V15 Partner/OCI Interviewer Answering Questions... Forum

[itbdvorm]

What are your opinions on the traditional big Texas firms like V&E, Baker Botts, and NRF compared to the New York satellites opening up shop in cities like Houston and Dallas? I'm spending 1L summer with a Texas firm so I'm wondering which side will likely have better prospects in the future? Could you maybe talk about the Texas big 3, some traditional Texas powerhouses (Andrews Kurth, Thompson & Knight, Jackson Walker, etc.) and the satellites (K&E, Latham, Paul Hastings, Hogan, etc.)?

Edited to add - interested in transactional work.

Many thanks in advance!

Definitely an interesting question and one I am only semi-suited to answer, but I'll try.

I admittedly had to google NRF to figure out which firm that was (which means absolutely nothing other than a lack of familiarity with evolving TX acronyms). But I do have a decent degree of skepticism regarding the Swiss vereins. Because they are really just semi-affiliated, it's too easy for groups to decide to pull themselves out and move away with a relative lack of financial implications that you might see with a true global (or local) partnership. My personal hunch is that we'll see some of them rip themselves apart in the next decade or so - but this is based upon an outsider's perspective, maybe they work great in reality

Getting back to your question. In terms of true "top of the market" practices, my vague sense is that V&E and L&W are currently the leaders. V&E still has the traditional, old-line TX practice, with historic strategic relationships, and L&W has the current lead in new energy companies and investment banking relationships. Both have true "national" talent, known and effective in deals in Texas or nationwide. I am probably slightly under-crediting Baker here, whom everyone tells me is also a top Texas firm, but whether due to a smaller national presence or less impressive non-Texas team has underwhelmed me in the past. I think V&E and Latham will give you more of a "national" platform and more consistent quality throughout, but if you are planning on being a Texas lifer Baker is certainly great too.

I think a number of the other traditional Texas firms do have really great practices, especially when you get into specific niches. Obviously there are more in addition to the ones you mentioned (and where does Locke fit in? big 3 or no?), but I think it really depends case by case and practice by practice. Part of the question worth considering is how different names travel and where you want to be/what you want to do long term.

In terms of satellites, I think it really will depend on your long-term goals. Latham, as I noted above, seems to have really established itself in Texas and my understanding is that it's effectively on par with V&E at the top of the market. K&E has a few serious players (to whom it shelled out $$$), but for a variety of reasons I don't think it's necessarily the best place to start your career. My sense (could be way off) is that there are a few big name partners but otherwise it's a quirky outpost with all of the pros/cons of being at Kirkland (great place to be a partner, rough place to be an associate). I don't know enough about the other outposts, but a big question I have for places like these is what's the size, is it self-sustaining (does work flow in or work flow out) and what's the long-term plan for the office? Some offices are 3-4 partners and frankly plan to stay that way - I think those can be good spots to be at for years 4-6 but not 1-3.

Long-term, I do think that some of the non-TX native practices will disrupt the market a bit further. The delta in profits per partner between some of the big players and some of the local firms means that the non-TX firms will continue to pick off top partners with outsized packages. Especially as some of the firms get more of a foothold and it becomes less of a risky proposition, you'll see a few more of the talented guys in their 40s decide they don't feel like working to pay for non-performing guys in their 60s when they can go across the street and double their comp and work with their old pals from UT. Will be interesting as that occurs more and more...

[MaxMcMann]

Do you know of any peers who left into plaintiff's law? How are they doing and what is your opinion of the ease of BL->plaintiff's transition and of the prospects?

[Big Red]

Some offices are 3-4 partners and frankly plan to stay that way - I think those can be good spots to be at for years 4-6 but not 1-3.

Can you flesh this outa little more? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Hi - Thank you for all the guidance you've provided over the years. It's been much appreciated.

