So you did not go to T14 - is there a chance after? Forum

[tomwatts]

Federal clerkships can act as a backdoor to biglaw for those who didn't get it during 2L OCI. From what I understand, as far as firms go, it's much harder to go from a small firm to a big law firm.

Would you mind elaborating on that statement? Why would it be that much more difficult? Would not one almost do the same tasks in either firm other than the amount of hours worked? Pardon my ignorance.

Just to elaborate on a post above...

You seem to be working under a misapprehension that a bigger law firm does the same work as a smaller law firm, except that the hours are longer, the work is more interesting, the pay is higher, and the prestige is greater. None of these things are necessarily true.

* The work is not necessarily the same. Because the clients are not necessarily the same, the areas of practice are also not necessarily the same. (For example, I don't think there's a biglaw equivalent to a small-law personal injury practice.)
* The hours may not be longer at the big firm. It depends on how busy the smaller firm is, but I wouldn't count on midlaw giving you fewer hours necessarily.
* The work may not be more interesting at the big firm. I don't know how you could even make this assumption. How "interesting" the work is varies so widely from person to person and practice area to practice area that it's thoroughly impossible to generalize.
* The pay may not be appreciably higher at the big firm. Smaller firms sometimes pay big firm market rates, or close to them. (This is relatively unusual, but it can happen.) And if you make partner at a successful small or medium-sized firm, you can sometimes make more than you would in biglaw, especially if you would have been of counsel or something at a big firm.
* The prestige may not be higher at the big firm. Some small firms are very selective and prestigious.

[Cochran]

I think the idea that "doors are closed" just because you didn't go to a certain school is way overstated. Do you have great connections? Are you a good interviewer/personable? How hard are you willing to work? I think these questions do more for letting you know where you can/will end up. Even with unicorn stuff like SCOTUS clerking, recent clerks have been from places like BYU and Brooklyn Law. Are these things more difficult to obtain from a non T14 school? Sure. But no doors are closed. A good friend of mine SA'd last summer at a V25 and is at a fringe T100 school. It didn't matter where he went, you know he was going to do well, and so far he has.

[TLou21]

It's possible, but really tough, especially if you're school isn't near a larger market. If you're at the top of your class, you will likely get biglaw and federal clerkships if you want them. But your non-t14 school will limit your ability to get a clerkship and biglaw for sure. I would never go to school banking on being top 5%--it's such a large risk. Less risky is mastering the LSAT, going to a t-14 on a significant scholarship or an all expense paid trip to a non-t14.

At UCI, you can be median and still get biglaw. Yeah you get more offers if you're top 30%, but it's not impossible.

Very interesting. This exactly why I am asking. Tulane is a lower ranked school for example but their stats show a decent amount of students going into BigLaw and a significant amount in New York. I agree with the fact that if you want to practice BigLaw you should go to a larger metropolitan area. Thanks z01 for verifying that the information presented to prospective law students can be exaggerated.

There are a few things to understand.

First, you can't reliably predict where you're going to end up in the class. You could be top 10%, you could be bottom 10%. NEVER make a law school attendance decision based on being anything better than somewhere between top 1/3 and median. If those students in the 40th or 50th percentile are consistently getting the outcomes you want, that's a school you can consider.

Second, Tulane gives you roughly a 10% chance of biglaw. (http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/tulane/2014/) Compensating for self-selection, you probably need to be in the top 15% of your class to even have a shot at biglaw. If you want biglaw, that's pretty risky. Referring back to the first point, don't plan on going to biglaw from Tulane. It may happen, but it's not likely.

Third, the only "exaggeration" is "t-14 or bust," and that's not even something that people regularly say. You can get biglaw from a T1 or T2 school. However, it gets difficult very quickly as you go down the law school rankings. Enough so that you really don't want to count on getting biglaw if you're going to a school at the bottom of T1.

Finally, understand that there's a difference between your "ceiling" and your "expected result." Your ceiling at Tulane may, in fact, be biglaw. However, your expected result probably a $60k midlaw job. You should not choose a law school based on your ceiling. You should choose based on your expected result.

