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

Re: CA Firms

Postby sheD » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:45 pm

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



Yes, especially ITE when a lot of people are struggling, the approach of "I'm in the best possible position, help me with my bid list" is pretty tone deaf. As someone who is also looking at many of these firms, I understand that it is stressful and difficult to determine what will be the best fit. That's what callbacks are for. In your position, you will get callbacks. Therefore, you need no help with your bid list beyond basic bidding advice that you could easily find by using the search function. Anecdotal commentary about firms is a different question, and the one, IMO, to which you would have gotten a more constructive initial response.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:56 pm

Is Durie Tangrie that big a deal SF? Do people really talk about it as much as poster above implies? I actually think this is just bullshit name dropping fueled by the TLS meme that smaller and more exclusive=better.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:24 am

That's sort of an odd reading of my post, considering that my point was that a lot of "big" firms in California are considered "elite" places to work. I do agree that DT is probably not the same type of place as the other; I listed it only to disprove Magnificent's cracked-out claim that Munger, Keker, and Susman were the only places in CA that were "elite" or worth working at.

re: Satellite Offices - I can't say a lot because it will probably out me, but I'll do my best to PM the posters who asked for more details.

itbdvorm
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:09 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby itbdvorm » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:02 am

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.


That sounds about right to me (or at least much more right than the post above it). Not as familiar w/the boutiques in SF but LA seems right on. Also Weil for IP litigation (maybe not as big after Powers left). Undoubtedly others I'm forgetting (like entertainment law lit boutiques, but guessing that's not what OP is looking for).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:08 am

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


You posted that you were top 5% at HLS, that you had a 1L SA, and that you were only looking at firms that paid above-market that were super prestigious. What help, exactly, were you hoping for? Oh no, that firm is not prestigious enough for your grades? That being said, congrats on doing that well, the only thing that matters at this point is your personality in interviews, not the order of your bid list.

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

Re: CA Firms

Postby Monty The Dog » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote: re: Satellite Offices - I can't say a lot because it will probably out me, but I'll do my best to PM the posters who asked for more details.


I would really appreciate it...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:12 pm

Curious to know how UCLA/USC law grads to in terms of getting offers from the best biglaw firms (esp. litigation) when contrasted with HYS grads who want primarily CA/SoCal?

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

Re: CA Firms

Postby sundance95 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:42 pm

Monty The Dog wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: re: Satellite Offices - I can't say a lot because it will probably out me, but I'll do my best to PM the posters who asked for more details.


I would really appreciate it...

+1

sherpaorlawschool
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby sherpaorlawschool » Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:re: Satellite Offices - I can't say a lot because it will probably out me, but I'll do my best to PM the posters who asked for more details.


I would appreciate hearing more about this as well.

chasgoose
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: CA Firms

Postby chasgoose » Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:re: Satellite Offices - I can't say a lot because it will probably out me, but I'll do my best to PM the posters who asked for more details.


Me too please...

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

Re: CA Firms

Postby Magnificent » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:35 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.

This is complete and utter bullshit.


What are other elite firms are there? And don't come in here mentioning large sweat shops like Quinn and Irell.

If you're top of your class at HYS and you want to work in private practice in California, then MTO, Susman, and Keker are the only real choices. Unless you know some super prestigious small boutique I haven't heard of.

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

Re: CA Firms

Postby Magnificent » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:40 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?


Keker/Susman/MTO only hire folks that are top 5% at HYS and a few other T14s. They are super selective and pretty much require a CoA clerkship before you can get a full-time offer.

In terms of big firms I would say that Irell/Gibson/Quinn are all about the same in selectivity. You need to be top 10-25% at most of the T14s to get offers and they don't have the clerkship rule that the elite boutiques have.

If you are top 5% at HYS then there is no reason to go to the big California firms because you have a chance at Keker/MTO/Susman.

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

Re: CA Firms

Postby Magnificent » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:45 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.


First of all, I was simply judging the firms by prestige regardless of whether they are large firms or boutiques. And on that scale, there is no way that Gibson or Quinn are on the same level as Munger and Keker.

Most of the firms you mentioned would be completely stupid options for a person who is top 5% at HLS. Anyone with those credentials would be a fool to work at Latham or O'Melveny.

Also Irell is not a "boutique" anymore. They have become an IP sweatshop. Don't go there unless you want to work just on IP lit stuff. Also the partner/associate ratio is something ridiculous like 4 to 1.

Susman doesn't get any talk in CA because they only have 10 attorneys working there. But in terms of compensation and early responsibility, there isn't a firm in CA that can compare. If you can get that offer, you go there. PERIOD

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:04 pm

Magnificent 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.


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


Keker/Susman/MTO only hire folks that are top 5% at HYS and a few other T14s. They are super selective and pretty much require a CoA clerkship before you can get a full-time offer.

In terms of big firms I would say that Irell/Gibson/Quinn are all about the same in selectivity. You need to be top 10-25% at most of the T14s to get offers and they don't have the clerkship rule that the elite boutiques have.