I'm currently a junior associate at a top M&A group in silicon valley. I thoroughly enjoy the practice, but am considering moving to DC for family reasons. I'm a bit apprehensive about the move from a professional point of view, because I do like M&A, but I admit this apprehension isn't based on much evidence. I don't have a great deal of information about the market in DC or a great deal of perspective on how such a move would impact my career. I've done some research - Hogan, Gibson, Kirkland and Skadden appear to do some home-grown M&A, though the corporate associates at these offices seem to have a much more varied practice - including some securities, corporate governance, etc. - than I currently do.

What I'm asking, I guess, is for general advice. What is your impression of the DC M&A / PE market? Are there firms you would recommend, or not? Because I assume my practice would be less M&A-focused in DC, I also would appreciate if you could share your perspective on the impact of a varied practice on a corporate associate's career trajectory.

Any and all thoughts you may have would be appreciated. Thank you.

[itbdvorm]

Do you know of any peers who left into plaintiff's law? How are they doing and what is your opinion of the ease of BL->plaintiff's transition and of the prospects?

Definitely some folks have gone to the "dark side". I know at least one or two who have been more successful on that side than I would have anticipated, which either says something about them or the practice....

[itbdvorm]

Some offices are 3-4 partners and frankly plan to stay that way - I think those can be good spots to be at for years 4-6 but not 1-3.

Can you flesh this outa little more? Thanks!

So I think that being a junior at a real outpost like this can be tough. You're going to be stuck working for a specific group of people, and clients, no matter what. Pacing will be a bit inconsistent, dealflow will be erratic, etc., and you will only learn "one way" of doing things.

With a bit more experience, though, it could be a good place to hang out for a few years, especially if there's a specific rationale to go to such a place.

[itbdvorm]

Hi - Thank you for all the guidance you've provided over the years. It's been much appreciated.

I'm currently a junior associate at a top M&A group in silicon valley. I thoroughly enjoy the practice, but am considering moving to DC for family reasons. I'm a bit apprehensive about the move from a professional point of view, because I do like M&A, but I admit this apprehension isn't based on much evidence. I don't have a great deal of information about the market in DC or a great deal of perspective on how such a move would impact my career. I've done some research - Hogan, Gibson, Kirkland and Skadden appear to do some home-grown M&A, though the corporate associates at these offices seem to have a much more varied practice - including some securities, corporate governance, etc. - than I currently do.

What I'm asking, I guess, is for general advice. What is your impression of the DC M&A / PE market? Are there firms you would recommend, or not? Because I assume my practice would be less M&A-focused in DC, I also would appreciate if you could share your perspective on the impact of a varied practice on a corporate associate's career trajectory.

Any and all thoughts you may have would be appreciated. Thank you.

So my sense, which could be way off here, is that your impression is correct re: the "traditional" DC firms (Hogan, Covington, etc.), but that Skadden, Latham and Kirkland have more NY-style M&A/PE practices (I think Skadden may have run the American Capital deal from DC but could be wrong; Latham definitely does a ton of Carlyle work from DC). I would click on a few bios of folks in the relevant offices with M&A as a practice group - my guess is it will shine pretty clearly

In terms of a varied practice, I'd say it's harder in the short-term but probably useful in the long-term to know a bit more about a few more areas. Like being conversational in multiple languages; it lets you visit more places

[Anonymous User]

Hello sir and thank you!

I was curious if you could shine some light on how you/your firm views clerks.

Do you think a person ought to try to do a COA clerkship if he already has a district clerkship? I ask b/c I'm going to clerk right out in D.MA, but am considering applying to COA for the following year. My concern is, I'm starting in NYC and may want to change markets after a few years and return to Boston. Personally, I may want to leave my NYC firm (DPW/S&C) after two years for a COA, and thought it may be a good way to change markets (back to boston perhaps).

Does that sound like a good plan or would you say apply now to COA courts and if I get one just go with it? Another consideration is that my application may continue to improve. I'm not top 10% (lower t14) so maybe applying with two years of work and a completed district court clerkship will make me more competitive for a "better" circuit. I would love to know what you think generally.

Thanks so much.

