Munger or Gibson, for someone leaning towards transactional Forum

[Anonymous User]

What do you think: Munger or Gibson for a 2L summer who is leaning towards transactional practice?

As a side note, I may want to head to Northern CA in the future, and both firms have offices there... I'm not so familiar though...

Thanks for the input!

[Anonymous User]

does munger even do transactional work outside of berkshire hathaway???? i dunno... probably not?

[Anonymous User]

Munger's group is small but elite. They do prestigious deals, and have some former SCOTUS clerks in the corporate group. They get a steady stream of deals from Berkshire (though a majority of corporate work comes from non-Berkshire clients). For a couple recent deals, see:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffett.html
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ydeal.html

Also, if you're not set on corporate and may give litigation a try, Munger seems far better for litigation. Plus, Munger seems to be a better place to work because of its culture of transparency and ownership, 1-to-1 partner-to-associate ratio, and firm-wide lunches three days per week. (See http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... hbxlogin=1) Finally, if you get an offer at Munger, you can almost certainly lateral to Gibson. The same is not true in reverse.

[johndhi]

Munger's group is small but elite. They do prestigious deals, and have some former SCOTUS clerks in the corporate group. They get a steady stream of deals from Berkshire (though a majority of corporate work comes from non-Berkshire clients). For a couple recent deals, see:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffett.html
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ydeal.html

Also, if you're not set on corporate and may give litigation a try, Munger seems far better for litigation. Plus, Munger seems to be a better place to work because of its culture of transparency and ownership, 1-to-1 partner-to-associate ratio, and firm-wide lunches three days per week. (See http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... hbxlogin=1) Finally, if you get an offer at Munger, you can almost certainly lateral to Gibson. The same is not true in reverse.

"far better for litigation" = a joke. Gibson Dunn is in the running for being the best firm in California in litigation. That said, I voted for Munger for the reasons this poster gave next; smaller place that seem more to MY liking (might not be the case for OP). I don't know much about lateral moves - can't say whether what he said there is true or not.

[Anonymous User]

Munger's group is small but elite. They do prestigious deals, and have some former SCOTUS clerks in the corporate group. They get a steady stream of deals from Berkshire (though a majority of corporate work comes from non-Berkshire clients). For a couple recent deals, see:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ffett.html
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... ydeal.html

Also, if you're not set on corporate and may give litigation a try, Munger seems far better for litigation. Plus, Munger seems to be a better place to work because of its culture of transparency and ownership, 1-to-1 partner-to-associate ratio, and firm-wide lunches three days per week. (See http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... hbxlogin=1) Finally, if you get an offer at Munger, you can almost certainly lateral to Gibson. The same is not true in reverse.

"far better for litigation" = a joke. Gibson Dunn is in the running for being the best firm in California in litigation. That said, I voted for Munger for the reasons this poster gave next; smaller place that seem more to MY liking (might not be the case for OP). I don't know much about lateral moves - can't say whether what he said there is true or not.

Munger= More prestige, less stress, fewer hours. (I've talked to people there who claim that they sometimes will bill 1800 hours, but they firm culture is to not talk about it outside the firm too much because they don't want the secret out that there are people there billing half of what some poor Susman, Keker, or Bartilitt Beck guy is billing.

[Old Gregg]

billing half of what some poor Susman, Keker, or Bartilitt Beck guy is billing.

There are many adjectives you can use to describe a Susman, Keker, or Bartlit guy. "Poor" is not one of them. The attorneys there chose those firms because of the experience they can get, they love what they're doing, and when you're billing 3,000 hours doing what you love, 3,000 hours don't seem like much at all. And frankly, I'd sooner work at any of those three firms than at Munger. In my opinion, it's a hyped up firm because this forum is obsessed with selectivity and prestige. But I guess it's human nature to want something that simply doesn't want you in return.

[Anonymous User]

The attorneys there chose those firms because of the experience they can get, they love what they're doing, and when you're billing 3,000 hours doing what you love, 3,000 hours don't seem like much at all.

LOL, just LOL.

I am summering at one of those three places, so I totally agree that they're great firms, but you're just wrong about 3,000 not being much at all. No matter how totally sweet your work is, 3,000 billed hours will push any reasonable person to their brink. Some would argue that billing that much is borderline malpractice. I know it happens, obviously, but it's never pretty.

[Old Gregg]

but you're just wrong about 3,000 not being much at all. No matter how totally sweet your work is, 3,000 billed hours will push any reasonable person to their brink.