EDIT: I see that you were using Tulane as an example. I'm sure you can generalize my points out to fit all of the schools that you're looking at. It's all about looking at the stats and getting an unbiased picture of what your expected result is, and then weighing that result against your expected outcome and your risk tolerance.

totesTheGoat thanks for your advice. The website you attached was very helpful -- a reality check. Your advice seems to loop around and bring up the question again of "what do you do then if you don't get that stellar LSAT score to secure admissions in T14 in order to have a chance (1/3 at least) to BigLaw?" It seems like one will have to accept that midlaw job with the hope that he/she will shine at work and hopefully get a shot at BigLaw down the road. What is your take on this?

[TLou21]

I know I'm just going to be told "Yeah well you're wrong, I know what I'm talking about because I have firsthand knowledge and you don't" here but color me super skeptical when it comes to median UCI students copping big law.

Maybe it happens on rare occasions or if the person has something super special going for them. But "you can be median and still get big law" implies that that is a common outcome and schmo-y median bros accomplish that with some degree of regularity and I'm just not sure I believe that.

(Queue being told that I'm wrong)

OP- If you want big law then go to a T14. That's what they're there for. Lots of other schools can make sense for different goals but if you want big law then you should be focusing on the T14.

BigZuck, I understand what you mean. The stats show this and the majority of the threads on the forums argue what you say as well. Certainly one has a greater chance the higher up the ladder of rankings one climbs, but then ought we to assume that one can't get it down the road through experience? This is pretty much what I was wondering about.

[TLou21]

This is really pretty simple. If big law is your goal, you should focus on the law schools that make that outcome likely. Not possible, but likely. Now, if you're more apt to take risks and bet on yourself (nothing wrong with that; I'm the same way), you could defensively choose a school where the top third to top half outcome gives you a shot at big law. Beyond that, going to law school because of a prospective big law job is untethered to reason. Btw, people are very wrong abut Tulane. You can certainly attain "prestigious" big law from that school without receiving a purple heart or curing cancer. Still would avoid it if you're going to law school expecting a big law job.

How confident do you feel timmyd about your chances for a BigLaw job from your current experience so far? If one was not admitted to such law schools that you are referring to, would an alternative be to attend a law school in the region you want to practice even though the stats for BigLaw may show a 10-15% chance?

Thanks!

[TLou21]

Federal clerkships can act as a backdoor to biglaw for those who didn't get it during 2L OCI. From what I understand, as far as firms go, it's much harder to go from a small firm to a big law firm.

Would you mind elaborating on that statement? Why would it be that much more difficult? Would not one almost do the same tasks in either firm other than the amount of hours worked? Pardon my ignorance.

Just to elaborate on a post above...

You seem to be working under a misapprehension that a bigger law firm does the same work as a smaller law firm, except that the hours are longer, the work is more interesting, the pay is higher, and the prestige is greater. None of these things are necessarily true.

* The work is not necessarily the same. Because the clients are not necessarily the same, the areas of practice are also not necessarily the same. (For example, I don't think there's a biglaw equivalent to a small-law personal injury practice.)
* The hours may not be longer at the big firm. It depends on how busy the smaller firm is, but I wouldn't count on midlaw giving you fewer hours necessarily.
* The work may not be more interesting at the big firm. I don't know how you could even make this assumption. How "interesting" the work is varies so widely from person to person and practice area to practice area that it's thoroughly impossible to generalize.
* The pay may not be appreciably higher at the big firm. Smaller firms sometimes pay big firm market rates, or close to them. (This is relatively unusual, but it can happen.) And if you make partner at a successful small or medium-sized firm, you can sometimes make more than you would in biglaw, especially if you would have been of counsel or something at a big firm.
* The prestige may not be higher at the big firm. Some small firms are very selective and prestigious.

tomwatts, I appreciate the clarification and enlightening me about the differences between the sizes of the firms. Would you say then, by relying on the information you provided, that there has been a large generalization or misinterpretation of BigLaw as compared to the other firm sizes, therefore people like me believing that BigLaw is the only way to pay my law school debt and hopefully make something out of it as well? I would imagine that it be generally wiser from a financial perspective to aim for BigLaw? A side note - I have been reading that it is increasingly more difficult to make partner in large law firms and more so for equity partner. Would a smaller scale firm provide more secure partner track opportunities?

Thank you.

