CA Firms

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: HLS LA bidlist

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Shaggier1 wrote:3) Unless you expect to have a clerkship locked up straight after graduation, be careful with Munger.

3) Great tip. Are their offers contingent on obtaining a clerkship? I am interested in doing one, but would not like to risk losing my offer due to changing my mind or not obtaining one.

Offers aren't contingent on getting a clerkship, unlike Susman. But about 80% of the attorneys have clerked, and the firm has high hiring standards. So if you aren't competitive for a clerkship, you aren't competitive for Munger.

The only two big LA firms that pay above-market bonuses are Quinn and Irell. Both have sweatshop reputations—or semi-sweatshop reputations in Irell's case. Boies's Santa Monica office is tiny: four attorneys. Same with Susman's LA office: maybe ten attorneys. I don't know if either regularly takes SA's. Of the large firms, Munger is the most selective. People go there for a variety of reasons: one-to-one partner-associate ratio, collegial environment, good partnership odds, reasonable hours, interesting work, good exit options, and smart colleagues (about 15% of the attorneys clerked for SCOTUS). But each year the firm no-offers a couple SAs who can't write.

Edit: K&E also pays above-market bonuses. But as with Quinn and Boies, you've got to work crazy hours to get a great bonus.


Very informative post. Thank you so much. I was very interested in Munger, but I am not sure I want to deal with the threat of a no-offer hanging over my head for the summer. Any idea how big their class is?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: HLS LA bidlist

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Very informative post. Thank you so much. I was very interested in Munger, but I am not sure I want to deal with the threat of a no-offer hanging over my head for the summer. Any idea how big their class is?

Munger typically has about 20 SAs. The firm doesn't actively find two people to no-offer—like I said, they just no-offer people who can't write. Non-leveraged firms can't afford to take on deadweight, and firms like Wachtell or W&C often no-offer a person or two. So does Boies. I wouldn't worry about it too much. And Munger's very open to splitting, which is a way to limit the downside of a no-offer.

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: Please lock.

Postby 005618502 » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:55 pm

This thread actually turned it around. I didnt see your OP, but I am guessing you are looking for the CA market?

There are actually not to many great threads on the CA market so this could become useful for many people going to T14/USC/UCLA who do well and are looking for CA.

Congrats on killing LS OP

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Please lock.

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:19 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:This thread actually turned it around. I didnt see your OP, but I am guessing you are looking for the CA market?

There are actually not to many great threads on the CA market so this could become useful for many people going to T14/USC/UCLA who do well and are looking for CA.

Congrats on killing LS OP


Suggestion taken, edited title. Will request a lock again if it turns back into what it was before. And thank you very much for the kind words :).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: HLS LA bidlist

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Very informative post. Thank you so much. I was very interested in Munger, but I am not sure I want to deal with the threat of a no-offer hanging over my head for the summer. Any idea how big their class is?

Munger typically has about 20 SAs. The firm doesn't actively find two people to no-offer—like I said, they just no-offer people who can't write. Non-leveraged firms can't afford to take on deadweight, and firms like Wachtell or W&C often no-offer a person or two. So does Boies. I wouldn't worry about it too much. And Munger's very open to splitting, which is a way to limit the downside of a no-offer.


Interesting, thank you. I think right now Munger is my top choice. Would love to hear more about what they look for in candidates. I've heard they have more of an "academic" culture as well.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby sundance95 » Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:33 pm

Lots of great info in this thread, very glad it turned around.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: HLS LA bidlist

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Interesting, thank you. I think right now Munger is my top choice. Would love to hear more about what they look for in candidates. I've heard they have more of an "academic" culture as well.

Great grades, law review—probably about 85% of a recent summer class was on law review. The interviews were similar to other biglaw interviews, though you're right: the culture is a bit more academic, so they asked more substantive questions. (I had a similar experience at Wachtell, Irell, and W&C.) Questions like, "what legal issue did you work on during your 1L summer and why is it a difficult issue?", "tell me about a case you read in law school that you either liked or disliked. why?", "what's the topic of your law review note?" and "how do you feel about the Supreme Court's recent ruling on X?" The interviewers aren't necessarily looking for specific answer; they want to see how you think. The firm also likes people who've done interesting public interest things such as Teach for America or the Peace Corps.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:10 pm

Very interested in this. I know OP's bid list was here originally and I'm sorry it's gone. I'm not exactly in his position, maybe median at HY with no ties to California, but genuinely interested in LA (whether I can get that across is another story). Might not make munger or irell but curious about other firms to look at.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:38 pm

Diff anon here. I'm also sorry OP's bid lost is gone. I'm in a similar situation, but unlike NY, there's not a ton of info on very selective firm hiring in CA. I'm sorry to see that OP was jumped on for trying to get it. While LR types may be in a good position with respect to finding a market paying job, it's still a stressful process.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:42 pm

Question to OP: any rationale for why you had Keker ranked above Munger since you said you are targeting LA?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:56 pm

OP here.

