there, and potentially from there go into politics. On the short term, I'd love to experience and live in NYC for a couple years while I'm young, but I 100% know I won't be spending the rest of my life there.

Basically, where do I go from here? Am I crazy for considering starting at my 1L firm after law school?

Your insights, insults, anecdotes, and votes are all welcome. If either option is viable, what can I plan for this upcoming summer, so I am in the best position possible to make that decision when it comes time to accept offers in 3L fall?

[2013]

If you want to experience biglaw in NY, start at the V10. If the “midlaw” firm you’re talking about is Holland & Hart, I know of a few people who were able to lateral to its Denver/Boise offices with limited ties after a stint in a major market, so you aren’t closing any doors.

[Anonymous User]

See how this summer goes then figure it out. If you want to be in the smaller market long-term, there’s little *career* value to starting out in NY, but it’s fine if you just want to live in NY for a bit, you should be able to lateral back (to the market, maybe not this particular firm) at some point. On the other hand, no, it’s not crazy to consider starting at the 1L firm either if you like it and its market more. There are myriad benefits to smaller firms/markets that may outweigh the headline salary difference for you. For example, from the politics interest I assume you want to be a litigator, and you would probably get better lit experience as a junior in a smaller market.

If you do work in NY, do a practice that’s somewhat transportable to somewhere smaller, like M&A, tax, commercial lit, or white collar, not something more niche, like securities lit, antitrust, or PE, which would provide fewer transportable skills.

My answer might change if your midlaw firm was smaller or truly exceptional for its market—think Belin McCormick, 25 attys and starts at 150 in Des Moines—which would increase the difficulty of getting hired back and lack comparable substitutes in the smaller market.

[papermateflair]

If you want to be in the midlaw city long term, and especially if you want to go into politics, I don't see what a stint in NYC big law is going to do for you other than maybe make you more money. Being able to be in your preferred town from the get-go makes it easier to form the connections you need. And frankly if you're spending 5 years in like, capital markets or whatever in NYC only to try and lateral to a secondary market, not sure how that is going to actually set you up with the qualifications that midlaw will look for - sure, they'll think you're fancy but if you don't have the skills to do their actual work then they may not hire you just because of your pedigree. My answer would probably be different if you were going into litigation and were thinking clearkship --> big law --> another clerkship in your hometown --> hometown firm. But if it's just NYC big law --> hometown firm, I don't think I would do that just to like, "experience NYC" for two years (you're going to "experience NYC" by working all the time). Others may disagree, though.

[Anonymous User]

Depends on how much the NYC experience is worth to you. The only thing you'll lose by going there for a few years is a few years of making connections in your smaller market. If you want to go into politics, those connections might be extremely valuable. You also might decide you are an east coast elite at heart and never go back to your sorry excuse of a city again. I guess if you're truly undecided about NY vs. Midwest, go to NYC, but if you know for sure you'll go back to the Midwest, better to start there and not even mess around with an ill-defined conception of "NYC experience" which might just be a distraction.

[namefromplace]

I think it depends a lot on your practice area of interest. If you wanna do transactional--especially M&A--do NY biglaw for a few years. You'll work on far more deals than you would in a smaller market and will be able to parlay that experience into a more substantive role when you transition to midlaw, or if you decide to go to say, a GC's office in a secondary market.

If you're lit-focused, there's less of an advantage to starting in NY. Sure, you'll still have the name brand prestige, but you'll likely be doing less substantive work than you would at midlaw and won't be able to bring as much new to the table.

[Anonymous User]

See how this summer goes then figure it out. If you want to be in the smaller market long-term, there’s little *career* value to starting out in NY, but it’s fine if you just want to live in NY for a bit, you should be able to lateral back (to the market, maybe not this particular firm) at some point. On the other hand, no, it’s not crazy to consider starting at the 1L firm either if you like it and its market more. There are myriad benefits to smaller firms/markets that may outweigh the headline salary difference for you. For example, from the politics interest I assume you want to be a litigator, and you would probably get better lit experience as a junior in a smaller market.

If you do work in NY, do a practice that’s somewhat transportable to somewhere smaller, like M&A, tax, commercial lit, or white collar, not something more niche, like securities lit, antitrust, or PE, which would provide fewer transportable skills.

My answer might change if your midlaw firm was smaller or truly exceptional for its market—think Belin McCormick, 25 attys and starts at 150 in Des Moines—which would increase the difficulty of getting hired back and lack comparable substitutes in the smaller market.

Thanks, this is really helpful to think through. To your last point -- is it typically the case that a 1L firm would not extend an offer to a former summer who they wanted to come back as a 2L/junior associate, who ended up going to a larger market but wanted to lateral back in?

[Anonymous User]

See how this summer goes then figure it out. If you want to be in the smaller market long-term, there’s little *career* value to starting out in NY, but it’s fine if you just want to live in NY for a bit, you should be able to lateral back (to the market, maybe not this particular firm) at some point. On the other hand, no, it’s not crazy to consider starting at the 1L firm either if you like it and its market more. There are myriad benefits to smaller firms/markets that may outweigh the headline salary difference for you. For example, from the politics interest I assume you want to be a litigator, and you would probably get better lit experience as a junior in a smaller market.

If you do work in NY, do a practice that’s somewhat transportable to somewhere smaller, like M&A, tax, commercial lit, or white collar, not something more niche, like securities lit, antitrust, or PE, which would provide fewer transportable skills.

My answer might change if your midlaw firm was smaller or truly exceptional for its market—think Belin McCormick, 25 attys and starts at 150 in Des Moines—which would increase the difficulty of getting hired back and lack comparable substitutes in the smaller market.

Thanks, this is really helpful to think through. To your last point -- is it typically the case that a 1L firm would not extend an offer to a former summer who they wanted to come back as a 2L/junior associate, who ended up going to a larger market but wanted to lateral back in?

It definitely helps that you did 1L there but there's no guarantee they'll take you back, especially if it's a smaller office that doesn't hire very often.

[Anonymous User]

If you want to experience biglaw in NY, start at the V10. If the “midlaw” firm you’re talking about is Holland & Hart, I know of a few people who were able to lateral to its Denver/Boise offices with limited ties after a stint in a major market, so you aren’t closing any doors.

Curious to hear more about their experiences at Holland & Hart in Boise. V10 corporate junior in major non coastal market looking to move to idaho in the next few years. Thanks!