Top Law Schools

Are there any appreciable differences between NY and CA biglaw? Work environment, hours, stability, exit options, type of work, anything really.

I ask because I'm currently deciding between Berkeley and NYU, and I want to know if this is something that warrants factoring into that decision.

Thanks!

...

Outside the LA sweatshops (O'Melveny, Irell, Latham, Simpson) which i think are similar to NY, here's what I've heard.

Work environment- Smaller more intimate in CA, NY firms have 50 summer glasses and weekly social events. CA firms may have 5-10 summers and less social events. Easier to stay invisible at an NY firm. At a CA firm, most people will know who you are.

Hours- Rule of thumb is probably 2 hours a day more in NYC from all I've gathered.

Stability- Not sure what this means. The stability is controlled on the associate end of things. These jobs rarely fire people. Every associate does their own calculus about how much the job is destroying their personal life and comes to a decision on when to leave. The stability is absolutely awesome in the sense you wont get fired but horrible in the sense that it is caused by the awfulness of the job causing adequate people to leave naturally at appropriate times.

Exit options- This depends more on the calibre of your firm (specifically how it is regarded in your practice area) than the market.
Type of work- Biglaw is all done remotely now, have been on deals and conference calls with lawyers from 8 different cities. Doesn't matter where you are period. NY may be a bit worse as larger sized firms have a volume of work which allows them to give low level associates unlimited hours of doc review or other menial transactional work.

Thanks, legalreality. Anyone else have anything to add?

I realize that no one has worked in both places, but anything you might've heard from friends or just the legal/law school grapevine?

2 hours a day seems pretty fucking high.

Desert Fox wrote:2 hours a day seems pretty fucking high.

Yeah, that seems high to me as well. I have only worked in CA offices, but I have friends who have worked on both coasts. Their experience (all litigation) suggests that the "you'll work far fewer hours in CA" thing is mostly a myth.

Depending on firm culture, it might be the case that you spend an average of two additional hours a day in the office at a NYC firm. But it seems like CA associates and partners do more work from home. I doubt there's a significant difference in billable hours expectations.

Maybe it's different for transactional practices.

fDidn't that Skadden associate who died a few years ago work in California? I think she transferred there but maybe she started in LA.
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/in-re-th ... associate/

There are better articles but that is the first one I found.
I wouldn't trust anyone about hours if they are saying the hours are low. California might get in earlier because of time zone differences.

(I could be wrong so real attorneys feel free to correct)

Two of the biggest differences to me seem to be the type of work and facetime. If you're more interested in financial markets and legal work related to finance, NYC is going to be your better bet. If you're more interested in emerging company work (and possibly patent lit/pros), CA (and SV specifically) is likely a better bet. It also seems to me that NYC has a culture that expects people to be in the office more whereas CA is more okay with you doing work from home.

The facetime thing may be legit. I'm not in CA or NYC, but my NYC friends routinely have to be in their office late and on the weekends. People just don't do that in my office. But this might be another transaction vs lit thing. I'm hardly ever waiting for notes on something at the last minute.

I also gathered from talking to people who have worked in both places that the differences in hours are overstated. People tend to start a lot earlier in CA, but then are shocked that someone would work until 9 at night in NYC, unaware that the NYC bro starts at 10:30.

Tiago Splitter wrote:I also gathered from talking to people who have worked in both places that the differences in hours are overstated. People tend to start a lot earlier in CA, but then are shocked that someone would work until 9 at night in NYC, unaware that the NYC bro starts at 10:30.

I imagine this could be to more closely synchronize working hours between offices on opposite sides of the country.

cotiger wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:I also gathered from talking to people who have worked in both places that the differences in hours are overstated. People tend to start a lot earlier in CA, but then are shocked that someone would work until 9 at night in NYC, unaware that the NYC bro starts at 10:30.

I imagine this could be to more closely synchronize working hours between offices on opposite sides of the country.

That's what I assumed before working in law firms, but the difference seems to have more to do with general culture than anything else.