[Anonymous User]

Is it common for a firm to ask students to bring a writing sample and grades to an interview and not accept them at the end? I had an interview recently, and the partner told me that she had all the information needed before I could hand her the materials. Is this usually the result of a bad interview? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

What are your thoughts on transactional associates pursuing federal (DC or COA) clerkships? Totally useless? Does it make it better if the clerkship is right after law school as opposed to a few years out?

[Anonymous User]

.

[yogotti]

Vorm, I love the insight you have brought here.

Background: at a good regional school, T50 in rankings. I am top 10%, Dean's list every semester, significant work experience pre-law school, law review, blah blah blah.

I struck out during OCI process. A few big firms (V50-100, like it matters), have moved into our area by pulling partners from other big firms in town.

The go-getter side of me says why not email those partners and beg/ask for a possible summer position hoping that since they are building a new office, maybe they will need some summers or something to get the office established. I can't really think of a downside to doing this. Any reason not to reach out, or would it be better to try for connections with the new partners and go the informational interview route first?

[Anonymous User]

Would a lateral from a top regional midwest firm (Faegre/Dorsey in Minneapolis) be competitive at your firm or comparable firms? Top 25% grades from a T20 and working in a corporate group.

Additionally, I am a first year so when would I try and lateral?

[MaxMcMann]

Do you know of any peers who left into plaintiff's law? How are they doing and what is your opinion of the ease of BL->plaintiff's transition and of the prospects?

Definitely some folks have gone to the "dark side". I know at least one or two who have been more successful on that side than I would have anticipated, which either says something about them or the practice....

Would you mind elaborating? It seems there is some sort of general idea you have about the practice of plaintiff's law and what sort of people it attracts/thrive in it, but I can't read between the lines enough to flesh it out.

[speedbump]

I heard some gossip that top firms send graduates with Asian background (born there and summer there) to their Asian offices, even if they apply to U.S. offices. The person claims that he knows several Asian graduates who did 1L SA in Asia got sent there as new associates, so those who don't want to go back to Asia should not even do 1L SA in Asia.

Could you confirm if this is true? I am 1L and wants to work in U.S. for several years, if not permanently. I want an Asian summer associate position for my 1L summer, if I can't get one in U.S., just for the money.

[Anonymous User]

I heard some gossip that top firms send graduates with Asian background (born there and summer there) to their Asian offices, even if they apply to U.S. offices. The person claims that he knows several Asian graduates who did 1L SA in Asia got sent there as new associates, so those who don't want to go back to Asia should not even do 1L SA in Asia.

Could you confirm if this is true? I am 1L and wants to work in U.S. for several years, if not permanently. I want an Asian summer associate position for my 1L summer, if I can't get one in U.S., just for the money.

No V15 partner, but I was at a firm like this, and had some colleagues who experiences this to an extent. We came down to the conclusion that it's a product of which country you're from and how much "background" we're speaking of. Any language skill or work experience that you have or intend to share with the firm?

[Anonymous User]

I heard some gossip that top firms send graduates with Asian background (born there and summer there) to their Asian offices, even if they apply to U.S. offices. The person claims that he knows several Asian graduates who did 1L SA in Asia got sent there as new associates, so those who don't want to go back to Asia should not even do 1L SA in Asia.

Could you confirm if this is true? I am 1L and wants to work in U.S. for several years, if not permanently. I want an Asian summer associate position for my 1L summer, if I can't get one in U.S., just for the money.

No V15 partner, but I was at a firm like this, and had some colleagues who experiences this to an extent. We came down to the conclusion that it's a product of which country you're from and how much "background" we're speaking of. Any language skill or work experience that you have or intend to share with the firm?

A lot of it has to do with a language issue doesn't it? If you get a 1L SA in the Seoul office and can speak Korean, there's not a lot of bodies to replace you (at your language level). Thus, putting you there starting out.

[Anonymous User]

I heard some gossip that top firms send graduates with Asian background (born there and summer there) to their Asian offices, even if they apply to U.S. offices. The person claims that he knows several Asian graduates who did 1L SA in Asia got sent there as new associates, so those who don't want to go back to Asia should not even do 1L SA in Asia.

