2023 Vault/Firsthand Rankings Forum

[Anonymous User]

HFs and PE learned years ago that prestige doesn’t fucking matter, only thing that matters is compensation.

Arguing otherwise is idiotic.

I don't really know what this means, finance is just as credentialist (see, e.g., their hiring practices both pre/post-MBA)

or someone telling you 'oh s/he works at Blackstone'

or Goldman perennially coming in slightly under 'street' on bonuses b/c of the brand halo

or people rocking their 'banker bags' with firm logos at equinox

etc

It’s not. Firms with “heritage” or name brand or stringent hiring processes but with subpar returns aren’t respected.

If your firm pulls in solid returns and pays well, no one cares that your analysts went to Bucknell or Wesleyan instead of HYP.

If BX portcos started dropping into BK its prestige would go down because returns would be down, regardless of how many HBS grads work for them.

[Anonymous User]

Same type of mindset that thought self-driving cars were impossible and that only 80 y/o scouters could recruit for baseball. The V10 side remark is just the cherry on top. I can't even tell if this is boomer mentality since firms got law students so wrapped up in this nonsense as well.

what type of high margin work, specifically, do you think is replaceable by ALSPs. from my experience, if anything, tech is pushing billables up - Kira makes mass + more sophisticated diligence easier to do, etc

Take what happens now and then (quite literally) replace the lawyer with a computer. Do I think this AI capability will exist in the next decade? No. But 20-30 years? Who's to say. Sure psychologically maybe some big client feels more comfortable with human eyes and will pay a premium for some overworked associate to bleed their eyes out in doc review. But AI literally comes down to statistics applied to tonnes and tonnes of granular data + computing power. Find a way to store and run all of that data in a relatively quick manner and you have AI doing the work humans do at the same statistical error rate but at a lower overall error rate (machines don't get tired and make human errors). And at the end of the day, clients are going to go with whatever saves them the most money.

I was looking for actual products that exist today that automate work done by high-margin firms, not like, a generic description of 'AI threat' based on a Vox explainer.

the 'threat' you just described - "an 'AI' I concede does not exist, 20 years from now, does work that a white collar professional does based on 'statistics' and 'data'" - is at such a high level of abstraction/generality that it could be written about any job in any industry.

It's not that abstract. My point is that the theory (software) is already developed, the hardware isn't. Hardware is always improving, to the point where it's become almost inevitable (Moore's Law). So yeah, in 20 years, I can envision computers having the power to go through a permutation of XYZ factors and spit out a legal clause or ruling at or surpassing human capability/accuracy to obviate a significant "busywork" that juniors and midlevels get staffed on.

The cognitive dissonance on this forum is also illustrative. A common point repeatedly made against working in tech is the fact that lawyers get paid to do work any "highschooler" could have done (convincing themselves that they don't have the brains to make it in tech). But now it's, "oh, our work is too complicated for machines, even 10 or 20 years out"?

[Anonymous User]

Same type of mindset that thought self-driving cars were impossible and that only 80 y/o scouters could recruit for baseball. The V10 side remark is just the cherry on top. I can't even tell if this is boomer mentality since firms got law students so wrapped up in this nonsense as well.

what type of high margin work, specifically, do you think is replaceable by ALSPs. from my experience, if anything, tech is pushing billables up - Kira makes mass + more sophisticated diligence easier to do, etc

Take what happens now and then (quite literally) replace the lawyer with a computer. Do I think this AI capability will exist in the next decade? No. But 20-30 years? Who's to say. Sure psychologically maybe some big client feels more comfortable with human eyes and will pay a premium for some overworked associate to bleed their eyes out in doc review. But AI literally comes down to statistics applied to tonnes and tonnes of granular data + computing power. Find a way to store and run all of that data in a relatively quick manner and you have AI doing the work humans do at the same statistical error rate but at a lower overall error rate (machines don't get tired and make human errors). And at the end of the day, clients are going to go with whatever saves them the most money.

