The Advantages of Going to a More Prestigious Firm Forum

[fats provolone]

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.

but takes no actual position

[Onequestion]

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.

but takes no actual position

It's kind of like a think tank

[pleadthafif]

Post removed...

[Onequestion]

Chicks dig prestige, duh.

Haha, yeah, if only certain law firm names could be recognizable like J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, I would have no further questions. What you said would be explanation enough.

[UnicornHunter]

Pros Big Prestigious Firm:

Don't No Offer SAs
Easier to get hired if you have the grades/school combo
More likely to have multiple strong practice groups, good if you don't know exactly what you want to do
Moar Pay
Potentially better exit options
Stronger support services
Prestige

Pros Smaller Firm

Maybe better hours, unless not
More likely to get client exposure?
Fit based hiring
IF non NYC, build regional ties faster
Better partnership odds



I mean, that's probably a decent shot at a general list, but it's really impossible to say much more. In some situations it will be better to go to a more prestigious firm, in some situations it won't be. So much depends on what a person wants to do, where they want to end up, and what the actual firms in question are that it's impossible to say anything really meaningful.

[AReasonableMan]

Chicks dig prestige, duh.

Haha, yeah, if only certain law firm names could be recognizable like J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, I would have no further questions. What you said would be explanation enough.

That's because companies like that bring in much more money than any law firm ever could by the nature of what they do vs. what a law firm does, and a lot of the upper middle class population you're probably from invests where as almost none of them would have the means or the need to hire Latham. Plus some of these companies helped ruin the American economy, which in light of the bailouts worked out to being tantamount to free front page advertising, resulting in everybody knowing them.

[jkpolk]

Others off the top of my head:

Big firms are less likely to fold and/or fire you when they lose a major client or a stud rainmaker.

You will never be required to hustle for clients at a prestigious firm. Maintaining institutional clients will suffice.

Making professional connections in banking, consulting, business, accounting (and the entrepreneurial finance fields) will be easier from a prestigious firm (apart from client contacts).

Changing geographic locations mid-career will be easier from a prestigious firm.

I think it's pretty similar to choosing an undergrad. Can you achieve specific goals if you go to ASU? Yeah probably. Is it "safer" to go to Stanford? Yeah definitely.

[pleadthafif]

Post removed...

[AReasonableMan]

Others off the top of my head:

Big firms are less likely to fold and/or fire you when they lose a major client or a stud rainmaker.

You will never be required to hustle for clients at a prestigious firm. Maintaining institutional clients will suffice.

Making professional connections in banking, consulting, business, accounting (and the entrepreneurial finance fields) will be easier from a prestigious firm (apart from client contacts).

Changing geographic locations mid-career will be easier from a prestigious firm.

I think it's pretty similar to choosing an undergrad. Can you achieve specific goals if you go to ASU? Yeah probably. Is it "safer" to go to Stanford? Yeah definitely.

Not to go back and forth, but some of the economic differences being posited aren't really as related to prestige as they are to size.

[jkpolk]

Others off the top of my head:

Big firms are less likely to fold and/or fire you when they lose a major client or a stud rainmaker.

You will never be required to hustle for clients at a prestigious firm. Maintaining institutional clients will suffice.

Making professional connections in banking, consulting, business, accounting (and the entrepreneurial finance fields) will be easier from a prestigious firm (apart from client contacts).

Changing geographic locations mid-career will be easier from a prestigious firm.

I think it's pretty similar to choosing an undergrad. Can you achieve specific goals if you go to ASU? Yeah probably. Is it "safer" to go to Stanford? Yeah definitely.

Not to go back and forth, but some of the economic differences being posited aren't really as related to prestige as they are to size.

Nope. Prestige. For example, there are "big" firms that are 20%+ dependent on a single client.

[AReasonableMan]

Others off the top of my head:

Big firms are less likely to fold and/or fire you when they lose a major client or a stud rainmaker.

You will never be required to hustle for clients at a prestigious firm. Maintaining institutional clients will suffice.

Making professional connections in banking, consulting, business, accounting (and the entrepreneurial finance fields) will be easier from a prestigious firm (apart from client contacts).

Changing geographic locations mid-career will be easier from a prestigious firm.

I think it's pretty similar to choosing an undergrad. Can you achieve specific goals if you go to ASU? Yeah probably. Is it "safer" to go to Stanford? Yeah definitely.

Not to go back and forth, but some of the economic differences being posited aren't really as related to prestige as they are to size.

Nope. Prestige. For example, there are "big" firms that are 20%+ dependent on a single client.

good point

[notgreat]

Also, not sure that it's true Cadwalader associates have the same exit opps as associates at the V10s in New York.

[Onequestion]

Also, not sure that it's true Cadwalader associates have the same exit opps as associates at the V10s in New York.

