The Market Will Not Pay You More Just Because You Want to Move
Why relocating for a higher legal salary is often much harder than attorneys expect
Every week, I speak with attorneys who want something more.
They want a better firm. They want more sophisticated work. They want a higher salary. They want to leave a smaller market and move to New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Washington, DC, or Los Angeles because they believe a larger city will automatically mean a better legal career.
Sometimes they are right.
But more often, they are missing something very important: a bigger legal market does not automatically create a better opportunity for you.
In fact, for many attorneys, moving from a smaller or regional market into a larger and more competitive one is far more difficult than they realize. The firms in those markets are not waiting for outsiders to arrive. They already have access to local candidates, graduates of elite law schools, associates from national firms, clerks, and attorneys with strong ties to the city.
A recent conversation I had with a litigator in Utah illustrates this perfectly.
He is a smart, hardworking attorney practicing in Salt Lake City. He started his career at a smaller firm and later moved to a regional Utah firm, which was a step up. He has good mentorship, decent experience, and no major complaints about his current job. But like many attorneys, he is looking ahead. He wants more compensation and more opportunity. He is newly married and open to moving. He is interested in cities like New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Washington, DC, and Southern California.
On the surface, that may sound ambitious and reasonable.
But from the perspective of the legal market, his situation is much more complicated.
The hard truth is that law firms do not hire attorneys because those attorneys want to make more money. They hire attorneys because the firms believe those attorneys will solve a problem, fit the firm, stay long term, and compare favorably to the other candidates available.
And in major legal markets, the competition is brutal.
When You Move Markets, You Are Competing Against Everyone Already There
Attorneys often underestimate how difficult it is to break into a new city.
If you apply to a law firm in New York or Chicago, you are not just applying in the abstract. You are competing against local attorneys who already live there. You are competing against graduates of Columbia, NYU, University of Chicago, Northwestern, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and other elite schools. You are competing against associates from AmLaw 100 firms, elite litigation boutiques, federal clerkships, and people with long-term demonstrated commitment to that market.
That does not mean a regional attorney cannot move.
But it does mean the attorney needs a compelling reason for the firm to take a chance.
In the Utah attorney’s case, he went to BYU Law, which is a good regional law school with a strong reputation in certain markets. But BYU does not carry the same weight in New York or Chicago that it does in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, or parts of California. A degree can be very respected in one market and much less powerful in another.
This matters.
Law firms make quick judgments. They look at law school, grades, firm pedigree, practice area, tenure, and ties to the market. If several of those boxes are not checked, the firm may never get far enough to appreciate the attorney’s intelligence, work ethic, or potential.
Another issue was that this attorney did not work as a summer associate at a large firm during law school. That is not fatal, but it matters. Firms use summer associate programs to identify candidates early. When an attorney later tries to move into a major firm, the absence of that experience can suggest, fairly or unfairly, that the attorney was not competitive for those opportunities during law school.
Again, none of this means the attorney is not talented.
It means the market is evaluating him against a very specific set of signals.
Legal Hiring Is Supply and Demand
Legal hiring is not mysterious. It is governed by supply and demand.
When a market has more qualified attorneys than available jobs, firms become extremely selective. They can afford to demand elite schools, excellent grades, local ties, strong firm names, long tenure, and very specific experience.
That is what happens in places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and especially Washington, DC.
Washington, DC is one of the most saturated legal markets in the country. It has large law firms, federal agencies, lobbying shops, nonprofits, regulatory practices, law schools, government lawyers, former government lawyers, and attorneys arriving from all over the country who want to be close to power and policy.
Even attorneys with DC ties can struggle there.
For an attorney coming from Utah without a top national law school, without DC experience, and without a compelling reason to be in the city, the odds are extremely low.
The same principle works in reverse. When demand is high and supply is low, firms relax their standards. This happened during the dot-com boom and during the COVID-era surge in M&A, technology, and corporate work. Firms needed bodies. They moved quickly. They became more flexible about grades, schools, and firm pedigree.
But those periods are exceptions.
Most of the time, especially in litigation, firms return to their normal standards. They want the safest, strongest, most predictable candidate available.
Wanting More Money Is Not a Career Strategy
One of the biggest mistakes attorneys make is assuming that a desire for more compensation is a persuasive reason to move.
It is not.
From the attorney’s perspective, the logic is obvious: “I am in a smaller market. I want to make more money. Larger markets pay more. Therefore, I should move.”
But law firms do not see it that way.
A hiring partner is asking different questions:
Why does this attorney want our city?
Why does this attorney want our firm?
Will this attorney stay?
Does this attorney have ties here?
Is this person going to leave again in a year?
If the real answer is “I want a higher salary,” the firm hears risk. It hears that the attorney may chase the next offer. It hears that the move is opportunistic rather than rooted in genuine commitment.
This Utah attorney wanted to move with his new wife and experience a larger city. That is perfectly understandable on a personal level. But firms are not making personal decisions. They are making business decisions. They want to hire attorneys who are likely to stay, develop, integrate into the firm, serve clients, and become profitable over time.
A law firm does not want to be someone’s experiment.
