The Advantages of Going to a More Prestigious Firm Forum

[BigZuck]

Sounds like you've got all the answers already, no reason to even make this thread

Enjoy Drinker Biddle, I'm sure we'll all end up there with you eventually!

It's more of me making the thread to see if anyone had a good reason why it's better to start at the more prestigious firm. Just because I made arguments back to comments doesn't mean I wasn't considering everything being said. Your first comment, for example, while it had a small amount of merit, I was able to find from more people answering that there seems to be only a marginally better chance at in house from a V10 than from a V80. People in law school act like the difference is not marginal, so if someone brought out a stat or something that showed there was more than a marginal difference, that would be an interesting thing to know. My responding should not be taken as me not being interested in what people have to say.

It had a ton of merit. As people have pointed out, you're not really looking at the whole picture and so wrapped up in your own brand of logic that you're not really thinking straight.

I think maybe you need to stop drinking the biddle here and just take in what people are saying is all.

[Onequestion]

Sounds like you've got all the answers already, no reason to even make this thread

Enjoy Drinker Biddle, I'm sure we'll all end up there with you eventually!

It's more of me making the thread to see if anyone had a good reason why it's better to start at the more prestigious firm. Just because I made arguments back to comments doesn't mean I wasn't considering everything being said. Your first comment, for example, while it had a small amount of merit, I was able to find from more people answering that there seems to be only a marginally better chance at in house from a V10 than from a V80. People in law school act like the difference is not marginal, so if someone brought out a stat or something that showed there was more than a marginal difference, that would be an interesting thing to know. My responding should not be taken as me not being interested in what people have to say.

It had a ton of merit. As people have pointed out, you're not really looking at the whole picture and so wrapped up in your own brand of logic that you're not really thinking straight.

I think maybe you need to stop drinking the biddle here and just take in what people are saying is all.

A lot of people said the difference was marginal if not possibly non-existent. You need to read what people are writing yourself. You also don't need to have such an adversarial tone.

If you really would like to get into it, we can start tallying up the categories of what the responses were.

[wolfie_m.]

.

[Onequestion]

I actually think the problem with this thread comes from the type of people who post on TLS--i.e., students and not lawyers. And to the extent that there are lawyers on here, they are few and far between and mostly limited to junior associates. It's a TLS weakness that people don't like to admit.

That said, no one can predict where you're going to end up. True, I think there's merit to the idea that more prestige equates to somewhat more options. But as one BigLaw associate told me, you can't live your life solely on the basis of whether you're foreclosing any options to yourself later on down the line. You need list out what you value and pick a firm based on those values, not someone else's. If you would like a in-house position at a PE firm, e.g., then pick a firm that's conducive to that goal. But if your hope is to end up back in Omaha in five years, anyway, then do whatever is conducive to that.

Sounds about right.

[BigZuck]

I actually think the problem with this thread comes from the type of people who post on TLS--i.e., students and not lawyers. And to the extent that there are lawyers on here, they are few and far between and mostly limited to junior associates. It's a TLS weakness that people don't like to admit.

That said, no one can predict where you're going to end up. True, I think there's merit to the idea that more prestige equates to somewhat more options. But as one BigLaw associate told me, you can't live your life solely on the basis of whether you're foreclosing any options to yourself later on down the line. You need list out what you value and pick a firm based on those values, not someone else's. If you would like a in-house position at a PE firm, e.g., then pick a firm that's conducive to that goal. But if your hope is to end up back in Omaha in five years, anyway, then do whatever is conducive to that.

It's a shame we don't have more boomer partners FURIOUSLY BOOMING at us but like half the responses ITT were from practicing attorneys.

[wolfie_m.]

.

[fats provolone]

well all the practicing attorneys in this thread have basically said the same thing. you're also wildly underestimating the striverness of not just law students but practicing attorneys.

[Cogburn87]

The answer that I most often hear to this question is that a more prestigious firm provides one with better exit opportunities. I completely believe this is the case, as I could see a person who started at a Skadden being able to go over to a Cadwalader, but not the other way around.