Anonymous User wrote:Very interested in this. I know OP's bid list was here originally and I'm sorry it's gone. I'm not exactly in his position, maybe median at HY with no ties to California, but genuinely interested in LA (whether I can get that across is another story). Might not make munger or irell but curious about other firms to look at.


Diff anon here. I'm also sorry OP's bid lost is gone. I'm in a similar situation, but unlike NY, there's not a ton of info on very selective firm hiring in CA. I'm sorry to see that OP was jumped on for trying to get it. While LR types may be in a good position with respect to finding a market paying job, it's still a stressful process.


Appreciate the support. While I probably won't be posting my bid list again, I might be willing to pm/email it.

Question to OP: any rationale for why you had Keker ranked above Munger since you said you are targeting LA?


SF would probably be my second choice as far as markets go. But the only reason why I have Keker above Munger is because Keker has 20 interview slots at HLS, while Munger has 40.

pereatmundus
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby pereatmundus » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:18 pm

OP could you PM? Not necessarily looking for your bid list but I'm in a somewhat comparable position.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:20 pm

pereatmundus wrote:OP could you PM? Not necessarily looking for your bid list but I'm in a somewhat comparable position.


Is your private messaging turned off?

pereatmundus
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby pereatmundus » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:43 pm

Wow, yes. Embarrassing. Should be fixed...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:48 pm

pereatmundus wrote:Wow, yes. Embarrassing. Should be fixed...


Pm'd.

sheD
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby sheD » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Diff anon here. I'm also sorry OP's bid lost is gone. I'm in a similar situation, but unlike NY, there's not a ton of info on very selective firm hiring in CA. I'm sorry to see that OP was jumped on for trying to get it. While LR types may be in a good position with respect to finding a market paying job, it's still a stressful process.



I don't think this is really fair. If OP had said "I'm looking for information on very selective firm hiring in CA," s/he would have gotten a much better response. It seems to me that bid list strategy is most important for people who can use the lottery element to get in front of firms that wouldn't jump at their resume/transcript otherwise or people whose "target" firms are legitimately some of the most popular. OP, on the other hand, can drop by a hospitality suite and the recruiter will likely chase him/her down. The info OP now seems to actually be seeking is certainly of interest (hence why I looked at this thread in the first place), but the way s/he approached it was tone deaf at best.

Magnificent
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby Magnificent » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:33 pm

In LA you can't go wrong with Munger or Susman. Munger is more laid back and chill while Susman is more intense.

In SF you should do Keker although Munger does have a small office up there.

Someone who is top of their class at HYS shouldn't look beyond these 3 firms because they are the only elite firms in California.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:39 pm

sheD wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Diff anon here. I'm also sorry OP's bid lost is gone. I'm in a similar situation, but unlike NY, there's not a ton of info on very selective firm hiring in CA. I'm sorry to see that OP was jumped on for trying to get it. While LR types may be in a good position with respect to finding a market paying job, it's still a stressful process.



I don't think this is really fair. If OP had said "I'm looking for information on very selective firm hiring in CA," s/he would have gotten a much better response. It seems to me that bid list strategy is most important for people who can use the lottery element to get in front of firms that wouldn't jump at their resume/transcript otherwise or people whose "target" firms are legitimately some of the most popular. OP, on the other hand, can drop by a hospitality suite and the recruiter will likely chase him/her down. The info OP now seems to actually be seeking is certainly of interest (hence why I looked at this thread in the first place), but the way s/he approached it was tone deaf at best.


Yes, super tone deaf to post my class rank, bid list, and what I'm looking for in a firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:40 pm

Magnificent wrote:In LA you can't go wrong with Munger or Susman. Munger is more laid back and chill while Susman is more intense.

In SF you should do Keker although Munger does have a small office up there.

Someone who is top of their class at HYS shouldn't look beyond these 3 firms because they are the only elite firms in California.

This is complete and utter bullshit.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:41 pm

Magnificent wrote:In LA you can't go wrong with Munger or Susman. Munger is more laid back and chill while Susman is more intense.

In SF you should do Keker although Munger does have a small office up there.

Someone who is top of their class at HYS shouldn't look beyond these 3 firms because they are the only elite firms in California.


Thanks, in the spirit of gathering more information about CA firms, would you mind elaborating a bit on other selective CA firms?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:47 pm

Magnificent wrote:In LA you can't go wrong with Munger or Susman. Munger is more laid back and chill while Susman is more intense.

In SF you should do Keker although Munger does have a small office up there.

Someone who is top of their class at HYS shouldn't look beyond these 3 firms because they are the only elite firms in California.