(1) If you're billing 2,400 hours, odds are you're working around 3,000 hours anyways. If you're billing 3,000 hours, you're not working that much more than 3,000. This is just plain intuition and math. There is a finite amount of hours in one year. It's not so much that the 3,000 hour biller works harder as it is that he's simply more efficient.

(2) I never said "3,000 hours is not much," but I definitely appreciate the chance I gave you to uselessly brag that you're working at Susman or Keker (Bartlit doesn't take summers, remember?). And don't dare say that you mentioned it to bolster your credibility. You haven't billed 3,000 hours at any of those firms as a summer, so you have none. And no, I didn't need a summer associate at one of those firms to reaffirm my belief that they're great firms, but thank you so much for the validation.

(3) The implication of what I said is simply that 3,000 hours on substantive work is more bearable than 3,000 hours on doc review. And that 3,000 hours doing something you enjoy is more bearable than 3,000 hours doing something you don't enjoy. And quite frankly, I'd rather do 3,000 hours of substantive work than 2,400 hours of doc review. Finally, while I think the 3,000th hour of miserable work is borderline malpractice, I'm not sure the 3,000th hour of substantive, enjoyable work is. Time flies when you're having fun.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Also, if you're not set on corporate and may give litigation a try, Munger seems far better for litigation.

100% wrong. http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/LitigationAwards.jsp

Where do you people come up with these bullshit opinions?

[Old Gregg]

Also, if you're not set on corporate and may give litigation a try, Munger seems far better for litigation.

100% wrong. http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/LitigationAwards.jsp

Where do you people come up with these bullshit opinions?

The award doesn't mean that Gibson is better than Munger at litigation. I hope you one day understand why that's faulty logic.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Also, if you're not set on corporate and may give litigation a try, Munger seems far better for litigation.

100% wrong. http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/LitigationAwards.jsp

Where do you people come up with these bullshit opinions?

The award doesn't mean that Gibson is better than Munger at litigation. I hope you one day understand why that's faulty logic.

Here's the bottom line: GDC's appellate litigation group is arguably the most prestigious group of lawyers in the country. Last year, GDC hired six (6!!) SCOTUS clerks (there are only about 36 total), more than any other law firm in the country.

The rest of GDC is not as selective as Keker, which is probably why you're claiming that Keker is more prestigious. But you're failing to consider the fact that GDC is a household name among GCs while Keker is not. If you want to practice in the bay area, it totally makes sense to choose Keker over GDC. But if you want exit options that will allow you to work in DC, NYC, LA, or other parts of the country, GDC is obviously better.

[Old Gregg]

Also, if you're not set on corporate and may give litigation a try, Munger seems far better for litigation.

100% wrong. http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/LitigationAwards.jsp

Where do you people come up with these bullshit opinions?

The award doesn't mean that Gibson is better than Munger at litigation. I hope you one day understand why that's faulty logic.

Here's the bottom line: GDC's appellate litigation group is arguably the most prestigious group of lawyers in the country. Last year, GDC hired six (6!!) SCOTUS clerks (there are only about 36 total), more than any other law firm in the country.

The rest of GDC is not as selective as Keker, which is probably why you're claiming that Keker is more prestigious. But you're failing to consider the fact that GDC is a household name among GCs while Keker is not. If you want to practice in the bay area, it totally makes sense to choose Keker over GDC. But if you want exit options that will allow you to work in DC, NYC, LA, or other parts of the country, GDC is obviously better.

I'm not sure about LA, but I will grant the rest. I really don't care about GDC's appellate group for numerous reasons. First, only 1% law students who aspire to be an appellate lawyer in that group will actually touch that group in their lifetimes. Second, it's mostly out of the DC office. Third, a good appellate group does not make for a good general commercial litigation group.

Edit: So really, the only person for whom GDC's appellate group should be relevant is the CoA clerk finishing up his term and looking for a good appellate group to join.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

I'm not sure about LA, but I will grant the rest. I really don't care about GDC's appellate group for numerous reasons. First, only 1% law students who aspire to be an appellate lawyer in that group will actually touch that group in their lifetimes. Second, it's mostly out of the DC office. Third, a good appellate group does not make for a good general commercial litigation group.

1) GDC, Latham, and OMM are the big 3 firms in LA. These firms dominate the market and get the vast majority of high-end work. Keker is not one of them.