When people talk about exit options, they don't mean doing the same miserable work with a different set of names on the building.

[BigZuck]

I actually think the problem with this thread comes from the type of people who post on TLS--i.e., students and not lawyers. And to the extent that there are lawyers on here, they are few and far between and mostly limited to junior associates. It's a TLS weakness that people don't like to admit.

That said, no one can predict where you're going to end up. True, I think there's merit to the idea that more prestige equates to somewhat more options. But as one BigLaw associate told me, you can't live your life solely on the basis of whether you're foreclosing any options to yourself later on down the line. You need list out what you value and pick a firm based on those values, not someone else's. If you would like a in-house position at a PE firm, e.g., then pick a firm that's conducive to that goal. But if your hope is to end up back in Omaha in five years, anyway, then do whatever is conducive to that.

It's a shame we don't have more boomer partners FURIOUSLY BOOMING at us but like half the responses ITT were from practicing attorneys.

Think your count is slightly off. And you should read all of what I wrote.

I don't know why you guys are so obsessed with counting but 6 responses to the OP were from practicing attorneys, 5 were law students and I don't know about the other 5.

I read your post. It's a somewhat valid criticism of TLS and makes intuitive sense but I guess I've been burned enough by some of the more VENERABLE and EXPERIENCED posters here to not think it's a huge loss when they don't post that much. Basically if you give me the choice between Uncle Able and Tiago/Fat Duck I'm rolling with Tiago/Fat Duck every time (and twice on Sundays).

[wolfie_m.]

.

[fats provolone]

people want to work at more prestigious firms, want to work with people they consider more accomplished, want to work on high-profile matters, maintain hopes of landing certain unicorn jobs or making partner at a prestigious firm, are attracted by the selectivity of top firms, may not be sure what practice area they want to end up in yet, whatever. you're ignoring a lot of qualitative factors.

also, it's not like this was a thread where someone was asking "i really want to work in X field and eventually work for Y client of Cadwalader's, should I go to Cravath?"

[UVAIce]

well all the practicing attorneys in this thread have basically said the same thing. you're also wildly underestimating the striverness of not just law students but practicing attorneys.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement.

I don't know why you guys are so obsessed with counting but 6 responses to the OP were from practicing attorneys, 5 were law students and I don't know about the other 5.

I read your post. It's a somewhat valid criticism of TLS and makes intuitive sense but I guess I've been burned enough by some of the more VENERABLE and EXPERIENCED posters here to not think it's a huge loss when they don't post that much. Basically if you give me the choice between Uncle Able and Tiago/Fat Duck I'm rolling with Tiago/Fat Duck every time (and twice on Sundays).

No offense to anyone, but at least two people I counted graduated in 2015. Asking a group of first-year associates what exit options are from various firms is a little different than asking a group of lawyers who have practiced at least 5+ years. Yes, it's a cheap criticism of TLS in some respects. But I've also heard from more than one attorney that Vault rankings are a piss-poor indicator of where your career will end up.

True, but the market is always changing - I've chatted about this with my co-workers. The lateral market is so good right now that anyone with 4-5 years of experience (even less right now given the demand) is going to get snapped up by someone. But you're assuming that the lateral market of today will be the lateral market of tomorrow, which is generally a terrible assumption to make.

And again, you're making this assumption of having a bird in hand, which is an assumption most law students cannot make during OCI. Offer rates are just better at the top. To compound this issue, your smaller firm in Nebraska is likely going to be more economically vulnerable than just about any firm from the V10. And those jobs are also not that easy to get. For example, I do not work at a V10 firm, but it would have been a far easier process for me to get a job at Sullivan and Cromwell than where I am now.

But I generally agree with taking the job where you want to be over taking the NYC firm job with the hope of lateraling to where you want to be in 4-5 years. Although, to be honest, some people just cannot afford that with the amount of law school debt they have.

[Onequestion]

well all the practicing attorneys in this thread have basically said the same thing. you're also wildly underestimating the striverness of not just law students but practicing attorneys.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement.

