NYC vs. LA BL Culture Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have offers from both LA and NY firms which are both strong in the lit areas I'm interested in. I'm split on where I may want to practice full time so my decision largely comes down to BL culture in the two cities, culture being broadly defined as what is life as a lawyer like. How hard are you working, how are lawyers percieved, what does overall work/life balance look like in both?

I know this may be a dense question so appreciate any and all perspective!!!!

[Anonymous User]

There are tons of exceptions but NY is generally thought of as more of an around-the-clock workaholic culture than LA.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Common wisdom is that LA is "chiller", subjectively and objectively.

That said, hard to imagine not having a preference between living in one city or the other. They're quite different.

[Anonymous User]

Caveat being that it depends on the shop, but LA is almost uniformly going to be significantly better.

[jotarokujo]

watch "Annie Hall" to decide new york vs LA

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

[Anonymous User]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

[Anonymous User]

It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Finance has way worse hours (at least at most BBs). Like the worst hours in law (save WLRK) aren't as bad as the worst in banking. Sure if you're at a megafund PE firm you may have it somewhat easier (doubt), but even then the pay gap isn't that significant (and finance up or out is far more cutthroat).

The days of tech getting crazy money are also on their way out. Most tech bros, as it turns out, are fungible and they don't have the cartel protections of law. Tech hours will increase and salaries will decrease.

That's not to say NY law is the best career, but if you don't have rose-colored glasses about the alternatives it starts to look pretty good.

[johndooley]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

[Anonymous User]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

[johndooley]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

Yea the idea of getting paid salary to travel for 9 months in between jobs is unheard of in law. That 1st year associate probably lived off debt with little income during law school while the IB associate/PE analyst made money, learned tangible skills, and networked. The finance exit ops blow away almost anything in-house.

tl:dr law sounds great to the employees at Hustler and Sapphire Vegas but won't elicit much envy in white collar Manhattan

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

[Anonymous User]

It's always crazy to me that many MBA students opt to live in NY for subsistence wages when the entrepreneurs down the street are making fifty times as much, and the dentists downstairs around the same for 1/3 the hours.

[Anonymous User]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

[Anonymous User]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

[Anonymous User]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

Yep. Former finance guy (IBD/megafund PE). The gap decreases over time, but on average, for most roles and people, is something like 50% more total comp for about 30% more total hours in my experience. By the time you get fucked on taxes, it's not as huge of a gap as you think in terms of lifestyle. You get to 400-700k much more quickly, but can easily get stalled there since comp higher than that is almost entirely driven by carry / deal flow. Much less job security and much less comp predictability. The only way to make much more, for fewer hours, is to start your own fund / work at a much smaller fund. That's a lot more risk overall though.

[Anonymous User]

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Post Dodd-Frank, this is simply not true at banks. And as the PE industry has become more saturated, and several megafunds have gone public, the massive salaries at those places have become quite rare too. MDs at banks make partner money in general, with very few people in a few select years ever seeing anywhere like 8 figs.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

It’s completely insane to even bring up being CEO of Goldman Sachs. My original point, which was a fair point, is that law is a bit less impressive in NYC because so many other people make equal or greater money.

Since there are only a handful of big bank CEOs, they have nothing to do with this conversation. Should OP go into show business because the CEOs of Disney and Warner Brothers make bank?

[Anonymous User]

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

Corzine and Murphy both became rich through Goldman’s IPO. Please explain how getting rich by cashing out stock in a one-time IPO is a replicable strategy for getting rich. Should I also become an early employee at Facebook pre-IPO? The kiddos are out in force today.

David Solomon made $35 million last year. Jamie Gorman and Jamie Dimon made the same. And those numbers do scale down at smaller banks, but are still way higher than a biglaw managing partner can even dream of making. Being CEO, or a high impact C-suite role, at a bank is going to vastly eclipse biglaw partner comp, and the job is massively more enjoyable as well. The top rung of finance comp absolute eclipses law comp in every possible way. It's completely insane to make believe that lawyers and bankers have similar comp ranges as you get more senior.

It’s completely insane to even bring up being CEO of Goldman Sachs. My original point, which was a fair point, is that law is a bit less impressive in NYC because so many other people make equal or greater money.

Since there are only a handful of big bank CEOs, they have nothing to do with this conversation. Should OP go into show business because the CEOs of Disney and Warner Brothers make bank?

Also top biglaw partners at kirkland make 20 million now (I don't see a huge delta between 20 and 35m). 10m has become fairly common at top firms - I wouldn't be surprised if there are more biglaw partners making 5M + than people in high finance (numbers wise).

[johndooley]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

S&T at ibanks is dying a pretty rapid death. ER is a better route to hedge fund roles nowadays.

Many PE firms hire out of undergrad now at the analyst level and many of the roles after an IB analyst stint at a BB bank are called "analyst." Hedge fund titles vary more than in IB or PE.

