In terms of prestige, does the firm or the office location matter more? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I've noticed recently that some people are very quick to brag about the the firm they're joining, but often it turns out that they're heading off to a smaller or remote office, very far indeed from HQ or even what are known to be that firm's stronger offices. For example, if someone says they're going to Skadden Delaware or Kirkland San Francisco, is this position as prestigious or respected as someone going to Skadden New York or Kirkland Chicago? Am I the asshole for not being impressed by people going to New Orleans or Austin at firms based in NY, or for being irritated by people who insist that office location doesn't make a difference -- that the firm is the firm? I recognize that the poll results may be skewed by these very people.

[mardash]

You are the asshole for being impressed by prestige, regardless.

[Anonymous User]

You are the asshole for being impressed by prestige, regardless.

Everyone is an asshole in this scenario, but to answer OP: claiming that STB Palo Alto is more or even as prestigious as MOFO is delusional, except maybe with regards to funds practice.

[tlsguy2020]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

[ExpOriental]

The most important factor is whether I'm there

[CanadianWolf]

Prestige is mostly a subjective matter, but working in a primary location such as Wash DC, NYC, or San Francisco can be a factor in normal, non-covid, work at the office times. What can make a difference is where your practice group is located although the current work from home practices makes this factor far less important.

P.S. If prestige is measured by working on "cutting edge matters", then location can make a difference during normal times.

OP,I think that your examples of using Delaware & San Francisco as less prestigious locations is a bit odd. Lots of cutting edge activity occurring in the San Francisco area as well as in Seattle (Amazon & Microsoft HQs), but far less in other cities.

[LBJ's Hair]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

[Definitely Not North]

I recognize that the poll results may be skewed by these very people.

lol dude

[k_moreno]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

The key advantage of Chicago is CoL. Also, with biglaw money you'll feel fairly wealthy. That won't be true in SF.

[Anonymous User]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

The key advantage of Chicago is CoL. Also, with biglaw money you'll feel fairly wealthy. That won't be true in SF.

Yeah - it's cheap cuz it fucking sucks. (Went to law school in Chicago and got out immediately after graduating). Also, Chicago has better food than SF? WTF? SF has some of the best Asian food in the US. Chicago has...alright hot dogs and heat disease pizza.

To answer OP's question - at least at my firm, we work pretty freely across US offices. I've worked with people all over the country, so there really is no difference where you sit. But, yes, with the first poster who said you're the asshole regardless to care this much about prestige. The only prestige that matters is how much they pay you. If you're at a firm that pays cravath scale, guarantees top of the market bonuses, etc. who gives a shit?

[mardash]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

The key advantage of Chicago is CoL. Also, with biglaw money you'll feel fairly wealthy. That won't be true in SF.

Yeah - it's cheap cuz it fucking sucks. (Went to law school in Chicago and got out immediately after graduating). Also, Chicago has better food than SF? WTF? SF has some of the best Asian food in the US. Chicago has...alright hot dogs and heat disease pizza.

To answer OP's question - at least at my firm, we work pretty freely across US offices. I've worked with people all over the country, so there really is no difference where you sit. But, yes, with the first poster who said you're the asshole regardless to care this much about prestige. The only prestige that matters is how much they pay you. If you're at a firm that pays cravath scale, guarantees top of the market bonuses, etc. who gives a shit?

Zachary’s in Berkeley has better deep dish than Chicago.

[Anonymous User]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

The key advantage of Chicago is CoL. Also, with biglaw money you'll feel fairly wealthy. That won't be true in SF.

Yeah - it's cheap cuz it fucking sucks. (Went to law school in Chicago and got out immediately after graduating). Also, Chicago has better food than SF? WTF? SF has some of the best Asian food in the US. Chicago has...alright hot dogs and heat disease pizza.

..

100% cosign all of this. No tech bros, though.

[beepboopbeep]

Alinea: pretty much just a hot dog joint

[Anonymous User]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

The key advantage of Chicago is CoL. Also, with biglaw money you'll feel fairly wealthy. That won't be true in SF.

Yeah - it's cheap cuz it fucking sucks. (Went to law school in Chicago and got out immediately after graduating). Also, Chicago has better food than SF? WTF? SF has some of the best Asian food in the US. Chicago has...alright hot dogs and heat disease pizza.

