Top Flight DC Firms Forum

[Anonymous User]

My career center has led me to believe that I am competitive at the top firms in DC. I know, DC is the hardest market to crack, and I don't plan on bidding only top firms, and I have a home market that I am equally interested in working in that I will also be bidding. However, I'm wondering what the best firms are in DC, and more importantly if there is a large drop off between firms. FWIW, I am interested chiefly in Government Enforcement/Regulatory as well as General Litigation.

These boards and the Vault DC rankings seem to be in agreement that the top firms are W&C, Covington, A&P, Wilmer and Hogan. Would it peer to say that these are mostly peers or perhaps in that order one being slightly better/more prestigious than the other?? Or are there huge gaps between the quality of some of these firms.

I am mostly interested in this because I'm curious about how overall prestige/ranking translates into the ability to lateral (either into BigGov or In House) 4 to 6 years down the road. Do any of these firm(s) open significantly more doors than the other(s)?

[lawyerwannabe]

General prestige: W&C > Covington > Wilmer.

However, pretty sure Covington is the better firm for regulatory practice; W&C is the place to be for general (white-collar) litigation.

[BruceWayne]

If you want litigation defense work, Williams and Connolly is basically peerless.

[Magnificent]

If you want litigation defense work, Williams and Connolly is basically peerless.

Not really. W&C's bread and butter is white collar criminal lit. They are not the best commercial lit firm in DC let alone the nation.

[BruceWayne]

If you want litigation defense work, Williams and Connolly is basically peerless.

Not really. W&C's bread and butter is white collar criminal lit. They are not the best commercial lit firm in DC let alone the nation.

So? He didn't ask about "commercial lit" or white collar or whatever. He said lit. There's no firm that regularly hires law students that people are going to consider better than W&C. They might see a few other as being equal, but none of those firms that regularly hire law students are in DC (Susman, Bartlitt, Munger, Keker etc.) so W&C is the best in DC. Besides, Chambers disagrees with you. They don't even have anyone else in their band in DC. I don't think I've ever seen that for any practice in any city before.

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/70687

[rayiner]

If you want litigation defense work, Williams and Connolly is basically peerless.

Not really. W&C's bread and butter is white collar criminal lit. They are not the best commercial lit firm in DC let alone the nation.

So? He didn't ask about "commercial lit" or white collar or whatever. He said lit. There's no firm that regularly hires law students that people are going to consider better than W&C. They might see a few other as being equal, but none of those firms that regularly hire law students are in DC (Susman, Bartlitt, Munger, Keker etc.) so W&C is the best in DC. Besides, Chambers disagrees with you. They don't even have anyone else in their band in DC. I don't think I've ever seen that for any practice in any city before.

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/70687

I'm not sure who to believe, Chambers or Magnificent.

[sundance95]

^I lol'd

[Magnificent]

If you want litigation defense work, Williams and Connolly is basically peerless.

Not really. W&C's bread and butter is white collar criminal lit. They are not the best commercial lit firm in DC let alone the nation.

So? He didn't ask about "commercial lit" or white collar or whatever. He said lit. There's no firm that regularly hires law students that people are going to consider better than W&C. They might see a few other as being equal, but none of those firms that regularly hire law students are in DC (Susman, Bartlitt, Munger, Keker etc.) so W&C is the best in DC. Besides, Chambers disagrees with you. They don't even have anyone else in their band in DC. I don't think I've ever seen that for any practice in any city before.

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/70687

Listen. W&C is without a doubt the most prestigious "big" firm in the entire country, however, litigation is a very diverse and wide practice. And W&C really does only one aspect of that much better than the rest of the firms in DC.

I personally have no idea why anyone would want to practice commercial litigation. As a young associate its absolutely terrible because its almost entirely document review. And even when you get more senior, it largely stays as a motions based practice. However, if that does float someone's boat, then they would find that there are other firms that are much better at it than W&C.

If you want to practice regulatory lit, then once again that is something that many other DC firms do better than W&C. If you want to practice appellate lit, then once again there are many firms better than W&C.

As a young law student, most people don't really know what they like or don't like, which is why I would tell someone to never turn down an offer from W&C. However, if you know that you want to do definitely not do white collar criminal lit then W&C might not be the ideal place for you because that is their dominant practice.

If you want to practice commercial litigation, you would be better served at Wilmer. If you want to practice regulatory litigation, you should go to Covington. If you want to practice appellate litigation, you should go to Gibson.

[Anonymous User]

If you want litigation defense work, Williams and Connolly is basically peerless.

