Why EXACTLY is NYC training considered top notch? Forum

[Anonymous User]

What does it mean when people say NYC big law provides the best "training"? People say this a lot without really explaining the why or the what. If you are just doing diligence and turning corporate org docs and signature pages for multiple years as a junior (and most don't stick around for multiple years), what makes NYC corporate experience so much more valuable than comparable experiences at other cities, domestically (e.g. LA, SF, Chicago) or internationally (e.g. HK, London, etc.)?

[Sackboy]

NYC training isn't going to be any better than Chicago, SF, LA, or TX. When people say NYC training is top notch, it's because you're surrounded by extremely bright people who can teach you things, you get a lot of variety and complexity in your deal/case flow, and you work very long hours (meaning you get in more reps on any given subject/matter). There might have been a point in time 20+ years ago where you just couldn't get that in other major markets, but that's no longer the case. There are major players doing sophisticated work in every major market now due to (1) technology making it possible to sit in SF and work on a deal with a NY team, (2) the expansion of firms in these markets has facilitated a talent flow across the country, and (3) increased hours expectations in even the more "chill" markets.

I'm sure there are some elitist NYers who still think NYC gives you the best training. They might even be correct, but it's so marginal at this point that it's more puffery than anything else.

[nealric]

I think the main reason is that the biggest deals tend to go through NYC. Whether that translates to substantive experience for a jr. associate is very much debatable.

[CanadianWolf]

Size & complexity of deals. Cutting edge approaches. Highly sophisticated financial markets.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Because when people say the word "training" at a law firm, they mean you will deal with a huge volume of work, which NYC has.

[Wild Card]

because nowhere else will you be expected to routinely work ungodly hours, and nowhere else will you be subject to the abuse of such a high concentration of sociopaths

[Anonymous User]

because nowhere else will you be expected to routinely work ungodly hours, and nowhere else will you be subject to the abuse of such a high concentration of sociopaths

I think you're right, but kinda like some of the prior posters have said—has that leveled out as well? Like, aren't lawyers in SF/LA/CHI also working basically NY hours now? Or is there still a material difference in WL balance?

[FND]

To this day, there are more top attorneys in New York, there are more big deals flowing through New York, and there are more highly complex matters flowing through New York than any other market.

Can you get the same training anywhere else? Sure, particularly in San Francisco, Chicago, DC, and Dallas. And particularly in certain specialties, such as San Francisco for Tech and DC for anything political. But there are more opportunities for more attorneys to get that kind of training than anywhere else.

If you go to, say, Detroit, there are only a handful of firms that do major corporate restructuring, for example, whereas in New York there are dozens of firms that do so. A lateral coming from New York would be assumed to have worked on more, more diverse, and more complex, matters than a lateral coming from anywhere else, and can be assumed to have received better training.

[lawlo]

To this day, there are more top attorneys in New York, there are more big deals flowing through New York, and there are more highly complex matters flowing through New York than any other market.

Can you get the same training anywhere else? Sure, particularly in San Francisco, Chicago, DC, and Dallas. And particularly in certain specialties, such as San Francisco for Tech and DC for anything political. But there are more opportunities for more attorneys to get that kind of training than anywhere else.

If you go to, say, Detroit, there are only a handful of firms that do major corporate restructuring, for example, whereas in New York there are dozens of firms that do so. A lateral coming from New York would be assumed to have worked on more, more diverse, and more complex, matters than a lateral coming from anywhere else, and can be assumed to have received better training.

Dallas?? You mean Houston.

[RokosBasilisk2049]

There are major players doing sophisticated work in every major market now due to (1) technology making it possible to sit in SF and work on a deal with a NY team, (2) the expansion of firms in these markets has facilitated a talent flow across the country, and (3) increased hours expectations in even the more "chill" markets.

I'm sure there are some elitist NYers who still think NYC gives you the best training. They might even be correct, but it's so marginal at this point that it's more puffery than anything else.

I agree, but I think the actual training doesn't matter so much as the perception of the training. Sophisticated deals get done in Hong Kong, and there is an argument to be made that HK associates take on responsibility earlier given the small office but the perception is still that the work over there is inferior and so it is allegedly quite difficult to lateral from HK to NYC.