I was looking for actual products that exist today that automate work done by high-margin firms, not like, a generic description of 'AI threat' based on a Vox explainer.

the 'threat' you just described - "an 'AI' I concede does not exist, 20 years from now, does work that a white collar professional does based on 'statistics' and 'data'" - is at such a high level of abstraction/generality that it could be written about any job in any industry.

It's not that abstract. My point is that the theory (software) is already developed, the hardware isn't. Hardware is always improving, to the point where it's become almost inevitable (Moore's Law). So yeah, in 20 years, I can envision computers having the power to go through a permutation of XYZ factors and spit out a legal clause or ruling at or surpassing human capability/accuracy to obviate a significant "busywork" that juniors and midlevels get staffed on.

The cognitive dissonance on this forum is also illustrative. A common point repeatedly made against working in tech is the fact that lawyers get paid to do work any "highschooler" could have done (convincing themselves that they don't have the brains to make it in tech). But now it's, "oh, our work is too complicated for machines, even 10 or 20 years out"?

It’s too speculative, in 20 years AI might be able to code as well as your random tech bro. Cmon this tangent is crazy

[Anonymous User]

Same type of mindset that thought self-driving cars were impossible and that only 80 y/o scouters could recruit for baseball. The V10 side remark is just the cherry on top. I can't even tell if this is boomer mentality since firms got law students so wrapped up in this nonsense as well.

what type of high margin work, specifically, do you think is replaceable by ALSPs. from my experience, if anything, tech is pushing billables up - Kira makes mass + more sophisticated diligence easier to do, etc

Take what happens now and then (quite literally) replace the lawyer with a computer. Do I think this AI capability will exist in the next decade? No. But 20-30 years? Who's to say. Sure psychologically maybe some big client feels more comfortable with human eyes and will pay a premium for some overworked associate to bleed their eyes out in doc review. But AI literally comes down to statistics applied to tonnes and tonnes of granular data + computing power. Find a way to store and run all of that data in a relatively quick manner and you have AI doing the work humans do at the same statistical error rate but at a lower overall error rate (machines don't get tired and make human errors). And at the end of the day, clients are going to go with whatever saves them the most money.

I was looking for actual products that exist today that automate work done by high-margin firms, not like, a generic description of 'AI threat' based on a Vox explainer.

the 'threat' you just described - "an 'AI' I concede does not exist, 20 years from now, does work that a white collar professional does based on 'statistics' and 'data'" - is at such a high level of abstraction/generality that it could be written about any job in any industry.

It's not that abstract. My point is that the theory (software) is already developed, the hardware isn't. Hardware is always improving, to the point where it's become almost inevitable (Moore's Law). So yeah, in 20 years, I can envision computers having the power to go through a permutation of XYZ factors and spit out a legal clause or ruling at or surpassing human capability/accuracy to obviate a significant "busywork" that juniors and midlevels get staffed on.

The cognitive dissonance on this forum is also illustrative. A common point repeatedly made against working in tech is the fact that lawyers get paid to do work any "highschooler" could have done (convincing themselves that they don't have the brains to make it in tech). But now it's, "oh, our work is too complicated for machines, even 10 or 20 years out"?

It’s too speculative, in 20 years AI might be able to code as well as your random tech bro. Cmon this tangent is crazy

I dont want to trivialize your argument but there is also a LC/NC movement.

The thought isn't necessarily that crazy. Assume a computer has the hardware to store infinite data with infinite computing power. Then take your average Joe. Feed both of them the same relevant information to spit out a decision and what's the difference?

It's only crazy to assume that we can achieve "infinite" hardware, but for low-complexity tasks I'd wager we might reach the necessary specs in 10-20 years to obviate a significant portion of attorney work.

I'd also argue that certain lines of code, just like certain attorney work, engages in higher levels of thinking that would elude automation. But just as there's a bunch of inefficient + low-level coders that could be automated, so are there lawyers.

Not to mention, I'd argue that existing AI (facial recognition/self-driving cars) have already provided relatively strong proof-of-concepts of what is achievable.