Not really. W&C's bread and butter is white collar criminal lit. They are not the best commercial lit firm in DC let alone the nation.

So? He didn't ask about "commercial lit" or white collar or whatever. He said lit. There's no firm that regularly hires law students that people are going to consider better than W&C. They might see a few other as being equal, but none of those firms that regularly hire law students are in DC (Susman, Bartlitt, Munger, Keker etc.) so W&C is the best in DC. Besides, Chambers disagrees with you. They don't even have anyone else in their band in DC. I don't think I've ever seen that for any practice in any city before.

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/70687

Listen. W&C is without a doubt the most prestigious "big" firm in the entire country, however, litigation is a very diverse and wide practice. And W&C really does only one aspect of that much better than the rest of the firms in DC.

I personally have no idea why anyone would want to practice commercial litigation. As a young associate its absolutely terrible because its almost entirely document review. And even when you get more senior, it largely stays as a motions based practice. However, if that does float someone's boat, then they would find that there are other firms that are much better at it than W&C.

If you want to practice regulatory lit, then once again that is something that many other DC firms do better than W&C. If you want to practice appellate lit, then once again there are many firms better than W&C.

As a young law student, most people don't really know what they like or don't like, which is why I would tell someone to never turn down an offer from W&C. However, if you know that you want to do definitely not do white collar criminal lit then W&C might not be the ideal place for you because that is their dominant practice.

If you want to practice commercial litigation, you would be better served at Wilmer. If you want to practice regulatory litigation, you should go to Covington. If you want to practice appellate litigation, you should go to Gibson.

Credited. Anecdotally know of two people: one turned down W&C for Covington because of an interest in regulatory litigation; another turned down W&C for Gibson because of an interest in appellate litigation.

[snailio]

Not really. W&C's bread and butter is white collar criminal lit. They are not the best commercial lit firm in DC let alone the nation.[/quote]

So? He didn't ask about "commercial lit" or white collar or whatever. He said lit. There's no firm that regularly hires law students that people are going to consider better than W&C. They might see a few other as being equal, but none of those firms that regularly hire law students are in DC (Susman, Bartlitt, Munger, Keker etc.) so W&C is the best in DC. Besides, Chambers disagrees with you. They don't even have anyone else in their band in DC. I don't think I've ever seen that for any practice in any city before.

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/70687[/quote]

Listen. W&C is without a doubt the most prestigious "big" firm in the entire country, however, litigation is a very diverse and wide practice. And W&C really does only one aspect of that much better than the rest of the firms in DC.

I personally have no idea why anyone would want to practice commercial litigation. As a young associate its absolutely terrible because its almost entirely document review. And even when you get more senior, it largely stays as a motions based practice. However, if that does float someone's boat, then they would find that there are other firms that are much better at it than W&C.

If you want to practice regulatory lit, then once again that is something that many other DC firms do better than W&C. If you want to practice appellate lit, then once again there are many firms better than W&C.

As a young law student, most people don't really know what they like or don't like, which is why I would tell someone to never turn down an offer from W&C. However, if you know that you want to do definitely not do white collar criminal lit then W&C might not be the ideal place for you because that is their dominant practice.

If you want to practice commercial litigation, you would be better served at Wilmer. If you want to practice regulatory litigation, you should go to Covington. If you want to practice appellate litigation, you should go to Gibson.[/quote]

Credited. Anecdotally know of two people: one turned down W&C for Covington because of an interest in regulatory litigation; another turned down W&C for Gibson because of an interest in appellate litigation.[/quote]






Credited on Magnificent's appraisal as well.

Also knows someone who took Gibson for the appellate work over W&C, and this person could have taken a job at any firm in the country... LITERALLY...just saying.

[Magnificent]

Also knows someone who took Gibson for the appellate work over W&C, and this person could have taken a job at any firm in the country... LITERALLY...just saying.

For those who know nothing about the DC practice. W&C does not have a regulatory or appellate practice of any worth. If you have any interest in either field, you would be a fool to take W&C over most of the other top tier DC firms (i.e. Covington, Wilmer, A&P, Gibson).

W&C is elite in only one field of litigation. White Collar Criminal Defense. If that is what you want to do, then there is no better firm. However, if you actually don't know what you want to do, then W&C might not give you exposure to all the other practice areas there are in litigation that one could see working at firms like Covington, Wilmer, A&P, GDC, etc.

[gyarados]

Also knows someone who took Gibson for the appellate work over W&C, and this person could have taken a job at any firm in the country... LITERALLY...just saying.

