How feasible is going solo successfully? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Premise: Individual can suffer for a few years in biglaw. Individual is not risk averse (aka huge balls ). Individual is very interested in the business side of things and has relevant skills.

TLDR/ is having a quasi-successful solo a complete pipe dream or not? If not, what steps does one take to best achieve this?


What are the chances of success looking like? What path would best contribute to this?

I (no experience practicing law) had in mind;

Lower T14 w/ $$$->Biglaw lit 2-3yrs->boutique lit (feasible?)->solo

T6->Clerkship->Boutique lit->Solo

I genuinely feel I would be very fulfilled in running my own practice. The stress of bringing in business is something I enjoy and makes me more passionate. I’ve read the ‘story’ of a few successful solo firms and it seems they did it differently. Some pouring all their $$ into advertising while others did the exact opposite.

I love the business side of things as much as the legal side and am curious if anything I wrote is feasible. Thank you!

P.s you are welcome to roast me.

[Anonymous User]

Look at semi successful folks in your area who have done it.
But a pretty good way is to do biglaw a few years and build connections to other lawyers who will refer work to you for your area of expertise.
Pretty common route in my neck of the woods:
Biglaw (or the equivalent), then one of either these three- solo/smaller firm work/in house/ govt.
Solos generate a lot of business from other lawyers. They certainly can get business from hustling/country clubs/rotary/religious groups/(insert your hobby group); but far and away the best thing is to go to your local bar assoc meetings or whatever specialty chat and try and publish/ do seminars.

Best of luck

[Anonymous User]

What a solo practice is like will depend a ton on practice area, but a sizable proportion of American attorneys are solo or in <10 lawyer firms, and many of them are very successful. Of course, many are just normal lawyers, but they don’t starve.

[becodalapa]

Lower T14 w/ $$$->Biglaw lit 2-3yrs->boutique lit (feasible?)->solo

T6->Clerkship->Boutique lit->Solo

Seems highly unlikely that whether you go to a T6 or a T14 will be an important factor in whether you can succeed as a solo.

[njdevils2626]

Lower T14 w/ $$$->Biglaw lit 2-3yrs->boutique lit (feasible?)->solo

T6->Clerkship->Boutique lit->Solo

Seems highly unlikely that whether you go to a T6 or a T14 will be an important factor in whether you can succeed as a solo.

Agreed - I think the T6 v T14 distinction was more important to increase likelihood of clerkship path rather than BigLaw. Though I would personally note that I think the BigLaw path would make more sense regardless of school; will be important to stockpile as much cash as possible to fund your solo practice early on while you ramp up to profitability

[Anonymous User]

Having T-14/clerkship/biglaw credentials as a solo is almost meaningless. You are likely going to be more appealing to clients having gone to Flagship State U in whatever market you want to live in.

Biglaw will also be some of the worst experience you could get to prepare you for a solo career. Junior associates often don’t get insight into questions (substantive and procedural) that you will need to know how to answer as a solo.

There is some value in doing biglaw for a bit to try to build a war chest, since your early year(s) as a solo could be financially tough. But I also think that if you wanted to set up shop in, say, Madison, you would be just as smart to go to Wisconsin Law and try to get some experience at a respected Madison firm (even if it didn’t pay market) instead of going to a T-14 and trying to make money in NY or even Chicago before moving to Madison to hang a shingle. You’ll want to have a network of local attorneys built before you do so, as they can really help with referrals. Of course, going to a T-14 gives you a lot more flexibility if you end up changing your mind in law school about what you wanna do.

[Anonymous User]

Lower T14 w/ $$$->Biglaw lit 2-3yrs->boutique lit (feasible?)->solo

T6->Clerkship->Boutique lit->Solo

Seems highly unlikely that whether you go to a T6 or a T14 will be an important factor in whether you can succeed as a solo.

Agreed - I think the T6 v T14 distinction was more important to increase likelihood of clerkship path rather than BigLaw. Though I would personally note that I think the BigLaw path would make more sense regardless of school; will be important to stockpile as much cash as possible to fund your solo practice early on while you ramp up to profitability

Correct, I was just brainstorming and thought working in a boutique lit shop would teach me the most skills re: going solo. I thought the fastest way to work in a boutique is after a clerkship, hence choosing a t6 school compared to a lower t14 with more $$.

[Anonymous User]

Having T-14/clerkship/biglaw credentials as a solo is almost meaningless. You are likely going to be more appealing to clients having gone to Flagship State U in whatever market you want to live in.

