First firm prestige vs. grades for laterals Forum

[Anonymous User]

Which is more important for keeping lateral doors open? Know that value of grades decreases somewhat over time, but if I happen to want to lateral across markets after a few years, is it generally easy to go to another v10 (excluding Wachtell/CSM/SC)? Will firms just generally check to make sure your GPA is within the callback range they use for OCI (but how do they even reliably do that with curves changing more and more these days)?

Does it matter if the new firm is relatively stronger in that market? Or is this very firm specific (i.e.,notoriously grade selective firms vs. white shoe types vs. LW/KE types)

*All this assuming the market isn't as hot as it is now. I know ppl are currently getting in places they otherwise wouldn't.

[hdr]

Grades don't matter except at a small number of firms that (supposedly) impose minimum standards for laterals. Your current employer is much more important, and your law school can be a factor as well.

[Anonymous User]

Interesting - so is it just how well you can spin your experience if you are already coming from a prestigious firm? It just seems strange because that is so fungible in that you can say I have X experience and show them the billion dollar deals you were staffed on, but how does the new firm really know how good you are. And especially so if moving across markets, I doubt individuals are highly attuned to the reps of certain forms in certain markets.

[jotarokujo]

Interesting - so is it just how well you can spin your experience if you are already coming from a prestigious firm? It just seems strange because that is so fungible in that you can say I have X experience and show them the billion dollar deals you were staffed on, but how does the new firm really know how good you are. And especially so if moving across markets, I doubt individuals are highly attuned to the reps of certain forms in certain markets.

it's intuitive that this is the case - your experience is still a better indicator of ability than grades are

[Anonymous User]

Interesting - so is it just how well you can spin your experience if you are already coming from a prestigious firm? It just seems strange because that is so fungible in that you can say I have X experience and show them the billion dollar deals you were staffed on, but how does the new firm really know how good you are. And especially so if moving across markets, I doubt individuals are highly attuned to the reps of certain forms in certain markets.

it's intuitive that this is the case - your experience is still a better indicator of ability than grades are

Intuitive until everything t14 grad at a v10 looks the same…

[nixy]

Not every T14 grad at a T10 will have the same experience before getting to the firm, get the same experience once at firm, be looking to lateral to the same place at the same time, or perform equally well in an interview. Grades may play a part, especially for a few firms, but there’s usually other stuff to distinguish candidates.

[Anonymous User]

Not every T14 grad at a T10 will have the same experience before getting to the firm, get the same experience once at firm, be looking to lateral to the same place at the same time, or perform equally well in an interview. Grades may play a part, especially for a few firms, but there’s usually other stuff to distinguish candidates.

I guess my question really is how do they know what your experience is at that firm? The obvious answer is to get someone you know at that firm vouch. But say I'm a 2nd/3rd absolutely killing it, I tell them that, but can't imagine it means much.

[nixy]

Not every T14 grad at a T10 will have the same experience before getting to the firm, get the same experience once at firm, be looking to lateral to the same place at the same time, or perform equally well in an interview. Grades may play a part, especially for a few firms, but there’s usually other stuff to distinguish candidates.

I guess my question really is how do they know what your experience is at that firm? The obvious answer is to get someone you know at that firm vouch. But say I'm a 2nd/3rd absolutely killing it, I tell them that, but can't imagine it means much.

I haven’t interviewed someone lateraling in big law so take this with a grain of salt, but presumably in an interview they’ll ask you about the experiences you’ve had, and how you’ve handled whatever various experiences you offer, and your answers will/won’t be convincing. I can really only give examples from lit (no idea still what corporate people really do), but say they ask if you’ve taken depositions and you haven’t. That’s a way to evaluate your experience (and to judge you against a candidate who has). Or, if you have taken depositions, they can ask you about how you prepare the witness or how you handle objections or whatever, and they can evaluate your answers. They can ask about writing motions/briefs and what role you played (contributed research? wrote one section? wrote the whole thing?), or if/how you prep witnesses, etc.

It’s not that complicated. They’ll ask you substantive questions about things you’ve actually done and you’ll answer them. If you haven’t done those things or you’ve done them badly, your answers probably won’t be very good. I have seen people try to make their experience sound better than it is and it doesn’t really hold up under specific questions. But you may be able to give better answers than you actually have experience and skills, and yes, you might be able to spin your experience to sound better than it actually is and get the job. You might be a really great interviewer or they might be really bad at asking questions; that happens.

