The Prestige Gap

Stan Stankowski, the pseudonym of a young associate who regularly writes as a guest poster on Legal Underground, recently posted regarding an opportunity given to him to “jump ship” to a different firm. The problem? Prestige gap. The firm to which he could jump does insurance defense work, and in the same way that criminal law work and plaintiff’s work is sometimes sneered at, Stankowski acknowledges that there is–for better, worse, or otherwise–a “prestige gap.” He also acknowledges that perception is far from reality in most cases, but that the perception remains, and isn’t a wholly invalid consideration when pondering career moves.

Here is a snippet from his blog entry:

So, why would I not jump at a chance to go to a firm that has a bunch of lawyers who are more fun than the ones I work with, has a shorter partnership track and a better chance of making partner? (Of course, I haven’t said “No,” so it might be more accurate to ask why would I hesitate to make the move.)

I could take the easy way out and say that it is because I make more money where I am at now. However, it isn’t all that much more money. I could also say that my partners make more than his … but this isn’t valid either. My firm has 16th-year associates. And my friend’s partners make a hell of a lot more than I do. So money really isn’t the whole answer.

In all honesty, I think the answer is that my friend’s firm is an insurance defense firm. Insurance defense, as we are all taught in law school, is only a half step above criminal law or plaintiff’s work. In practice, we all deride the other big firm down the street by referring to it as a “glorified insurance defense shop.” Some lawyers, when referring to insurance defense lawyers, make sure to identify them as “insurance defense lawyers.” Even worse, as a “typical insurance defense lawyer.”

So, as you see, again, a prestige gap emerges. . . . I have heard insurance defense lawyers disparaged my entire legal career. How could I join their ranks?

Equally as interesting as Stankowski’s post are the comments that follow it from the readers. There are, as you would expect, some who say “Go for the ID firm! The ego elsewhere is undeserved!” An example:

Lawyers would probably be a lot happier if they spent less time sneering at their fellow lawyers. How exactly is it phrased at your firm? Something like, “That lesser firm only saved an innocent man from prison last month, helped an abused woman escape a destructive marriage, and recovered damages on behalf of a person badly injured by a corporation, whereas I briefed an argument to the Federal Circuit on whether the leak seal for my client’s diaper design infringes a patent held by its leading competitor.”

And there are the others, as you would also expect, who remind that while the saying may ring true that perception does not equal reality, perception does impact your reality, and that is relatively inescapable:

It is possible to go from a “cutting-edge practice” to another cutting-edge practice, to a high-caliber “boutique” firm, to a lower-caliber BigLaw firm, to a good medium-level federal government job or in-house job, academia (if done early enough), or, on rare occasions, prestigious public-service legal work.

One is very likely closing off all of those opportunities if the top line on the resume is an ID firm.

. . . It’s the same reason a Wal-Mart is less prestigious than Nordstrom’s; one goes to one for economy, and the other for quality. That doesn’t mean that Wal-Mart shoppers aren’t happy people, of course, nor that Wal-Mart owners haven’t profited handsomely. But it doesn’t change the prestige factor.

. . . one can’t afford to eliminate “labels and prestige” from the equation entirely, unless one is taking a position that one is confident one wants to spend the rest of one’s life doing.

Who’s right? That probably depends on what you mean by “right.” Frankly, I believe, as my Mums has taught me, that you have to do what is right for you, and allow the rest to fall into place (accompanied, of course, by your hard work in succeeding on whatever path you choose).

Debates centering around “prestige gap” situations in the legal field are always as likely to stir up heated emotions as is the debate over whether Randal did the right thing on last season’s Apprentice finale. (I still back him. CHOMP!)

But it remains interesting to me, because as the readers’ comments acknowledge, you can believe wholeheartedly that the prestige gap shouldn’t matter, but the fact remains… that it does.

Labels: anecdotes and opinions, law school, lawyer stuff, think-abouts