I don't know why you guys are so obsessed with counting but 6 responses to the OP were from practicing attorneys, 5 were law students and I don't know about the other 5.

I read your post. It's a somewhat valid criticism of TLS and makes intuitive sense but I guess I've been burned enough by some of the more VENERABLE and EXPERIENCED posters here to not think it's a huge loss when they don't post that much. Basically if you give me the choice between Uncle Able and Tiago/Fat Duck I'm rolling with Tiago/Fat Duck every time (and twice on Sundays).

No offense to anyone, but at least two people I counted graduated in 2015. Asking a group of first-year associates what exit options are from various firms is a little different than asking a group of lawyers who have practiced at least 5+ years. Yes, it's a cheap criticism of TLS in some respects. But I've also heard from more than one attorney that Vault rankings are a piss-poor indicator of where your career will end up.

True, but the market is always changing - I've chatted about this with my co-workers. The lateral market is so good right now that anyone with 4-5 years of experience (even less right now given the demand) is going to get snapped up by someone. But you're assuming that the lateral market of today will be the lateral market of tomorrow, which is generally a terrible assumption to make.

And again, you're making this assumption of having a bird in hand, which is an assumption most law students cannot make during OCI. Offer rates are just better at the top. To compound this issue, your smaller firm in Nebraska is likely going to be more economically vulnerable than just about any firm from the V10. And those jobs are also not that easy to get. For example, I do not work at a V10 firm, but it would have been a far easier process for me to get a job at Sullivan and Cromwell than where I am now.

But I generally agree with taking the job where you want to be over taking the NYC firm job with the hope of lateraling to where you want to be in 4-5 years. Although, to be honest, some people just cannot afford that with the amount of law school debt they have.

Not disagreeing with you, but I just wanted to point out that big law in a lot of non-NY states now pays close to NYC big law since NYC has stayed the same for many years now while other markets have gone up. People are going to get at least 120k if they have big law in almost any state now, and the cost of living is much less than NYC, so paying off debt alone is rarely going to be a good excuse for choosing NYC big law over big law in another state.

[UVAIce]

The problem is that the raises and bonuses are almost non-existent in those markets. Don't get me wrong, the cost of living in NYC along with the high taxes are killer. But a third to fourth year associate is going to pull in around $185,000 to $210,000 as base pay with a bonus of around $50K (depends on your firm). In the market paying $120K you might be making around $135K at that point (maybe) and likely no real bonus. That is a serious difference in compensation.

[Onequestion]

The problem is that the raises and bonuses are almost non-existent in those markets. Don't get me wrong, the cost of living in NYC along with the high taxes are killer. But a third to fourth year associate is going to pull in around $185,000 to $210,000 as base pay with a bonus of around $50K (depends on your firm). In the market paying $120K you might be making around $135K at that point (maybe) and likely no real bonus. That is a serious difference in compensation.

Yeah, if that's true, that is a big difference. I guess I just don't know much about the bonus structure and raises in non-NYC markets. I would've thought the raises would be somewhat similar, and the bonuses might be much smaller. It's hard for me to believe that a fourth year associate at a firm that pays 120k base to first years would make only 135k base, but I don't have any data on it.

[SLS_AMG]

Lol @ Skadden being considered "prestigious"

[wolfie_m.]

.

[fats provolone]

ok so what is your position. that people should go to the firm they want to go to? that's not exactly world-shattering.

[UVAIce]

The problem is that the raises and bonuses are almost non-existent in those markets. Don't get me wrong, the cost of living in NYC along with the high taxes are killer. But a third to fourth year associate is going to pull in around $185,000 to $210,000 as base pay with a bonus of around $50K (depends on your firm). In the market paying $120K you might be making around $135K at that point (maybe) and likely no real bonus. That is a serious difference in compensation.

Yeah, if that's true, that is a big difference. I guess I just don't know much about the bonus structure and raises in non-NYC markets. I would've thought the raises would be somewhat similar, and the bonuses might be much smaller. It's hard for me to believe that a fourth year associate at a firm that pays 120k base to first years would make only 135k base, but I don't have any data on it.

