Cooley, Gunderson, Fenwick, MoFo (NY) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any insights? Interested in the TTG group (and eventually go in-house at a tech company) and plan on staying in NY long term.

[Anonymous User]

Of these, I would say Gunderson has the strongest and most established NY practice with Cooley a close second.

[Solstice95]

I was in a similar position this year before accepting an offer, and I have no "insider" knowledge. It seems, however, from talking to lawyers (in-house and at the firms) for the past two or so years, that these all have similar reputations with the exception of MoFo, which isn't really a peer firm in the tech/startup space. Some things I picked up in my conversations:

1. There are mixed views on whether it's easier to go from a bigger, "full-service" firm like MoFo to a smaller, specialized Gunderson-esque shop. I've heard arguments both ways, implying both directions are equally difficult (or easy, depending on how you look at it). It definitely depends who you ask.

2. The reputations of the MoFos/Paul Hastings/other CA-founded firms are not as strong on the east coast as the NY natives it seems. I haven't heard a single person (in the VC, PE, or tech space) act like MoFo is a better firm than the others you mentioned because of its Vault rank or anything like that. To (roughly) quote what one fintech PE GC told me: If two people are applying to [my firm], one from Cravath and one from PH/MoFo, I'm probably going to give the former more of a benefit of the doubt. However, that doesn't mean that I will count out the latter. That person just needs to explain to me why they chose the firm that they did. This is probably easier to do at a firm like Gunderson/Cooley/Fenwick because of their specialty, as opposed to MoFo, which is just a CA version of the v5 firms.

I think the point being above, why would you pick MoFo in NY and not Debevoise, White & Case, Simpson, or something like that?

3. Specializing early can be risky because you might not like the specialty. At a firm like Cooley, for example, you have some more options if you find that corporate/litigation/tech transactions is not for you. This is probably the case at all except Gunderson.

4. The flip-side to point 3 is that, if you do really enjoy one area and working with particular clients, you'll probably be forced to work on more things you don't care about at a larger, more diversified firm. You also aren't necessarily guaranteed to get the client interaction that you want given your goals of going in-house at a tech company.

If it helps you, I considered the following factors: (1) the types of clients I want to work with and will get genuinely excited about (basically, the stage of startups that I want); (2) the feel of the firm, it's assignment system, etc.; and (3) the potential exits (however nebulous this concept may be). Regarding the third point, check out LinkedIn and put in these firms as the "past company." I found this very helpful in terms of where these people actually end up. Of course, self-selection is also a thing.

[Anonymous User]

Of these, I would say Gunderson has the strongest and most established NY practice with Cooley a close second.

+1. Gunderson has excellent exit options for in-house as well.