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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.