Top Law Schools

I grew up and currently live in Los Angeles - went to undergrad in San Diego. I definitely know that those count as ties to each respective market.

However, I'd really love to move to Texas. Been to many different cities there and many different times of the year, and each time was pretty sweet. California is nice, but the cost-of-leaving is insane. Unfortunately, I don't think employers will consider this a sufficient reason not to be skeptical of me.

Is my only way, outside marriage or my family moving, to establish ties to Texas is by attending UT Austin/any other Texas law school? I was hoping I could attend a southern T14 like Duke or Virginia and then later find employment through Texas,

I guess there's also attending Harvard/Stanford/Yale and being able to go anywhere I want, but considering that I've been studying the LSAT for almost a year and can't score 172+ consistently, this is easier said than done.

You can also try sending your family members there (brother attending UT, parents live in the area, etc.). Also, you can delay going to law school and move to Texas to live for a year or so before attending law school, that's an option.

First of all, you're not going to know whether you like working in Texas because you've never lived there. Visiting different cities in Texas in short spurts is never an accurate reflection of true lifestyle.

Second, your notion about going to Duke/Virginia in order to increase your chances of working in Texas is false. Most Dukies/UVA folks go to NYC/DC. Just by you going there isn't doing anything with your chances for Texas.

Third, you're asking the wrong question. As a prospective law student, your first goal should always be to get a job that pays well. In today's market, it's imprudent to pick and choose markets.

With that being said, if you really want to work in Texas, I don't think it'll really matter where you go to school. Many folks that go to T14 schools have had real good chances at working in Texas solely based on either grades or their desire to work in a Texas-focused practice (i.e., energy, oil, resources). I think really you should just try to do the best you can on your test because all of this is irrelevant to you since you haven't even taken the LSAT yet.

Agree with ^^

You're putting the cart before the horse. Worry about getting into law school for now.

Anonymous User wrote:First of all, you're not going to know whether you like working in Texas because you've never lived there. Visiting different cities in Texas in short spurts is never an accurate reflection of true lifestyle.

Second, your notion about going to Duke/Virginia in order to increase your chances of working in Texas is false. Most Dukies/UVA folks go to NYC/DC. Just by you going there isn't doing anything with your chances for Texas.

Third, you're asking the wrong question. As a prospective law student, your first goal should always be to get a job that pays well. In today's market, it's imprudent to pick and choose markets.

With that being said, if you really want to work in Texas, I don't think it'll really matter where you go to school. Many folks that go to T14 schools have had real good chances at working in Texas solely based on either grades or their desire to work in a Texas-focused practice (i.e., energy, oil, resources). I think really you should just try to do the best you can on your test because all of this is irrelevant to you since you haven't even taken the LSAT yet.

I definitely agree with pretty much everything you said. I've seen the statistics for Duke/UVA, and even if I were to attend, I'd mostly bid/focus on NYC since that's where most of the jobs are. But as far as looking at secondary markets, I wouldn't want to focus on anything I didn't have a realistic shot at. So if I had the ties to Texas, it wouldn't be a waste of time to concentrate some energy on finding a job there, otherwise, any secondary market focus would just be on Los Angeles considering my position.

Also, would living and working in Texas for just one year be enough to establish ties? I'm all for putting off law school as long as reasonably possible. And if it would give me a chance to really experience Texas (you're right, visiting doesn't give you the complete picture that actually living there does), I'm down. But would employers be skeptical of just one year of work experience in Texas? My dad works in a completely different field (finance), but part of his job involves hiring and looking at resumes, and he's told me he wouldn't feel that a year is enough when screening an applicant.

One more thing: Does T14 at median = Biglaw only apply to NYC generally? Because I've noticed that in secondary markets that involve T20 schools, this forum generally agrees that Top 30% = Biglaw, but it seems like that's the case for a student at a T14 with secondary market ties as well. They couldn't just be median at a T14 and get a job like they could in NYC.

First of all, you're not allowed to post in this forum.

But to be actually helpful, I had a friend who went to CCN who got TX BigLaw with no ties. But he (like OP, apparently) was pretty legit about wanting Texas from Day 1. He also fit the "profile" of Texas very well. He was involved in all of the conservative/christian student groups, and was heavily involved in the evangelical community. Im not saying that you have to be super christian or even super conservative to get TX BigLaw with no ties, but if you look the part I think that goes along way. Now he's at Vinson & Elkins or Baker Botts, can't remember

ETA: And yes he was median, if anything below median. I think the general consensus for a lot of bigger secondary markets is that if you can prove ties or fit the firm's profile, you really only need median grades to get in from a T10/14

I agree with all of the above.