Could you confirm if this is true? I am 1L and wants to work in U.S. for several years, if not permanently. I want an Asian summer associate position for my 1L summer, if I can't get one in U.S., just for the money.

No V15 partner, but I was at a firm like this, and had some colleagues who experiences this to an extent. We came down to the conclusion that it's a product of which country you're from and how much "background" we're speaking of. Any language skill or work experience that you have or intend to share with the firm?

A lot of it has to do with a language issue doesn't it? If you get a 1L SA in the Seoul office and can speak Korean, there's not a lot of bodies to replace you (at your language level). Thus, putting you there starting out.

Perhaps. But I had colleagues who didn't summer in one of those offices abroad but still got sent to China/Korea/Japan offices and have seen the opposite case as well where got sent to HK even when no SA at those offices. A lot of it seemed to depend on their work experience prior to law school.

[Anonymous User]

I heard some gossip that top firms send graduates with Asian background (born there and summer there) to their Asian offices, even if they apply to U.S. offices. The person claims that he knows several Asian graduates who did 1L SA in Asia got sent there as new associates, so those who don't want to go back to Asia should not even do 1L SA in Asia.

Could you confirm if this is true? I am 1L and wants to work in U.S. for several years, if not permanently. I want an Asian summer associate position for my 1L summer, if I can't get one in U.S., just for the money.

No V15 partner, but I was at a firm like this, and had some colleagues who experiences this to an extent. We came down to the conclusion that it's a product of which country you're from and how much "background" we're speaking of. Any language skill or work experience that you have or intend to share with the firm?

A lot of it has to do with a language issue doesn't it? If you get a 1L SA in the Seoul office and can speak Korean, there's not a lot of bodies to replace you (at your language level). Thus, putting you there starting out.

FWIW, I've seen a lot of Korean speakers in biglaw US offices.

[itbdvorm]

Do you know of any peers who left into plaintiff's law? How are they doing and what is your opinion of the ease of BL->plaintiff's transition and of the prospects?

Definitely some folks have gone to the "dark side". I know at least one or two who have been more successful on that side than I would have anticipated, which either says something about them or the practice....

Would you mind elaborating? It seems there is some sort of general idea you have about the practice of plaintiff's law and what sort of people it attracts/thrive in it, but I can't read between the lines enough to flesh it out.

All I meant was they were folks who weren't necessarily doing great here then did substantially better there

[itbdvorm]

I heard some gossip that top firms send graduates with Asian background (born there and summer there) to their Asian offices, even if they apply to U.S. offices. The person claims that he knows several Asian graduates who did 1L SA in Asia got sent there as new associates, so those who don't want to go back to Asia should not even do 1L SA in Asia.

Could you confirm if this is true? I am 1L and wants to work in U.S. for several years, if not permanently. I want an Asian summer associate position for my 1L summer, if I can't get one in U.S., just for the money.

Never seen this happen on a forced nature, but maybe encouraged?

[papercutter]

Do you know of any peers who left into plaintiff's law? How are they doing and what is your opinion of the ease of BL->plaintiff's transition and of the prospects?

Definitely some folks have gone to the "dark side". I know at least one or two who have been more successful on that side than I would have anticipated, which either says something about them or the practice....

Would you mind elaborating? It seems there is some sort of general idea you have about the practice of plaintiff's law and what sort of people it attracts/thrive in it, but I can't read between the lines enough to flesh it out.

All I meant was they were folks who weren't necessarily doing great here then did substantially better there

Hopefully itbdvorm won't mind if I kibitz a little, but I can add some color to that. There are some real differences between a defense practice (esp. biglaw) and plaintiffs' work. For example, if you're doing class action/mass tort work, you have to learn a lot more about the business of law because (a) your firm, not a client, is paying litigation costs carrying the risk that the case doesn't cover those bills (or your lodestar), and (b) you're often dealing with other firms who are managing their own financial considerations. You have to learn how to investigate cases pre-suit, and deal with discovery without the benefit of client employees knowledgeable about the relevant industry. Instead of reporting back to a GC, you're mostly reporting back to co-counsel or a steering committee, since class reps usually aren't sophisticated legal consumers. On the other hand, if you're at a firm that represents individual Real Human Beings, you have to deal a lot more with the human factor, and in some cases are 1/2 lawyer, 1/2 counselor-social worker. As a result, people who are a bad fit in biglaw can be a great fit in plaintiffs' practice, and vice versa. (Source: friends at plaintiffs' firms, plus some experience in class action cases).

