Reasons for a junior to voluntarily leave a top-ranked firm? Forum

[BrowsingTLS]

Are there reasons for a junior to voluntarily leave a top-ranked firm such as Sullivan and Cromwell or Davis Polk, which outweigh the benefits of having a longer tenure at said firms? I'm operating off the assumption that longer tenure at a top firm = greater career options later, so I have turned down a lot of opportunities.

A signing/lateral bonus seems like a good reason only in the short-term.

Increased partership prospects makes sense, but wouldn't you still want to spend at least five or so years at the top-firm for resume purposes?
I LOL at the idea I will get meaningful work life balance at any firm paying market, so that would never sway me to leave.

But I DO want to hear of good reasons to jump ship and which are unrelated to stressful situations like being stuck with a bad partner, being pushed out, etc.

[Anonymous User]

If htey dont liek the work they are doing and want to switch groups; want to move locations; better work life balance;

I think you probably are the same resume-wise between years 3-6 until partner.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I'm operating off the assumption that longer tenure at a top firm = greater career options later

There's, like, a weak correlation here, but I have my doubts about basing serious career decisions on this principle. The marginal résumé sheen of a V5 versus a V50 is pretty thin to begin with, and you've captured much of it by the time you finish your first year.

If we restrict this to people lateralling to another firm (because I think it's obvious why someone would move in-house, or to government, or to a finance role or some unicorn), people leave

- to get signing bonuses
- for a shadow sabbatical/breather of 3-6 months rolling off the old firm and into the new one
- to move markets
- to change practice areas
- relatedly, to find a firm where their preferred practice area is better-supported
- to start over with a clean slate if they've made serious mistakes or feel politically isolated (although this is veering towards "pushed out")

A signing/lateral bonus seems like a good reason only in the short-term.

Many people only intend to stay in biglaw for the short term.

Increased partership prospects makes sense, but wouldn't you still want to spend at least five or so years at the top-firm for resume purposes?

This makes no sense to me. If one's intent is to make partner at Firm Y, ideal to be at Firm Y building their case, not grinding away at Firm X "for resume purposes"

I LOL at the idea I will get meaningful work life balance at any firm paying market, so that would never sway me to leave.

Work-life balance might not be chilltacular at any market-paying firm, but if your starting point is (e.g.) V10 M&A then there's certainly room for it to improve by lateralling. 2600 --> 2000 billable hours, getting paid the same, is a no-brainer for many.

[BrowsingTLS]

I'm operating off the assumption that longer tenure at a top firm = greater career options later

There's, like, a weak correlation here, but I have my doubts about basing serious career decisions on this principle. The marginal résumé sheen of a V5 versus a V50 is pretty thin to begin with, and you've captured much of it by the time you finish your first year.

Interesting theory. I wonder if this is right. Good if true.

To your other points, I would only lateral to another firm, I intend to stay in my market, and I'm not in biglaw for the short term so a sign-on/lateral bonus alone would not be a good reason to leave. Thanks for your other good reasons (3-6 mo. break and practice area change).

If one's intent is to make partner at Firm Y, ideal to be at Firm Y building their case, not grinding away at Firm X "for resume purposes"

I agree that it makes sense to spend more time at the firm where you want to make partner. But if you don't know what firm that is, and you're already at DPW/S&C/similar, I think those firms have a lot to offer which make it worth grinding out for the remote chance of partnership and lateraling to make partnership elsewhere if and when it becomes clear you won't get it or if/when you identify a firm where you want to make partner and have a realistic shot. Hard to do this from the outside.

[Anonymous User]

The marginal résumé sheen of a V5 versus a V50 is pretty thin to begin with

I'm not sure this is true, especially for in-house opportunities.

[nealric]

I'm operating off the assumption that longer tenure at a top firm = greater career options later

There's, like, a weak correlation here, but I have my doubts about basing serious career decisions on this principle. The marginal résumé sheen of a V5 versus a V50 is pretty thin to begin with, and you've captured much of it by the time you finish your first year.

I think the main benefit of a v5 over a v50 is that IF you become an equity partner (which is a longshot, of course) your comp is probably going to be a lot higher at v5 than at a v50. If you have no intention of ever becoming partner, I don't think most of the common exit options distinguish much between a v5 and a v50. There are probably outliers like WLRK associates going into various finance jobs, but I doubt the exits for a random Skadden M&A Associate are materially different from a Shearman M&A associate.

[nealric]

The marginal résumé sheen of a V5 versus a V50 is pretty thin to begin with

I'm not sure this is true, especially for in-house opportunities.

I'm sure different companies are different, but I don't think a v5 is all that big of a resume bump at my F500 company.

One issue is that we don't work with the v5 that often. They tend to work on only the very biggest deals or corporate events (like spin-offs of major portions of a company), which only come around every few years at most companies. The bread and butter stuff where you can actually build a relationship with a company's legal department tends to be done by firms a bit further down the league tables.

In general, most large company in-house hiring is done to fulfill a specific need. It's not, "we need another attorney." It's, "we need a benefits attorney who is familiar with plans like ours." Whether you have the necessary expertise for that role probably doesn't have much to do with where your firm was in the vault rankings.

Where I think V5 could probably help you in-house is if you are a partner going for marquee GC jobs. If you are headlining Wall Street Journal front page deals, it means you are probably getting board and C-suite exposure and a reputation that would put you in the running. Being a partner at a random v100 wouldn't have nearly the same impact.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I LOL at the idea I will get meaningful work life balance at any firm paying market, so that would never sway me to leave.

"Other firms besides S&C and DPW are unlikely to give meaningful work-life balance" ≠ "Other firms will not work you less"

[dabigchina]

There's also the possibility of getting away from an asshole partner if you are in a small practice group.

[Sackboy]

There are tons of former V10 (and the like) folks who left after pretty short stints to go to very strong regional firms with like 1800-1900 hour requirements for bonuses and a real chance at equity partnership. They often get paid well enough (sometimes barely short of market) and have a life. Wonder why anyone would choice that life over "building their resume".

[The Lsat Airbender]

Wonder why anyone would choice that life over "building their resume".

AAAAAAAHHH I'M RÉSUUUUUMING

[Anonymous User]

For me the reason is looking for permanent remote work.

[Anonymous User]

One reason that is being really overlooked here is that the V10 is not necessarily the top across the board. They're usually just the top at M&A/Cap Mkts. Also, different firms have different types of work.

For example,

Restructuring: Kirkland/Weil > Cravath/DPW/STB/whoever. Kirkland/Weil are also primarily debtor shops, maybe the junior doesn't want debtor work.

Project Finance: Latham/Milbank/W&C > everyone else. Latham/Milbank/W&C have primarily lender and sponsor financing work. Maybe a junior wants to do project contracts or something more on the ground.

Real Estate: At many of the top firms it's just a specialist group assisting the corporate teams. Maybe a junior wants to do actual real estate work rather than summarize leases for the M&A team.