2) If OP can get a job at Keker, there's no reason why he/she doesn't have a chance at GDC's appellate group. Both are extremely competitive.

3) There are attorneys in GDC's appellate group in NYC, LA, DC and the bay area. Granted, most of them are in the DC area.

4) Your last statement about "a good appellate group" not making for a "good general commercial litigation group" manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of how law firms get work. GDC has been successful during the economic downturn precisely because of work trickling down from the appellate group. The Walmart litigation GDC was involved in started with the appellate group but ended up giving work to hundreds of non-appellate GDC lawyers. This was the same for the Chevron and i4i litigations. How a firm is viewed at the top often determines how much work other lawyers at the firm will receive. As a result, GDC has had plenty of work during the economic downturn, and its free-market system allows corporate junior associates to jump onto litigation work when the deals dry up. A stable flow of work + free market system = more predictable lifestyle = easier to get your billables done. I'm sure a firm like Keker (a litigation boutique) depends much more on the ebb and flow of big cases, resulting in a crazier lifestyle of alternating feasts and famines.

[Old Gregg]

1) GDC, Latham, and OMM are the big 3 firms in LA. These firms dominate the market and get the vast majority of high-end work. Keker is not one of them.

Keker does very high end intellectual property litigation. The only reason Keker doesn't "dominate the market" is their size. That doesn't make them any less prestigious, though.

2) If OP can get a job at Keker, there's no reason why he/she doesn't have a chance at GDC's appellate group. Both are extremely competitive.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a chance. I'm saying that entering a firm's appellate group is very, very tough. And that's assuming that the OP even wants that.

3) There are attorneys in GDC's appellate group in NYC, LA, DC and the bay area. Granted, most of them are in the DC area.

Yes, I know that. That's why I said it's "mostly out of the DC office." It's almost exactly what you said.

Your last statement about "a good appellate group" not making for a "good general commercial litigation group" manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of how law firms get work.

Eh, not really. Sure, Gibson Dunn is getting great general commercial litigation work, but nationally it's not considered one of the big litigation heavyweights.

I'm sure a firm like Keker (a litigation boutique) depends much more on the ebb and flow of big cases, resulting in a crazier lifestyle of alternating feasts and famines.

Haha. I'm quite positive Keker has been flourishing even during the economic crisis. The beauty of being a prestigious boutique is that it's easier to manage. Big firms go through trouble during downturns because they have different groups and not all of them will be busy.

As a result, GDC has had plenty of work during the economic downturn

My friends who were laid off from GDC tell a different story...

[somethingdemure]

This thread is useful. OP asks about corporate practice at MTO and GDC, and people bicker about their appellate litigation groups and work conditions at Keker. Good job everyone.

I think the choice here might be largely one of personality preference. The firm cultures are very different, and the quality of the work you'll be getting as a young associate will likely be very different.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Keker does very high end intellectual property litigation. The only reason Keker doesn't "dominate the market" is their size. That doesn't make them any less prestigious, though.

If OP wants to do high end IP lit, Irell is better than both Keker and GDC.

Also, size matters. Being large allows you to diversify practice areas and take on more cases creating a stable workflow. Keker can only work on a few cases at a time because of personnel limitations. If two big cases happen to settle at the same time, Keker doesn't have a slew of other cases or practice areas to throw lawyers at like GDC. There's a reason why most of the top firms are large. It's a stabler business model.

Eh, not really. Sure, Gibson Dunn is getting great general commercial litigation work, but nationally it's not considered one of the big litigation heavyweights.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this from. GDC is universally considered a top litigation firm, especially at the national level. Keker has them beat in the bay area, of course.

Haha. I'm quite positive Keker has been flourishing even during the economic crisis. The beauty of being a prestigious boutique is that it's easier to manage. Big firms go through trouble during downturns because they have different groups and not all of them will be busy.

Corporate work dried up during the Great Recession, but it's coming back. I know several GDC attorneys and they all said that corp associates who wanted work (and weren't picky) had no problem finding it. There are been no verifiable, purely economic-based GDC layoffs. I'm sure there were a few people got laid off because of performance reasons, and there was probably an economic component to these layoffs. But Keker has laid off associates for similar reasons.

[Old Gregg]

If OP wants to do high end IP lit, Irell is better than both Keker and GDC.

That's debatable.