[Anonymous User]

Same type of mindset that thought self-driving cars were impossible and that only 80 y/o scouters could recruit for baseball. The V10 side remark is just the cherry on top. I can't even tell if this is boomer mentality since firms got law students so wrapped up in this nonsense as well.

what type of high margin work, specifically, do you think is replaceable by ALSPs. from my experience, if anything, tech is pushing billables up - Kira makes mass + more sophisticated diligence easier to do, etc

Take what happens now and then (quite literally) replace the lawyer with a computer. Do I think this AI capability will exist in the next decade? No. But 20-30 years? Who's to say. Sure psychologically maybe some big client feels more comfortable with human eyes and will pay a premium for some overworked associate to bleed their eyes out in doc review. But AI literally comes down to statistics applied to tonnes and tonnes of granular data + computing power. Find a way to store and run all of that data in a relatively quick manner and you have AI doing the work humans do at the same statistical error rate but at a lower overall error rate (machines don't get tired and make human errors). And at the end of the day, clients are going to go with whatever saves them the most money.

I was looking for actual products that exist today that automate work done by high-margin firms, not like, a generic description of 'AI threat' based on a Vox explainer.

the 'threat' you just described - "an 'AI' I concede does not exist, 20 years from now, does work that a white collar professional does based on 'statistics' and 'data'" - is at such a high level of abstraction/generality that it could be written about any job in any industry.

It's not that abstract. My point is that the theory (software) is already developed, the hardware isn't. Hardware is always improving, to the point where it's become almost inevitable (Moore's Law). So yeah, in 20 years, I can envision computers having the power to go through a permutation of XYZ factors and spit out a legal clause or ruling at or surpassing human capability/accuracy to obviate a significant "busywork" that juniors and midlevels get staffed on.

The cognitive dissonance on this forum is also illustrative. A common point repeatedly made against working in tech is the fact that lawyers get paid to do work any "highschooler" could have done (convincing themselves that they don't have the brains to make it in tech). But now it's, "oh, our work is too complicated for machines, even 10 or 20 years out"?

It’s too speculative, in 20 years AI might be able to code as well as your random tech bro. Cmon this tangent is crazy

I dont want to trivialize your argument but there is also a LC/NC movement.

The thought isn't necessarily that crazy. Assume a computer has the hardware to store infinite data with infinite computing power. Then take your average Joe. Feed both of them the same relevant information to spit out a decision and what's the difference?

It's only crazy to assume that we can achieve "infinite" hardware, but for low-complexity tasks I'd wager we might reach the necessary specs in 10-20 years to obviate a significant portion of attorney work.

I'd also argue that certain lines of code, just like certain attorney work, engages in higher levels of thinking that would elude automation. But just as there's a bunch of inefficient + low-level coders that could be automated, so are there lawyers.

Not to mention, I'd argue that existing AI (facial recognition/self-driving cars) have already provided relatively strong proof-of-concepts of what is achievable.

I think the key is that, depending on the practice, there are often a ton of human elements to the process that would be far more difficult for a machine to do better/properly. Like, in both litigation and transactional, there isn’t often an objective “right” answer, it’s “what do we think these people will accept” or “what do we think the client will be willing to do” or “what will convince a jury.”

Also, even machine could do all the tasks just as well, many clients would not feel comfortable entrusting their lawsuit or billion dollar merger to an AI. At whatever point it (hypothetically) becomes possible for AI to do rehearsals entire process, add at least another 20+ years for people to feel comfortable trusting it with the most important stuff, if ever.

More likely is that repetitive tasks at the margins will continue to make incremental gains, as has been the case so far, with humans ultimately running the show. Could that further slim the sizes of human teams? Sure, but I don’t think it will be as dramatic as some of you think, and certainly would not be a wholesale replacement.

[Rule23andMe]

https://www.hotels.com/

get a room you two

[Billywonderful]

23 and me does not add value

[Anonymous User]

Am I right that the new practice area and regional (but not NY for some reason) rankings are out? Thoughts? Ranking CSM and WLRK #5 and #6 in private equity (above Ropes, etc.) gives me some reason to doubt the credibility here.