Your comment on finance on TLS is somewhat misleading as it depends on the poster. If you went to a no name undergrad and did not major in econ (I fit this bill), then saying "I should have gone into IB or PE" makes no sense. If you went to an Ivy or top 30 flagship state school and majored in a quant field and then went into law, you made a very bad career decision and threw away your undergraduate pedigree.

[johndooley]

Being a lawyer is more prestigious anywhere outside of NYC than it is within NYC. Housing costs are lower, and culture is typically (but not always) more relaxed outside of NYC.

Unless you hate LA or hate driving, I’d go with the LA job.

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

Not true, there was more parity around 1975-2000. Finance has taken off, especially when those exit opps are taken into account. No banker or PE associate is envious of some back office in house job

[johndooley]

More presTTTigious isn't quite right. There are more prestigious firms in NY than any other city. While there are firms in other major markets that are as, or more prestigious than the top NY firms (e.g. Kirkland Chi > most V10s, Latham or Gibson LA > most V10s, Munger (and to a lesser extent Keker/Bartlit/Susman > everything except WLRK)), those markets have less of those firms. DC is more prestigious than NY for litigation, of course, but DC is not that much cheaper (at least for fixed expenses).

In terms of pure prestige concentrated into a market, NY is by far and away in its own universe. And for certain types of work - like public M&A, securities litigation, and corporate investigations, you have to be in NY and the work is much less prestigious (insofar as that informs WSJ headlines & quality of client and sophistication of assignments) elsewhere.

If you mean more prestigious as compared to your legal industry colleagues in the same city, then sure. Less biglaw jobs in the city = you're making more and doing better than most lawyers in the city & by inference most professionals in the city, too. It's always crazy to me that many law students opt to live in NY for subsistence level wages when the finance and IB folks down the street from them are making four times as much, and the tech bros upstairs around the same for 1/3 - 1/2 the hours.

Thanks for chiming in, but this anonymous post wasn’t helpful.

(1) “finance and IB” doesn’t make four times as much as biglaw if we compare apples-to-apples. Real life isn’t the movie Wall Street 2 with Shia LaBeouf living in a 10+ million dollar penthouse as a junior banker.

(2) OP didn’t ask about firm prestige as perceived by other lawyers. He asked how lawyers are perceived, presumably by the other people living in the city, i.e. by non-lawyers. That perception is lower in NYC because there are so many other highly paid and independently wealthy folks.

Bad comparison. IB at associate and above is like being an in-house attorney whereas PE (especially megafunds) and hedge funds are nonequity partner/counsel/equity partner levels of success. Banker hours get way better overtime which law does not usually enjoy, unless you own your own firm.

Correct that NYC has tons of independently wealthy people, more tech money than ever before, and high finance types. People from the independently wealthy milieu know better than to enter law they are much more often found in finance. The dollars in large firm life are generally not worth their time and what I do (medmal) can give substantial net worth but it would destroy their respectability and networks.

This is the correct take. Especially when you consider that comparing a 1st year associate in BL = 5th year+ in IB/PE. At that point, actual traders are pulling well over 1 mil including bonus, analysts high six figures, and even with up or out, traders can usually pull the equivalent of a biglaw lateral and go from, e.g., Citadel to DRW (often with non-compete years in between).

It’s the correct take if you have no clue about the subject at hand. When we talk about IB and PE we are talking about investment bankers and front-office equity side PE. Neither of those jobs involve any “traders.” Sales and trading folks at a bank can be paid a ton, but that has almost nothing to do with the IB/PE path.

Most PE firms start at the associate level and don’t even hire analysts. As for banking, no analyst is making high 6 figures. Hedge funds are different, and the word “analyst” can mean many different things and refer to fairly senior personnel at a hedge fund.

I have no idea why people continue to come on here and spout off fabricated stories about the financial services industry. It’s a weird masochistic “law sucks” ritual that has little basis in reality. Talking about some star trader that Citadel is paying 7 figures to sit on a beach in Argentina, or a prop trader at DRW who won the International Math Olympiad as a kid, in relation to career prospects in finance, is like talking about Justin Bieber to assess the career prospects in music.

This is the better take. Junior folks in IB/PE make more than (non-WLRK/boutique) law firm associates, but not orders of magnitude more. Think ~1.5x-2x more money for ~1.25x-1.5x longer hours. They also have less career stability but generally better exit options. The gap between finance and law (both in terms of money and hours worked) has shrunk significantly in recent years.

It gets more pronounced at the senior levels though. Partners at Goldman can retire in their 40s with hundreds of millions in the bank (check out Phil Murphy or Corzine), no biglaw partner is making anywhere near that kind of money, even if they are managing partner or whatever. The upside in law, as a professional services industry, is fundamentally capped, in a way that finance/banking is not.

For big law yes. For medmal and contingency, you can make fast money in your 20s and early 30s. It is not bad especially if you invest