Top Law Schools

which firm is more prestigious and would look more impressive on a resume?

Anonymous User wrote:which firm is more prestigious and would look more impressive on a resume?

Depends on:

Which Gibson office?

What practice areas?

E.g., it's hard to top Gibson Dunn's DC appellate group.

vamedic03 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:which firm is more prestigious and would look more impressive on a resume?

Depends on:

Which Gibson office?

What practice areas?

E.g., it's hard to top Gibson Dunn's DC appellate group.

practice area - general litigation

Gibson Dunn (NY) vs. Munger Tolles (LA)

Gibson Dunn is probably more well known, but Munger Tolles is much more selective.

definitely munger in LA, maybe gibson in NY. vault is a pretty good proxy for prestige in the NY region. no one ever really talks about munger in NY

it is very smart for you to make a decision this way btw

Munger, and it's not even close (even less so if you're talking Gibson-NY).

Wavelet wrote:Munger, and it's not even close (even less so if you're talking Gibson-NY).

how can you say this

isn't Gibson Dunn V15 and Munger only V30

what makes Munger better?

Good Lord, to even be in the position to be asking this. Judging from Munger's profiles (40+ percent HYS--the highest I've ever seen at a firm and loaded with SCOTUS clerks) I'm going to guess MTO. But really you're set either way.

Anonymous User wrote:

Wavelet wrote:Munger, and it's not even close (even less so if you're talking Gibson-NY).

how can you say this

isn't Gibson Dunn V15 and Munger only V30

what makes Munger better?

Are you serious?????? You're basing it off of Vault?! MTO is one of the most selective firms in the country (along with Williams and Connolly, Susman, etc.) it's a lit boutique, they regularly promote associates to partner after only 4 years, and associates get real substantive work. Vault isn't the best way to gauge a non NYC based firm.

BruceWayne wrote:Good Lord, to even be in the position to be asking this. Judging from Munger's profiles (40+ percent HYS--the highest I've ever seen at a firm and loaded with SCOTUS clerks) I'm going to guess MTO. But really you're set either way.

Anonymous User wrote:

Wavelet wrote:Munger, and it's not even close (even less so if you're talking Gibson-NY).

how can you say this

isn't Gibson Dunn V15 and Munger only V30

what makes Munger better?

Are you serious?????? You're basing it off of Vault?! MTO is one of the most selective firms in the country (along with Williams and Connolly, Susman, etc.) it's a lit boutique, they regularly promote associates to partner after only 4 years, and associates get real substantive work. Vault isn't the best way to gauge a non NYC based firm.

It's not a boutique and it's not litigation only. The Vault firms are really too large to be boutiques. MTO does more than just litigation - while it's corporate practice is small, it has some famous clients (e.g., Berkshire Hathaway).

Wait, is this for 1L diversity or 2L summer?

vamedic03 wrote:It's not a boutique and it's not litigation only. The Vault firms are really too large to be boutiques. MTO does more than just litigation - while it's corporate practice is small, it has some famous clients (e.g., Berkshire Hathaway).

People on here tend to call any firm with less than 400 people a "boutique" so that's why I used that phrase.

BruceWayne wrote:Good Lord, to even be in the position to be asking this. Judging from Munger's profiles (40+ percent HYS--the highest I've ever seen at a firm and loaded with SCOTUS clerks) I'm going to guess MTO. But really you're set either way.

Anonymous User wrote:

Wavelet wrote:Munger, and it's not even close (even less so if you're talking Gibson-NY).

how can you say this

isn't Gibson Dunn V15 and Munger only V30

what makes Munger better?

Are you serious?????? You're basing it off of Vault?! MTO is one of the most selective firms in the country (along with Williams and Connolly, Susman, etc.) it's a lit boutique, they regularly promote associates to partner after only 4 years, and associates get real substantive work. Vault isn't the best way to gauge a non NYC based firm.

thats impressive if its true

Anonymous User wrote:which firm is more prestigious and would look more impressive on a resume?

If this is your sole Q, I'd say Munger...

As someone already said, this isn't even remotely close. The only reason to choose a firm over Munger is location.