[Sackboy]

Am I right that the new practice area and regional (but not NY for some reason) rankings are out? Thoughts? Ranking CSM and WLRK #5 and #6 in private equity (above Ropes, etc.) gives me some reason to doubt the credibility here.

Just ignore those. They're about as bad as the USNWR "specialty" rankings. They're useless.

[tlsguy2020]

competing AIs sending increasingly snarky discovery letters back-and-forth for three years

[Sackboy]

Also, can we STFU about tech? I've been hearing this nonsense for a decade. Really shitty legal work that some junior M&A/Lit associates do will get handled by legal tech, but that will just allow those associates to spend greater hours on significantly more substantive work that actually adds value. I know several V10 and V50 firms that take this stance. No computer is doing meaningfully complex M&A/CM negotiations that happen at the more senior levels and a lot of specialist work. Would love to see a robot do a road show or handle Tax/ERISA in 20 years.

[Anonymous User]

“V3” is an obvious troll, and if you didn’t spot that immediately, you should not be working in the V100.

CSM/SC want to think they are above the v10, but are NOT special

Agreed, both tremendously overrated. Yes, Cravath will always get credit for its incredible historical importance in establishing modern BigLaw. But these days it’s just another bog standard V10 with a limited geographic footprint, and the accomplishments it had 50+ years ago don’t magically change that. Respectable, successful, but in no way a tier above the next 10 firms.

Same with S&C except they don’t even have the historical relevance. To this day I’ve never had anyone explain to me why I should give a shit about them more than any other V10, other than S&C people constantly talking about how special they are because they’re special, because they’re special.

I consider S&C significantly better than Cravath. I'll give you a reason, but it's just anecdotal - whenever, we hire a lateral, it's basically a crapshoot. I've seen amazing laterals from terrible firms and vice versa. The exception is S&C. I've never met a bad lateral from S&C. I don't know if it's their selection process, their training once you get there, or something in the water - but everyone I've met from there is incredibly intelligent and really good fucking lawyers.

[Anonymous User]

Am I right that the new practice area and regional (but not NY for some reason) rankings are out? Thoughts? Ranking CSM and WLRK #5 and #6 in private equity (above Ropes, etc.) gives me some reason to doubt the credibility here.

Just ignore those. They're about as bad as the USNWR "specialty" rankings. They're useless.

For some reason Kirkland and Skadden, but none of the other Chicago offices, are now on the Midwest rankings?

[Anonymous User]

Also, can we STFU about tech? I've been hearing this nonsense for a decade. Really shitty legal work that some junior M&A/Lit associates do will get handled by legal tech, but that will just allow those associates to spend greater hours on significantly more substantive work that actually adds value. I know several V10 and V50 firms that take this stance. No computer is doing meaningfully complex M&A/CM negotiations that happen at the more senior levels and a lot of specialist work. Would love to see a robot do a road show or handle Tax/ERISA in 20 years.

What a lazy argument. I'm sure there's meaningful complex work for everyone once the robots take over all the trivial stuff! /s

I mean c'mon. Biglaw hiring has never matched pre-07 levels for a reason.

[Sackboy]

Also, can we STFU about tech? I've been hearing this nonsense for a decade. Really shitty legal work that some junior M&A/Lit associates do will get handled by legal tech, but that will just allow those associates to spend greater hours on significantly more substantive work that actually adds value. I know several V10 and V50 firms that take this stance. No computer is doing meaningfully complex M&A/CM negotiations that happen at the more senior levels and a lot of specialist work. Would love to see a robot do a road show or handle Tax/ERISA in 20 years.

What a lazy argument. I'm sure there's meaningful complex work for everyone once the robots take over all the trivial stuff! /s

I mean c'mon. Biglaw hiring has never matched pre-07 levels for a reason.

Doesn't think pretty much prove my point? Hiring hasn't matched pre-07 levels, yet law firm PPP are at all time high and associate salaries and bonuses keep going up. Sure, there are less jobs available to do mundane work, but firms are continuing to increase their rates, achieve record profitability, and pay their associate heaps of dough.

