Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

(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.

SF Litigation: Gibson, Quinn, or Latham?

Gibson Dunn
16
52%
Quinn Emanuel
10
32%
Latham & Watkins
5
16%
 
Total votes: 31

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:08 pm

Hi all, I'm a litigation-focused 2L choosing between summer associate gigs, and I'm trying to figure out if any of the negative buzz about Quinn is justified, in terms of it being an especially egregious sweatshop with a particularly abrasive firm culture. I'm interested in the SF in particular, but I'd be happy to hear general opinions on Quinn.

I've heard rumors that Quinn's junior associates get particularly substantive litigation work early on because of Quinn's trial lawyer specialty - if those rumors are true, I'd be willing to put up with a tough work environment for the extra experience.

My understanding is that the other two major litigation players in SF (barring Keker & Van Nest, which isn't an option for me at the moment) are Gibson Dunn (the undisputed SF litigation Chambers leader) and Latham (solid practice, larger SF presence than Gibson, although sometimes Lathams people). Any opinions on why one of the three is superior, and on whether the anti-Quinn static is justified?

Thanks!

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

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby chasgoose » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:11 pm

I could be wrong, but of those firms I've only heard of Quinn making offers for next summer... You might want to wait until you actually have these choices. Of course, Quinn is probably the "hardest" to get, but that doesn't mean you are guaranteed offers from Latham/GDC.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:19 pm

chasgoose wrote:I could be wrong, but of those firms I've only heard of Quinn making offers for next summer... You might want to wait until you actually have these choices. Of course, Quinn is probably the "hardest" to get, but that doesn't mean you are guaranteed offers from Latham/GDC.

OP here. I don't want to give out any identifying information, but while I appreciate the input, I wouldn't have asked the question if I wasn't already engaged in choosing between the firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:24 pm

Quinn SF does impressive work, but their SF practice is basically limited to IP litigation and a handful of white collar defense people. Also, the sweatshop talk is somewhat justified (although GDC and Latham will work you very, very hard as well).

GDC SF and Latham SF both get and do great work, but differ in terms of size and culture. GDC SF is smaller, and perhaps more academic, while Latham SF is much larger, and significantly more bro-y. Just depends where you fall along the continuum.

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby anon168 » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all, I'm a litigation-focused 2L choosing between summer associate gigs, and I'm trying to figure out if any of the negative buzz about Quinn is justified, in terms of it being an especially egregious sweatshop with a particularly abrasive firm culture. I'm interested in the SF in particular, but I'd be happy to hear general opinions on Quinn.

I've heard rumors that Quinn's junior associates get particularly substantive litigation work early on because of Quinn's trial lawyer specialty - if those rumors are true, I'd be willing to put up with a tough work environment for the extra experience.

My understanding is that the other two major litigation players in SF (barring Keker & Van Nest, which isn't an option for me at the moment) are Gibson Dunn (the undisputed SF litigation Chambers leader) and Latham (solid practice, larger SF presence than Gibson, although sometimes Lathams people). Any opinions on why one of the three is superior, and on whether the anti-Quinn static is justified?

Thanks!


Let's clear up something first. QE's "trial lawyer" mantra is a bit overstated. They do not necessarily do more trials than any other biglaw firm out there. They like to say that they do, but ask them how many JURY trials the firm has actually taken to verdict in the past calendar year, and you’ll get a very different answer. In fact, a quick glance under the “news” section of QE’s website by my count shows the firm probably had about 3-4 jury trials in the past year – something a firm like KVN could probably match, with far far far few lawyers. So don’t drink the QE Kool-Aid on “trial experience” bullshit.

Now, with that out of the way, here’s how you should look at the firms. The work at each of the three – QE, LW, GDC – will be about the same on average. So you have to make your decision based on firm culture.

QE is probably the most laid back in terms of culture, but is really really intense when it comes to billables. A sweatshop made up of really smart A-type personalities is probably a good way of describing them.

GDC is probably on the opposite end of the spectrum from QE – i.e., more buttoned-up, white-shoe conservative. Less focused on hours and billables, but you’re not necessarily going to work less.

LW is probably somewhere in the middle. They will still work you hard, but there’s a bit of frat-boy mentality that permeates the firm.

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby piccolittle » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:19 pm

How did you feel on your callbacks? Personally, I was turned off by all the closed doors at Latham. I guess it will come down to fit for you, but congrats on having such great options!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:44 pm

Anyone know which prominent SF lit shops do a comparatively smaller amount of patent lit?