Yeah, that's kind of the root of the whole thing here. It seems to me that the difference in exit opps between the two is mainly that the Skadden associate can move down to Cadwalader, whereas Cadwalader is going to have to move down to Cahill, but who cares (if you're not interested in prestige for the sake of prestige, and your interest is in hours and the amount you're being paid). Cadwalader associates, it seems, are able to exit into in-house positions if they want them, just as Skadden associates can, and then they're in a similar position. People don't stay at Vault firms for their careers almost ever, so they're going to be ending up in a "d" position regardless of where they started the overwhelming majority of the time. Hence, it seems that while there are some possible practical benefits to being at the more prestigious firm, these benefits seem marginal if you have a strong idea of where you'd like to end up. (If you're talking about Vault firms.)

[lymenheimer]

Your assumptions are bad and you should feel bad.

[BizBro]

Also, not sure that it's true Cadwalader associates have the same exit opps as associates at the V10s in New York.

Yeah, that's kind of the root of the whole thing here. It seems to me that the difference in exit opps between the two is mainly that the Skadden associate can move down to Cadwalader, whereas Cadwalader is going to have to move down to Cahill, but who cares (if you're not interested in prestige for the sake of prestige, and your interest is in hours and the amount you're being paid). Cadwalader associates, it seems, are able to exit into in-house positions if they want them, just as Skadden associates can, and then they're in a similar position. People don't stay at Vault firms for their careers almost ever, so they're going to be ending up in a "d" position regardless of where they started the overwhelming majority of the time. Hence, it seems that while there are some possible practical benefits to being at the more prestigious firm, these benefits seem marginal if you have a strong idea of where you'd like to end up. (If you're talking about Vault firms.)

This is stupid. Cadwalader isn't even more prestigious than Cahill, and just because vault has it listed higher doesn't mean the CW associate is going to move down to Cahill. I've seen TLS polls where Cahill > Cadwalader by like 40-5. Vault rankings don't matter compared to Chambers. Different firms are better at different things, though V10 firms are generally good at many different practices.

[SLS_AMG]

Also, not sure that it's true Cadwalader associates have the same exit opps as associates at the V10s in New York.

Yeah, that's kind of the root of the whole thing here. It seems to me that the difference in exit opps between the two is mainly that the Skadden associate can move down to Cadwalader, whereas Cadwalader is going to have to move down to Cahill, but who cares (if you're not interested in prestige for the sake of prestige, and your interest is in hours and the amount you're being paid). Cadwalader associates, it seems, are able to exit into in-house positions if they want them, just as Skadden associates can, and then they're in a similar position. People don't stay at Vault firms for their careers almost ever, so they're going to be ending up in a "d" position regardless of where they started the overwhelming majority of the time. Hence, it seems that while there are some possible practical benefits to being at the more prestigious firm, these benefits seem marginal if you have a strong idea of where you'd like to end up. (If you're talking about Vault firms.)

You seriously don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Where did you get this particular idea about what a biglaw associate's career progression looks like?

[lymenheimer]

You seriously don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

And that is the Onequestion truly expressed in this thread.

[pancakes3]

So CR is to just start at in-house d to start with?

[jimmythecatdied6]

Better firm = better connected firm/partners = better "exit" options, whatever they might be. And "exit" options are not limited to Cadwalader, or some mid law firm, despite what your classmates have told you.

[patentlitigatrix]

There is the misconception among law students and some lawyers that higher Vault ranking = more prestigious = "better" firm, end of story. That's not always true for a given practice area.

For context, I'm at a V75 (is that a term?) firm, and there is absolutely nowhere else I'd rather be. The client list in my practice area as well as firmwide is fantastic, and my colleagues that go in-house get awesome positions at those clients.

[pattonthicke]

Better firm = better connected firm/partners = better "exit" options, whatever they might be. And "exit" options are not limited to Cadwalader, or some mid law firm, despite what your classmates have told you.

This. OP, when people talk about exit options they are not talking about going from a V5 to V50. They are talking about going in-house, government, or mid-law. My take on other things said in this thread:

1. People always talk about how uncompetitive NYC pay is because other cities are moving up to 160k, but as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there is a big difference in pay between higher vault ranking firms and lower firms after the first year. I think OP asked for a spreadsheet or something that maps the difference but you will never find one because everyone knows how much associates at Skadden makes but the V96 you want to be at will start at 160k, but makes no mention of what happens after that. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY PAY WAY LESS. I'm at a V100 and i can tell you productive senior associates are making like 100k less (or more) than people on the DPW pay scale. If you stay in biglaw 5 years (which is a reasonable and attainable goal) you will have much more money at a prestigious firm than you will at a non-prestigous firm.