“Coming Home” Can Help, But Only If You Are Admitted
Southern California was another possibility for this attorney. He grew up in San Diego and went to college in Los Angeles. That is meaningful. Firms like candidates who are returning home because it suggests long-term commitment.
But California has a major barrier: the bar exam.
California firms are often reluctant to hire attorneys who are not already admitted in California. The California Bar Exam has a reputation for being difficult, and firms have seen too many out-of-state candidates fail, delay their start dates, or become unusable for months.
A candidate may have great ties to California, but without California admission, many firms will not seriously consider the résumé.
This is an important lesson. If you want to move to California, you need to be realistic. Taking and passing the California Bar may be necessary before firms view you as a serious candidate. Simply saying, “I grew up there,” may not be enough.
Résumé Stability Matters More Than Attorneys Think
Law firms care deeply about stability.
This is one of the most underappreciated parts of lateral hiring. Attorneys often believe that if they have a good explanation for each move, firms will understand. Sometimes they do. But repeated moves still create concern.
This Utah attorney had already moved once in less than two years. He left a smaller firm for a better regional firm. That move made sense. But if he tries to move again too soon, firms will naturally wonder whether he is going to keep moving.
Every move tells a story.
One move can show ambition. Two quick moves can suggest restlessness. Three can make firms very nervous.
The longer an attorney stays in a role, especially if the attorney is getting good experience and mentorship, the more credible that attorney becomes. Stability signals maturity. It tells firms that the attorney can be trained, integrated, and trusted.
For many attorneys, the best move is not to move immediately. It is to stay long enough to make the next move stronger.
The Best Opportunities Are Not Always Posted
Another misconception attorneys have is that they should only apply to posted jobs.
That is often a mistake.
When a firm posts a job, everyone sees it. The firm may receive dozens or hundreds of résumés. Your application becomes one more document in a pile. If you do not have the exact credentials the firm wants, you may be screened out quickly.
But many firms have needs they never post publicly. They may be growing quietly. They may be open to the right person. They may have a partner who is busy but has not yet formalized a search. They may be willing to talk if a strong candidate appears at the right time.
Applying to firms without posted openings can be extremely effective, especially in smaller and less saturated markets.
This is one of the most important strategies attorneys overlook. You do not need to wait for permission to approach a firm. A disciplined, broad, well-targeted search can uncover opportunities that are invisible to everyone else.
Smaller and More Natural Markets May Be Better
For this Utah attorney, markets like New York, Chicago, and DC may be long shots right now. But that does not mean he has no options.
He may have a much better chance in places like Las Vegas, Boise, Phoenix, Denver, or certain California markets if he becomes admitted there. These markets may value his background more. They may be less saturated. They may have firms where his experience, regional ties, and personal story make more sense.
This is how attorneys need to think.
Do not just ask, “Where are salaries highest?”
Ask, “Where am I most marketable?”
Ask, “Where will my background make sense?”
Ask, “Where will firms believe I am likely to stay?”
Ask, “Where is the competition less overwhelming?”
A legal career is not built by chasing the biggest market. It is built by finding the market where your credentials, experience, relationships, and long-term goals align.
Recruiter Emails Are Not a Strategy
Many attorneys begin thinking about a move because they receive recruiter emails promising better pay, better firms, and exciting opportunities.
Some of those opportunities are real. Many are not meaningful for that particular attorney.
A mass recruiter email does not mean the market wants you. It means your name appeared on a list.
Attorneys need to be careful about becoming reactive. Do not build your career around inbox noise. Build it around strategy.
That means understanding your strengths and weaknesses. It means knowing which markets are realistic. It means targeting firms intelligently. It means timing your move correctly. It means recognizing when staying put may actually increase your long-term value.
The attorneys who succeed are not always the ones who are most ambitious. They are the ones who are most strategic.
What This Attorney Should Do
For the Utah litigator, the best path is probably not an immediate attempt to break into New York, Chicago, or DC.
A smarter strategy would be to stay at his current firm long enough to build stability, deepen his litigation experience, and strengthen his résumé. He should consider markets where his background is more likely to be understood and valued. He should look at places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Boise, Denver, and perhaps Southern California if he is willing to take and pass the California Bar.
He should apply broadly, including to firms without posted openings. He should be thoughtful about how he explains his desire to move. He should emphasize genuine ties, long-term commitment, practice fit, and the value he can bring—not simply the fact that he wants a higher salary.
Most importantly, he should understand the market as it is, not as he wishes it were.
The Lesson for Attorneys Everywhere
There is nothing wrong with wanting more.
There is nothing wrong with wanting a better salary, a bigger platform, or a more exciting city. Ambition is important. But ambition without strategy can damage a legal career.
Before you try to move markets, you need to be honest about your credentials, your law school, your firm experience, your tenure, your bar admissions, your ties, and your competition. You need to understand how firms will see you. You need to know whether the market you are targeting has enough demand to justify taking a risk on someone from outside.
The legal profession rewards realism.
The best move is not always the biggest move. The best market is not always the most prestigious one. The best opportunity is often the one where your background makes sense, your story is credible, and the firm can easily understand why you belong there.
A law firm does not hire you because you want a better life.
It hires you because you make sense for the firm.
That distinction is everything.