[RobertGolddust]

Usually the top 10% -15% of the class will get big law or something with comparable pay at a strong regional school. Landing that is hard, but I don't agree that its unpredictable. Look to see how many people are on scholarships at the school you plan to attend. They are probably on scholarships because they did well on the LSAT, which is the best predicator of 1l performance. If 50% of your school is on a full ride and you didn't get one, your chances of landing top 10 are diminished. However, if you get a full ride to the regional school, you should be able to land top 10 with a desire to learn, a strong work ethic, and smart strategy.

As far as after law school, I think its underplayed here how hard it is to get big law if you don't land SA 2l summer. A federal clerkship, or experience at a mid size firm in a particular practice area can land you an associate position in big law (I don't know anything about a lateral move to partnership). For those who don't believe me just look on NALP or Indeed or Monster. The issue with going from mid/small to big law is after investing two years at a firm, you might be better off just staying there. However, take this with a grain of salt because this is theoretical not from experience.

One thing that I truly believe in, which is underplayed here because of herd thinking is that a person with strong ambition, and diligence should be able to make a substantial amount of money with a law degree, which I assume is why you want big law. Big law usually attracts these types because its a fast track to 30k in a single summer, and a big starting salary at a young age (being 25 and making 160K is a lot of money and if you play your cards right you should be able to be a millionaire by the time your 35). However, like I said, you don't need to go to big law. Most of the people who end up there would make money regardless of big law because they have intense ambition and are smart. Moral of the story, if your goal is to make money, go to law school if you can attend a respectable school without debt (AZ SUMMIT and the like do not count). Also, you might find that you like the study of the law which is best because money becomes an auxiliary benefit rather than an end.

[Effingham]

It's possible, but really tough, especially if you're school isn't near a larger market. If you're at the top of your class, you will likely get biglaw and federal clerkships if you want them. But your non-t14 school will limit your ability to get a clerkship and biglaw for sure. I would never go to school banking on being top 5%--it's such a large risk. Less risky is mastering the LSAT, going to a t-14 on a significant scholarship or an all expense paid trip to a non-t14.

At UCI, you can be median and still get biglaw. Yeah you get more offers if you're top 30%, but it's not impossible.

Very interesting. This exactly why I am asking. Tulane is a lower ranked school for example but their stats show a decent amount of students going into BigLaw and a significant amount in New York. I agree with the fact that if you want to practice BigLaw you should go to a larger metropolitan area. Thanks z01 for verifying that the information presented to prospective law students can be exaggerated.

There are a few things to understand.

First, you can't reliably predict where you're going to end up in the class. You could be top 10%, you could be bottom 10%. NEVER make a law school attendance decision based on being anything better than somewhere between top 1/3 and median. If those students in the 40th or 50th percentile are consistently getting the outcomes you want, that's a school you can consider.

Second, Tulane gives you roughly a 10% chance of biglaw. (http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/tulane/2014/) Compensating for self-selection, you probably need to be in the top 15% of your class to even have a shot at biglaw. If you want biglaw, that's pretty risky. Referring back to the first point, don't plan on going to biglaw from Tulane. It may happen, but it's not likely.

Third, the only "exaggeration" is "t-14 or bust," and that's not even something that people regularly say. You can get biglaw from a T1 or T2 school. However, it gets difficult very quickly as you go down the law school rankings. Enough so that you really don't want to count on getting biglaw if you're going to a school at the bottom of T1.

Finally, understand that there's a difference between your "ceiling" and your "expected result." Your ceiling at Tulane may, in fact, be biglaw. However, your expected result probably a $60k midlaw job. You should not choose a law school based on your ceiling. You should choose based on your expected result.

EDIT: I see that you were using Tulane as an example. I'm sure you can generalize my points out to fit all of the schools that you're looking at. It's all about looking at the stats and getting an unbiased picture of what your expected result is, and then weighing that result against your expected outcome and your risk tolerance.

totesTheGoat thanks for your advice. The website you attached was very helpful -- a reality check. Your advice seems to loop around and bring up the question again of "what do you do then if you don't get that stellar LSAT score to secure admissions in T14 in order to have a chance (1/3 at least) to BigLaw?" It seems like one will have to accept that midlaw job with the hope that he/she will shine at work and hopefully get a shot at BigLaw down the road. What is your take on this?

