Starting your career at Biglaw vs. Boutique

[starryeyed]

I've been ghosting this forum for a while now, but I haven't been able to find a post that directly dealt with this topic. As a 2L who is going through recruit, I'm beginning to feel anxious about choosing the right summer job since it's likely where I will begin the first few years of my legal career. Specifically, I'm not sure about the different outcomes that might arise from starting my career at biglaw or at a boutique.

My main concern is evaluating the differences between the two types of firms from the perspective of a brand-new lawyer. Thus, I have a bunch of questions:

• Does it really come down to personal preference? Or is the size of a biglaw firm objectively more valuable for a new lawyer?
• Should a new lawyer avoid joining a boutique unless they are certain of working in that specific practice area?
• People always say that work environment is the most important, but how true is that for a new lawyer? Does working in a great environment at a boutique really outweigh working in an "okay" environment at biglaw, especially considering again the resources that are available for you at the start of your career?
• Would I be missing out on valuable networking by not joining a biglaw firm?
• Ultimately, I guess I just want to know whether it would be a mistake (or a large opportunity cost) to start your career at a boutique as opposed to biglaw.

Some background information on my circumstances to provide some context:

• I am fortunate to be graduating debt-free.
• I am interested in the practice areas of all the boutiques that I am in-firming. However, I am not certain on whether I want to practice in those areas for the rest of my life.
• All the boutiques are band 1 in their area of expertise.
• I will be applying for some appellate-level clerkships, but given the competition, I am not basing my Plan A on the assumption that I obtain one.

It's a long post, but I would appreciate any advice or input!

[uoftearsalumna]

As a 2L going through the recruit with BigLaw firms and Boutiques with the same circumstances noted (except clerkship applications), I'd appreciate insight as well!

Edited October 29, 2023 by uoftearsalumna

[LMP]

Part of the issue here is that people throw the word "botique" around pretty liberally. Half the people I know will tell you they work for "botique" firms and it has kind of begun to encompass everything outside of biglaw. 

But that is somewhat tangential to your question. When I did the recurit I had to face a similar question (though admittedly with only a few biglaw options) and here is the advice I recieved: 

Biglaw will provide you more mobility. It is easier to make the jump from biglaw to botique as opposed to the other way around and you won't be as locked into an area of practice as a junior. 

However, if you're confident about a certian area then there is some advantage to diving right in through a botique. 

If you're uncertain about what type of work you enjoy I think you might benefit from the rotational system that larger firms have. I know some botiques also do this but I suspect you'll get to sample more at a bigger firm. 

In addition I would be looking at hireback rates as well. I know you mentioned clerkships but I think you should still be conscious of how likely a firm is to keep you as an articling student and then as an associate. 

Lastly, think about the type of work you want to do. I don't mean practice area (though, also think about that) but rather how hands-on you want to be. I won't generalize but the type of work can vary depending on the size of the firm. When I summered I had some oppertunites that I wouldn't have gotten if I'd gone elsewhere. Though again I'll stress that this can vary, there is no golden rule, but it is something to ask about and consider. 

[chaboywb]

If you mean boutique as in a smaller full-service firm (ie. Gardiner Roberts, Torkin Manes), then I think its generally better to start at a larger firm. Itll be easier to move from a big firm to a smaller shop than vice versa, generally, and the resources will be better - more of a formal rotation system, more partners to work with/practice areas to try out, etc. Starting your career at a Seven Sister or Seven Sister-adjacent firm goes a long way (even if that grouping is outdated, that tier of firm opens many doors).

If you mean boutique as in specialist, then it depends. If you know 100% that you want to litigate, its probably better to be at Lenczner Slaght or Stockwoods than a smaller litigation group at a full-service firm that is better known for its corporate practice. I'd apply similar logic for IP, employment, etc. where the opportunities at a boutique can be more interesting than generally being a support group. However, If you're at all on the fence, I'd recommend full service - many people change their mind (I certainly did). 

[Aschenbach]

Do you know what area of law you want to do or are you still deciding? I summered and articled in big law but am now a first year associate in a boutique specializing in a certain type of litigation. I found big law was great in helping me figure out what I (didn't) want to do and narrowing my choice. As a result, I ended up in an area I didn't even consider in law school. In that regard, big law is great for people who want to try a bit of everything - like an all-you-can-eat buffet.

However, when I transitioned into boutique practice, the associates at my level were way more knowledgeable in the area and had more court and client experience than I did. I also notice you get more responsibility as an articling student or junior associate at a boutique. If I had known I wanted to do this area of law, I would have gone the boutique route.