[nealric]

If you go to, say, Detroit, there are only a handful of firms that do major corporate restructuring, for example, whereas in New York there are dozens of firms that do so. A lateral coming from New York would be assumed to have worked on more, more diverse, and more complex, matters than a lateral coming from anywhere else, and can be assumed to have received better training.

Not only that, but a firm that does restructuring in Detroit probably isn't going to get the highest profile work- even if that work comes out of Detroit. When GM went bankrupt, the main lead for their restructuring was Weil in NYC- not a local Detroit firm. As an NYC associate, you'll get a cut of that sort of work (even if it's a miniscule role). As a Detroit restructuring associate, you'd be working on restructuring deals with much smaller companies involving much less complex financing arrangements.

The flipside is that your role in a smaller market will probably be much larger and more substantive. But if you are trying to market yourself for exit options, you get to say you worked on the GM bankruptcy if you went to Weil NYC.

[Sackboy]

because nowhere else will you be expected to routinely work ungodly hours, and nowhere else will you be subject to the abuse of such a high concentration of sociopaths

I think you're right, but kinda like some of the prior posters have said—has that leveled out as well? Like, aren't lawyers in SF/LA/CHI also working basically NY hours now? Or is there still a material difference in WL balance?

As someone who has worked in both NY and a non-NY major market, there is definitely a material difference, but my annual hours still generally start with a 2.

[Iowahawk]

If you go to, say, Detroit, there are only a handful of firms that do major corporate restructuring, for example, whereas in New York there are dozens of firms that do so. A lateral coming from New York would be assumed to have worked on more, more diverse, and more complex, matters than a lateral coming from anywhere else, and can be assumed to have received better training.

Not only that, but a firm that does restructuring in Detroit probably isn't going to get the highest profile work- even if that work comes out of Detroit. When GM went bankrupt, the main lead for their restructuring was Weil in NYC- not a local Detroit firm. As an NYC associate, you'll get a cut of that sort of work (even if it's a miniscule role). As a Detroit restructuring associate, you'd be working on restructuring deals with much smaller companies involving much less complex financing arrangements.

The flipside is that your role in a smaller market will probably be much larger and more substantive. But if you are trying to market yourself for exit options, you get to say you worked on the GM bankruptcy if you went to Weil NYC.

The bigger-is-better logic doesn't work as well for lit because the sophistication of cases doesn't correlate all that tightly with the amount in controversy (lots of SCOTUS appeals are quite small, lots of personal injury or consumer protection work is quite large) or the number of bodies required to litigate it. Especially for stand-up stuff that tends to attract the most gunnery litigators--trials and appeals--conventional wisdom is that you get better training and more "reps" working repeatedly on smaller matters for e.g. the government or a boutique. And that wisdom probably mostly extends to working in Detroit big/midlaw.

The big exception is that major-market biglaw dominates the types of litigation that are fairly unique to major corporations-- public company M&A lit, securities lit, Chapter 11, a lot of federal regulatory stuff, to a lesser degree products liability and hard IP.

[Anonymous User]

To this day, there are more top attorneys in New York, there are more big deals flowing through New York, and there are more highly complex matters flowing through New York than any other market.

Can you get the same training anywhere else? Sure, particularly in San Francisco, Chicago, DC, and Dallas. And particularly in certain specialties, such as San Francisco for Tech and DC for anything political. But there are more opportunities for more attorneys to get that kind of training than anywhere else.

If you go to, say, Detroit, there are only a handful of firms that do major corporate restructuring, for example, whereas in New York there are dozens of firms that do so. A lateral coming from New York would be assumed to have worked on more, more diverse, and more complex, matters than a lateral coming from anywhere else, and can be assumed to have received better training.

Dallas?? You mean Houston.

I'm not OP, but I'd actually say Dallas lawyers get more of the type of training he's talking about (even if Houston has a bigger legal market).

The entire city of Houston revolves around O&G while Dallas has a much more diverse economy. Dallas lawyers also tend to work more with other offices (since there's only so much business that's generated within Dallas) so the ones at the big nationals do a ton of work with their NYC/SF/Boston offices. A typical corporate lawyer in Dallas will have worked on a much broader set of transactions and would be more versatile than a Houston lawyer whose entire career revolves around energy.