Biglaw will also be some of the worst experience you could get to prepare you for a solo career. Junior associates often don’t get insight into questions (substantive and procedural) that you will need to know how to answer as a solo.

There is some value in doing biglaw for a bit to try to build a war chest, since your early year(s) as a solo could be financially tough. But I also think that if you wanted to set up shop in, say, Madison, you would be just as smart to go to Wisconsin Law and try to get some experience at a respected Madison firm (even if it didn’t pay market) instead of going to a T-14 and trying to make money in NY or even Chicago before moving to Madison to hang a shingle. You’ll want to have a network of local attorneys built before you do so, as they can really help with referrals. Of course, going to a T-14 gives you a lot more flexibility if you end up changing your mind in law school about what you wanna do.

Hmm thanks for the insight I didn’t think about this. From a (until recently?) laypersons perspective, I’d gander it’s H>Y/S>State flagship>other ivy’s/rest of t14. Similarly “biglaw” experience/clerking is useless. Obviously the big caveat is HYS is going to be pricier than the state flagship which a competitive applicant would likely get a massive scholarship from.

I think we are on the same page that working in an ‘elite’ lit boutique in the market you want to work in is probably the best experience one could have?

It is unfortunate that juniors in biglaw get stuck doing grunt work alas I understand the business model. I guess my question is how feasible it is to break into the aforementioned boutiques from biglaw? FWIW I am interested in texas/california, (not a big fan of NYC at all) so the state flagships would be competitive (moreso than other states?)

Thank you

[Anonymous User]

Look at semi successful folks in your area who have done it.
But a pretty good way is to do biglaw a few years and build connections to other lawyers who will refer work to you for your area of expertise.
Pretty common route in my neck of the woods:
Biglaw (or the equivalent), then one of either these three- solo/smaller firm work/in house/ govt.
Solos generate a lot of business from other lawyers. They certainly can get business from hustling/country clubs/rotary/religious groups/(insert your hobby group); but far and away the best thing is to go to your local bar assoc meetings or whatever specialty chat and try and publish/ do seminars.

Best of luck

Thank you. Frankly I dislike California (general culture+ I don’t value nice weather+ expensive) however I am close with some practicing attorneys and a senior partner at a v50 who have offered to help me, so it seems unwise for me to stray from the area when I may get a ‘leg up’ in networking just from luck.

The answers I’ve received here have been pretty encouraging.

[Anonymous User]

Having T-14/clerkship/biglaw credentials as a solo is almost meaningless. You are likely going to be more appealing to clients having gone to Flagship State U in whatever market you want to live in.

Biglaw will also be some of the worst experience you could get to prepare you for a solo career. Junior associates often don’t get insight into questions (substantive and procedural) that you will need to know how to answer as a solo.

There is some value in doing biglaw for a bit to try to build a war chest, since your early year(s) as a solo could be financially tough. But I also think that if you wanted to set up shop in, say, Madison, you would be just as smart to go to Wisconsin Law and try to get some experience at a respected Madison firm (even if it didn’t pay market) instead of going to a T-14 and trying to make money in NY or even Chicago before moving to Madison to hang a shingle. You’ll want to have a network of local attorneys built before you do so, as they can really help with referrals. Of course, going to a T-14 gives you a lot more flexibility if you end up changing your mind in law school about what you wanna do.

Hmm thanks for the insight I didn’t think about this. From a (until recently?) laypersons perspective, I’d gander it’s H>Y/S>State flagship>other ivy’s/rest of t14. Similarly “biglaw” experience/clerking is useless. Obviously the big caveat is HYS is going to be pricier than the state flagship which a competitive applicant would likely get a massive scholarship from.

I think we are on the same page that working in an ‘elite’ lit boutique in the market you want to work in is probably the best experience one could have?

It is unfortunate that juniors in biglaw get stuck doing grunt work alas I understand the business model. I guess my question is how feasible it is to break into the aforementioned boutiques from biglaw? FWIW I am interested in texas/california, (not a big fan of NYC at all) so the state flagships would be competitive (moreso than other states?)