There is no such thing as midlaw, there is only biglaw in smaller markets, which is just as hard if not harder to get than biglaw in major markets, boutiques, which are generally harder than biglaw, though I would imagine exceptions exist, and insurance defense, which is relatively low pay (though not as bad as i always thought) and sounds like hell, search through the forums for Wilson Elsner for an example. There might be some other stuff, but not that I've come across. And OP, I hate to say this, but I can tell by the way you are posting that you are not ready to go to law school this cycle. Also, listen to bigzuck over the rest of these people.

Eta, guy above this post is pretty great too, though. Also, now that I think about it, I'm exaggerating a little on the midlaw point, but not by enough to make it worth taking the possibility of midlaw seriously.

[TLou21]

I think the idea that "doors are closed" just because you didn't go to a certain school is way overstated. Do you have great connections? Are you a good interviewer/personable? How hard are you willing to work? I think these questions do more for letting you know where you can/will end up. Even with unicorn stuff like SCOTUS clerking, recent clerks have been from places like BYU and Brooklyn Law. Are these things more difficult to obtain from a non T14 school? Sure. But no doors are closed. A good friend of mine SA'd last summer at a V25 and is at a fringe T100 school. It didn't matter where he went, you know he was going to do well, and so far he has.

Thanks Cochran for providing the only empirical evidence on this forum as regards to my question. One's future opportunities is something I wonder about as I am preparing to take the LSAT in September and have no idea where I will end up. I have above average grades, 3.7, but I don't know how well the LSAT will go, making me ponder if I will have any future chances for BigLaw from non T14. I am striving for it but those schools are also very selective and one cannot "bank" on being accepted. In contrast, I think about the meritocratic system of the U.S and the importance of connections and hard work, and then I think, "how true can this be (that it is supremely difficult to enter BigLaw)? Why could you not prove yourself from your work in the future? I may just be overthinking because of my stress about the LSAT...

[TLou21]

It's possible, but really tough, especially if you're school isn't near a larger market. If you're at the top of your class, you will likely get biglaw and federal clerkships if you want them. But your non-t14 school will limit your ability to get a clerkship and biglaw for sure. I would never go to school banking on being top 5%--it's such a large risk. Less risky is mastering the LSAT, going to a t-14 on a significant scholarship or an all expense paid trip to a non-t14.

At UCI, you can be median and still get biglaw. Yeah you get more offers if you're top 30%, but it's not impossible.

Very interesting. This exactly why I am asking. Tulane is a lower ranked school for example but their stats show a decent amount of students going into BigLaw and a significant amount in New York. I agree with the fact that if you want to practice BigLaw you should go to a larger metropolitan area. Thanks z01 for verifying that the information presented to prospective law students can be exaggerated.

There are a few things to understand.

First, you can't reliably predict where you're going to end up in the class. You could be top 10%, you could be bottom 10%. NEVER make a law school attendance decision based on being anything better than somewhere between top 1/3 and median. If those students in the 40th or 50th percentile are consistently getting the outcomes you want, that's a school you can consider.

Second, Tulane gives you roughly a 10% chance of biglaw. (http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/tulane/2014/) Compensating for self-selection, you probably need to be in the top 15% of your class to even have a shot at biglaw. If you want biglaw, that's pretty risky. Referring back to the first point, don't plan on going to biglaw from Tulane. It may happen, but it's not likely.

Third, the only "exaggeration" is "t-14 or bust," and that's not even something that people regularly say. You can get biglaw from a T1 or T2 school. However, it gets difficult very quickly as you go down the law school rankings. Enough so that you really don't want to count on getting biglaw if you're going to a school at the bottom of T1.

Finally, understand that there's a difference between your "ceiling" and your "expected result." Your ceiling at Tulane may, in fact, be biglaw. However, your expected result probably a $60k midlaw job. You should not choose a law school based on your ceiling. You should choose based on your expected result.

EDIT: I see that you were using Tulane as an example. I'm sure you can generalize my points out to fit all of the schools that you're looking at. It's all about looking at the stats and getting an unbiased picture of what your expected result is, and then weighing that result against your expected outcome and your risk tolerance.

totesTheGoat thanks for your advice. The website you attached was very helpful -- a reality check. Your advice seems to loop around and bring up the question again of "what do you do then if you don't get that stellar LSAT score to secure admissions in T14 in order to have a chance (1/3 at least) to BigLaw?" It seems like one will have to accept that midlaw job with the hope that he/she will shine at work and hopefully get a shot at BigLaw down the road. What is your take on this?