I guess I don’t quite get what you’re asking, really.

[Anonymous User]

Grades don't matter except at a small number of firms that (supposedly) impose minimum standards for laterals. Your current employer is much more important, and your law school can be a factor as well.

GDC…any others that care about lateral grades?

[Anonymous User]

Not every T14 grad at a T10 will have the same experience before getting to the firm, get the same experience once at firm, be looking to lateral to the same place at the same time, or perform equally well in an interview. Grades may play a part, especially for a few firms, but there’s usually other stuff to distinguish candidates.

I guess my question really is how do they know what your experience is at that firm? The obvious answer is to get someone you know at that firm vouch. But say I'm a 2nd/3rd absolutely killing it, I tell them that, but can't imagine it means much.

I haven’t interviewed someone lateraling in big law so take this with a grain of salt, but presumably in an interview they’ll ask you about the experiences you’ve had, and how you’ve handled whatever various experiences you offer, and your answers will/won’t be convincing. I can really only give examples from lit (no idea still what corporate people really do), but say they ask if you’ve taken depositions and you haven’t. That’s a way to evaluate your experience (and to judge you against a candidate who has). Or, if you have taken depositions, they can ask you about how you prepare the witness or how you handle objections or whatever, and they can evaluate your answers. They can ask about writing motions/briefs and what role you played (contributed research? wrote one section? wrote the whole thing?), or if/how you prep witnesses, etc.

It’s not that complicated. They’ll ask you substantive questions about things you’ve actually done and you’ll answer them. If you haven’t done those things or you’ve done them badly, your answers probably won’t be very good. I have seen people try to make their experience sound better than it is and it doesn’t really hold up under specific questions. But you may be able to give better answers than you actually have experience and skills, and yes, you might be able to spin your experience to sound better than it actually is and get the job. You might be a really great interviewer or they might be really bad at asking questions; that happens.

I guess I don’t quite get what you’re asking, really.

No this is very helpful, thank you. But I take to really mean that candidate impressions are really going to derive from the rep of the prior firm? I.e., there’s no way you’re going to believe a Paul Weiss and Troutman candidate have the same experience even if they say so convincingly and both appear to know their stuff, right.

So I’m still confused about what the metric is for lateral desirability, especially at the junior levels. Like does having a v10 on the resume just make it easier to land interviews (akin to above median or top 25% when doing OCI)?

[nixy]

I’m not the best person to answer this, but sure, there’s the rep of the previous firm, but it’s also going to depend on practice group and what the new firm needs. That’s probably the first hurdle for lateraling - do they even need someone in your practice area?

And I can’t really comment on the difference btw Paul Weiss and Troutman, but you might be overstating the difference in sophistication between the work at different law firms. Yes, some firms will work for fancier clients and on more complex cases/matters. But that doesn’t mean the work you do at the lesser firm is so materially different that it doesn’t translate to a fancier firm. I mean, if you’re doing personal injury or insurance defense, sure, that won’t transfer very easily to biglaw firms. But if you’re working complex commercial litigation or doing M&A you can easily transfer that to another firm doing those things. There may be some gulfs that are too large to bridge, but I don’t know that it’s as much of an issue as you seem to think. Others may have more input on this, but people do move up from the firms they start at. Some won’t, but some do.

Of course all else being equal, sure, the fancier firm on your resume, the better. But not everything is equal. Right now when everyone’s dying for warm bodies, you can probably upgrade pretty easily. There are times when being at a V5 may not get you a look at a lower ranked firm because they just don’t need to hire anyone.

(I find your “why would they believe you and this other candidate have the same experience” confusing. It’s not really a question of belief. Either you both have the same/similar experience, or you don’t. You’ve either both, say, written motions for summary judgment or you haven’t. You’ve both worked multi-district litigation or you haven’t. Substitute appropriate corporate work as appropriate.)

[Anonymous User]

I’m not the best person to answer this, but sure, there’s the rep of the previous firm, but it’s also going to depend on practice group and what the new firm needs. That’s probably the first hurdle for lateraling - do they even need someone in your practice area?