2. If you have some inside information (which you likely won't) that you can go to a V100 and work for partner X, and only bill 1800 working M-F with 4 weeks vacation then of course go there. But its not like V100 firms are sitting around preaching work-life balance. All V100 firms are trying to become V50 firms. All V50 firms are trying to become V10 firms. The work may not be there, but they want you to bill more. And all you need is 1 partner to make you their bitch, and you are screwed. All too often i see 4th years (mid-levels get killed at every firm) billing 2200-2400 at a V100 to make like 180K, while V5 associates have basically the same life style but making much more money. THEY MAKE MORE MONEY BECAUSE THEY CHARGE HIGHER RATES.

[patentlitigatrix]

Better firm = better connected firm/partners = better "exit" options, whatever they might be. And "exit" options are not limited to Cadwalader, or some mid law firm, despite what your classmates have told you.

This. OP, when people talk about exit options they are not talking about going from a V5 to V50. They are talking about going in-house, government, or mid-law. My take on other things said in this thread:

1. People always talk about how uncompetitive NYC pay is because other cities are moving up to 160k, but as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there is a big difference in pay between higher vault ranking firms and lower firms after the first year. I think OP asked for a spreadsheet or something that maps the difference but you will never find one because everyone knows how much associates at Skadden makes but the V96 you want to be at will start at 160k, but makes no mention of what happens after that. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY PAY WAY LESS. I'm at a V100 and i can tell you productive senior associates are making like 100k less (or more) than people on the DPW pay scale. If you stay in biglaw 5 years (which is a reasonable and attainable goal) you will have much more money at a prestigious firm than you will at a non-prestigous firm.

2. If you have some inside information (which you likely won't) that you can go to a V100 and work for partner X, and only bill 1800 working M-F with 4 weeks vacation then of course go there. But its not like V100 firms are sitting around preaching work-life balance. All V100 firms are trying to become V50 firms. All V50 firms are trying to become V10 firms. The work may not be there, but they want you to bill more. And all you need is 1 partner to make you their bitch, and you are screwed. All too often i see 4th years (mid-levels get killed at every firm) billing 2200-2400 at a V100 to make like 180K, while V5 associates have basically the same life style but making much more money. THEY MAKE MORE MONEY BECAUSE THEY CHARGE HIGHER RATES.

When you say V100 firms don't pay NY market, are you referring to base, bonuses, or both? Don't 4th years get paid 210k at most firms? I think I might be ignorant on this since I have only been at a V25 NYC firm and a V75 firm that pays NY market, at least as far as base salary goes.....

[pattonthicke]

When you say V100 firms don't pay NY market, are you referring to base, bonuses, or both? Don't 4th years get paid 210k at most firms? I think I might be ignorant on this since I have only been at a V25 NYC firm and a V75 firm that pays NY market, at least as far as base salary goes.....

I'm referring to both and it varies. Some pay the same base, but not bonus. Some don't pay same base or bonus. Although its much more often that the firm pays the same base but not the same bonus. This is effective because everyone sees the V5 and V100 both pay 185k, but that 30k or 40k bonus will matter. With few exceptions (maybe Jones Day???) any firm that doesn't publicly follow the DPW or NY pay scale offers a lot less in compensation when bonuses are considered. If they paid more or the same as DPW scale, they would advertise that more.

Best way to get ahead in this life is to be born rich.

[patentlitigatrix]

When you say V100 firms don't pay NY market, are you referring to base, bonuses, or both? Don't 4th years get paid 210k at most firms? I think I might be ignorant on this since I have only been at a V25 NYC firm and a V75 firm that pays NY market, at least as far as base salary goes.....

I'm referring to both and it varies. Some pay the same base, but not bonus. Some don't pay same base or bonus. Although its much more often that the firm pays the same base but not the same bonus. This is effective because everyone sees the V5 and V100 both pay 185k, but that 30k or 40k bonus will matter. With few exceptions (maybe Jones Day???) any firm that doesn't publicly follow the DPW or NY pay scale offers a lot less in compensation when bonuses are considered. If they paid more or the same as DPW scale, they would advertise that more.

Best way to get ahead in this life is to be born rich.

Indeed. And yeah, what you say is consistent with my experience-sort of. It isn't that my bonuses have been a lot less than NYC market/now DPW on average. It is that they aren't lock-step. Not everyone who makes their hours gets the same bonus. On average over the years, I'd say my bonuses have been at NY market, as some years I have had more than double the market bonus and other years I have gotten around half. I can't really figure out how we do bonuses, but it sure feels tied to hours.

But it is true that if you just hit your hours every year, you'd make less at a firm like mine than somewhere that does the DPW scale. But if you are a higher biller, that can be a different story.