In last week's ATL / Lateral Link surveys, we asked you whether you would want to work in a different city, whether, knowing what you know now, you would still want to work where you do, and where, if you could go to any other firm, you would choose to go.

We received 1,189 responses to last Monday's survey on whether you would want to work in a different city. A whopping 88% of respondents said they would consider moving to a new city to practice. Sixty-eight percent cited a better lifestyle as a reason to move, while 45% would move for more money. Thirty-eight percent of respondents would move for a better practice, and 35% would be willing to move to be closer to friends or family. Only thirteen or fourteen percent, however, would move to be closer to a spouse or significant other, suggesting that most respondents are either single or willing to be.

Responses: Would you consider moving to a new city to practice?

Where would you go? The Bay Area was the most popular destination, chosen by twelve percent of respondents. Another nine percent chose London. Eight percent would move to either the Pacific Northwest or Washington, DC. Six percent chose LA, Texas or Chicago. Five percent chose Boston, New York or Atlanta. Less than four percent would move to Paris, Hong Kong or Dubai to practice, and only a handful would consider Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, or Frankfurt. Quite a few people wrote in Philadelphia, Charlotte, Denver, Miami, and San Diego as their preferred destinations, putting them in about the same range as Tokyo.

Can you get there without updating your resume? Maybe not. Only a third of respondents thought their current firm would allow them to change offices. A quarter said no, and the rest weren't sure.

Our ATL / Lateral Link surveys about whether, knowing what you know now, you would still want to work where you do, and where, if you could go to any other firm, you would choose to go are both still open, but you can sneak a peek at the results so far after the jump.

So far, Latham & Watkins is pwning the competition, with 100% of respondents working there saying they'd still make the same choice, and attorneys elsewhere making them the second most popular response to "which firm would you most want to work for?"

When asked why they would want to work at Latham, respondents are giving reasons like "Prestige", "Friends there are happy", "Awesome firm, awesome people", "They rock", "Prestige, substantive work, great litigation practice", and "Top notch clients and matters; kick ass bonuses; selective hiring in a good way (need good grades plus a good; personality); Vault top 10 without the stuffiness of originating on the east coast; good growth but no risk of Brobecking (great management + tons of funds).....should I go on?"

Or, as one respondent summed it up: "ass kickers."

Only Wachtell was a more coveted place to work, but the rationales were a bit more narrow: "100% bonus", "money", "it's all about the cash", "I want the compensation!", "money honey" and, oh yeah, did I mention? "CASH." In fairness, a couple people also cited prestige. Honestly, though, does nobody want to go to Wachtell simply because David Lat worked there? I hear they have a decent practice, too.

Kirkland & Ellis, Debevoise, Davis Polk, and Skadden are also doing quite well in the surveys. But since both surveys are still open, there's room for someone else to top the bunch.

In the meantime, please keep those tips coming for our clerkship, maternity leave, and paternity leave charts. I updated the clerkship chart last night to reflect new info on Covington, Ropes & Gray, and Jones Day.