The Advantages of Going to a More Prestigious Firm Forum

[Onequestion]

I am a law student, and I've noticed that other law students, for the most part, seem very interested in not only getting a big law job, but also in getting the most prestigious one they can get. Normally, people refer to vault rankings when discussing this, whether they be the Vault 100, or a state-specific vault ranking.

I'm not really interested in discussing the best metric for deciding how "good" or prestigious a firm is, but I'd just like to hear some thoughts on what the benefits for one's career are that would accompany starting at a firm like Skadden NY over a firm like Cadwalader NY and the advantages of going to a Cadwalader NY over a firm like Cahill NY.

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. However, what exactly is the benefit that this person who started at Skadden is receiving once he goes to Cadwalader over a person who has been at Cadwalader from the start (other than maybe a 6% chance of becoming partner rather than a 3% chance)? To put it another way, I often see people who started at a V10 move on to a V50 then a V80 then midlaw, whereas the person who started at V50 will go to V80 then midlaw, whereas the person who started at V80 will go straight to midlaw. If this is the trend, all three of these people typically end up in the same place, even though the V10 person originally had the supposedly better exit opportunities. It also doesn't have to be midlaw, it can be in-house or some other job, but regardless of the scenario, I fail to see the benefit that starting at the more prestigious firm provides in the long run (for those who are the 95% of associates who don't end up making partner by using the prestige of their prior firm when lateraling). Could anyone shed some light on what I could be missing?

[BigZuck]

I just kinda skimmed your post but one huge thing I think you're missing is considering supposed exit options that aren't at other law firms. Lots of the top V firms are known for their corporate practices, and lots of the exit options people talk about here are working in house for firm clients.

[Onequestion]

Yes, I've heard of that being an advantage, but I've also heard that in-house has a lot more to do with making connections at your firm than with the prestige of your firm, so if you're at a lower ranked vault firm with a strong transactional practice (a Cahill or Cadwalader), aren't you still able to get these kinds of jobs?

Another thing is that it seems a lot of students who don't want to work the 80 hour weeks for the rest of their lives are willing to go to the top vault firm in NYC so that they can go in house later on so they can work less hours later on and still make 100k-200k a year. If that is the motivation for going in-house, why not just go to a firm that's in a state where people seem to work 50-60 hour weeks while still making more than someone who goes in-house? Surely many of the students who can get Skadden NY and have these aspirations could work at a firm in another market where the hours are more reasonable and lawyers are still paid six figures from the start.

[fats provolone]

because people want to work in NYC and/or it's got the most biglaw jobs and doesn't require ties

also some component is that people want dat prestige. it's not purely cost benefit analysis on exit options.

[lymenheimer]

How do you make connections at your firm or with your clients if you don't go to a firm that can offer those connections/clients?

[Onequestion]

Yeah, the prestige for prestige's sake is the main benefit that I see. As far as exit options, it seems someone who started at Cadwalader can get these in-house jobs though. There are firms where one can have better hours than at Skadden, and still, it seems, end up in the same place, after having made the same money. That's a lot of extra hours to do just for the sake of prestige, but different people have different motivations I guess.

[Onequestion]

How do you make connections at your firm or with your clients if you don't go to a firm that can offer those connections/clients?

Yeah, I'm saying I feel Cadwalader and Cahill and many other firms that don't have as high a Vault ranking as Skadden likely do offer similar connections/clients.

[fats provolone]

yeah and people can get biglaw from Fordham. doesn't make it equal to NYU.

[Onequestion]

yeah and people can get biglaw from Fordham. doesn't make it equal to NYU.

That's true, but people at Fordham have a good chance of becoming unemployed or working for 60k or less a year. People exiting from Cahill, Cadwalader, and Skadden all don't really have that as a strong possibility. The associates exiting from these firms almost all seem to move on to mid-law or in house or some other good job.

[AReasonableMan]

Exit options. If you go to Wachtell you can be fairly incompetent, and get another bite at the apple. You're right on in house options, and this is generally going to be related to client exposure such that there could hypothetically be a negative correlation b/w prestige and exit options. However, other firms will be more attracted to someone from a Wachtell. Marketability wise, it makes sense, because the client gets a lawyer who was formerly billed out for $700/hour at Firm A for only $500/hour at Firm B.

[Tiago Splitter]

A lot of it is that the high ranking Vault firms tend to be strong across a wide range of practice areas. Given that many if not most 2L's don't know what the hell they want to do it makes sense to choose one of those places so that regardless of the practice area that piques your interest you'll be in a decent spot.