Thank you

Regarding school, I don't know that your take is accurate. If you look at solos and small shops that are really successful, I think you'll see that the heavy hitters are usually tied to the community. A place like Des Moines or Savannah is more likely to have a successful solo from Iowa Law or Georgia Law than from UChicago or Duke. And I'm sure there is a ton of self-selection bias at play, but there is also networking, community building, and the "one of us" feeling that some clients really like. You can instantly connect with a client in Texas by talking about going to Longhorn (or Aggie) football games as a student. But I don't think they will care about your favorite New Haven pizza shop. Not sure how this applies (if at all) in CA if that's where you are looking to go. In Texas though, the chance to get to know Texas lawyers and legal community (as well as your classmates who stick around) at UT, and to be able to be "a Texan," would be more valuable to your ability to gain clients as a solo than bringing down a Virginia (or even a HYS) degree and tacking on 3 years of experience at Baker Botts.

In terms of experience to be able to run your own solo shop, an elite lit boutique is probably better than just biglaw, but I'm not sure it is the "best." Working at a small non-elite shop would probably get you more experience earlier. You aren't going to give an opening statement at Bartlit Beck as a junior, but at a three-person firm, you might be able to do that.

[Anonymous User]

Having T-14/clerkship/biglaw credentials as a solo is almost meaningless. You are likely going to be more appealing to clients having gone to Flagship State U in whatever market you want to live in.

Biglaw will also be some of the worst experience you could get to prepare you for a solo career. Junior associates often don’t get insight into questions (substantive and procedural) that you will need to know how to answer as a solo.

There is some value in doing biglaw for a bit to try to build a war chest, since your early year(s) as a solo could be financially tough. But I also think that if you wanted to set up shop in, say, Madison, you would be just as smart to go to Wisconsin Law and try to get some experience at a respected Madison firm (even if it didn’t pay market) instead of going to a T-14 and trying to make money in NY or even Chicago before moving to Madison to hang a shingle. You’ll want to have a network of local attorneys built before you do so, as they can really help with referrals. Of course, going to a T-14 gives you a lot more flexibility if you end up changing your mind in law school about what you wanna do.

Hmm thanks for the insight I didn’t think about this. From a (until recently?) laypersons perspective, I’d gander it’s H>Y/S>State flagship>other ivy’s/rest of t14. Similarly “biglaw” experience/clerking is useless. Obviously the big caveat is HYS is going to be pricier than the state flagship which a competitive applicant would likely get a massive scholarship from.

I think we are on the same page that working in an ‘elite’ lit boutique in the market you want to work in is probably the best experience one could have?

It is unfortunate that juniors in biglaw get stuck doing grunt work alas I understand the business model. I guess my question is how feasible it is to break into the aforementioned boutiques from biglaw? FWIW I am interested in texas/california, (not a big fan of NYC at all) so the state flagships would be competitive (moreso than other states?)

Thank you

Regarding school, I don't know that your take is accurate. If you look at solos and small shops that are really successful, I think you'll see that the heavy hitters are usually tied to the community. A place like Des Moines or Savannah is more likely to have a successful solo from Iowa Law or Georgia Law than from UChicago or Duke. And I'm sure there is a ton of self-selection bias at play, but there is also networking, community building, and the "one of us" feeling that some clients really like. You can instantly connect with a client in Texas by talking about going to Longhorn (or Aggie) football games as a student. But I don't think they will care about your favorite New Haven pizza shop. Not sure how this applies (if at all) in CA if that's where you are looking to go. In Texas though, the chance to get to know Texas lawyers and legal community (as well as your classmates who stick around) at UT, and to be able to be "a Texan," would be more valuable to your ability to gain clients as a solo than bringing down a Virginia (or even a HYS) degree and tacking on 3 years of experience at Baker Botts.

In terms of experience to be able to run your own solo shop, an elite lit boutique is probably better than just biglaw, but I'm not sure it is the "best." Working at a small non-elite shop would probably get you more experience earlier. You aren't going to give an opening statement at Bartlit Beck as a junior, but at a three-person firm, you might be able to do that.

I really hadn’t thought about this so I appreciate this perspective. I wonder if we have any concrete data on what clients look for when selecting a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

What kinds of services do you plan to offer to what kinds of clients? I don't think where you went to school is going to be as important to any client as your experience in the field and who can recommend you, but it may matter more for, say, someone shopping around for a lawyer to help with setting up a new business than, say, someone charged with a felony.

[Lacepiece23]

Premise: Individual can suffer for a few years in biglaw. Individual is not risk averse (aka huge balls ). Individual is very interested in the business side of things and has relevant skills.

TLDR/ is having a quasi-successful solo a complete pipe dream or not? If not, what steps does one take to best achieve this?


What are the chances of success looking like? What path would best contribute to this?