There is no such thing as midlaw, there is only biglaw in smaller markets, which is just as hard if not harder to get than biglaw in major markets, boutiques, which are generally harder than biglaw, though I would imagine exceptions exist, and insurance defense, which is relatively low pay (though not as bad as i always thought) and sounds like hell, search through the forums for Wilson Elsner for an example. There might be some other stuff, but not that I've come across. And OP, I hate to say this, but I can tell by the way you are posting that you are not ready to go to law school this cycle. Also, listen to bigzuck over the rest of these people.

Eta, guy above this post is pretty great too, though. Also, now that I think about it, I'm exaggerating a little on the midlaw point, but not by enough to make it worth taking the possibility of midlaw seriously.

Effingham, I may be appearing as not ready because I am just trying to get an alternative view than most questions posted here. I'm just trying to exhaust the possibilities of "what ifs." Sure, I cannot say that I am fully ready yet, probably because this semester has not allowed me to attack LSAT studying, but that is what summer is for. I'm gonna hit the books and I am confident that I will eventually feel better. By the end of the summer I will conclude if I am fully ready or if I should work for a year while preparing for law school for the following cycle.

Thanks for the feedback though!

[totesTheGoat]

There is no such thing as midlaw, there is only biglaw in smaller markets, which is just as hard if not harder to get than biglaw in major markets, boutiques, which are generally harder than biglaw, though I would imagine exceptions exist, and insurance defense, which is relatively low pay (though not as bad as i always thought) and sounds like hell, search through the forums for Wilson Elsner for an example.

I'll have to tell the 50 attorney GP firm that I worked for last summer that they don't really exist.

They are probably on scholarships because they did well on the LSAT, which is the best predicator of 1l performance.

False. It's a really freakin' loose correlation.

However, if you get a full ride to the regional school, you should be able to land top 10 with a desire to learn, a strong work ethic, and smart strategy.

This is objectively awful advice. You can't simply will yourself into top 10%. Your scholarship is a very loose correlation to grades, and there are a thousand factors that influence your grades. DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL BASED ON THINKING YOU'LL BE TOP 10%. YOU WILL SET YOURSELF UP FOR FAILURE.

[Good Guy Gaud]

1. find biglaw firm you like
2. find partners name
3. creep on hot daughters of partners at said firm
4. ?????
5. profit

[zot1]

There is no such thing as midlaw, there is only biglaw in smaller markets, which is just as hard if not harder to get than biglaw in major markets, boutiques, which are generally harder than biglaw, though I would imagine exceptions exist, and insurance defense, which is relatively low pay (though not as bad as i always thought) and sounds like hell, search through the forums for Wilson Elsner for an example.

I'll have to tell the 50 attorney GP firm that I worked for last summer that they don't really exist.

They are probably on scholarships because they did well on the LSAT, which is the best predicator of 1l performance.

False. It's a really freakin' loose correlation.

However, if you get a full ride to the regional school, you should be able to land top 10 with a desire to learn, a strong work ethic, and smart strategy.

This is objectively awful advice. You can't simply will yourself into top 10%. Your scholarship is a very loose correlation to grades, and there are a thousand factors that influence your grades. DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL BASED ON THINKING YOU'LL BE TOP 10%. YOU WILL SET YOURSELF UP FOR FAILURE.

[808Law]

Pretty sure the median outcome from Tulane is more like 40k/year doc review.

Also, if the OP wants "prestigious" biglaw, depending on his definition of prestigious, it's going to be impossible from Tulane, and would require top 10-5% grades from a school like U of I.

Federal clerkships are not a "backdoor" into biglaw. They are far more selective than biglaw. If you could get a federal clerkship, you could get biglaw.

Lastly, none of the advice given currently in this thread regarding lateraling into biglaw after taking a small law firm job after law school is coming from experience, or even anecdote. I have yet to hear of a single person who managed to move from some small shop to like White and Case in the past 5ish years. If it is possible, the statistics would be far more bleak than your odds of getting biglaw from Tulane.