[Anonymous User]

Reposting this just in case it fell through the cracks:


I was curious if you could shine some light on how you/your firm views clerks.

Do you think a person ought to try to do a COA clerkship if he already has a district clerkship? I ask b/c I'm going to clerk right out in D.MA, but am considering applying to COA for the following year. My concern is, I'm starting in NYC and may want to change markets after a few years and return to Boston. Personally, I may want to leave my NYC firm (DPW/S&C) after two years for a COA, and thought it may be a good way to change markets (back to boston perhaps).

Does that sound like a good plan or would you say apply now to COA courts and if I get one just go with it? Another consideration is that my application may continue to improve. I'm not top 10% (lower t14) so maybe applying with two years of work and a completed district court clerkship will make me more competitive for a "better" circuit. I would love to know what you think generally.

Thanks so much.

[itbdvorm]

Do you know of any peers who left into plaintiff's law? How are they doing and what is your opinion of the ease of BL->plaintiff's transition and of the prospects?

Definitely some folks have gone to the "dark side". I know at least one or two who have been more successful on that side than I would have anticipated, which either says something about them or the practice....

Would you mind elaborating? It seems there is some sort of general idea you have about the practice of plaintiff's law and what sort of people it attracts/thrive in it, but I can't read between the lines enough to flesh it out.

All I meant was they were folks who weren't necessarily doing great here then did substantially better there

Hopefully itbdvorm won't mind if I kibitz a little, but I can add some color to that. There are some real differences between a defense practice (esp. biglaw) and plaintiffs' work. For example, if you're doing class action/mass tort work, you have to learn a lot more about the business of law because (a) your firm, not a client, is paying litigation costs carrying the risk that the case doesn't cover those bills (or your lodestar), and (b) you're often dealing with other firms who are managing their own financial considerations. You have to learn how to investigate cases pre-suit, and deal with discovery without the benefit of client employees knowledgeable about the relevant industry. Instead of reporting back to a GC, you're mostly reporting back to co-counsel or a steering committee, since class reps usually aren't sophisticated legal consumers. On the other hand, if you're at a firm that represents individual Real Human Beings, you have to deal a lot more with the human factor, and in some cases are 1/2 lawyer, 1/2 counselor-social worker. As a result, people who are a bad fit in biglaw can be a great fit in plaintiffs' practice, and vice versa. (Source: friends at plaintiffs' firms, plus some experience in class action cases).

don't mind at all - this is good color

[itbdvorm]

Reposting this just in case it fell through the cracks:


I was curious if you could shine some light on how you/your firm views clerks.

Do you think a person ought to try to do a COA clerkship if he already has a district clerkship? I ask b/c I'm going to clerk right out in D.MA, but am considering applying to COA for the following year. My concern is, I'm starting in NYC and may want to change markets after a few years and return to Boston. Personally, I may want to leave my NYC firm (DPW/S&C) after two years for a COA, and thought it may be a good way to change markets (back to boston perhaps).

Does that sound like a good plan or would you say apply now to COA courts and if I get one just go with it? Another consideration is that my application may continue to improve. I'm not top 10% (lower t14) so maybe applying with two years of work and a completed district court clerkship will make me more competitive for a "better" circuit. I would love to know what you think generally.

Thanks so much.

I think it's such a case by case decision about your own personal environment. Lots of pros/cons about timing (some as simple as "do you need money now or can you wait a few years").

What I will say is I can't imagine a former COA clerk w/2 years at DPW/S&C for Boston would have much trouble finding interested firms