WSGR, Fenwick, DPW, K&E, Latham (SV/SF) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

Offers from all of the firms on the list, looking for recommendations/thoughts.

[Anonymous User]

My vote would possibly be different if you were interested in general corporate work, but since you're drawn to the startup world in particular, WSGR has a stellar reputation and great connections in Sil Val.

Also, not saying you're doing this, but don't place too much weight on Vault, which primarily reflects NY and does not speak to particular aspects like startup focus.

[Anonymous User]

I just summered at DPW. The culture is excellent and probably as good as you'll get in biglaw. But their SV office is relatively small and since you're interested in VC/startup work specifically, I'd recommend WSGR. I don't think DPW does much of either, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous User]

As a DPW associate (NY), I vote WSGR or Fenwick.

[SmokeytheBear]

As a DPW associate (NY), I vote WSGR or Fenwick.

I would vote WSGR or Fenwick as well. I think a colorable argument could be made for LW, but I'm not going to make it.

[SFSpartan]

Given that culture is important to you, my vote is with Fenwick. WSGR gets (slightly) better work, but they also have a reputation for being sweatshoppy. Fenwick seems to have better culture and they are a peer of WSGR. Bottom line though: If you're interested in emerging companies/VC work, pick WSGR or Fenwick.

[merde_happens]

I'd vote Fenwick here - I wouldn't recommend anyone go to WSGR after they fired several of their juniors who failed the July bar.

[Anonymous User]

Given that culture is important to you, my vote is with Fenwick. WSGR gets (slightly) better work, but they also have a reputation for being sweatshoppy. Fenwick seems to have better culture and they are a peer of WSGR. Bottom line though: If you're interested in emerging companies/VC work, pick WSGR or Fenwick.

Happy to do away with this oft repeated myth about WSGR. It is not sweatshoppy. Hours are pretty awesome for Biglaw. I know multiple associates who work there in the Corp. dept. Can't speak to patent/IP lit side tho.

[gaddockteeg]

I'd vote Fenwick here - I wouldn't recommend anyone go to WSGR after they fired several of their juniors who failed the July bar.

This. It's Fnwick or WSGR, with Fenwick then taking the edge because of rumors around WSGR.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for the responses! 3 down, 2 to go then.

Given that culture is important to you, my vote is with Fenwick. WSGR gets (slightly) better work, but they also have a reputation for being sweatshoppy. Fenwick seems to have better culture and they are a peer of WSGR. Bottom line though: If you're interested in emerging companies/VC work, pick WSGR or Fenwick.

Happy to do away with this oft repeated myth about WSGR. It is not sweatshoppy. Hours are pretty awesome for Biglaw. I know multiple associates who work there in the Corp. dept. Can't speak to patent/IP lit side tho.

Would love to hear more about your thoughts here. I have heard the same, but associated with some groups. Otherwise, I heard the firm itself as a whole can still be very sweatshoppy.

Also, general question => is it easier to switch from general corporate to VC/EC? Or vice versa? Or about the same?

[rpupkin]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

[Anonymous User]

SF-based litigator w/visibility into VC/emerging corporate: Go Fenwick. Probably the only other firm I'd put alongside it, if you had the chance, would be Gunderson.

[Anonymous User]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

Not OP, but considering some of these firms. What if priorities are prestige > work > culture? Where does K&E fall?

[rpupkin]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

Not OP, but considering some of these firms. What if priorities are prestige > work > culture? Where does K&E fall?

Not sure. Corporate lawyers should weigh in, but I don't think of Kirkland's corporate practice as being more "prestigious" than OP's other options, particularly in the area of VC/startup work.

[SmokeytheBear]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

Not OP, but considering some of these firms. What if priorities are prestige > work > culture? Where does K&E fall?

Not sure. Corporate lawyers should weigh in, but I don't think of Kirkland's corporate practice as being more "prestigious" than OP's other options, particularly in the area of VC/startup work.

Correct. For VC/start up work the only thing more prestigious than WSGR is Gunderson. Kirkland is more of a private equity shop.