What I meant was, if you for some reason didn't get biglaw during 2L OCI, you have another shot to get it after a federal clerkship.

[xspider]

Usually the top 10% -15% of the class will get big law or something with comparable pay at a strong regional school. Landing that is hard, but I don't agree that its unpredictable. Look to see how many people are on scholarships at the school you plan to attend. They are probably on scholarships because they did well on the LSAT, which is the best predicator of 1l performance. If 50% of your school is on a full ride and you didn't get one, your chances of landing top 10 are diminished. However, if you get a full ride to the regional school, you should be able to land top 10 with a desire to learn, a strong work ethic, and smart strategy.

As far as after law school, I think its underplayed here how hard it is to get big law if you don't land SA 2l summer. A federal clerkship, or experience at a mid size firm in a particular practice area can land you an associate position in big law (I don't know anything about a lateral move to partnership). For those who don't believe me just look on NALP or Indeed or Monster. The issue with going from mid/small to big law is after investing two years at a firm, you might be better off just staying there. However, take this with a grain of salt because this is theoretical not from experience.

One thing that I truly believe in, which is underplayed here because of herd thinking is that a person with strong ambition, and diligence should be able to make a substantial amount of money with a law degree, which I assume is why you want big law. Big law usually attracts these types because its a fast track to 30k in a single summer, and a big starting salary at a young age (being 25 and making 160K is a lot of money and if you play your cards right you should be able to be a millionaire by the time your 35). However, like I said, you don't need to go to big law. Most of the people who end up there would make money regardless of big law because they have intense ambition and are smart. Moral of the story, if your goal is to make money, go to law school if you can attend a respectable school without debt (AZ SUMMIT and the like do not count). Also, you might find that you like the study of the law which is best because money becomes an auxiliary benefit rather than an end.

Hey, I know this is not a financial investment website, but could you explain this please.

[seagan823]

Honestly, with a 3.7, just study until you can hit 170+. There is no good reason to. You have three LSAT takes and your whole life. Dont go 300,000 into debt, don't go to a non-t-14 without a full ride, just get the best LSAT you can. If you are sure you want big law, which you may want to research because people hate it, you want to go to a t-14 with a substantial scholarship, which you can have with a 170+ score. So don't focus on what ifs yet. Just focus on that 170+. That's it.

[TLou21]

There is no such thing as midlaw, there is only biglaw in smaller markets, which is just as hard if not harder to get than biglaw in major markets, boutiques, which are generally harder than biglaw, though I would imagine exceptions exist, and insurance defense, which is relatively low pay (though not as bad as i always thought) and sounds like hell, search through the forums for Wilson Elsner for an example.

I'll have to tell the 50 attorney GP firm that I worked for last summer that they don't really exist.

They are probably on scholarships because they did well on the LSAT, which is the best predicator of 1l performance.

False. It's a really freakin' loose correlation.

However, if you get a full ride to the regional school, you should be able to land top 10 with a desire to learn, a strong work ethic, and smart strategy.

This is objectively awful advice. You can't simply will yourself into top 10%. Your scholarship is a very loose correlation to grades, and there are a thousand factors that influence your grades. DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL BASED ON THINKING YOU'LL BE TOP 10%. YOU WILL SET YOURSELF UP FOR FAILURE.

Many law students I have talked to have agreed with this as well. Everyone is competitive in law school and willing to work hard.

[Johann]

Yes it's possible, but not probable, to get into biglaw based on work experience. The problem is that if you don't get biglaw, it's likely your experience in the job you do get won't translate at all to biglaw. Biglaw firms and small firms don't really overlap in the same areas of law. Biglaw firms do niche/specialized litigation (IP, corp/securities, etc) and corporate deal work. Smaller firms that do personal injury (med mal or car accidents), real estate closings (residential and smaller commercial), family law, estate planning, or a general practice of any of the above won't get you experieince that's marketable or at all usseful in a biglaw firm.

It also depends on how you define biglaw. V100 firms in NYC will fit the above scenario. However, smaller regional firms that are bigger can overlap some with personal injury litigation/insurance defense, estate planning, or real estate. So your chances are better if you just want to go to a decent sized firm of 100-200 attorneys in a medium sized city.