To answer OP's question - at least at my firm, we work pretty freely across US offices. I've worked with people all over the country, so there really is no difference where you sit. But, yes, with the first poster who said you're the asshole regardless to care this much about prestige. The only prestige that matters is how much they pay you. If you're at a firm that pays cravath scale, guarantees top of the market bonuses, etc. who gives a shit?

Zachary’s in Berkeley has better deep dish than Chicago.

Inexplicably, Windy City Pizza in Seattle is the most delicious deep dish pizza America has to offer. This is the true under-appreciated prestige.

[Anonymous User]

ITT: people argue about prestige on the baseless assumption that eating at a Michelin-star restaurant is actually a good time.

[nixy]

I've noticed recently that some people are very quick to brag about the the firm they're joining, but often it turns out that they're heading off to a smaller or remote office, very far indeed from HQ or even what are known to be that firm's stronger offices. For example, if someone says they're going to Skadden Delaware or Kirkland San Francisco, is this position as prestigious or respected as someone going to Skadden New York or Kirkland Chicago? Am I the asshole for not being impressed by people going to New Orleans or Austin at firms based in NY, or for being irritated by people who insist that office location doesn't make a difference -- that the firm is the firm? I recognize that the poll results may be skewed by these very people.

Wow this is obnoxious.

[Anonymous User]

Am I the asshole for not being impressed by people going to New Orleans or Austin at firms based in NY

You're not just an asshole but a fucking idiot.

The person in Austin is making 20k more than the person in NY in take-home pay because they arn't paying NY taxes, which is roughly equivalent to a 30k raise. If they were lucky with a small group they might have more reasonable hours too. Congrats on eating your prestige.

But even if you do care about prestige, smaller markets are generally much more competitive than NY because there are way fewer associate slots - the resume of the average person from a T13 heading to Austin or New Orleans is going to be more impressive than the average resume of someone heading to NY.

That's not to say NY isn't great if you like NY or if that's where your opportunities are. Just pull your head out of your ass.

[tlsguy2020]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

The key advantage of Chicago is CoL. Also, with biglaw money you'll feel fairly wealthy. That won't be true in SF.

Yeah - it's cheap cuz it fucking sucks. (Went to law school in Chicago and got out immediately after graduating). Also, Chicago has better food than SF? WTF? SF has some of the best Asian food in the US. Chicago has...alright hot dogs and heat disease pizza.

To answer OP's question - at least at my firm, we work pretty freely across US offices. I've worked with people all over the country, so there really is no difference where you sit. But, yes, with the first poster who said you're the asshole regardless to care this much about prestige. The only prestige that matters is how much they pay you. If you're at a firm that pays cravath scale, guarantees top of the market bonuses, etc. who gives a shit?

Zachary’s in Berkeley has better deep dish than Chicago.

I know its a take, but I stand by it. Two points:

1. SF's immigrant influence has largely been displaced by yuppie influence. Great East/South Asian found now exists in the South Bay and other suburbs. But Asian food within the city itself (even in the Richmond or Sunset) is fine. Mexican population has also been largely displaced. Chicago on the other hand still has pretty heavy immigrant influence and great Pakistani/Indian, Latin, Southern, Vietnamese, Eastern European etc. cuisine. Also heart disease food tastes great.

2. Somewhat related to above, SF has little to no good cheap late-night fare besides Mexican food in the Mission. Food is great if you're fine spending over $25, but under $12 and its either Mission or McDonalds.

Also to keep things on topic for OP: BigLaw lawyers, regardless of city, get paid to push paper for others. Nobody outside of the gaggle of lawyer surrounding you (and probably within that gaggle as well) cares in any way what Name, Name, LLP you work for and what city that Name, Name, LLP is in.

[mardash]

I know its a take, but I stand by it. Two points:

1. SF's immigrant influence has largely been displaced by yuppie influence. Great East/South Asian found now exists in the South Bay and other suburbs. But Asian food within the city itself (even in the Richmond or Sunset) is fine. Mexican population has also been largely displaced. Chicago on the other hand still has pretty heavy immigrant influence and great Pakistani/Indian, Latin, Southern, Vietnamese, Eastern European etc. cuisine. Also heart disease food tastes great.

2. Somewhat related to above, SF has little to no good cheap late-night fare besides Mexican food in the Mission. Food is great if you're fine spending over $25, but under $12 and its either Mission or McDonalds.