Just some numbers on base salaries: Dorsey and Whitney (one of the biggest firms in Minneapolis, MN)
Y1: $130,000
Y2: $130,000
Y3: $140,000
Y4: $150,000
http://www.lawfirmstats.com/firms/Dorse ... sation.php
BTW, I'm fairly certain those are old numbers because Vault shows the 2016 associate salary scale as starting at $110,000.
Another firm in Minneapolis has a salary for Y7 associates that is $145,000 (which is also likely old and inflated.) Another firm that I know of through personal knowledge (knowing several attorneys that work(ed) there) that salary bumps were in the range of $2,500 to $5,000 a year.

Sull Crom NY.
1st year: $160,000
2nd year: $170,000
3rd year: $185,000
4th year: $210,000
5th year: $230,000
6th year: $250,000
7th year: $270,000
8th year: $290,000

And here is the stark difference, firms at the NY pay scale are transparent about the entire range of salaries - secondary markets tend to show only the starting salary. There is a reason for this.

[Onequestion]

ok so what is your position. that people should go to the firm they want to go to? that's not exactly world-shattering.

Are you talking to me? I don't really have a position if so.

[Onequestion]

The problem is that the raises and bonuses are almost non-existent in those markets. Don't get me wrong, the cost of living in NYC along with the high taxes are killer. But a third to fourth year associate is going to pull in around $185,000 to $210,000 as base pay with a bonus of around $50K (depends on your firm). In the market paying $120K you might be making around $135K at that point (maybe) and likely no real bonus. That is a serious difference in compensation.

Yeah, if that's true, that is a big difference. I guess I just don't know much about the bonus structure and raises in non-NYC markets. I would've thought the raises would be somewhat similar, and the bonuses might be much smaller. It's hard for me to believe that a fourth year associate at a firm that pays 120k base to first years would make only 135k base, but I don't have any data on it.

Just some numbers on base salaries: Dorsey and Whitney (one of the biggest firms in Minneapolis, MN)
Y1: $130,000
Y2: $130,000
Y3: $140,000
Y4: $150,000
http://www.lawfirmstats.com/firms/Dorse ... sation.php
BTW, I'm fairly certain those are old numbers because Vault shows the 2016 associate salary scale as starting at $110,000.
Another firm in Minneapolis has a salary for Y7 associates that is $145,000 (which is also likely old and inflated.) Another firm that I know of through personal knowledge (knowing several attorneys that work(ed) there) that salary bumps were in the range of $2,500 to $5,000 a year.

Sull Crom NY.
1st year: $160,000
2nd year: $170,000
3rd year: $185,000
4th year: $210,000
5th year: $230,000
6th year: $250,000
7th year: $270,000
8th year: $290,000

And here is the stark difference, firms at the NY pay scale are transparent about the entire range of salaries - secondary markets tend to show only the starting salary. There is a reason for this.

That's interesting. Bigger difference than I thought once in the fourth year. At the same time, it is interesting that many of these people in NYC will go in-house to have less hours (and this is not even from being burned out necessarily, it could have been their plan from the start) and with this new job with less hours will make less than the person who works the same in-house hours, higher salary, and lower cost of living at Dorsey and Whitney. For the first four years though, clearly NYC is going to end up net higher savings even with the higher cost of living it seems.

[fats provolone]

well, Dorsey & Whitney has an 1850 minimum so you're still gonna be fairly busy. they also have 13 summer associates. skadden NY has like 100

[UnicornHunter]

The fuck is going on in this thread? Retard Socrates strikes again.

[Onequestion]

The fuck is going on in this thread? Retard Socrates strikes again.

That was a smart and inoffensive remark. Thank you for that.

[UnicornHunter]

The fuck is going on in this thread? Retard Socrates strikes again.

That was a smart and inoffensive remark. Thank you for that.

Hey, no problem. I've really enjoyed reading through this thread where you posed a question and then tried to pick apart or dismiss the answers of the people answering your question in good faith.