"Five Prestige Levels of Attorneys and Law Firms" Forum

[rationalhound]

I'd like to read an actual rebuttal.

Eh, fuck it I might as well. Not doing anything productive.

The problem with these sort of recruiter rankings is that they're not exactly wrong, but they are pointless. Sure, some biglaw firms are more prestigious or better than others, but that's a bit like arguing about which fast food restaurant is the best. Wendy's might be better than Mcdonalds but lots of time at either is going to leave you in feeling tired, fat and greasy. Trying to parse out which place will give you diabetes slightly slower is a waste of time you could be doing something productive with.

[JackofLit]

I just think that the hiring process for big firms is a bit of a black box, which is why even bad analyses of it are interesting. I'd like to see a better analysis, esp. at more senior levels.

[ballouttacontrol]

I'd like to read an actual rebuttal.

Eh, fuck it I might as well. Not doing anything productive.

The problem with these sort of recruiter rankings is that they're not exactly wrong, but they are pointless. Sure, some biglaw firms are more prestigious or better than others, but that's a bit like arguing about which fast food restaurant is the best. Wendy's might be better than Mcdonalds but lots of time at either is going to leave you in feeling tired, fat and greasy. Trying to parse out which place will give you diabetes slightly slower is a waste of time you could be doing something productive with.

better one would be, I would much rather be in the patent group at some "level 3" firms than some "level 5 firms." Even more so the farther I get in my career

Hiring selectivity of general 2Ls at OCI has almost nothing to do with the places I would most like to work at this point

[cron1834]

Gibson is a solid 5, but Skadden, Latham, Simpson are lower 5s? Does that comport with anyone's OCI experience at all? The school distinctions are equally arbitrary. Feels USNewsy in all respects.

That's unfair to USNWR.

True, at least they have a "formula."

[Jchance]

better one would be, I would much rather be in the patent group at some "level 3" firms than some "level 5 firms." Even more so the farther I get in my career

Hiring selectivity of general 2Ls at OCI has almost nothing to do with the places I would most like to work at this point

It might or might not make a difference but this was a ranking done by a lateral recruiter, so hiring selectivity as referred to here was for lateral hiring, not 2L/3L OCI.

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

[Anonymous User]

better one would be, I would much rather be in the patent group at some "level 3" firms than some "level 5 firms." Even more so the farther I get in my career

Hiring selectivity of general 2Ls at OCI has almost nothing to do with the places I would most like to work at this point

It might or might not make a difference but this was a ranking done by a lateral recruiter, so hiring selectivity as referred to here was for lateral hiring, not 2L/3L OCI.

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

You know that V5, V20, etc do not mean anything?

The problem with the article is that as someone said, it does not help anyone. Clients know which firms are good for their needs. Their inhouse lawyers know which outside firms are in which tier and etc etc. Students or lawyers thinking of lateralling know which firms are good for which fields in which regions. There are already resources out there for students, and lawyers thinking of lateralling know very well. Why waste so much time making this bullshit which is misleading to many uninformed people?

[ballouttacontrol]

better one would be, I would much rather be in the patent group at some "level 3" firms than some "level 5 firms." Even more so the farther I get in my career

Hiring selectivity of general 2Ls at OCI has almost nothing to do with the places I would most like to work at this point

It might or might not make a difference but this was a ranking done by a lateral recruiter, so hiring selectivity as referred to here was for lateral hiring, not 2L/3L OCI.

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

The article seemed to base a lot of its assumptions off of entry level hiring: "Students from Columbia often end up in “5” firms due to the school’s proximity to New York City as a place where most of the “5” law firms are." He talks about grade cutoffs repeatedly, and very few firms I know maintain these cutoffs after a year or two of practice, particularly in my practice area

My point stands though. Whatever the fuck a "level 5 firm" is are not the firms that me or most/any of my colleagues in my practice group would want to go work for.

Most attorneys I know drop the prestige whore mentality pretty quickly in biglaw. Maybe not on TLS though apparently...

[Anonymous User]

better one would be, I would much rather be in the patent group at some "level 3" firms than some "level 5 firms." Even more so the farther I get in my career

Hiring selectivity of general 2Ls at OCI has almost nothing to do with the places I would most like to work at this point

It might or might not make a difference but this was a ranking done by a lateral recruiter, so hiring selectivity as referred to here was for lateral hiring, not 2L/3L OCI.

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

The article seemed to base a lot of its assumptions off of entry level hiring: "Students from Columbia often end up in “5” firms due to the school’s proximity to New York City as a place where most of the “5” law firms are." He talks about grade cutoffs repeatedly, and very few firms I know maintain these cutoffs after a year or two of practice, particularly in my practice area

My point still stands though. Whatever the fuck a "level 5 firm" is are not the firms that me or most/any of my colleagues would want to go work for

Most attorneys I know drop the prestige whore mentality pretty quickly in biglaw. Maybe not on TLS though apparently...

Well I would guess about 80 to 90 percent of people on TLS are 0Ls or 1Ls or 2Ls who are just speculating.

[Anonymous User]

For those of us going to Level 4 firms, is it going to be impossible to lateral to a level 5 firm? Think of someone who had the grades Level 5 firms want from a good school but couldn't pull off the interview.

[existentialcrisis]

For those of us going to Level 4 firms, is it going to be impossible to lateral to a level 5 firm? Think of someone who had the grades Level 5 firms want from a good school but couldn't pull off the interview.