And I can’t really comment on the difference btw Paul Weiss and Troutman, but you might be overstating the difference in sophistication between the work at different law firms. Yes, some firms will work for fancier clients and on more complex cases/matters. But that doesn’t mean the work you do at the lesser firm is so materially different that it doesn’t translate to a fancier firm. I mean, if you’re doing personal injury or insurance defense, sure, that won’t transfer very easily to biglaw firms. But if you’re working complex commercial litigation or doing M&A you can easily transfer that to another firm doing those things. There may be some gulfs that are too large to bridge, but I don’t know that it’s as much of an issue as you seem to think. Others may have more input on this, but people do move up from the firms they start at. Some won’t, but some do.

Of course all else being equal, sure, the fancier firm on your resume, the better. But not everything is equal. Right now when everyone’s dying for warm bodies, you can probably upgrade pretty easily. There are times when being at a V5 may not get you a look at a lower ranked firm because they just don’t need to hire anyone.

(I find your “why would they believe you and this other candidate have the same experience” confusing. It’s not really a question of belief. Either you both have the same/similar experience, or you don’t. You’ve either both, say, written motions for summary judgment or you haven’t. You’ve both worked multi-district litigation or you haven’t. Substitute appropriate corporate work as appropriate.)

Thank you, this is again very helpful! I think the last part might be just inherently more cloudy on the corporate side b/c something like "running a deal team" is a little more ambiguous than certain litigation tasks. But I get the gist.

[nixy]

Glad it makes some sense. And yeah, I can see that corporate might be a little different, and also, this is just my take, so I hope others will chime in if they can add something.

[Anonymous User]

Speaking as a litigator here: on the one hand, yes, your experience at your previous firm matters for lateral hiring, particularly for mid-level and senior lateral hires who will be expected to be able to contribute at the level of one of the firm’s own associates for that year. However, that will not replace grades entirely for firms that would be sensitive to them as a law student. The standards may be relaxed, and firms will consider academics alongside experience and other factors, but e.g. WilmerHale, Williams & Connolly, and Munger Tolles will still expect appropriate grades and clerkships for their lateral litigation hires.

Anecdotally, on the corporate side, I’ve had friends make jumps as third and fourth year laterals to firms that wouldn’t have given them CBs at EIP/OCI. This happens in litigation too—I’ve seen people with shit 1L grades who managed to score a district clerkship somewhere land jobs at places like Quinn after. They had a fair amount of luck plus a strong market and top school on their side though.

[screwtapeletters]

Think of yourself as a used car salesman. Whether you are selling a 1-yr-old Cayenne with 7000 miles on it or a 2005 Honda Civic with 200,000 miles and 3 accident records (which can still be a reasonably ok car), you are going to pitch the best aspects of each - for the former, basically it being effectively a new car at a discount with whatever specs, and the latter being cheap as hell but still being super reliable etc etc.

Interviews are the same. If the question is “walk me through a deal you’ve done” and you are coming from a V10 but can only say you’ve collected sig pages and drafted a few resolutions/consents without touching the PSA as a 4th yr, no one’s gonna hire you even if you are coming from YLS. If you are coming from the bottom of Amlaw 200 but negotiated the key terms of PSA on 10+ $10m-$100m deals as a 3rd year and can describe that process in an intelligent and convincing manner, you may get hired by a V10 even tho you went to a no-name state school and graduated median. obviously speaking in extremes here but im sure u get the point.

[Anonymous User]

Grades don't matter except at a small number of firms that (supposedly) impose minimum standards for laterals. Your current employer is much more important, and your law school can be a factor as well.

GDC…any others that care about lateral grades?

Latham

[Anonymous User]

Grades don't matter except at a small number of firms that (supposedly) impose minimum standards for laterals. Your current employer is much more important, and your law school can be a factor as well.

GDC…any others that care about lateral grades?

Latham

IME Latham isn’t even that grade selective in the first place

[Anonymous User]

I'm pretty sure neither of these "grade picky" firms (GDC/Latham) pay lateral bonuses...take that into account when deciding. If you lateral there you're doing it for resume-building.

[Anonymous User]

Grades don't matter except at a small number of firms that (supposedly) impose minimum standards for laterals. Your current employer is much more important, and your law school can be a factor as well.

GDC…any others that care about lateral grades?

Latham

IME Latham isn’t even that grade selective in the first place

Based on my lateral process, GDC, Latham, Ropes and Wilmer have grade cutoffs but these don’t really apply to T14 grads. I went to a non-t14 school that still places well into biglaw, and the minimum GPA for GDC and Ropes was 3.5 and Latham and Wilmer was 3.4. So not terribly high cutoffs but cutoffs nonetheless.