For those who know nothing about the DC practice. W&C does not have a regulatory or appellate practice of any worth. If you have any interest in either field, you would be a fool to take W&C over most of the other top tier DC firms (i.e. Covington, Wilmer, A&P, Gibson).

W&C is elite in only one field of litigation. White Collar Criminal Defense. If that is what you want to do, then there is no better firm. However, if you actually don't know what you want to do, then W&C might not give you exposure to all the other practice areas there are in litigation that one could see working at firms like Covington, Wilmer, A&P, GDC, etc.

Vault has them #2 in nationwide appellate practice behind Gibson Dunn. I know Vault specialty rankings aren't all that accurate, but basically you're full of shit.

[itbdvorm]

Also knows someone who took Gibson for the appellate work over W&C, and this person could have taken a job at any firm in the country... LITERALLY...just saying.

For those who know nothing about the DC practice. W&C does not have a regulatory or appellate practice of any worth. If you have any interest in either field, you would be a fool to take W&C over most of the other top tier DC firms (i.e. Covington, Wilmer, A&P, Gibson).

W&C is elite in only one field of litigation. White Collar Criminal Defense. If that is what you want to do, then there is no better firm. However, if you actually don't know what you want to do, then W&C might not give you exposure to all the other practice areas there are in litigation that one could see working at firms like Covington, Wilmer, A&P, GDC, etc.

Vault has them #2 in nationwide appellate practice behind Gibson Dunn. I know Vault specialty rankings aren't all that accurate, but basically you're full of shit.

Vault specialty rankings are much more full of shit than Magnificent is here. W&C does a ton of things really well (I actually disagree about the not good at commercial lit statement - they just do a different type of commercial lit than most people are used to) but appellate's not their bread and butter.

Vault also puts Cravath 7th in PE when they don't actually do any PE work, Wachtell #1 in General Corporate when that's really, really not what they do, (also 6th in Securities - again, not what they do).

People vote for prestige in areas of expertise too when they don't know any better.

[Magnificent]

Also knows someone who took Gibson for the appellate work over W&C, and this person could have taken a job at any firm in the country... LITERALLY...just saying.

For those who know nothing about the DC practice. W&C does not have a regulatory or appellate practice of any worth. If you have any interest in either field, you would be a fool to take W&C over most of the other top tier DC firms (i.e. Covington, Wilmer, A&P, Gibson).

W&C is elite in only one field of litigation. White Collar Criminal Defense. If that is what you want to do, then there is no better firm. However, if you actually don't know what you want to do, then W&C might not give you exposure to all the other practice areas there are in litigation that one could see working at firms like Covington, Wilmer, A&P, GDC, etc.

Vault has them #2 in nationwide appellate practice behind Gibson Dunn. I know Vault specialty rankings aren't all that accurate, but basically you're full of shit.

LOL!!!

Your an idiot if you actually believe anything in Vault. Stupid associates in NYC don't know anything about the DC practice. There is a reason they are in NYC and not in DC. They didn't have the grades to make it down here.

I work in DC. I won't confirm or deny whether I work/worked at W&C but I will confirm that I do know their practice really well. W&C basically has only one partner (Kannon Shanmugam) that does appellate work. Outside of him, there isn't an appellate practice at the firm. You would be an idiot if you wanted to practice appellate law to work at W&C over the DC offices of firms like GDC, Wilmer, Jenner, Mayer Brown, and Kirkland. All those firms have established appellate practices that are well renowned.

If you are a young associate interested in appellate or regulatory work, DON'T GO TO W&C, since they don't have an appellate or regulatory practice. Don't believe Vault. Ask people who work there or who have worked there but are now at other firms.

[Anonymous User]

^ You might be right, but do you have to be so condescending about it? People would take you far more seriously if you were just nice.

[Old Gregg]

^ You might be right, but do you have to be so condescending about it? People would take you far more seriously if you were just nice.

And if he wasn't full of shit. But if you throw a bunch darts at the board, you're bound to hit a bullseye, right?

[TheProsecutor]

My career center has led me to believe that I am competitive at the top firms in DC. I know, DC is the hardest market to crack, and I don't plan on bidding only top firms, and I have a home market that I am equally interested in working in that I will also be bidding. However, I'm wondering what the best firms are in DC, and more importantly if there is a large drop off between firms. FWIW, I am interested chiefly in Government Enforcement/Regulatory as well as General Litigation.

These boards and the Vault DC rankings seem to be in agreement that the top firms are W&C, Covington, A&P, Wilmer and Hogan. Would it peer to say that these are mostly peers or perhaps in that order one being slightly better/more prestigious than the other?? Or are there huge gaps between the quality of some of these firms.