About "ties" in general, in my experience the word really refers to at least two different reasons employers might not like you. One is the concern that you'll leave quickly (because you don't know what it's like to live in the area and will discover you don't like it, and/or you want to live in a cool place for a while and then bail). You can mitigate this to some extent if you have a compelling and well-thought-through explanation for why you want to live there going forward, even if you've never lived there before.

But some employers/legal communities/parts of the country just prefer people who are from the area (or at least the broader cultural region), period. And then you can add on a special disadvantage if you're not only not local, but in fact you're from Region X, and people in Target Region Y think they're already being overrun by people from Region X. For Californians who wan to break into Texas (or Colorado, or Oregon), I think this one is probably going to be the bigger obstacle.

Anonymous User wrote:He also fit the "profile" of Texas very well. He was involved in all of the conservative/christian student groups, and was heavily involved in the evangelical community. Im not saying that you have to be super christian or even super conservative to get TX BigLaw with no ties, but if you look the part I think that goes along way. Now he's at Vinson & Elkins or Baker Botts, can't remember

Not necessary/expected in the slightest to get Texas biglaw. Not discounting this person's story, as I'm sure it helped, but it's not like firms only hire conservative christians here. As long as you have decent grades you'll have shot.

TX is a little more caring about ties though than other markets. Houston probably cares the least, as a number of firms there pull from T14 for O&G work, and overall has biggest market in TX w/ most SAs by far. Dallas/Austin care much more about ties, although Austin is just a crapshoot for summer hiring anyway. Lateraling into Austin w/o ties is probably easier.

Dallas can be difficult. I went to UT Law, but was from out of state originally with no other ties to TX. When I interviewed with firms here, I got grilled hard about why Dallas and why Texas over other parts of the country. I had legitimately good answers (and I went to UT), but they were much more pushy about it than places I interviewed in Houston. If I didn't go to UT, I would have had much less credibility to what I was saying.

I would suggest what others are saying. Either go to UT, because it rocks for TX employment obviously, or spend a year working in TX and go to a T6.

JCDante wrote:
Also, would living and working in Texas for just one year be enough to establish ties? I'm all for putting off law school as long as reasonably possible. And if it would give me a chance to really experience Texas (you're right, visiting doesn't give you the complete picture that actually living there does), I'm down. But would employers be skeptical of just one year of work experience in Texas? My dad works in a completely different field (finance), but part of his job involves hiring and looking at resumes, and he's told me he wouldn't feel that a year is enough when screening an applicant.

Let me add more "ties" options for you to consider while you live in TX for one year before law school: date a guy/gal there then do long-distance during 1L, so 2L OCI come, you can say you lived there (don't need to say how long) and your significant other is there, so you want to get back to TX

^accidental anon

moved. don't post in the legal employment forum as an 0L

Feel free to PM me OP, I went to UT as a non-Texan

I had 0 ties to Texas, went to a southern T14, and was bottom 20% after 1L Fall. I summered at two biglaw firms as a 1L and am starting as an associate at one in a few months. The most important advice I have is:

Develop a strong explanation and rehearse it a million times. Having been on the other side of recruiting events, it's painful to watch a kid try to lie his way through how he wants to be in Houston because his second cousin lives there and he visited once. You will be asked "Why Texas?" nonstop. I had no ties and was very upfront and honest about that. I focused on the fact that I had no interest in large cities where you couldn't buy a home. My hometown did not have a strong legal market and I wanted to work on large deals. The Texas market is great bang for your buck. Etc. Typically in my interviews I would end up with the interviewer trying to convince me why their city was so great. I was shocked at how many "transplants" worked at these firms.

With your situation, I would focus on the insane cost of living in California.

Bottom line: Doing random things to "establish ties" is in my opinion, useless. It is more important to be able to clearly articulate the actual reasons you want to be there. A well thought-out honest answer is going to be much more convincing and effective than grasping at straws.

With that said, top 30% at UT seems to give you a good shot at Texas biglaw firms. I wasn't willing to take that risk and am glad I went T14 instead.

Anonymous User wrote:Third, you're asking the wrong question. As a prospective law student, your first goal should always be to get a job that pays well. In today's market, it's imprudent to pick and choose markets.

This seems weird because I feel like people on TLS are always advising 0Ls to figure out where they want to practice before they go to law school.

You can also try to work in Texas your 1L summer. I'm working somewhere that I had no previous ties and am hoping that it will be enough to help me in applying to firms there