Your statement that "firms are actually very different, with different cultures, business models, and power structures" is very true. The tough part about choosing a firm is that it's very hard, as a law school student, to figure out any of those things. I didn't really have a good grip on my own firm's characteristics, let alone other firms, until working there for a year or two. Maybe the best advice I ever recieved about picking a firm was from a partner during an interview who said that once you had your options whittled down and a few offers in hand (not an easy process to begin with), you should trust your gut about the people you met while interviewing. If they don't seem like the kind of people you want to be locked in a conference room with all day long for two or three weeks straight (e.g. trial prep), that's probably a good signal that you wouldn't be happy at the firm.
As a recruiter, I tell everyone to do their due diligence and talk to as many people as they can about the firms they are considering and also recognize that sometimes you will not know what the culture is truly like until you're actually there. There's always a risk that some place may not be the right place so do as much as you can to minimize the risk that you will go to a place that is not the right fit.
My advice: don't stress over this decision too much. You can always lateral (and it is becoming much more common these days).
I don't understand why some in Big Law still frown upon lateraling, when lateral movement is common in every other industry (and the in-house world). What are the odds that the firm you picked as a 22-year-old law student is the best firm for you for your entire legal career?
Geography doesn't matter as much as it used to. When I went through the process, I had a bias against offices that weren't the "home" office of a firm, thinking that it would be a disadvantage not to be at the "mother ship." But that is no longer true. There is no particular advantage to going to Latham's Los Angeles office or Kirkland's Chicago office over, say, the New York office, if New York is where you want to be.
I agree with this generally, especially for associates. But for partners, firm "politics" tend to matter more, and there are some firms where being in a certain office can still be beneficial in terms of proximity to the powers that be (although this was more the case pre-pandemic; I'm not sure how this will play out post-pandemic).
For partners, I would generally agree as well regarding geography. Also, for associates, they should find out how work is distributed as it may not be the case that the work is distributed across offices which can impact the quality of assignments you receive and with whom you're primarily working.
I disagree slightly with you, David. Law students should be open-minded about what they want to do in the law. Many of us went to law school thinking we wanted to practice one type of law and wound up doing something totally different.
In light of that, you might as well go to the most prestigious firm, instead of a less prestigious firm that excels in some niche. Say you turn down a top firm to go to a firm that is less prestigious but does more entertainment work. Then what if you find out you don't really like entertainment law? You will regret having turned down the prestigious firm.
If the current firm is full-service, the associate can try to change practice areas in that firm or the worst case scenario is they simply lateral to another firm. There are "prestigious" firms that have entertainment practices so even if they lateral, I don't think another firm will hold that against the associate who decides they don't like entertainment law.
As a current Big Law associate, here’s two pieces of advice:
First, try to understand how the economics of a firm will affect your life. For example, sky-high profits per partner come through some combination of (1) higher billing rates, (2) higher leverage (i.e., ratio of associates to equity partners) and (3) increasing the number of billable hours per associate (the cost of which is basically fixed).
Second, what are associates leaving the firm doing? Are they going in house? To a competitor? To the government? When you’re first starting our, you’re far more likely to be an associate who leaves the firm than an associate making partner, so it’s useful to understand what your opportunities might be.
I totally agree with both of these points, especially point #2. For example, say you want to go in-house. Many in-house moves involving jumping over to a client of your firm. So you might be better off at a tech-focused firm like Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, or Fenwick—where you might do a wide range of work for clients, and where you really get to know those clients over time—as opposed to a firm that tends to do one-off work (like my former firm), even if that one-off work is very important.
Your statement that "firms are actually very different, with different cultures, business models, and power structures" is very true. The tough part about choosing a firm is that it's very hard, as a law school student, to figure out any of those things. I didn't really have a good grip on my own firm's characteristics, let alone other firms, until working there for a year or two. Maybe the best advice I ever recieved about picking a firm was from a partner during an interview who said that once you had your options whittled down and a few offers in hand (not an easy process to begin with), you should trust your gut about the people you met while interviewing. If they don't seem like the kind of people you want to be locked in a conference room with all day long for two or three weeks straight (e.g. trial prep), that's probably a good signal that you wouldn't be happy at the firm.
As a recruiter, I tell everyone to do their due diligence and talk to as many people as they can about the firms they are considering and also recognize that sometimes you will not know what the culture is truly like until you're actually there. There's always a risk that some place may not be the right place so do as much as you can to minimize the risk that you will go to a place that is not the right fit.
My advice: don't stress over this decision too much. You can always lateral (and it is becoming much more common these days).
I don't understand why some in Big Law still frown upon lateraling, when lateral movement is common in every other industry (and the in-house world). What are the odds that the firm you picked as a 22-year-old law student is the best firm for you for your entire legal career?
Geography doesn't matter as much as it used to. When I went through the process, I had a bias against offices that weren't the "home" office of a firm, thinking that it would be a disadvantage not to be at the "mother ship." But that is no longer true. There is no particular advantage to going to Latham's Los Angeles office or Kirkland's Chicago office over, say, the New York office, if New York is where you want to be.
Yes, and very important if/when the work is spread across the firm's offices.
I agree with this generally, especially for associates. But for partners, firm "politics" tend to matter more, and there are some firms where being in a certain office can still be beneficial in terms of proximity to the powers that be (although this was more the case pre-pandemic; I'm not sure how this will play out post-pandemic).
For partners, I would generally agree as well regarding geography. Also, for associates, they should find out how work is distributed as it may not be the case that the work is distributed across offices which can impact the quality of assignments you receive and with whom you're primarily working.
Good advice.
I disagree slightly with you, David. Law students should be open-minded about what they want to do in the law. Many of us went to law school thinking we wanted to practice one type of law and wound up doing something totally different.
In light of that, you might as well go to the most prestigious firm, instead of a less prestigious firm that excels in some niche. Say you turn down a top firm to go to a firm that is less prestigious but does more entertainment work. Then what if you find out you don't really like entertainment law? You will regret having turned down the prestigious firm.
If the current firm is full-service, the associate can try to change practice areas in that firm or the worst case scenario is they simply lateral to another firm. There are "prestigious" firms that have entertainment practices so even if they lateral, I don't think another firm will hold that against the associate who decides they don't like entertainment law.
As a current Big Law associate, here’s two pieces of advice:
First, try to understand how the economics of a firm will affect your life. For example, sky-high profits per partner come through some combination of (1) higher billing rates, (2) higher leverage (i.e., ratio of associates to equity partners) and (3) increasing the number of billable hours per associate (the cost of which is basically fixed).
Second, what are associates leaving the firm doing? Are they going in house? To a competitor? To the government? When you’re first starting our, you’re far more likely to be an associate who leaves the firm than an associate making partner, so it’s useful to understand what your opportunities might be.
I totally agree with both of these points, especially point #2. For example, say you want to go in-house. Many in-house moves involving jumping over to a client of your firm. So you might be better off at a tech-focused firm like Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, or Fenwick—where you might do a wide range of work for clients, and where you really get to know those clients over time—as opposed to a firm that tends to do one-off work (like my former firm), even if that one-off work is very important.