[Onequestion]

Exit options. If you go to Wachtell you can be fairly incompetent, and get another bite at the apple. You're right on in house options, and this is generally going to be related to client exposure such that there could hypothetically be a negative correlation b/w prestige and exit options. However, other firms will be more attracted to someone from a Wachtell. Marketability wise, it makes sense, because the client gets a lawyer who was formerly billed out for $700/hour at Firm A for only $500/hour at Firm B.

Yes, but that's what I'm saying in my original post about sure, he can move from firm a to firm b then firm c then d. The person who started at firm b can still move to firm c and then d. The person who started at c can still move to d. It seems, yes, initially there are better exit opportunities, but these people largely end up in similar positions.

[Tiago Splitter]

Exit options. If you go to Wachtell you can be fairly incompetent, and get another bite at the apple. You're right on in house options, and this is generally going to be related to client exposure such that there could hypothetically be a negative correlation b/w prestige and exit options. However, other firms will be more attracted to someone from a Wachtell. Marketability wise, it makes sense, because the client gets a lawyer who was formerly billed out for $700/hour at Firm A for only $500/hour at Firm B.

Yes, but that's what I'm saying in my original post about sure, he can move from firm a to firm b then firm c then d. The person who started at firm b can still move to firm c and then d. The person who started at c can still move to d. It seems, yes, initially there are better exit opportunities, but these people largely end up in similar positions.

You keep coming to this conclusion as if it must be the case that everyone ends up at d.

I mean by your own logic the guy at a has better exit options than the guy at c.

[fats provolone]

but you're completely ignoring the value of choice, both in practice area as Tiago pointed out and in exit ops. Yeah if you end up working at Cadwalader it was probably better to start there, but you don't know that ex ante

[AReasonableMan]

Exit options. If you go to Wachtell you can be fairly incompetent, and get another bite at the apple. You're right on in house options, and this is generally going to be related to client exposure such that there could hypothetically be a negative correlation b/w prestige and exit options. However, other firms will be more attracted to someone from a Wachtell. Marketability wise, it makes sense, because the client gets a lawyer who was formerly billed out for $700/hour at Firm A for only $500/hour at Firm B.

Yes, but that's what I'm saying in my original post about sure, he can move from firm a to firm b then firm c then d. The person who started at firm b can still move to firm c and then d. The person who started at c can still move to d. It seems, yes, initially there are better exit opportunities, but these people largely end up in similar positions.

You're right in that it's not an absolute that A creates more opportunities than B like it is an absolute that going to Harvard creates more opportunities than going to Suffolk. However, the other people are also right in stating that you're choosing between A and B with relatively little info just like how A and B are choosing b/w you and another Joe(tte) with relatively little info. When you lack information it's human nature to prioritize whatever objective data that you have.

[Onequestion]

Exit options. If you go to Wachtell you can be fairly incompetent, and get another bite at the apple. You're right on in house options, and this is generally going to be related to client exposure such that there could hypothetically be a negative correlation b/w prestige and exit options. However, other firms will be more attracted to someone from a Wachtell. Marketability wise, it makes sense, because the client gets a lawyer who was formerly billed out for $700/hour at Firm A for only $500/hour at Firm B.

Yes, but that's what I'm saying in my original post about sure, he can move from firm a to firm b then firm c then d. The person who started at firm b can still move to firm c and then d. The person who started at c can still move to d. It seems, yes, initially there are better exit opportunities, but these people largely end up in similar positions.

You're right in that it's not an absolute that A creates more opportunities than B like it is an absolute that going to Harvard creates more opportunities than going to Suffolk. However, the other people are also right in stating that you're choosing between A and B with relatively little info just like how A and B are choosing b/w you and another Joe(tte) with relatively little info. When you lack information it's human nature to prioritize whatever objective data that you have.

I guess if you don't know anyone at any firms that you can trust to give you an honest answer about work environment there, then you would be correct. I still don't really see the advantage, but yeah, might as well do the thing that might be better for some unknown reason if that's the only information you can go on.

[AReasonableMan]

Exit options. If you go to Wachtell you can be fairly incompetent, and get another bite at the apple. You're right on in house options, and this is generally going to be related to client exposure such that there could hypothetically be a negative correlation b/w prestige and exit options. However, other firms will be more attracted to someone from a Wachtell. Marketability wise, it makes sense, because the client gets a lawyer who was formerly billed out for $700/hour at Firm A for only $500/hour at Firm B.

Yes, but that's what I'm saying in my original post about sure, he can move from firm a to firm b then firm c then d. The person who started at firm b can still move to firm c and then d. The person who started at c can still move to d. It seems, yes, initially there are better exit opportunities, but these people largely end up in similar positions.