Also, size matters. Being large allows you to diversify practice areas and take on more cases creating a stable workflow. Keker can only work on a few cases at a time because of personnel limitations. If two big cases happen to settle at the same time, Keker doesn't have a slew of other cases or practice areas to throw lawyers at like GDC. There's a reason why most of the top firms are large. It's a stabler business model.

I can't believe you're seriously arguing that a big firm is more stable than a prestigious litigation boutique. Just because the firm is big, that doesn't mean it's "diversified." And when the great recession occurred, both corporate and litigation work dried up. "Diversified" means that a big firm should have both cyclical and countercyclical practices. In that sense, Gibson Dunn is not that diversified, and not that stable. They're just conservative.

Anyway, there are just way too many incorrect statements in that paragraph for me to address. It just seems like you're trolling for Gibson at this point (do you work there or something?). But yeah, your whole paragraph just establishes that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how boutiques work.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this from. GDC is universally considered a top litigation firm.

Universally? Really? On Chambers, they're Band 1 in California for litigation. DC? Band 4. Houston? I don't think they're ranked. New York? Band 3. Nationwide? Band 1 for securities litigation, and I think Band 4 for products liability. That's hardly the mark of a nationally renowned litigation group. Gibson Dunn's litigation group is, of course, amazing. But it isn't in the short list of top litigation firms. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings to read that.

I know several GDC attorneys and they all said that corp associates who wanted work (and weren't picky) had no problem finding it. There are been no verifiable, purely economic-based GDC layoffs.

(1) Just because ATL didn't report it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
(2) Check careers.abovethelaw.com. There's your verifiable, purely economic-based GDC layoffs.

I'm sure Keker has laid off associates for similar reasons.

How are you sure of this? Do you know associates at Keker who were laid off? Do you know Keker even had economic troubles? Half of your posts are just speculating about the workflow and economics of Keker, when you really seem to know nothing about them.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is useful. OP asks about corporate practice at MTO and GDC, and people bicker about their appellate litigation groups and work conditions at Keker. Good job everyone.

I think the choice here might be largely one of personality preference. The firm cultures are very different, and the quality of the work you'll be getting as a young associate will likely be very different.

I think somethingdemure has a good point. I'm actually not so familiar with the culture at each firm. I hear both are very friendly, but GDC may be more social...

Otherwise, the WORK you'll be getting will probably be very different. Munger junior associates are doing REALLY substantive work that many midlevel/senior associates or even partners do at other firms. At the same time, MTO is infamous for having little to no training... This can be good and bad. A sort-of throw you in the fire learning process gives you great experience, but can be stressful.

GDC will probably ease you into the really substantive work with training along the way.

[tar2011]

Also.... OP asked about MTO in Northern CA.... I'm not sure about Munger's San Fran office, but I would like to find out! Its less than 40 attorneys.... but i'm not sure which practice groups are there. Any thoughts people?
Sorry!

[Julio_El_Chavo]

I can't believe you're seriously arguing that a big firm is more stable than a prestigious litigation boutique. Just because the firm is big, that doesn't mean it's "diversified." And when the great recession occurred, both corporate and litigation work dried up. "Diversified" means that a big firm should have both cyclical and countercyclical practices. In that sense, Gibson Dunn is not that diversified, and not that stable. They're just conservative.

Anyway, there are just way too many incorrect statements in that paragraph for me to address. It just seems like you're trolling for Gibson at this point (do you work there or something?). But yeah, your whole paragraph just establishes that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how boutiques work.

You never addressed the fact that most top firms are big firms. Why would so many smart lawyers choose to structure their firms this way? There are reasons other than leverage that you're being willfully blind to. Litigation is counter-cyclical in that securities suits inevitably flow from business failure concurrent with a downturn in corporate work. GDC has a great securities litigation practice.

Universally? Really? On Chambers, they're Band 1 in California for litigation. DC? Band 4. Houston? I don't think they're ranked. New York? Band 3. Nationwide? Band 1 for securities litigation, and I think Band 4 for products liability. That's hardly the mark of a nationally renowned litigation group. Gibson Dunn's litigation group is, of course, amazing. But it isn't in the short list of top litigation firms. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings to read that.

LOL @ the Chambers "bands." They are totally off for various practice groups, including IP. A much better gauge of a firm's success is what kinds of cases they worked on, the outcomes from those cases, and how stable their revenue and PPP numbers have been over time. GDC's record is unassailable in terms of PPP and revenue generation during the downturn.

(1) Just because ATL didn't report it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
(2) Check careers.abovethelaw.com. There's your verifiable, purely economic-based GDC layoffs.