Also to keep things on topic for OP: BigLaw lawyers, regardless of city, get paid to push paper for others. Nobody outside of the gaggle of lawyer surrounding you (and probably within that gaggle as well) cares in any way what Name, Name, LLP you work for and what city that Name, Name, LLP is in.

Take accepted.

[Tribble_47]

Depends how you define "prestige." If it's a backward-looking approach where you try to guess at someone's law school GPA from where they landed, then ok, maybe Skadden Delaware and Kirkland SF have lower cutoffs than their main offices. (This approach would make you an insufferable prick, btw, but you probably already knew that.) But if you take a forward-looking approach and try to guess at someone's exit or lateral options, then that depends on the type of work that office does, and how well-regarded that work is. Maybe they do the same work as the main office, maybe not. Maybe they do different work that's just as well-regarded, like IP in Silicon Valley, or maybe they don't. But even if they do neither of those things, you're probably the only person keeping score here.

[Anonymous User]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

ETA: you’re an asshole

need you to elaborate on the "Chicago has better food" take lol. I'm open to it being true, but hard for me to believe.

The key advantage of Chicago is CoL. Also, with biglaw money you'll feel fairly wealthy. That won't be true in SF.

Yeah - it's cheap cuz it fucking sucks. (Went to law school in Chicago and got out immediately after graduating). Also, Chicago has better food than SF? WTF? SF has some of the best Asian food in the US. Chicago has...alright hot dogs and heat disease pizza.

To answer OP's question - at least at my firm, we work pretty freely across US offices. I've worked with people all over the country, so there really is no difference where you sit. But, yes, with the first poster who said you're the asshole regardless to care this much about prestige. The only prestige that matters is how much they pay you. If you're at a firm that pays cravath scale, guarantees top of the market bonuses, etc. who gives a shit?

Zachary’s in Berkeley has better deep dish than Chicago.

I know its a take, but I stand by it. Two points:

1. SF's immigrant influence has largely been displaced by yuppie influence. Great East/South Asian found now exists in the South Bay and other suburbs. But Asian food within the city itself (even in the Richmond or Sunset) is fine. Mexican population has also been largely displaced. Chicago on the other hand still has pretty heavy immigrant influence and great Pakistani/Indian, Latin, Southern, Vietnamese, Eastern European etc. cuisine. Also heart disease food tastes great.

2. Somewhat related to above, SF has little to no good cheap late-night fare besides Mexican food in the Mission. Food is great if you're fine spending over $25, but under $12 and its either Mission or McDonalds.

Also to keep things on topic for OP: BigLaw lawyers, regardless of city, get paid to push paper for others. Nobody outside of the gaggle of lawyer surrounding you (and probably within that gaggle as well) cares in any way what Name, Name, LLP you work for and what city that Name, Name, LLP is in.

Alright, since all practicing attorneys have already realized that prestige is really an oppressive lie fed by biglaw partners to keep you happy with more work for less pay, and the topic of cities by food is infinitely more interesting - let's just dive into this.

1. There may be better spots in in the surrounding areas - I don't know. But, coming from NY, SF has the best Asian/Indian food I've ever tasted. My general rule is this, LA has best Mexican food in the country, SF has the best Asian food in the country, NY has the best pizza/italian/late-night options. Shoutout to places like Houston, Miami, North Carolina (srsly), etc. for having excellent food despite being largely unlivable shitholes.

I wouldn't call Chicago's food seen bad per say. It's not Denver levels of inexplicable "wtf do you guys even do back there". But for the third largest city in America it pales in comparison to NY, SF and LA. And it falls short of those secondary Miami, Houston, etc. I do concede heart disease food is great and I ate deep dish pizza twice a year when I was there and enjoyed it.

2. Nowhere has good late night options except NY. Let me explain - I don't give a shit if a place is open but I have to drive 15 mins to get there. When it's 2am, and I'm drunk after a night out, I was my food fast and convenient. Only NY can provide that where pretty much any neighborhood a biglaw associate will be living in will have a delicious late-night spot within walking distance.

3. To address OP. Do you find KPMG more prestigious than Deloitte? Where does E&Y fit into the picture? Never thought about it/don't care? That's what everyone else thinks about law firms outside of lawyers.