[SFSpartan]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

Not OP, but considering some of these firms. What if priorities are prestige > work > culture? Where does K&E fall?

Not sure. Corporate lawyers should weigh in, but I don't think of Kirkland's corporate practice as being more "prestigious" than OP's other options, particularly in the area of VC/startup work.

Correct. For VC/start up work the only thing more prestigious than WSGR is Gunderson. Kirkland is more of a private equity shop.

I'm not even sure WSGR is less prestigious than Gunderson. Gunderson is more focused on super early-stage ventures for sure, but I'd put WSGR, Fenwick, etc. in the same basket insofar as startup/vc work is concerned. Agree that Kirkland is really a PE shop

[SFSpartan]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

Not OP, but considering some of these firms. What if priorities are prestige > work > culture? Where does K&E fall?

K&E isn't where you should be if you want to do EC/VC work. You want to be at WSGR/Gunderson/Fenwick/Cooley for that. Chambers rankings are a good proxy here (though I don't know that I'd group Latham with Goodwin and Orrick, as they do).

[dabigchina]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

Not OP, but considering some of these firms. What if priorities are prestige > work > culture? Where does K&E fall?

Not sure. Corporate lawyers should weigh in, but I don't think of Kirkland's corporate practice as being more "prestigious" than OP's other options, particularly in the area of VC/startup work.

Correct. For VC/start up work the only thing more prestigious than WSGR is Gunderson. Kirkland is more of a private equity shop.

I'm not even sure WSGR is less prestigious than Gunderson. Gunderson is more focused on super early-stage ventures for sure, but I'd put WSGR, Fenwick, etc. in the same basket insofar as startup/vc work is concerned. Agree that Kirkland is really a PE shop

+1. I'm not sure where we are getting the idea that Gunderson is a super prefitigious shop. If anything, I would put them lower on the totem pole because of their, frankly, one dimensional practice. Fenwick, WSGR, and Cooley all have mature companies (Fenwick less so). Gunderson focuses almost exclusively on first circle work.

My vote would be for WSGR. They have a more diverse practice, which is helpful for when you decide you no longer want to do preferred financings and articles of incorporations all day long. I have good friends who work there (not summers) and the sweatshop thing is overblown.

[SmokeytheBear]

Interested in doing corporate work, with a preferred exit towards VC/startup. Culture > work > prestige.

I'm not a corporate guy but I know corporate attorneys at all those offices. Based on your bolded priorities, my sense is that Fenwick is the best choice here.

Not OP, but considering some of these firms. What if priorities are prestige > work > culture? Where does K&E fall?

Not sure. Corporate lawyers should weigh in, but I don't think of Kirkland's corporate practice as being more "prestigious" than OP's other options, particularly in the area of VC/startup work.

Correct. For VC/start up work the only thing more prestigious than WSGR is Gunderson. Kirkland is more of a private equity shop.

I'm not even sure WSGR is less prestigious than Gunderson. Gunderson is more focused on super early-stage ventures for sure, but I'd put WSGR, Fenwick, etc. in the same basket insofar as startup/vc work is concerned. Agree that Kirkland is really a PE shop

+1. I'm not sure where we are getting the idea that Gunderson is a super prefitigious shop. If anything, I would put them lower on the totem pole because of their, frankly, one dimensional practice. Fenwick, WSGR, and Cooley all have mature companies (Fenwick less so). Gunderson focuses almost exclusively on first circle work.

My vote would be for WSGR. They have a more diverse practice, which is helpful for when you decide you no longer want to do preferred financings and articles of incorporations all day long. I have good friends who work there (not summers) and the sweatshop thing is overblown.

I think the other firms have a more diverse practice, for sure. And I think an argument can be made that they are in the same group. But the league tables speak volumes about the amount of work Gunderson does (NB: I am NOT saying that league tables are the only metric, but they certainly are a metric). The differences among them might be marginal at that level. Regardless. Personal opinion.

[Anonymous User]

OP, if you want to exit into a VC or startup DPW and K&E should be off the table as others have said. K&E is just PE out here. Latham does emerging companies work, and does a lot of IPOs, but is a much smaller player for emerging companies than WSGR and Fenwick and the brand isn't any better than them out here.