I (no experience practicing law) had in mind;

Lower T14 w/ $$$->Biglaw lit 2-3yrs->boutique lit (feasible?)->solo

T6->Clerkship->Boutique lit->Solo

I genuinely feel I would be very fulfilled in running my own practice. The stress of bringing in business is something I enjoy and makes me more passionate. I’ve read the ‘story’ of a few successful solo firms and it seems they did it differently. Some pouring all their $$ into advertising while others did the exact opposite.

I love the business side of things as much as the legal side and am curious if anything I wrote is feasible. Thank you!

P.s you are welcome to roast me.

I did this. I'm a little over a year into my firm. Been pretty successful. Had three cases make the local news in my first year and one make it to BET. I do plaintiff's employment law. Never did employment law in biglaw.

My advice would be to learn SEO. It's not hard, but is a real competitive advantage if you know it at a deep level. But there are lots of ways to do it. The hustle route is having two lunches a week with referral partners. I don't do this. But I know people that have built a practice just on referrals.

The other way is advertising/SEO. You can do this for most practice areas still, although boomer lawyers are finally starting to figure it out. You can't do it for PI, which is the most lucrative area by far. Happy to answer any questions. Here's my website for reference:

www.employment-labor-law.com

Edit: I saw some of the above posts and I agree with very little of what was said. Biglaw was immensely valuable for me. True, it's harder to get experience. But you learn good habits, which will set you apart. Writing quickly and well and client service are things that I could not have learned elsewhere like I did in biglaw.

Also, I have a big war chest. I still don't make that much money because I reinvest. I have a full-time employee that operates at a lawyer level. I plan on hiring my first associate in the fall. I have more business than I can handle.

I also have three friends, all from biglaw, that have gone solo in different practice areas (corporate and trademark). They are doing extremely well and were able to take clients from their old shops.

Further, yes, lay people aren't going to generally know the nuances of prestige. If you're deadset, Cornell is a great option. I went there. And my clients love the fact that it is an Ivy-league school. They wouldn't care about UVA or Michigan. But lay people know that ivys are good.

[nixy]

Further, yes, lay people aren't going to generally know the nuances of prestige. If you're deadset, Cornell is a great option. I went there. And my clients love the fact that it is an Ivy-league school. They wouldn't care about UVA or Michigan. But lay people know that ivys are good.

I can't argue with your experience, but I think lay prestige can be pretty regional. Sure, everyone's going to know Harvard, but if you're in Alabama, roll tide will probably get you further than most fancy northeastern schools, Ohio State will have huge pull in Ohio, etc. (again, depending somewhat on the sophistication of your clients).

(Of course this is less pertinent for the OP if they're looking at T14/T6 anyway, but if they want to be in the mid-Atlantic I'll bet UVA is great; if they're in California, people will know Berkeley, etc.)

[Anonymous User]

Edit: I saw some of the above posts and I agree with very little of what was said. Biglaw was immensely valuable for me. True, it's harder to get experience. But you learn good habits, which will set you apart. Writing quickly and well and client service are things that I could not have learned elsewhere like I did in biglaw.

Just want to clarify a take of mine above in the thread. I do not think the biggest ding against biglaw is that it doesn't provide early opportunities for substantive experience (though, IME, that is a ding). Instead, I think that someone going to law school with the intent of becoming a solo as quickly as possible should (1) identify their target market, (2) attend the nearest big/good law school, and then (3) work for a local strong law firm.

I have in my head an OP who is seeking a small or midsized market; in many cases, that wouldn't be accurate and so this advice wouldn't apply. But for someone who is born and raised in Tulsa and wants to make it happen there for their whole life, I think they'd be better served going to Oklahoma Law and then working at a Tulsa firm before hanging a shingle, rather than going to Cornell and Debevoise before moving back to try it. The opportunity to build relationships in the legal community - through classmates, professors, school alumni, practitioners in the area who want to help the new kid on the block, etc. - is just so valuable to a solo.

[Lacepiece23]

Further, yes, lay people aren't going to generally know the nuances of prestige. If you're deadset, Cornell is a great option. I went there. And my clients love the fact that it is an Ivy-league school. They wouldn't care about UVA or Michigan. But lay people know that ivys are good.

I can't argue with your experience, but I think lay prestige can be pretty regional. Sure, everyone's going to know Harvard, but if you're in Alabama, roll tide will probably get you further than most fancy northeastern schools, Ohio State will have huge pull in Ohio, etc. (again, depending somewhat on the sophistication of your clients).