I think you are referring to this quote from AboveTheLaw:

To date, there have been no official associate layoffs at the firm, although some Lateral Link Members believe the firm “quietly” laid off associates and disguised the layoffs as performance-based terminations. Members report that the stealth layoffs mostly affected senior associates or those associates who did not meet the firm’s billable hours target.

Of course senior associates who don't make partner and get laid off are going to blame the economy and claim that stealth layoffs were the reason they got axed. The reality is, these layoffs, if they were recession-triggered, were never large enough in number to raise eyebrows on a wide scale. These kinds of layoffs (senior associates who don't make partner) happen all the time during GOOD economic times. GDC had the highest associate satisfaction score from an AmLaw survey. Morale is good, and this wouldn't be the case if there were significant recession-based layoffs.

How are you sure of this? Do you know associates at Keker who were laid off? Do you know Keker even had economic troubles? Half of your posts are just speculating about the workflow and economics of Keker, when you really seem to know nothing about them.

I don't know any Keker lawyers because there are only like 50 of them total to begin with. But if you're going to get up in arms about being speculative, you should reevaluate your guesses with regard to GDC's reputation as a top litigation firm because they are way off.

[Old Gregg]

LOL @ the Chambers "bands." They are totally off for various practice groups, including IP.

Yes, they're totally off. But you're right, of course

A much better gauge of a firm's success is what kinds of cases they worked on, the outcomes from those cases, and how stable their revenue and PPP numbers have been over time. GDC's record is unassailable in terms of PPP and revenue generation during the downturn.

No doubt they're good, but other firms are better. Here's a nice shortlist of top national litigation firms (in no particular order):

(1) Quinn Emmanuel
(2) Williams & Connolly
(3) Paul Weiss
(4) Kirkland & Ellis
(5) Skadden Arps

But no, let's stick to your contention that Gibson Dunn won the Litigation Department of the Year Award, therefore they're the best. Yes, better than W&C. Right.

Or no, whoever receives the "best" work is the "best," whatever that means.

Or no, whoever has the highest PPP is "the best." Wait a minute... is GDC even in the top 10 for that? What about revenue? No. What about RPL? No.

Of course senior associates who don't make partner and get laid off are going to blame the economy and claim that stealth layoffs were the reason they got axed.

The quotation said nothing about senior associates. And the associates I know who were laid off were juniors and midlevels.

I'm glad you're working at Gibson Dunn. And while it's great to troll for firms, you have to face the reality. Gibson Dunn is not that great. And I'd take Irell, Munger, and Keker over them any day of the week. My job is safer at those three firms. The litigation groups at those three firms are better. They're all doing great. And they're all pretty well known in their respective fields.

Wait... no... GDC is UNIVERSALLY REGARDED as ONE OF THE BEST LITIGATION groups in the NATION. Wait... no... what about Chambers.. NO THEY'RE WRONG!!!111 But ASIDE from Chambers, they're UNIVERSALLY REGARDED as the BEST. You know what "universal" means, right?

[Old Gregg]

Legal 500:

Appellate Litigation:
Tier 1

Environmental Litigation:
Tier 3

Intellectual Property Litigation:
Tier 4

ERISA Litigation:
Tier 2

Labor & Employment Litigation:
Tier 1

International Arbitration:
Tier 4

Securities Litigation:
Tier 3

White Collar:
Tier 4

Wait, let me guess... Legal 500 is wrong too... right.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

I do not work at GDC, but I obviously know more about law firms than you do. Anyone who doesn't think GDC is one of the top litigation firms is obviously misinformed and hasn't worked at a law firm. I never claimed GDC is *the* best, just one of the best. You haven't produce any evidence to refute this.

You don't learn about the quality of a firm from arbitrary "band" rankings promulgated by legal periodicals. You learn about the health and quality of a firm by talking to its attorneys, talking to other attorneys, and working at a law firm. I worked in a market dominated by GDC and a few other firms and I can tell you that GDC has a great national reputation according to the partners I worked with.

[johndhi]

Anyways ...

Any reason you guys haven't mentioned Quinn? Thoughts on how they compare with Irell, MTO, GDC?

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Anyways ...

Any reason you guys haven't mentioned Quinn? Thoughts on how they compare with Irell, MTO, GDC?

For lit? I think Quinn is a great place to start a career in lit. Partnership prospects probably aren't as good as they would be at Irell or MTO, but it's a great firm.