[Anonymous User]

Also, can we STFU about tech? I've been hearing this nonsense for a decade. Really shitty legal work that some junior M&A/Lit associates do will get handled by legal tech, but that will just allow those associates to spend greater hours on significantly more substantive work that actually adds value. I know several V10 and V50 firms that take this stance. No computer is doing meaningfully complex M&A/CM negotiations that happen at the more senior levels and a lot of specialist work. Would love to see a robot do a road show or handle Tax/ERISA in 20 years.

What a lazy argument. I'm sure there's meaningful complex work for everyone once the robots take over all the trivial stuff! /s

I mean c'mon. Biglaw hiring has never matched pre-07 levels for a reason.

Doesn't think pretty much prove my point? Hiring hasn't matched pre-07 levels, yet law firm PPP are at all time high and associate salaries and bonuses keep going up. Sure, there are less jobs available to do mundane work, but firms are continuing to increase their rates, achieve record profitability, and pay their associate heaps of dough.

I think the point was there isn't enough meaningful work to keep all the associates around, not that firms wouldn't maintain profitability. One could also argue cutting associates and paying them less (accounting for inflation) has also contributed to increased PPEP.

[Moneytrees]

Apologies if this was already covered, but did Vault eliminate the "New York" firm rankings?

[Anonymous User]

I consider S&C significantly better than Cravath. I'll give you a reason, but it's just anecdotal - whenever, we hire a lateral, it's basically a crapshoot. I've seen amazing laterals from terrible firms and vice versa. The exception is S&C. I've never met a bad lateral from S&C. I don't know if it's their selection process, their training once you get there, or something in the water - but everyone I've met from there is incredibly intelligent and really good fucking lawyers.

How can you say SullCrom is better than CSM if you don't know any CSM lawyers? What's the Vault range of your firm?

SullCrom hires anyone from a top law school with a high GPA, so it's not surprising that the people come to the firm with the ability to "think like a lawyer."

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I consider S&C significantly better than Cravath. I'll give you a reason, but it's just anecdotal - whenever, we hire a lateral, it's basically a crapshoot. I've seen amazing laterals from terrible firms and vice versa. The exception is S&C. I've never met a bad lateral from S&C. I don't know if it's their selection process, their training once you get there, or something in the water - but everyone I've met from there is incredibly intelligent and really good fucking lawyers.

How can you say SullCrom is better than CSM if you don't know any CSM lawyers? What's the Vault range of your firm?

SullCrom hires anyone from a top law school with a high GPA, so it's not surprising that the people come to the firm with the ability to "think like a lawyer."

And banks claim to hire 1% of qualified applicants based on personality screening, yet most bankers are still insufferable dorks. There just isn’t any evidence that the way S&C hires actually matters.

[Anonymous User]

“V3” is an obvious troll, and if you didn’t spot that immediately, you should not be working in the V100.

CSM/SC want to think they are above the v10, but are NOT special

Agreed, both tremendously overrated. Yes, Cravath will always get credit for its incredible historical importance in establishing modern BigLaw. But these days it’s just another bog standard V10 with a limited geographic footprint, and the accomplishments it had 50+ years ago don’t magically change that. Respectable, successful, but in no way a tier above the next 10 firms.

Same with S&C except they don’t even have the historical relevance. To this day I’ve never had anyone explain to me why I should give a shit about them more than any other V10, other than S&C people constantly talking about how special they are because they’re special, because they’re special.

I consider S&C significantly better than Cravath. I'll give you a reason, but it's just anecdotal - whenever, we hire a lateral, it's basically a crapshoot. I've seen amazing laterals from terrible firms and vice versa. The exception is S&C. I've never met a bad lateral from S&C. I don't know if it's their selection process, their training once you get there, or something in the water - but everyone I've met from there is incredibly intelligent and really good fucking lawyers.