(Of course this is less pertinent for the OP if they're looking at T14/T6 anyway, but if they want to be in the mid-Atlantic I'll bet UVA is great; if they're in California, people will know Berkeley, etc.)

You're also forgetting a key piece. Lawyers are prestige whores. My degree isn't all that important in my day-to-day of getting clients. But it is incredibly helpful with other lawyers. Any defense lawyer who does single-plaintiff work will tell you that they look up the lawyers they are up against. If the lawyer has a shitty website, AOL email, and went to at TTT law school, you get judged.

When you're negotiating settlements, you want the other side to have the first impression that you're good. Degree and biglaw help with that.

Also, having the pedigree helps with networking and referrals for the reasons stated above.

[Lacepiece23]

Edit: I saw some of the above posts and I agree with very little of what was said. Biglaw was immensely valuable for me. True, it's harder to get experience. But you learn good habits, which will set you apart. Writing quickly and well and client service are things that I could not have learned elsewhere like I did in biglaw.

Just want to clarify a take of mine above in the thread. I do not think the biggest ding against biglaw is that it doesn't provide early opportunities for substantive experience (though, IME, that is a ding). Instead, I think that someone going to law school with the intent of becoming a solo as quickly as possible should (1) identify their target market, (2) attend the nearest big/good law school, and then (3) work for a local strong law firm.

I have in my head an OP who is seeking a small or midsized market; in many cases, that wouldn't be accurate and so this advice wouldn't apply. But for someone who is born and raised in Tulsa and wants to make it happen there for their whole life, I think they'd be better served going to Oklahoma Law and then working at a Tulsa firm before hanging a shingle, rather than going to Cornell and Debevoise before moving back to try it. The opportunity to build relationships in the legal community - through classmates, professors, school alumni, practitioners in the area who want to help the new kid on the block, etc. - is just so valuable to a solo.

I agree. It depends on what OP wants to do and what niche. For PI, Florida, Philly, and CA are great jurisdictions and it's better to be in the city. For divorces, idk, probably doesn't matter where you go.

I'd rather max out money with how high salaries are these days than go to a midsize firm in the middle of nowhere paying nothing. Not sure that I read that OP wants to be in a flyover place, but may have missed that.

[Anonymous User]

Having T-14/clerkship/biglaw credentials as a solo is almost meaningless. You are likely going to be more appealing to clients having gone to Flagship State U in whatever market you want to live in.

Biglaw will also be some of the worst experience you could get to prepare you for a solo career. Junior associates often don’t get insight into questions (substantive and procedural) that you will need to know how to answer as a solo.

There is some value in doing biglaw for a bit to try to build a war chest, since your early year(s) as a solo could be financially tough. But I also think that if you wanted to set up shop in, say, Madison, you would be just as smart to go to Wisconsin Law and try to get some experience at a respected Madison firm (even if it didn’t pay market) instead of going to a T-14 and trying to make money in NY or even Chicago before moving to Madison to hang a shingle. You’ll want to have a network of local attorneys built before you do so, as they can really help with referrals. Of course, going to a T-14 gives you a lot more flexibility if you end up changing your mind in law school about what you wanna do.

Hmm thanks for the insight I didn’t think about this. From a (until recently?) laypersons perspective, I’d gander it’s H>Y/S>State flagship>other ivy’s/rest of t14. Similarly “biglaw” experience/clerking is useless. Obviously the big caveat is HYS is going to be pricier than the state flagship which a competitive applicant would likely get a massive scholarship from.

I think we are on the same page that working in an ‘elite’ lit boutique in the market you want to work in is probably the best experience one could have?

It is unfortunate that juniors in biglaw get stuck doing grunt work alas I understand the business model. I guess my question is how feasible it is to break into the aforementioned boutiques from biglaw? FWIW I am interested in texas/california, (not a big fan of NYC at all) so the state flagships would be competitive (moreso than other states?)

Thank you

If you're going to do e.g. commercial litigation work as a solo, your primary source of business will be referrals from other lawyers, so the standard credentials will still matter in addition to connections. But yes, UT, UCB, and UCLA would all be excellent options, because they're excellent law schools in the locations you're considering practicing in.

[Anonymous User]

Edit: I saw some of the above posts and I agree with very little of what was said. Biglaw was immensely valuable for me. True, it's harder to get experience. But you learn good habits, which will set you apart. Writing quickly and well and client service are things that I could not have learned elsewhere like I did in biglaw.