User avatar
Detrox
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:58 pm

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Detrox » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:57 pm

Why isn't MoFo on here? Are you opposed to popping bottles and slaying mad bitches?

User avatar
BioEBear2010
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:05 pm

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby BioEBear2010 » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know which prominent SF lit shops do a comparatively smaller amount of patent lit?

Interviewed with a bunch last year. Quinn, Kirkland, MoFo, and Latham do the most patent lit (probably in that order), followed by GDC and Covington. So the corollary is that other shops do less. Orrick, Ropes, and a few other firms have most of their IP stuff run out of their SV offices.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:59 pm

anon168 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Hi all, I'm a litigation-focused 2L choosing between summer associate gigs, and I'm trying to figure out if any of the negative buzz about Quinn is justified, in terms of it being an especially egregious sweatshop with a particularly abrasive firm culture. I'm interested in the SF in particular, but I'd be happy to hear general opinions on Quinn.

I've heard rumors that Quinn's junior associates get particularly substantive litigation work early on because of Quinn's trial lawyer specialty - if those rumors are true, I'd be willing to put up with a tough work environment for the extra experience.

My understanding is that the other two major litigation players in SF (barring Keker & Van Nest, which isn't an option for me at the moment) are Gibson Dunn (the undisputed SF litigation Chambers leader) and Latham (solid practice, larger SF presence than Gibson, although sometimes Lathams people). Any opinions on why one of the three is superior, and on whether the anti-Quinn static is justified?

Thanks!


Let's clear up something first. QE's "trial lawyer" mantra is a bit overstated. They do not necessarily do more trials than any other biglaw firm out there. They like to say that they do, but ask them how many JURY trials the firm has actually taken to verdict in the past calendar year, and you’ll get a very different answer. In fact, a quick glance under the “news” section of QE’s website by my count shows the firm probably had about 3-4 jury trials in the past year – something a firm like KVN could probably match, with far far far few lawyers. So don’t drink the QE Kool-Aid on “trial experience” bullshit.

Now, with that out of the way, here’s how you should look at the firms. The work at each of the three – QE, LW, GDC – will be about the same on average. So you have to make your decision based on firm culture.

QE is probably the most laid back in terms of culture, but is really really intense when it comes to billables. A sweatshop made up of really smart A-type personalities is probably a good way of describing them.

GDC is probably on the opposite end of the spectrum from QE – i.e., more buttoned-up, white-shoe conservative. Less focused on hours and billables, but you’re not necessarily going to work less.

LW is probably somewhere in the middle. They will still work you hard, but there’s a bit of frat-boy mentality that permeates the firm.


QE website lists 5 trial victories under news since January 2012 (i'm guessing they don't list if they lose the case). They are currently trying the Apple v. Samsung case. My callback interviewers said that they typical try between 10-20 trials per year. I haven't tried to go through and tally the number of trials that other firms do, but it seems like far fewer (especially considering the relative size of some of the other firms). They may go overboard on the marketing, but it is a unique model relative to many big firms' litigation groups (i.e. steady stream of work from institutional clients).

nleefer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby nleefer » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:05 pm

I'm starting work at QE (silicon valley office) this fall. Back when I did OCI I had to choose between Quinn and Latham. If you'd like my thoughts about either firm feel free to PM me.

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

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Old Gregg » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:05 pm

s do, but it seems like far fewer (especially considering the relative size of some of the other firms). They may go overboard on the marketing, but it is a unique model relative


You act like it's a unique model by choice. Yes, Quinn says that they don't want to represent banks so they can sue them. But the reality is that if a bank wanted Quinn, Quinn would jump at the chance. He's already done so for Morgan Stanley. Ever heard of them?

These are all marketing gimmicks and bullshit. The reality is that Quinn is an awful place for associates. But it's probably the best place to be a partner at, even better than WLRK. You'll make a similar salary, but you won't have to pay WLRK-sized bonuses. It's really win-win for them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:14 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
s do, but it seems like far fewer (especially considering the relative size of some of the other firms). They may go overboard on the marketing, but it is a unique model relative


You act like it's a unique model by choice. Yes, Quinn says that they don't want to represent banks so they can sue them. But the reality is that if a bank wanted Quinn, Quinn would jump at the chance. He's already done so for Morgan Stanley. Ever heard of them?