Your best bet to get experience and get into traditional biglaw once you miss the biglaw boat is getting labor and employment experience, tax at big 4, or sort of specialized government/regulatory work (think things like healthcare, telecommunications, SEC reporting).

It's clear you know nothing about what you wnat to do(not a knock), so if you are just asking for a certain salary you want to make or city you want to work in, be a little more detailed about your goals.

[T-forteenager]

No one here seems to be answering OP's main question.

I'm a 3L going to a BigLaw firm in the fall. I have a lot of friends at my firm, and know the people in recruiting pretty well. I can tell you there is a huge bias against laterals from midlaw firms. It's basically impossible to lateral into my firm from a midlaw firm. This is not because of arrogance (although there might be a little of that), but because there are plenty people trying to lateral out of super "prestigious" law firms. If you're looking for a corporate associate, why take a chance on a random former midlaw associate when you have dozens of people begging to leave Skadden Arps? Who do you think clients will be willing to pay more for?

This is my mantra whenever someone asks me about advice for applying to law schools: if you want BigLaw, by far the easiest way is to take the LSAT enough times to get into a T14 (ideally a T13). I took the LSAT like 5 times. It was a pain in the ass, but it got me into a T14.

[lavarman84]

There is no such thing as midlaw, there is only biglaw in smaller markets, which is just as hard if not harder to get than biglaw in major markets, boutiques, which are generally harder than biglaw, though I would imagine exceptions exist, and insurance defense, which is relatively low pay (though not as bad as i always thought) and sounds like hell, search through the forums for Wilson Elsner for an example.

I'll have to tell the 50 attorney GP firm that I worked for last summer that they don't really exist.

They are probably on scholarships because they did well on the LSAT, which is the best predicator of 1l performance.

False. It's a really freakin' loose correlation.

However, if you get a full ride to the regional school, you should be able to land top 10 with a desire to learn, a strong work ethic, and smart strategy.

This is objectively awful advice. You can't simply will yourself into top 10%. Your scholarship is a very loose correlation to grades, and there are a thousand factors that influence your grades. DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL BASED ON THINKING YOU'LL BE TOP 10%. YOU WILL SET YOURSELF UP FOR FAILURE.

Many law students I have talked to have agreed with this as well. Everyone is competitive in law school and willing to work hard.

Not quite everyone. But I'd say over 90% of your class if you go to a quality law school.

The bigger problem is that you never know who is just really naturally good at it. The trick of law school is killing it 1L year and there's definitely an element of luck to that. Some people are really good at law school exams and just seem to know how to take them. Some people aren't. Doesn't mean either group of people are smarter. Just that one group figured out how to take an issue spotter exam and analyze the fact pattern quicker than the other group.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think the idea that "doors are closed" just because you didn't go to a certain school is way overstated. Do you have great connections? Are you a good interviewer/personable? How hard are you willing to work? I think these questions do more for letting you know where you can/will end up. Even with unicorn stuff like SCOTUS clerking, recent clerks have been from places like BYU and Brooklyn Law. Are these things more difficult to obtain from a non T14 school? Sure. But no doors are closed. A good friend of mine SA'd last summer at a V25 and is at a fringe T100 school. It didn't matter where he went, you know he was going to do well, and so far he has.

Thanks Cochran for providing the only empirical evidence on this forum as regards to my question. One's future opportunities is something I wonder about as I am preparing to take the LSAT in September and have no idea where I will end up. I have above average grades, 3.7, but I don't know how well the LSAT will go, making me ponder if I will have any future chances for BigLaw from non T14. I am striving for it but those schools are also very selective and one cannot "bank" on being accepted. In contrast, I think about the meritocratic system of the U.S and the importance of connections and hard work, and then I think, "how true can this be (that it is supremely difficult to enter BigLaw)? Why could you not prove yourself from your work in the future? I may just be overthinking because of my stress about the LSAT...

That's not empirical evidence, that's anecdotal evidence. SCOTUS clerks (not that this should determine where you go) are overwhelmingly from the very tip top schools. Brooklyn Law just recently had their first SCOTUS clerk ever, and if you look at her bio, she was crazy impressive before she ever made it to law school. Thomas hired the BYU clerk, I think, and will go outside the top schools, but it's very very very rare.

