Biglaw firm vs. Midsized firm? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Torn between the two biglaw and midsized firms in the same city. Both offered high salaries. Student loan is not significant. The take away is that I want to raise children and have a work-life balance. What are my chances if in the future I want to do private practice at my own office with my hired staff? Which of the two firms would be a better training ground and at the same time have work-life balance? Your answers are appreciated.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Are there any salient differences, besides the fact that one firm has 500+ attorneys and the other has 250–500 attorneys?

[Anonymous User]

Are there any salient differences, besides the fact that one firm has 500+ attorneys and the other has 250–500 attorneys?

which has a better training ground and has a work-life balance? Also, which has better skill advancement?

[LittleRedCorvette]

I don't think anyone can give you an intelligent answer based on the facts provided.

[Anonymous User]

Having worked at both, here’s a generic answer: biglaw firms tend to have “institutional” clients, whereas mid-sized firms tend to be collections of partners with individual books of business. So you’ll get specialized / sophisticated training and more client interaction at the big firm, but the work / life balance will be better at the mid-sized firm.

[Anonymous User]

Related to OP's question, what's the advantage of working for a top biglaw firm's lit practice v. a litigation boutique?

[Dun]

Can only speak about my own experience of starting at a NY V10 (~1,000 lawyers) and then moving to a midsized firm (~300 lawyers) before ending up at a boutique (~100 lawyers) (all corporate-related work).

Because its finance and associate class size allowed for it, the V10 offered:

1) Formal training (both general skills and practice-specific skills sessions);
2) More opportunities to work with/learn from a mid-level or senior associate; and
3) Related to 2), quality control (more eyes on documents, etc.)

Because I was doing deals, the work/life balance was bad.

I did far less deals (the ones I did were also far smaller and less urgent except for a few exceptions) at the midsized firm, so it had better work/life balance. However, it had materially worse pay (not an issue for OP) and very limited training/supervision because the practice group was far smaller, leverage was about 1:1 (V10 was probably 3:1?) and partners were generally overstretched, disorganized and not as willing to put in the time to train.

I don't do any deals at the boutique I'm at now. It is also about 1:1 leverage but the partners are of a higher caliber than at the midsized firm and has lawyers of a higher caliber than at the mid-law firm, who supervise work more. However, junior training is very limited here too, resulting in juniors who lack basic skills that the biglaw firm taught formally or organically. I bill more than I did at the midsized firm, but the work-life balance is only a little worse.

So I would say that if you want to get as solid a training as you can, you should start in biglaw and then move down. But if long-term work/life balance is the priority, the midsized firm might be the better option.

[nealric]

Hard to make blanket statements in the abstract and the term "midlaw" can be rather ill-defined. Some "midlaw" firms are just overgrown insurance defense mills. If you go just by headcount, some elite firms like Sussman or Wachtell could be considered midlaw (both having between 100 and 300 attorneys). Likewise, training, mentorship, and lifestyle are going to be very firm dependent.

One thing to note when comparing salaries is that the lower down you go in the pecking order the more there tends to be salary compression (meaning your salary will increase much more slowly as you gain seniority). Biglaw and midlaw may pay close to start, but I doubt there's many midlaw firms paying senior associates $500k+. Even within Biglaw, a v50-100 firm may keep pace all the way through senior associate ranks, but junior partners may actually take home less than senior associates, whereas a v10 junior partner may earn significantly more than a senior associate.

[The Great Gadfly]

Related to OP's question, what's the advantage of working for a top biglaw firm's lit practice v. a litigation boutique?

Generally speaking, lit boutiques give you more on-your-feet experience early on, like taking depositions. They're smaller, so you may get more personal responsibility. This is both a positive and negative because you'll be doing work that both senior and junior associates would do. Some boutiques also offer better work-life balance (although that varies). Top biglaw offers a wider variety of litigation and draws work from corporate practice groups; this helps if an associate wants to switch into a different area. They usually offer better formalized training and typically a larger network offers advantages for exit options. The top 2-3 biglaw firms also have some of the best name recognition of any firms in the US, so that is an added advantage. They're also usually more stable than boutiques. I think some of the top lit boutiques are barely a few decades old.