Just want to clarify a take of mine above in the thread. I do not think the biggest ding against biglaw is that it doesn't provide early opportunities for substantive experience (though, IME, that is a ding). Instead, I think that someone going to law school with the intent of becoming a solo as quickly as possible should (1) identify their target market, (2) attend the nearest big/good law school, and then (3) work for a local strong law firm.

I have in my head an OP who is seeking a small or midsized market; in many cases, that wouldn't be accurate and so this advice wouldn't apply. But for someone who is born and raised in Tulsa and wants to make it happen there for their whole life, I think they'd be better served going to Oklahoma Law and then working at a Tulsa firm before hanging a shingle, rather than going to Cornell and Debevoise before moving back to try it. The opportunity to build relationships in the legal community - through classmates, professors, school alumni, practitioners in the area who want to help the new kid on the block, etc. - is just so valuable to a solo.

Fwiw the top firms in flyover markets still prefer T14 grads over State U grads, so the advice here is somewhat in tension. (E.g. someone name-checked Des Moines--check out the bios of the people at Weinhardt, its top small lit shop--hardly someplace that isn't attuned to conventional prestige, even if they'll go for Iowa grads with federal clerkships.)

There are pluses to both, and a flagship state school (especially with a major scholarship) is rarely ever a bad option if you want to practice in the jurisdiction.

[nixy]

Further, yes, lay people aren't going to generally know the nuances of prestige. If you're deadset, Cornell is a great option. I went there. And my clients love the fact that it is an Ivy-league school. They wouldn't care about UVA or Michigan. But lay people know that ivys are good.

I can't argue with your experience, but I think lay prestige can be pretty regional. Sure, everyone's going to know Harvard, but if you're in Alabama, roll tide will probably get you further than most fancy northeastern schools, Ohio State will have huge pull in Ohio, etc. (again, depending somewhat on the sophistication of your clients).

(Of course this is less pertinent for the OP if they're looking at T14/T6 anyway, but if they want to be in the mid-Atlantic I'll bet UVA is great; if they're in California, people will know Berkeley, etc.)

You're also forgetting a key piece. Lawyers are prestige whores. My degree isn't all that important in my day-to-day of getting clients. But it is incredibly helpful with other lawyers. Any defense lawyer who does single-plaintiff work will tell you that they look up the lawyers they are up against. If the lawyer has a shitty website, AOL email, and went to at TTT law school, you get judged.

When you're negotiating settlements, you want the other side to have the first impression that you're good. Degree and biglaw help with that.

Also, having the pedigree helps with networking and referrals for the reasons stated above.

Fair, I was just thinking about getting clients/networking/referrals and not the interactions with other lawyers while on the case, since you had originally said that your clients love the fact that you went to an Ivy. But also, I was using examples like Alabama and Ohio State, as well as UVA in the DC region or Berkeley in California - not TTTs.

[Anonymous User]

Just one additional thought here re: clerking/biglaw. It may be a long shot for others, but I know one attorney from my V20 who clerked in a smaller market (but one where the firm's clients get sued), spent a few years at my firm focusing as much as they could on cases in that jurisdiction, and then moved to a well known small firm in that area and ended up assisting as local counsel in that jurisdiction for some cases for my V20. That's definitely a difficult path, but it could set you up for a gig as a solo practitioner to serve as local counsel for biglaw cases after a few years at the local firm. That attorney did have family connections in the law in that jurisdiction, so I'm not sure how much that played into it.

[Anonymous User]

All the people I know who went solo get much (if not nearly all) of their business from referrals from friends in law, so I would think going to law school in the market you want to be in would be extremely important (and more valuable than swooping into the midwest or south with, for example, a Stanford degree). You will meet people in whatever firm or boutique you work in, but connections from law school will also pay dividends.

[Sackboy]

Fwiw the top firms in flyover markets still prefer T14 grads over State U grads, so the advice here is somewhat in tension. (E.g. someone name-checked Des Moines--check out the bios of the people at Weinhardt, its top small lit shop--hardly someplace that isn't attuned to conventional prestige, even if they'll go for Iowa grads with federal clerkships.)

There are pluses to both, and a flagship state school (especially with a major scholarship) is rarely ever a bad option if you want to practice in the jurisdiction.

Belin and Weinhardt (a Belin spinoff) in Iowa are irregular. They are legitimate boutiques with similar standards to major market firms and are not good examples of what typical small law firms in flyover states usually go for.