This is not to say that you should pick a school based on SCOTUS placement, but to point out that anecdotes aren't helpful. I don't think anyone would deny that people can succeed (and get biglaw if that's your definition of success) from any school. The issue is how many of them will, and whether you feel confident you'll be one of them. I'm much more confident about someone's chances at biglaw from a school that sends 60% to biglaw than at a school that sends 15%.

All that said, people are correct that in a lot of regional schools, top 10-15% probably have a decent shot at biglaw. But it's hard to predict you'll be in that top group. It's also possible to lateral to a biglaw firm after you've worked some after graduation, but difficult for the reasons people have (I thought Johann's post was good). The safest way to get biglaw is to get the 2L SA and go from there. It's not absolutely foreclosed after that point, but much tougher - and I do think people's career paths can jump around a lot, but there's such a huge variety of legal jobs, it may not be into biglaw.

[pancakes3]

an addendum to Johann's statement about you not being sure what you want to do - I think that's also part of BL's appeal. BL has more/better exit options than most other jobs.

all of this is just dickering on the margins though. OP has a 3.7 and needs to focus on a 170+ and not weighing the pros and cons of Tulane Law.

[timmyd]

Poster asked about my experience; don't feel like copying and pasting. My experience is admittedly nontraditional. I started out at a school I never should have gone to in the first place, a ttt dumpster. Had I known TLS existed back then, I would have just studied for the LSAT until I could have garnered acceptance to t14/UT or Vandy.

I ended up doing well my 1L year. I ranked right outside the top 5% of the class and received multiple highest grade awards. Because of that, I was able to transfer. I chose UT over GULC because I wanted to clerk; UT seemed to prioritize this more than GULC (UT has an awesome clerkship program for interested students). I did well at UT, finishing right outside the top 10%. I attained a federal district clerkship in a less competitive district.

In the interim, I have received multiple big law interview requests which did not come to fruition. I ended up accepting a job in my home state at a smaller litigation firm. Its by no means big law, but its highly respected in the area and pays well. Further, the firm's emphasis on only hiring associates they expect to make partner intrigued me. While I won't start out making as much as those in big law, I think my salary will actually exceed theirs after a few years. Finally, since accepting that job, I've received interview invites from other lit boutiques (think Bickel and Brewer, etc.). But I declined because I'm happy with the firm I chose.

Bottom line: big law is by no means impossible from a non t14/UT/Vandy school. But the easiest path in my view is to take the LSAT until you crack a good score. As far as confidence in my ability to get big law, I don't want it. But if I did, I would feel somewhat confident given the clerkship and my grades.

[BigZuck]

Nony killing it (as always)

Timmy is also really smart and a really good student (I base this off using one of his outlines where he nearly booked the class and I, as per usual, got median pwned)

OP- It's all about probability, not possibility. If you want big law, go to a T14. That's the end of the thought process. Is it literally possible from other places? Of course.

[Londonbear]

I think the consensus is since you have time, you should kick ass on your LSATs to get into a T14 instead of settling for less. If you settle for less now, you're likely going to have to settle for worse later on because your options (b/c of the probabilities, of making top 10% of your class, of landing biglaw, of landing clerkship, of lateraling to biglaw from midlaw) will be much more limited. The easiest step and the most in your control is likely doing well on the LSATs. So I'd recommend don't think that far and just focus on doing the best you can now. Once you get into law school, things can change, you might not want to do biglaw. But what getting into a T14 school does for you is it allows you more probabilities of getting what you want. There's more doors and it's wider. Obviously, if you go to a non-T14 schools, there are still doors, but some might be the size of a rat hole, try squeezing into that one.

Before I came to law school, I thought hey, I can be top of my class if I study like crazy. Guess what? That didn't happen. But I'm glad I went to a T14 school because it gave me options. When I finally found out that I wanted to do Biglaw b/c I wanted to do corporate work, tada! No biggie. Not top of your class? It's OKAY. You get cut a lot more slack. You are not going to get the same results from a non-T14. So yes, don't bank that you'll be one of the few that makes it to top 5 or 10% of your class, and don't bank on lateraling into biglaw from midlaw, that is a long and difficult road, much more difficult than if you were to sit out of applications this year and figure out the LSATs.