I am mostly interested in this because I'm curious about how overall prestige/ranking translates into the ability to lateral (either into BigGov or In House) 4 to 6 years down the road. Do any of these firm(s) open significantly more doors than the other(s)?

I don't think that you'll have to worry about it. I think that you should look at all different firms in DC. The government is not going to care whether you went to Kirkland DC, Arnold & Porter, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Wilmer Hale, or Skadden. The government cares that you have the specific type of experience that they are looking for.

Prestige is a silly concept and it only exists in your mind. I've never met a kid from a top law firm and thought, wow (S)he is prestigious. I've been in rooms with guys from williams and connolly and women from Hogan and I never thought that one was more prestigious than the other (though williams is a more prestigious firm).

The Williams & Connolly guy probably got better grades, probably went to a better law school, probably did a clerkship and it is why Williams & Connolly wanted him. That's what they are looking for. If he gets good experience, he can go to main justice or become an AUSA pretty easily. If he distinguishes himself, he might become a federal judge.

But main justice and AUSA and the federal government in general is not out there looking for Williams & Connolly associates. They are out there looking for people with top-notch experience and specific experience. The girl from Hogan will get into the government over the guy from W&C if she has the more relevant experience.

And I'm saying this as a guy who believes W&C is the second most prestigious firm in the USA behind Wachtell.

[anon168]

My career center has led me to believe that I am competitive at the top firms in DC. I know, DC is the hardest market to crack, and I don't plan on bidding only top firms, and I have a home market that I am equally interested in working in that I will also be bidding. However, I'm wondering what the best firms are in DC, and more importantly if there is a large drop off between firms. FWIW, I am interested chiefly in Government Enforcement/Regulatory as well as General Litigation.

These boards and the Vault DC rankings seem to be in agreement that the top firms are W&C, Covington, A&P, Wilmer and Hogan. Would it peer to say that these are mostly peers or perhaps in that order one being slightly better/more prestigious than the other?? Or are there huge gaps between the quality of some of these firms.

I am mostly interested in this because I'm curious about how overall prestige/ranking translates into the ability to lateral (either into BigGov or In House) 4 to 6 years down the road. Do any of these firm(s) open significantly more doors than the other(s)?

I don't think that you'll have to worry about it. I think that you should look at all different firms in DC. The government is not going to care whether you went to Kirkland DC, Arnold & Porter, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Wilmer Hale, or Skadden. The government cares that you have the specific type of experience that they are looking for.

Prestige is a silly concept and it only exists in your mind. I've never met a kid from a top law firm and thought, wow (S)he is prestigious. I've been in rooms with guys from williams and connolly and women from Hogan and I never thought that one was more prestigious than the other (though williams is a more prestigious firm).

The Williams & Connolly guy probably got better grades, probably went to a better law school, probably did a clerkship and it is why Williams & Connolly wanted him. That's what they are looking for. If he gets good experience, he can go to main justice or become an AUSA pretty easily. If he distinguishes himself, he might become a federal judge.

But main justice and AUSA and the federal government in general is not out there looking for Williams & Connolly associates. They are out there looking for people with top-notch experience and specific experience. The girl from Hogan will get into the government over the guy from W&C if she has the more relevant experience.

And I'm saying this as a guy who believes W&C is the second most prestigious firm in the USA behind Wachtell.

+1

Prestige is overrated. Not saying it's not important, but just that law school student drastically overrate it, and become slaves to it.

[rayiner]

In these hypos, why is the person who went to the less prestigious firm always the one with more relevant experience? More likely you're in a situation where you're staring at two resumes with experience that is hard to distinguish, but one is at a firm that signals that the candidate "probably got better grades, probably went to a better law school, probably did a clerkship..."

Obviously if one firm does a certain type of work that another doesn't, that's different.

[TheProsecutor]

In these hypos, why is the person who went to the less prestigious firm always the one with more relevant experience? More likely you're in a situation where you're staring at two resumes with experience that is hard to distinguish, but one is at a firm that signals that the candidate "probably got better grades, probably went to a better law school, probably did a clerkship..."

Obviously if one firm does a certain type of work that another doesn't, that's different.

When you apply to government jobs, generally you have to respond to a detailed questionnaire describing how your experience meets the experience required for the job. Often these requirments are not broad, but fairly narrow set of experiences. One can easily imagine an associate at a less prestigious firm working on the specific niche an agency is looking for than someone in a prestigious firm. Even if both associates want to work for the agency, the less prestigious one will have the advantage despite being in a less prestigious firm.