No, it's too late.

[Minnietron]

For those of us going to Level 4 firms, is it going to be impossible to lateral to a level 5 firm? Think of someone who had the grades Level 5 firms want from a good school but couldn't pull off the interview.

I'll assume this is a serious question--because of anon. You have one option: Retake.

It might sound tough to pull off, but faking your own death, forging a new identity, and starting law school over is not unheard of. This is especially true in NYC because the doc forging industry is widely accessible to Level-5 talent who underperformed.

[mjb447]

For those of us going to Level 4 firms, is it going to be impossible to lateral to a level 5 firm? Think of someone who had the grades Level 5 firms want from a good school but couldn't pull off the interview.

No, it's too late.

And don't bother becoming a Cabinet-level official in the hopes of securing a position at a Level 5 firm. That's just not how it's done.

[PeanutsNJam]

The problem with these sort of recruiter rankings is that they're not exactly wrong.

Nah this article is exactly wrong. Starting with the title.

[KissMyAxe]

The problem with these sort of recruiter rankings is that they're not exactly wrong.

Nah this article is exactly wrong. Starting with the title.

Come on Peanuts, just because you're a level 3, does not mean you have to take it out on Harrison the Saracen, the greatest man who ever lived. We can all learn something from the Barnester.

[nealric]

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

I never experienced this in the lateral market. Nobody at V20s seemed concerned about my "TTT" V100. Yeah, Wachtell is all snooty about laterals, but most of those firms churn and burn with the best of them.

Regarding BGC, I'm kind of shocked and amazed they are still a going concern. How anybody takes him seriously is beyond me.

[Mr. Blackacre]

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

I never experienced this in the lateral market. Nobody at V20s seemed concerned about my "TTT" V100. Yeah, Wachtell is all snooty about laterals, but most of those firms churn and burn with the best of them.

Regarding BGC, I'm kind of shocked and amazed they are still a going concern. How anybody takes him seriously is beyond me.

Spoken like a true Level 3.

[elendinel]

For those of us going to Level 4 firms, is it going to be impossible to lateral to a level 5 firm? Think of someone who had the grades Level 5 firms want from a good school but couldn't pull off the interview.

I'll assume this is a serious question--because of anon. You have one option: Retake.

It might sound tough to pull off, but faking your own death, forging a new identity, and starting law school over is not unheard of. This is especially true in NYC because the doc forging industry is widely accessible to Level-5 talent who underperformed.

I did this and I was finally able to get into the coveted gentry class. Don't waste time and money on a terrible life identity.

[nealric]

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

I never experienced this in the lateral market. Nobody at V20s seemed concerned about my "TTT" V100. Yeah, Wachtell is all snooty about laterals, but most of those firms churn and burn with the best of them.

Regarding BGC, I'm kind of shocked and amazed they are still a going concern. How anybody takes him seriously is beyond me.

Spoken like a true Level 3.

Though by his definition, V100 firms are generally level 4.

[Anonymous User]

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

I never experienced this in the lateral market. Nobody at V20s seemed concerned about my "TTT" V100. Yeah, Wachtell is all snooty about laterals, but most of those firms churn and burn with the best of them.

Regarding BGC, I'm kind of shocked and amazed they are still a going concern. How anybody takes him seriously is beyond me.

Held my nose and read the article. With most of his pieces, (e.g. the one in which he claimed law firm recruiting is bad because they are all dumb pretty faces who are looking to sleep with attorneys) his thought process is impossible to figure out. This one is actually pretty easy - he is trying to come across as the straight shooter who doesn't pull punches and isn't afraid to offend low-quality people, because he only works with high-quality people.

[nealric]

I think there might be some truth in this article, as movement between V5-V20 (what I'm assuming "5s firms" means) seems fairly easy, but moving up from V100 (what I'm assuming "4s firms" means) to V20 is much harder--though not impossible.

I never experienced this in the lateral market. Nobody at V20s seemed concerned about my "TTT" V100. Yeah, Wachtell is all snooty about laterals, but most of those firms churn and burn with the best of them.

Regarding BGC, I'm kind of shocked and amazed they are still a going concern. How anybody takes him seriously is beyond me.

Held my nose and read the article. With most of his pieces, (e.g. the one in which he claimed law firm recruiting is bad because they are all dumb pretty faces who are looking to sleep with attorneys) his thought process is impossible to figure out. This one is actually pretty easy - he is trying to come across as the straight shooter who doesn't pull punches and isn't afraid to offend low-quality people, because he only works with high-quality people.

This article is less objectionable than many of his others. But anybody with half a brain knows that recruiters want to work with attorneys who are easy to place (i.e. those with strong credentials), and aren't going to waste time with attorneys who they aren't likely to be able to place at an employer that is willing to pay their commission. For the most part, that's only the "tier 4 and 5" firms (in his world) that pay recruiter commissions. With this article, he's just trying to inflate the egos of the Jones Day associates of the world as soft-sell method of reeling them in.

As an aside, that's one reason why legal recruiters are often less helpful when trying to go in-house. To some extent, there's some standardization and acceptance of a certain recruiter fee in the law firm world. The in-house world is much less recruiter dependent and it's harder to get most companies to pay. When I have been contacted by recruiters as an in-house attorney, it tends to be general corporate recruiters rather than legal recruiters. There's also a lot less cold-calling since they can't just troll firm associate listings to find candidates.