Eh - the other reading here is that good people don't leave Cravath as often where as good lawyers hate S&C because of its insufferable culture and bounce more regularly.

Not saying that's definitely the case, just that there are two sides to the "good people consistently lateral from X firm" data point.

[Anonymous User]

I consider S&C significantly better than Cravath. I'll give you a reason, but it's just anecdotal - whenever, we hire a lateral, it's basically a crapshoot. I've seen amazing laterals from terrible firms and vice versa. The exception is S&C. I've never met a bad lateral from S&C. I don't know if it's their selection process, their training once you get there, or something in the water - but everyone I've met from there is incredibly intelligent and really good fucking lawyers.

How can you say SullCrom is better than CSM if you don't know any CSM lawyers? What's the Vault range of your firm?

SullCrom hires anyone from a top law school with a high GPA, so it's not surprising that the people come to the firm with the ability to "think like a lawyer."

Huh, when did I say I don't know any CSM lawyers? I've known plenty - they're a crapshoot in terms of competence. I'm a midlevel at a V5.

[Anonymous User]

“V3” is an obvious troll, and if you didn’t spot that immediately, you should not be working in the V100.

CSM/SC want to think they are above the v10, but are NOT special

Agreed, both tremendously overrated. Yes, Cravath will always get credit for its incredible historical importance in establishing modern BigLaw. But these days it’s just another bog standard V10 with a limited geographic footprint, and the accomplishments it had 50+ years ago don’t magically change that. Respectable, successful, but in no way a tier above the next 10 firms.

Same with S&C except they don’t even have the historical relevance. To this day I’ve never had anyone explain to me why I should give a shit about them more than any other V10, other than S&C people constantly talking about how special they are because they’re special, because they’re special.

I consider S&C significantly better than Cravath. I'll give you a reason, but it's just anecdotal - whenever, we hire a lateral, it's basically a crapshoot. I've seen amazing laterals from terrible firms and vice versa. The exception is S&C. I've never met a bad lateral from S&C. I don't know if it's their selection process, their training once you get there, or something in the water - but everyone I've met from there is incredibly intelligent and really good fucking lawyers.

Eh - the other reading here is that good people don't leave Cravath as often where as good lawyers hate S&C because of its insufferable culture and bounce more regularly.

Not saying that's definitely the case, just that there are two sides to the "good people consistently lateral from X firm" data point.

I don't know why people keep reading my post as saying I only see laterals from S&C. I've seen laterals from all of the V10 and most of V20. It's a crapshoot in terms of what you get (including CSM). S&C is consistently good every time.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Also, can we STFU about tech? I've been hearing this nonsense for a decade. Really shitty legal work that some junior M&A/Lit associates do will get handled by legal tech, but that will just allow those associates to spend greater hours on significantly more substantive work that actually adds value. I know several V10 and V50 firms that take this stance. No computer is doing meaningfully complex M&A/CM negotiations that happen at the more senior levels and a lot of specialist work. Would love to see a robot do a road show or handle Tax/ERISA in 20 years.

What a lazy argument. I'm sure there's meaningful complex work for everyone once the robots take over all the trivial stuff! /s

I mean c'mon. Biglaw hiring has never matched pre-07 levels for a reason.

Just for posterity, overall c/o 2021 hiring at large firms did finally equally classes of 2007 and 2008, and c/o 2022 is going to smash that record.

There’s some truth in the idea that lowering transaction costs allows more transactions to happen and thus legal efficiency tends to moderate itself, but my guess is more that the overall corporate market just grew faster over 15 years than did any kind of tech that reduced the demand for associates.

[Anonymous User]

Apologies if this was already covered, but did Vault eliminate the "New York" firm rankings?

NY rankings are out now (along with other updated rankings for regions, practice area, best to work for, etc.)

[Anonymous User]

Apologies if this was already covered, but did Vault eliminate the "New York" firm rankings?

NY rankings are out now (along with other updated rankings for regions, practice area, best to work for, etc.)

Can someone please tell me WTF is going on with this list? https://firsthand.co/best-companies-to- ... electivity