If you are top 5% at HYS then there is no reason to go to the big California firms because you have a chance at Keker/MTO/Susman.


I work in CA (SF specifically). This is silly. You're a silly, silly person.

1. Keker is great - if you want white collar or IP lit. Any other interest means there are tons more lit firms that you should be considering.
2. Munger SF doesn't take summers.
3. Susman hires down below top 1/3 at HYS. Munger and Keker definitely hire below top 5%. Top 5% at HYS can easily go 0-3 with these firms during callback season, especially if they want SF (Keker SF takes 4ish summers, the other 2 only have LA offices).

There are a number of "top" firms in SF. Covington's office has a few terrific partners. Gibson's got some rockstars. Arnold & Porter has a ton of top-notch litigators after the Howard Rice merger. Altshuler is incredible if you want P-side union work. Similarly Lieff Cabraser if you want non-union P-side stuff. MoFo, despite being a sweatshop, has the broadest practice in the city.

None of these are to say that Keker, MTO, and Susman aren't fantastic firms. They undoubtably are. A ton of top students at HYS have made other choices (far more than wound up at one of those 3).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:36 am

How selective is O'Melv's offices? Century City and DTLA? Top 40 at MVPBN with strong LA ties.

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

Re: CA Firms

Postby PMan99 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:01 am

Magnificent 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.


First of all, I was simply judging the firms by prestige regardless of whether they are large firms or boutiques. And on that scale, there is no way that Gibson or Quinn are on the same level as Munger and Keker.

Most of the firms you mentioned would be completely stupid options for a person who is top 5% at HLS. Anyone with those credentials would be a fool to work at Latham or O'Melveny.

Also Irell is not a "boutique" anymore. They have become an IP sweatshop. Don't go there unless you want to work just on IP lit stuff. Also the partner/associate ratio is something ridiculous like 4 to 1.


You are literally just making stuff up. Irell's Associate/Partner is under 2:1.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Magnificent 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.


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


Keker/Susman/MTO only hire folks that are top 5% at HYS and a few other T14s. They are super selective and pretty much require a CoA clerkship before you can get a full-time offer.

In terms of big firms I would say that Irell/Gibson/Quinn are all about the same in selectivity. You need to be top 10-25% at most of the T14s to get offers and they don't have the clerkship rule that the elite boutiques have.

If you are top 5% at HYS then there is no reason to go to the big California firms because you have a chance at Keker/MTO/Susman.


I work in CA (SF specifically). This is silly. You're a silly, silly person.

1. Keker is great - if you want white collar or IP lit. Any other interest means there are tons more lit firms that you should be considering.
2. Munger SF doesn't take summers.
3. Susman hires down below top 1/3 at HYS. Munger and Keker definitely hire below top 5%. Top 5% at HYS can easily go 0-3 with these firms during callback season, especially if they want SF (Keker SF takes 4ish summers, the other 2 only have LA offices).

There are a number of "top" firms in SF. Covington's office has a few terrific partners. Gibson's got some rockstars. Arnold & Porter has a ton of top-notch litigators after the Howard Rice merger. Altshuler is incredible if you want P-side union work. Similarly Lieff Cabraser if you want non-union P-side stuff. MoFo, despite being a sweatshop, has the broadest practice in the city.

None of these are to say that Keker, MTO, and Susman aren't fantastic firms. They undoubtably are. A ton of top students at HYS have made other choices (far more than wound up at one of those 3).


+1 on this. FYI, Keker literally hired zero HLS students last year. Susman hired 1 and not in CA. Munger hired 4 and none in the SF office. and top 5% at HLS is like 30 peeps.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:26 am

Rising YHS 3L working at a CA firm this summer. This thread is laughable, and is full of inaccurate information. While Keker, Munger, and Susman are all spectacular firms, there are a ton of other great ones in LA/SF/SV. Gibson, Latham, Irell, Quinn, O'Melveny, Kirkland, Sidley, etc. all have solid offices in at least two of each of these cities. And some other notable boutiques include Altshuler Berzon, Lieff Cabraser, Boies Schiller, and some entertainment ones in LA/CC. Durie Tangri, while an incredible IP firm, does not take summer associates.

Also, to clear the air . . .
1. As noted, Keker only takes four summers: one each from YHSB. The firm definitely dips below top 5%, although probably not much lower. And it's not like the firm even knows what grades constitute top 5% is at these schools, given their H/P systems.
2. Munger SF doesn't take summer associates, but their LA office is VERY grade-conscious, even at YSH. Top 10-15% is probably a requirement.
3. Susman takes between 0 and 2 summers in its LA office. It gave an offer this summer to a YHS student who was arguably on the cusp of top 1/3.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273475
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: CA Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:29 am

Fresh Prince wrote:Is Durie Tangrie that big a deal SF? Do people really talk about it as much as poster above implies? I actually think this is just bullshit name dropping fueled by the TLS meme that smaller and more exclusive=better.


its a very respected firm. they recruit by hiring (stealing) laterals from bay area firms with strong IP practices.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.