[CovidLurker]

Hours: Usually, but not at all firms, NY offices work more hours. If non-NY office averages 1800 billable hours while the NY office is averaging 2300 hours, by the time you're a third-year, a NY associate has 1500 hours more experience than the non-NY office guy. That makes a big difference - this industry is entirely about experience. The NY attorney has nearly a year's worth of hours/experience more than the non-NY attorney by year 3.

Dealflow/Quality of Hours: This is related to point 1 regarding hours, but if you're NY office is getting crushed, it turns into "next-man up" situation. If everyone is working 2500+ hours, I don't care what year you are, you do as much work as you can handle. If that means being a first year and doing third year work for a month or two - okay.

In other offices, if everyone is averaging 1800-2000 hours, there isn't an opportunity to "step-up". Why would a third year who is at risk of not making his bonus allow his first year to cannibalize his work? He wouldn't. However, if that third year has way too much on his plate and he has an ambitious and quality first-year, he can try and push some of that work onto the first-year. This leads to better exposure/quality of hours for NY assocaites.

People: NY offices are larger with more people. You have a deeper bench of mentors to draw upon and learn from. In smaller offices, you could end up working with 1-2 partners exclusively and they mold the kind of lawyer you become. Within big practice groups in NY, you might work with 10 different partners. This might be hell, but it also provides you an opportunity to "find your fit" and draw upon/learn something from each one. This trickles down to senior and mid level associate group as well. You have a bigger bench of people to learn and draw from, and you'll see how certain people handle themselves and hopefully pick something up from their experience.

Code: Select all

Deals:

I think this is largely antiquated because most offices work together/work across offices, but the "biggest/best" deals are done in NY. I haven't seen any real tangible benefits or why this matters to an associate, but some people just like eye popping numbers on their deal sheets I guess.

[nealric]

If you go to, say, Detroit, there are only a handful of firms that do major corporate restructuring, for example, whereas in New York there are dozens of firms that do so. A lateral coming from New York would be assumed to have worked on more, more diverse, and more complex, matters than a lateral coming from anywhere else, and can be assumed to have received better training.

Not only that, but a firm that does restructuring in Detroit probably isn't going to get the highest profile work- even if that work comes out of Detroit. When GM went bankrupt, the main lead for their restructuring was Weil in NYC- not a local Detroit firm. As an NYC associate, you'll get a cut of that sort of work (even if it's a miniscule role). As a Detroit restructuring associate, you'd be working on restructuring deals with much smaller companies involving much less complex financing arrangements.

The flipside is that your role in a smaller market will probably be much larger and more substantive. But if you are trying to market yourself for exit options, you get to say you worked on the GM bankruptcy if you went to Weil NYC.

The bigger-is-better logic doesn't work as well for lit because the sophistication of cases doesn't correlate all that tightly with the amount in controversy (lots of SCOTUS appeals are quite small, lots of personal injury or consumer protection work is quite large) or the number of bodies required to litigate it. Especially for stand-up stuff that tends to attract the most gunnery litigators--trials and appeals--conventional wisdom is that you get better training and more "reps" working repeatedly on smaller matters for e.g. the government or a boutique. And that wisdom probably mostly extends to working in Detroit big/midlaw.

The big exception is that major-market biglaw dominates the types of litigation that are fairly unique to major corporations-- public company M&A lit, securities lit, Chapter 11, a lot of federal regulatory stuff, to a lesser degree products liability and hard IP.

I think lit is a weird place generally with respect to biglaw. You aren't likely to get much substantive trial experience in NYC biglaw, and you see partners who've literally never been to trial. It's more about massive case management. Part of that is why you see elite lit boutiques being highly desirable to law students, but you don't see a parallel on the transactional side. Closest thing to an elite corp boutique is Wachtell, which still essentially NYC biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

I will say, there's something to be said about working at HQ vs. a satellite office. Certain offices (bay area for tech, DC for govt, Houston for O&G) make sense and are the best at what they do, but for general corporate work you can't beat NYC. A lot of smallish satellite offices will take on overflow work from HQ which isn't an ideal experience. If you're considering being in Dallas, Chicago, LA, etc. for a firm HQ'd elsewhere, I'd do a ton of diligence into how self-supporting the office is, how many home grown partners there are, who is generating dealflow etc.