For a bit of perspective, I'm at my 60th billed hour for this week, and have about 3-4 more hours, minimum on a Friday night to go. Then, I get the joy of waking up early tomorrow to do a couple of hours of more work. This has been my life for 6+ months, and this isn't even that bad of a week. Don't fall for the prestige trap. Also, don't fall for the trap when they try to make you think our work is life and death. It's not.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't call Chicago's food seen bad per say. It's not Denver levels of inexplicable "wtf do you guys even do back there". But for the third largest city in America it pales in comparison to NY, SF and LA. And it falls short of those secondary Miami, Houston, etc.

I don't disagree with anything else you said, but having lived in both Chicago and LA for a decade each, this really underrates Chicago at least as to part of its food scene. Frankly Chicago destroys LA on high-end dining and is much more comparable to SF. LA notably did not have a single Michelin-starred restaurant until like 2019 (until California literally had to pay Michelin to expand statewide) because the guides didn't consider any restaurant in the city worth rating. Which was a ridiculous stance in some ways, but not totally an unfounded one; LA is no Tokyo, let alone Osaka. (Caveat: within the last year or two, some big-name famous Tokyo restaurants have been opening places out here, but outside of Sushi Ginza Onodera -- which I've eaten at in Tokyo, but not in LA -- most of it is lowbrow; there are some stellar Japanese ramen joints opening up LA spots.) Whereas Chicago has Alinea, all of Achatz's other restaurants, Bayless's restaurants, Spiaggia... the list goes on; it's a really robust tradition, unfortunately jeopardized somewhat by the pandemic (RIP Blackbird).

What I'd grant is that LA certainly beats Chicago at the lowbrow -- which, frankly even as someone who really enjoys Michelin experiences, is still the vast majority of what I eat -- and with respect to some specific cuisines (not just Mexican, but Japanese and Korean, and you can make a case on Szechuan/etc depending on what all you consider LA). Though I haven't spent as much time in LA or SF, debates over LA vs SF vs NY in terms of regional cuisines often seems to be just a matter of which cuisines you prefer and where you're located within each of those cities. It is fair to say that Chicago really doesn't have a case to be considered in the same league at least as to that aspect of being a food city.

[LBJ's Hair]

I know its a take, but I stand by it. Two points:

1. SF's immigrant influence has largely been displaced by yuppie influence. Great East/South Asian found now exists in the South Bay and other suburbs. But Asian food within the city itself (even in the Richmond or Sunset) is fine. Mexican population has also been largely displaced. Chicago on the other hand still has pretty heavy immigrant influence and great Pakistani/Indian, Latin, Southern, Vietnamese, Eastern European etc. cuisine. Also heart disease food tastes great.

2. Somewhat related to above, SF has little to no good cheap late-night fare besides Mexican food in the Mission. Food is great if you're fine spending over $25, but under $12 and its either Mission or McDonalds.

I think I'm just a little too old to care about cost-conscious late night options at this point lmao. agree it's a bit of a San Francisco weakness (outside of Mexican), but North Beach has some good spots.

haven't eaten out in Chicago much, so I'll take your word for it that it's underrated for its diverse cuisine, but a little hard to believe that a city <7% Asian has better Indian/Vietnamese/Chinese/etc than San Francisco's. San Francisco's was probably better (at the lower end, not the high end) 10 years ago, but 10 years ago it might have been the best in the country

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

The difference between Kirkland SF and Kirkland Chicago is that Kirkland SF associates have better weather and Kirkland Chicago associates have (generally) better food.

This is false.

SF associates also have better pro sports.

[nixy]

2. Nowhere has good late night options except NY. Let me explain - I don't give a shit if a place is open but I have to drive 15 mins to get there. When it's 2am, and I'm drunk after a night out, I was my food fast and convenient. Only NY can provide that where pretty much any neighborhood a biglaw associate will be living in will have a delicious late-night spot within walking distance.

This is probably fair, but this is a pretty narrow use-case. It's totally fair for this to be your criterion for a great food city, but it's not an objectively universal criterion.

I'll also vote on the side of food diversity. Best Asian cuisine in the country is amazing, but I don't think having the best of one kind of/regional cuisine makes a city the best food city in the country. (Admittedly, I could be pretty happy eating great Asian cuisine all the time, says the person living in the boondocks who misses sushi a lot.)