WSGR and Fenwick will have similar work. Fenwick is better in tax, but has little to no VC fund formation work. They probably do more emerging companies work than WSGR (on a per attorney basis), which I've been told is trending toward focusing more on larger tech company work.

The firms are also structured differently. Partners at Wilson are compensated based on the business they do and what they bring in, rather than Fenwick which will comp based on what you're doing for everyone else. They're trying to break down silos, but they still have the small group model. Everyone says it's far more competitive than other Valley firms, and attorneys are less willing to reach out to colleagues and work together.

Wilson has more brand recognition, but if you're trying to exit I don't think being at Wilson gives you any advantage versus if you're at Fenwick (unless you're trying to go into VC...the majority of VC work is done at Gunderson though).

[Anonymous User]

I was going to post something similar, hopefully it's cool if I hop on here instead.

I want to do emerging companies work for innovative tech companies. I'd like to focus on EC/VC but also be able to try a bit of M&A and do some IPOs. I plan on staying at least 4-6 years before exiting to either a large tech company or a quickly growing emerging growth company. Like OP, priority is culture (normal, friendly, cool people, effort to train/mentor, collaborative and team-oriented) > work (substantive early on, can scale up with companies, diverse practice within corporate tech, get the most innovative tech company clients) > prestige (how hard will it be to move in-house at a large or small tech company; if I become a partner, will it be harder to build a book of business and attract/retain clients).

Offers from: Cooley (SV), Goodwin (SF), Orrick (SF), MoFo (SV)
For hypothetical purposes assume I get offers from: WSGR (SV), Fenwick (SV)

I am going to live in the city. If I prefer the culture of Goodwin, am I crazy to choose them over Cooley or Fenwick? Can someone in the know tell me how the substance of my work would differ if I chose them over Fenwick or Cooley? Is there a concern unrelated to prestige?

[SmokeytheBear]

I was going to post something similar, hopefully it's cool if I hop on here instead.

I want to do emerging companies work for innovative tech companies. I'd like to focus on EC/VC but also be able to try a bit of M&A and do some IPOs. I plan on staying at least 4-6 years before exiting to either a large tech company or a quickly growing emerging growth company. Like OP, priority is culture (normal, friendly, cool people, effort to train/mentor, collaborative and team-oriented) > work (substantive early on, can scale up with companies, diverse practice within corporate tech, get the most innovative tech company clients) > prestige (how hard will it be to move in-house at a large or small tech company; if I become a partner, will it be harder to build a book of business and attract/retain clients).

Offers from: Cooley (SV), Goodwin (SF), Orrick (SF), MoFo (SV)
For hypothetical purposes assume I get offers from: WSGR (SV), Fenwick (SV)

I am going to live in the city. If I prefer the culture of Goodwin, am I crazy to choose them over Cooley or Fenwick? Can someone in the know tell me how the substance of my work would differ if I chose them over Fenwick or Cooley? Is there a concern unrelated to prestige?

1. I don't think living in the city and commuting to SV is a great idea. The commute will wear on you, especially with big law hours. People do it--and people will tell you "it's fine" or "that's just how it's done"--but if you're looking for any semblance of balance, don't do it. I used to commute almost an hour in the mornings and it really, really sucks. Especially when it's late and you just want to be home. Sitting on CalTrain at 11pm for an hour blows.

2. I have heard bad things about the culture at Orrick from a handful of people I know who worked there.

3. For the factors you discuss, I would take Cooley with MoFo being a close second. But I still would not live in the city and commute.

[merde_happens]

I'd like to focus on EC/VC but also be able to try a bit of M&A and do some IPOs. I plan on staying at least 4-6 years before exiting to either a large tech company or a quickly growing emerging growth company.

A couple of rules of thumb:

1. You're going to have the best exit ops to a large tech company as a tech trans associate. Two of my colleagues in tech trans lateraled to Facebook; of the EC/VC associates who have left since I've been here, two went to other firms in different markets and one went in-house at a VC. Anecdotal, yes, but this seems to be the industry trend. Not to say it doesn't happen for EC/VC associates, but if large tech company is truly your goal then you should seek out tech trans practices.