[Anonymous User]

Independent of whether there's an actual difference in quality of training, does having NYC experience on your resume have a material impact when lateralling compared to other major markets like LA, Chicago, and Texas? Whether it's still within NYC or into another market?

[FND]

as an aside, I once interviewed for a biglaw's outpost in a tertiary market - that office only had one partner full-time in that office.
As someone else said, in a smaller environment, you have less mentors you can learn from.

[nealric]

as an aside, I once interviewed for a biglaw's outpost in a tertiary market - that office only had one partner full-time in that office.
As someone else said, in a smaller environment, you have less mentors you can learn from.

More than that, when work is being sent from a main office to a satellite office, it tends not to be very good work. Partners tend to give out the best work to associates they know face to face. Associates in other offices only get overflow. Some satellite offices are self-sufficient, but a lot depend on being fed from the mothership.

[Anonymous User]

If we're talking about larger satellite offices in places like Newark, Buffalo/Rochester, KC, etc., what level of work are people looking at? What do people *do*? I've spoken with some folks who don't seem to do any local work, whereas others seem to exclusively do that sort of thing.

[Iowahawk]

If we're talking about larger satellite offices in places like Newark, Buffalo/Rochester, KC, etc., what level of work are people looking at? What do people *do*? I've spoken with some folks who don't seem to do any local work, whereas others seem to exclusively do that sort of thing.

It depends on the firm. You can tell a rough proxy on the balance for lit using Westlaw Litigation Analytics and filtering by office. Within that, it can be helpful to filter by practice area. For example, Faegre Des Moines does mostly local work for employment (~90% local), but when you take employment lit out, it looks much more heavy on satellite work (~55% local).

I would not consider the KC market anything like Newark, Buffalo, or Rochester fwiw, it has HQs and major offices for significant biglaw firms.

[gottagetouttahere]

If we're talking about larger satellite offices in places like Newark, Buffalo/Rochester, KC, etc., what level of work are people looking at? What do people *do*? I've spoken with some folks who don't seem to do any local work, whereas others seem to exclusively do that sort of thing.

It depends on the firm. You can tell a rough proxy on the balance for lit using Westlaw Litigation Analytics and filtering by office. Within that, it can be helpful to filter by practice area. For example, Faegre Des Moines does mostly local work for employment (~90% local), but when you take employment lit out, it looks much more heavy on satellite work (~55% local).

I would not consider the KC market anything like Newark, Buffalo, or Rochester fwiw, it has HQs and major offices for significant biglaw firms.

Thanks for the thorough answer. Most of the people I've spoken with in the northeast satellite offices seem to be doing satellite work so that definitely tracks. Are these offices retained for the sake of appearances/legacy? Or is there a level of hourly rate arbitrage that goes on that might be particularly helpful for some of the lower v100 firms?

[Iowahawk]

I think a mix of
-arbitrage
-doing profitable local work, presumably Faegre's Iowa employment practice is profitable for example
-servicing institutional clients with interests in that jurisdiction, e.g. GDC Dallas was founded (if I remember right) to service American Airlines
-occasionally just having a couple of partners that want to live there (e.g. Boies's Westchester office)

In general, it's probably better to be at a satellite office with more local work than a pure satellite because it'll be easier to make partner or lateral with a local book of business, your work will be more stable, and you're more likely to handle the core of the matter if it originated in your office.

[nealric]

If we're talking about larger satellite offices in places like Newark, Buffalo/Rochester, KC, etc., what level of work are people looking at? What do people *do*? I've spoken with some folks who don't seem to do any local work, whereas others seem to exclusively do that sort of thing.

There are a pretty small number of biglaw offices in any places like you've mentioned. Not sure a "larger satellite" office really exists in Buffalo. It would be super individualized, to the extent there are true biglaw offices. I'm guessing Newark offices are mostly just to get around NJ practice rules for NYC v100 and are really just doing NYC business that relates to NJ. Something like KC would probably be due to some specific local connection.

I'm was talking more like a Miami or Denver outpost of a v100.