You're right in that it's not an absolute that A creates more opportunities than B like it is an absolute that going to Harvard creates more opportunities than going to Suffolk. However, the other people are also right in stating that you're choosing between A and B with relatively little info just like how A and B are choosing b/w you and another Joe(tte) with relatively little info. When you lack information it's human nature to prioritize whatever objective data that you have.

I guess if you don't know anyone at any firms that you can trust to give you an honest answer about work environment there, then you would be correct. I still don't really see the advantage, but yeah, might as well do the thing that might be better for some unknown reason if that's the only information you can go on.

I mean if you went to a Las Vegas casino, knew nothing about baseball but had to bet your life savings on who won the World Series and all 30 teams had the same betting odds, the Yankees would always be the most rational bet.

[Onequestion]

Exit options. If you go to Wachtell you can be fairly incompetent, and get another bite at the apple. You're right on in house options, and this is generally going to be related to client exposure such that there could hypothetically be a negative correlation b/w prestige and exit options. However, other firms will be more attracted to someone from a Wachtell. Marketability wise, it makes sense, because the client gets a lawyer who was formerly billed out for $700/hour at Firm A for only $500/hour at Firm B.

Yes, but that's what I'm saying in my original post about sure, he can move from firm a to firm b then firm c then d. The person who started at firm b can still move to firm c and then d. The person who started at c can still move to d. It seems, yes, initially there are better exit opportunities, but these people largely end up in similar positions.

You keep coming to this conclusion as if it must be the case that everyone ends up at d.

I mean by your own logic the guy at a has better exit options than the guy at c.

People don't usually stay at Vault firms for that long. A lot of people also do think they're going to lateral from the start because it's too many hours to do long term. Those people essentially know they're not going to be ending up at an a or b because both of those options are a lot of hours.

[pancakes3]

The advantage in exit options is marginal and probabilistic. For some people, the intangible prestige has value in and of itself.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

[AReasonableMan]

The advantage in exit options is marginal and probabilistic. For some people, the intangible prestige has value in and of itself.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Even there the prestige only exists among other lawyers. and individuals in the top socioeconomic stratosphere of Western society. The average person would think Jacoby & Meyers is more prestigious than Wachtell, because they saw a commercial while watching the Jerry Springer show.

[grand inquisitor]

its hedging bro

[Onequestion]

The advantage in exit options is marginal and probabilistic. For some people, the intangible prestige has value in and of itself.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Even there the prestige only exists among other lawyers. and individuals in the top socioeconomic stratosphere of Western society. The average person would think Jacoby & Meyers is more prestigious than Wachtell, because they saw a commercial while watching the Jerry Springer show.

Really just other lawyers. Law is not like investment banking where people know the big names like Goldman Sachs. The overwhelming majority of non-lawyers, rich or poor, have not ever heard of Wachtell or Cravath, let alone Cleary or Weil.

The intangible value of prestige is great, but it just seems like a high cost to me if you're someone who has good reason to believe another firm she could work at would have a much better atmosphere. A lot of the people who have the more prestigious firms truly do believe they are giving themselves a much better chance of ending up successful than the person at the lower ranked Vault firm, and that the prestige for prestige's sake is just a small bonus. I think it's rare you would find a law student who has an offer from Skadden who would think that his chances of success are only marginally better than a person who has an offer from a V50. Thanks everyone for the responses though!

[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!

[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.

[UVAIce]

It's all about probabilities: first, pretty much every high tier Vault firm is going to have a 100% offer rate (this is above and beyond the fact that these firms actually have the biggest summer associate classes period).

So we all realize that the burnout rate of big law is high, but even if you do not stay at Firm "X" for more than a few years, the lateral market is just different from when you go to get jobs as a law student. You have an idea what kind of law you want to (or are) practicing and you have more time to put out your feelers to go to the "right" firm, corporation or other legal hiring entity rather than practically picking blind as a law student.

Above and beyond that, from my observations so far the best in-house positions go to associates and partners who work with a particular client. Overtime the client just hires you rather than paying Firm X's ridiculous rates for your time. There are also just certain clients, of both type and name, that really only hire from particular types of firms.

Another thing that I think a lot of people do not realize right now is just how hot the lateral market is at the moment. The reduced classes from the whole 2008 era mean that there are just few senior associates around to be picked up by law firms and corporations. Given that hiring has picked up some, it's doubtful that the lateral market will be that tight when we get to that point in our careers. In that world it makes sense to have the premium brand name on your resume.