2. If you want to try all that you say you want to try, you should go to a firm that isn't silo'd and will give you some chance to explore different fields as a first year associate. I say that because you can try M&A work as a summer but M&A in practice is completely and totally different.

I am going to live in the city. If I prefer the culture of Goodwin, am I crazy to choose them over Cooley or Fenwick? Can someone in the know tell me how the substance of my work would differ if I chose them over Fenwick or Cooley? Is there a concern unrelated to prestige?

I don't personally think so, but I say that as someone who commutes down to the peninsula every day from SF - it's truly terrible. I would say that the tiers of EC/VC work out here are WSGR/Cooley/Fenwick/Gunderson ---> Orrick/Goodwin/Latham. I honestly am not sure what MoFo's presence is on the corporate scene. I'm sure they do some; maybe they'd be in that second tier. But anyway, I don't think the gap between the tiers is so super pronounced that you should sacrifice going to a firm you truly connected with. A big part of you being able to survive the 4-6 years you anticipate lasting in big law (and as someone who is seeing firsthand how much mid-levels and seniors get absolutely crushed -- good luck) is at least somewhat enjoying the office and culture that you're working in.

Edit: And seriously, I don't have a personal vendetta against Wilson but what they did to their first years this year was truly shitty. I realize the bar is a long way off for the rising 2Ls making these decisions, but having the security of at least being able to have a re-do (and not having to job-hunt as a recent grad with no bar admission and only a month or two of experience) is worth more than you think.

[SmokeytheBear]

Edit: And seriously, I don't have a personal vendetta against Wilson but what they did to their first years this year was truly shitty. I realize the bar is a long way off for the rising 2Ls making these decisions, but having the security of at least being able to have a re-do (and not having to job-hunt as a recent grad with no bar admission and only a month or two of experience) is worth more than you think.

100% agreed. Fuck those guys for doing this. The CA bar is a crap shoot no matter how smart you are. You want some security for that in the event that you miss for whatever reason, you have a second bite at the apple.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I was going to post something similar, hopefully it's cool if I hop on here instead.

I want to do emerging companies work for innovative tech companies. I'd like to focus on EC/VC but also be able to try a bit of M&A and do some IPOs. I plan on staying at least 4-6 years before exiting to either a large tech company or a quickly growing emerging growth company. Like OP, priority is culture (normal, friendly, cool people, effort to train/mentor, collaborative and team-oriented) > work (substantive early on, can scale up with companies, diverse practice within corporate tech, get the most innovative tech company clients) > prestige (how hard will it be to move in-house at a large or small tech company; if I become a partner, will it be harder to build a book of business and attract/retain clients).

Offers from: Cooley (SV), Goodwin (SF), Orrick (SF), MoFo (SV)
For hypothetical purposes assume I get offers from: WSGR (SV), Fenwick (SV)

I am going to live in the city. If I prefer the culture of Goodwin, am I crazy to choose them over Cooley or Fenwick? Can someone in the know tell me how the substance of my work would differ if I chose them over Fenwick or Cooley? Is there a concern unrelated to prestige?

I think there are a lot of strong points below, particularly with regard to the commute aspect. Tech trans is a great way to get in-house early but in the valley, from the firms you're talking about, general corporate aint too bad either and personally commercial agreements seem like a bore to me.

I did want to encourage two things. First, try to get a feel for what overlap there is between the Goodwin SF and SV offices. Goodwin SV is really top-notch, particularly for capital markets, IMO. Its EC/VC practice is pretty strong too. I work at one of the SV indigenous firms and I see them constantly. My understanding is that the SF office is somewhat separate from SV and if that's the case I'd drop it from consideration in favor of Cooley. Second, Cooley also has an SF office and it may be worth it trying to see what the chances of working in that office would be. The Cooley SF office has a solid client roster, that I know.

Mostly just trying to help you get SF and still get the SV work. That's the dream out here. I would drop MoFo SV from consideration. I think you have better options for your goals at this point.