These are all marketing gimmicks and bullshit. The reality is that Quinn is an awful place for associates. But it's probably the best place to be a partner at, even better than WLRK. You'll make a similar salary, but you won't have to pay WLRK-sized bonuses. It's really win-win for them.

How sweatshoppy can Quinn be compared to the rest of the firms?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:22 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
s do, but it seems like far fewer (especially considering the relative size of some of the other firms). They may go overboard on the marketing, but it is a unique model relative


You act like it's a unique model by choice. Yes, Quinn says that they don't want to represent banks so they can sue them. But the reality is that if a bank wanted Quinn, Quinn would jump at the chance. He's already done so for Morgan Stanley. Ever heard of them?

These are all marketing gimmicks and bullshit. The reality is that Quinn is an awful place for associates. But it's probably the best place to be a partner at, even better than WLRK. You'll make a similar salary, but you won't have to pay WLRK-sized bonuses. It's really win-win for them.


It's unique from the rest of the V20 in that they have no corporate group. Who cares whether they represent banks? Unless you really want to do securities litigation, representing banks doesn't sound all that exciting.

I agree that there are a handful of true civil litigation focused firms that are better than QE for associates (Boies, Susman, Munger, W&C, Bartlitt, Keker, etc...) but all of them are small and extremely hard to get jobs at. What biglaw firms realistically offer the same type of litigation experiences? I'm interested to hear.

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

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Old Gregg » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:27 pm

xtremely hard to get jobs at. What biglaw firms realistically offer the same type of litigation experiences? I'm interested to hear


Any big firm that handles bet the company, products liability, IP litigation, or any other high stakes practice. Specifics? Skadden, Kirkland, Gibson, Paul Weiss. I could go on.

Quinn is no better than those places for associates, and is even worse in many respects. When you meet a Quinn associate, ask how cheap their firm is. Fuck, just ask for their seamless budget.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:35 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
xtremely hard to get jobs at. What biglaw firms realistically offer the same type of litigation experiences? I'm interested to hear


Any big firm that handles bet the company, products liability, IP litigation, or any other high stakes practice. Specifics? Skadden, Kirkland, Gibson, Paul Weiss. I could go on.

Quinn is no better than those places for associates, and is even worse in many respects. When you meet a Quinn associate, ask how cheap their firm is. Fuck, just ask for their seamless budget.

But Quinn has no dress code which obviously puts them on the levels of Wachtell.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:04 am

I've heard that LW in SF isn't as highly regarded as their other offices. OP, might also want to consider whether going to a firm like LW or GDC that does corporate, in case OP ends up hating litigation. Especially because LW and GDC have a "free market" or "unassigned" system for associates. If I knew I wanted litigation, maybe I'd choose Quinn over GDC. But it's hard to know that as a law student.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:40 am

to echo another poster, why isnt mofo on this list? pretty sure by sheer size, mofo has more litigators in SF then any other firm, not to mention super high profile cases (oracle v google and apple v samsung, deaf people v netflix, etc).

and of course, theres always the fact that MoFo SF litigators are ALPHA AS FUCK/style on dem orrick bros/slay pussy all up in union square, etc.

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

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby sundance95 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:34 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
xtremely hard to get jobs at. What biglaw firms realistically offer the same type of litigation experiences? I'm interested to hear


Any big firm that handles bet the company, products liability, IP litigation, or any other high stakes practice. Specifics? Skadden, Kirkland, Gibson, Paul Weiss. I could go on.

Quinn is no better than those places for associates, and is even worse in many respects. When you meet a Quinn associate, ask how cheap their firm is. Fuck, just ask for their seamless budget.

You realize this thread is about the bay area right? GTFO with your NYC centric vault nonsense

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

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:16 am

sundance95 wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
xtremely hard to get jobs at. What biglaw firms realistically offer the same type of litigation experiences? I'm interested to hear


Any big firm that handles bet the company, products liability, IP litigation, or any other high stakes practice. Specifics? Skadden, Kirkland, Gibson, Paul Weiss. I could go on.

Quinn is no better than those places for associates, and is even worse in many respects. When you meet a Quinn associate, ask how cheap their firm is. Fuck, just ask for their seamless budget.

You realize this thread is about the bay area right? GTFO with your NYC centric vault nonsense


You realize that Gibson and Kirkland are still applicable, right? Add Latham too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Latham v. Gibson Dunn for SF Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:36 am

As a poster above mentioned, Quinn SF really only does patent litigation and, to a much lesser extent, white collar defense. Their financial, soft IP, and general business lit groups are in NYC and LA.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.