Rule11 wrote:As someone already said, this isn't even remotely close. The only reason to choose a firm over Munger is location.

why?

can someone please elaborate on whats so great about Munger some more cause I haven't heard much about them here on the east coast

Anonymous User wrote:

Rule11 wrote:As someone already said, this isn't even remotely close. The only reason to choose a firm over Munger is location.

why?

can someone please elaborate on whats so great about Munger some more cause I haven't heard much about them here on the east coast

http://www.chambers-associate.com/FirmFeature/3535-1

Munger is one of the most elite and selective firms in the country. There's nothing at all wrong with Gibson, but it's pretty generic outside of a few clutch practice areas (like it's DC appellate litigation practice that's festooned with SCOTUS clerks / children).

Put another way: There are probably a dozen firms in NYC that are better regarded than Gibson's NYC practice, and Munger is easily in the running for the absolute top of the food chain in California.

I'm going to Gibson this summer, and think that if you want to do litigation and have the option of Munger in CA, then you should go for it.

Absolutely Munger.

I don't know how GDC is doing their summer program for 1Ls, but MTO doesn't give permanent offers after 1L summer. If that concerns you, it should play into your calculus, but honestly, MTO is overwhelmingly better than GDC NY and it's not even close.

BruceWayne wrote: Are you serious?????? You're basing it off of Vault?! MTO is one of the most selective firms in the country (along with Williams and Connolly, Susman, etc.) it's a lit boutique, they regularly promote associates to partner after only 4 years, and associates get real substantive work. Vault isn't the best way to gauge a non NYC based firm.

selective =/= better. I know you're really passionate about MTO/Susman/Boies/WC but it's not always a no-brainer to choose them over other firms. It really comes down to practice area.

How do you know that these firms give "real substantive work?" I notice you routinely talk about this "real substantive work" that firms like Susman give. Is the work any different from other top Vault firms?

I actually interviewed with Susman and asked about this "real substantive work." They told me they haven't updated their website in years and things are a bit different now that they're growing. Do you really think being lead counsel in a securities class action against BP will entail "real substantive work" for their associates? If you consider going through terabytes of emails "real substantive work" then you can find that at any other top vault firm.

Furthermore, do you have proof that MTO regularly makes partners after 4 years?
edit: I would imagine those who make partner after 5 years are rare and likely clerked for 2 years and came in as a 2nd year associate). Of course I haven't scoured through the firm bios so it is speculation on my part.

Our partnership track is short and flexible. Because we hire extraordinary new lawyers and give them meaningful opportunities early on, we generally first consider our associates for partnership anywhere from five to seven years at the firm--considerably earlier than at virtually any other major firm. On the other hand, we recognize that each attorney develops at his or her own pace, and that some lawyers may work part-time for some portion of their associate years. Therefore, we do not have a rigid preconception of the minimum or maximum amount of time it can take to attain partnership, and we have no “up-or-out” policy.

--LinkRemoved--

apparently, MTO hasn't hired a single person from several of the T14 (UVA, Cornell, Northwestern)

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:apparently, MTO hasn't hired a single person from several of the T14 (UVA, Cornell, Northwestern)

thats ultra elitist even by law firm standards

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:apparently, MTO hasn't hired a single person from several of the T14 (UVA, Cornell, Northwestern)

It's a California shop. Plenty of people in the East have barely heard of it, which may account for that statistic.

I know of at least 5-6 people that graduated from UCLA Law that were #1 or #2 in their respective classes and ended up at MTO after clerkships, and I think the last couple Supreme Court clerks to come from UCLA are now at MTO.

If you want to end up on the West coast long term, I can't think of a better firm to go to.

Anonymous User wrote:Gibson Dunn (NY) vs. Munger Tolles (LA)

Gibson NY is nothing special at all. Outside of DC (and arguably LA), Gibson is not exactly a mega-prestigious firm. Just ordinary BigLaw.

MTO > GDC DC >>>> GDC LA >>>>>>>>>> GDC NY

The non-DC/LA offices of Gibson Dunn are not nearly as selective as MTO or other ultra-selective firms (which probably explains why the law review kids on TLS don't give it any love), but it seems like a pretty stable, well-run place (no layoffs, deferrals, or salary freezes due to ITE). And then there's this:

http://www.jdjournal.com/2011/02/28/gib ... s-in-2010/