Couldn't be more wrong. In LA, attorneys view Gibson, Latham, Quinn, and O'Melveny as the elite "big" firms, and Irell and Munger as the elite boutiques. In SF, you should look at Keker, Durie Tangri (don't know if they have a summer program), Farella Braun, Arnold & Porter (only because it just absorbed Howard Rice, which is a very fancy SF firm), Gibson, and MoFo if you want good places to do litigation. Munger's SF office doesn't take summers, and I've never heard any attorney in CA talk about Susman.

FWIW, I was in a similar-ish position last year (top 25-33% at HLS). I had CBs/offers at multiple firms from this list last year and ended up turning them down to work at a satellite office of a V100 firm where I loved the people. Some firms that weren't even on my radar at the beginning of EIP ended up being awesome, while some that I thought I'd love ended up being terrible. You won't know until you interview, so don't limit yourself to the most "elite" firms right from the outset.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PMan99
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby PMan99 » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Magnificent wrote:In LA you can't go wrong with Munger or Susman. Munger is more laid back and chill while Susman is more intense.

In SF you should do Keker although Munger does have a small office up there.

Someone who is top of their class at HYS shouldn't look beyond these 3 firms because they are the only elite firms in California.


Thanks, in the spirit of gathering more information about CA firms, would you mind elaborating a bit on other selective CA firms?


I wouldn't bother seeking his advice, he apparently doesn't realize that Keker only takes one student from each of HYSB and Susman's LA office has a total of 3 associates.

User avatar
Monty The Dog
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:06 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Monty The Dog » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Magnificent wrote:In LA you can't go wrong with Munger or Susman. Munger is more laid back and chill while Susman is more intense.

In SF you should do Keker although Munger does have a small office up there.

Someone who is top of their class at HYS shouldn't look beyond these 3 firms because they are the only elite firms in California.


Couldn't be more wrong. In LA, attorneys view Gibson, Latham, Quinn, and O'Melveny as the elite "big" firms, and Irell and Munger as the elite boutiques. In SF, you should look at Keker, Durie Tangri (don't know if they have a summer program), Farella Braun, Arnold & Porter (only because it just absorbed Howard Rice, which is a very fancy SF firm), Gibson, and MoFo if you want good places to do litigation. Munger's SF office doesn't take summers, and I've never heard any attorney in CA talk about Susman.

FWIW, I was in a similar-ish position last year (top 25-33% at HLS). I had CBs/offers at multiple firms from this list last year and ended up turning them down to work at a satellite office of a V100 firm where I loved the people. Some firms that weren't even on my radar at the beginning of EIP ended up being awesome, while some that I thought I'd love ended up being terrible. You won't know until you interview, so don't limit yourself to the most "elite" firms right from the outset.


Thanks for this post. It seems like there are a few of us who are in a similar position as the OP and H/Y career services isn't very good with California. If you have a chance, I'd love to hear anything else you might know about the strong local firms and the various satellite offices in LA - even if its just your general impression about firm culture. . .

pereatmundus
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby pereatmundus » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:22 pm

Monty The Dog wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Magnificent wrote:In LA you can't go wrong with Munger or Susman. Munger is more laid back and chill while Susman is more intense.

In SF you should do Keker although Munger does have a small office up there.

Someone who is top of their class at HYS shouldn't look beyond these 3 firms because they are the only elite firms in California.


Couldn't be more wrong. In LA, attorneys view Gibson, Latham, Quinn, and O'Melveny as the elite "big" firms, and Irell and Munger as the elite boutiques. In SF, you should look at Keker, Durie Tangri (don't know if they have a summer program), Farella Braun, Arnold & Porter (only because it just absorbed Howard Rice, which is a very fancy SF firm), Gibson, and MoFo if you want good places to do litigation. Munger's SF office doesn't take summers, and I've never heard any attorney in CA talk about Susman.

FWIW, I was in a similar-ish position last year (top 25-33% at HLS). I had CBs/offers at multiple firms from this list last year and ended up turning them down to work at a satellite office of a V100 firm where I loved the people. Some firms that weren't even on my radar at the beginning of EIP ended up being awesome, while some that I thought I'd love ended up being terrible. You won't know until you interview, so don't limit yourself to the most "elite" firms right from the outset.


Thanks for this post. It seems like there are a few of us who are in a similar position as the OP and H/Y career services isn't very good with California. If you have a chance, I'd love to hear anything else you might know about the strong local firms and the various satellite offices in LA - even if its just your general impression about firm culture. . .


+1

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:30 pm

How hard is it to get LA without real ties (I have some family out there and a legitimate desire to be there, but no immediate family, spouse, etc)

I am top 10% at UT and am wondering whether or not its worth it to bid on Latham, Irell, Gibson Dunn, Proskauer, and MoFo

I hear conflicting things about how ties-conscious LA is, and don't know what to think coming from UT (but with good grades)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.