This is not to say that the Williams & Connolly person won't have the necessary experience, but lateraling is not like applying to firm jobs as a 2L. The criteria for hiring is way less grades, law school focused (although those things help) and way more experience oriented. That's all I'm saying.

[$$$$$$]

Your an idiot if you actually believe anything in Vault. Stupid associates in NYC don't know anything about the DC practice. There is a reason they are in NYC and not in DC. They didn't have the grades to make it down here.

I know a bunch of people that wouldn't touch DC that had ridiculous grades. Why? Three reasons: (1) They want the best corporate work in the world and want exit options that allow for careers in-house at top financial services firms, tech companies, consumer product companies, etc. (2) DC freaking sucks. Lastly (3) People like you (im assuming you suck) are riddled throughout DC, leaves the city cultureless and dominated by prestige whoreish morons who think they are better than other people because of work/school when in reality, I've found most to be insufferable and miserable.

[Magnificent]

My career center has led me to believe that I am competitive at the top firms in DC. I know, DC is the hardest market to crack, and I don't plan on bidding only top firms, and I have a home market that I am equally interested in working in that I will also be bidding. However, I'm wondering what the best firms are in DC, and more importantly if there is a large drop off between firms. FWIW, I am interested chiefly in Government Enforcement/Regulatory as well as General Litigation.

These boards and the Vault DC rankings seem to be in agreement that the top firms are W&C, Covington, A&P, Wilmer and Hogan. Would it peer to say that these are mostly peers or perhaps in that order one being slightly better/more prestigious than the other?? Or are there huge gaps between the quality of some of these firms.

I am mostly interested in this because I'm curious about how overall prestige/ranking translates into the ability to lateral (either into BigGov or In House) 4 to 6 years down the road. Do any of these firm(s) open significantly more doors than the other(s)?

I don't think that you'll have to worry about it. I think that you should look at all different firms in DC. The government is not going to care whether you went to Kirkland DC, Arnold & Porter, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Wilmer Hale, or Skadden. The government cares that you have the specific type of experience that they are looking for.

Prestige is a silly concept and it only exists in your mind. I've never met a kid from a top law firm and thought, wow (S)he is prestigious. I've been in rooms with guys from williams and connolly and women from Hogan and I never thought that one was more prestigious than the other (though williams is a more prestigious firm).

The Williams & Connolly guy probably got better grades, probably went to a better law school, probably did a clerkship and it is why Williams & Connolly wanted him. That's what they are looking for. If he gets good experience, he can go to main justice or become an AUSA pretty easily. If he distinguishes himself, he might become a federal judge.

But main justice and AUSA and the federal government in general is not out there looking for Williams & Connolly associates. They are out there looking for people with top-notch experience and specific experience. The girl from Hogan will get into the government over the guy from W&C if she has the more relevant experience.

And I'm saying this as a guy who believes W&C is the second most prestigious firm in the USA behind Wachtell.

First of all, W&C is much more prestigious than Wachtell. More W&C summers go on to clerk for the Supreme Court than any other firm. W&C also has a sitting SCOTUS judge as an alum, something not many other firms can say.

Second, you obviously know nothing about DC or the legal profession. Pretty much the only capital lawyers have going for them is prestige. Which is why law school, clerkship, and firm prestige always matter. Firm prestige is especially significant at least at the associate level and the W&C associate will ALWAYS be more prestigious and thought of more highly than a Hogan associate. Certain practice areas can carry more prestige than W&C, for example GDC and Wilmer's appellate groups are filled with SCOTUS clerks and they would carry more prestige.

[Haymarket]

First of all, W&C is much more prestigious than Wachtell.

I stopped reading here.

[Magnificent]

Your an idiot if you actually believe anything in Vault. Stupid associates in NYC don't know anything about the DC practice. There is a reason they are in NYC and not in DC. They didn't have the grades to make it down here.

I know a bunch of people that wouldn't touch DC that had ridiculous grades. Why? Three reasons: (1) They want the best corporate work in the world and want exit options that allow for careers in-house at top financial services firms, tech companies, consumer product companies, etc. (2) DC freaking sucks. Lastly (3) People like you (im assuming you suck) are riddled throughout DC, leaves the city cultureless and dominated by prestige whoreish morons who think they are better than other people because of work/school when in reality, I've found most to be insufferable and miserable.

Nobody goes to law school to do corporate work. Only failed bankers looking for a second chance in finance want to go down that path.

[Detrox]

Having Magnificent tell you that you "obviously" don't know anything about the legal profession appears to be the equivalent of having the beauty queen from South Carolina tell you that you "obviously" don't know anything about Iraq.