California Firms Forum
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 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.
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: California Firms
I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.
- fatduck
- Posts: 4135
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm
Re: California Firms
my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: California Firms
That kind of laziness isn't gong to cut it at Keker.fatduck wrote:my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.
Sidenote, I voted for Munger because I want the OP to be as miserable as possible.
- sundance95
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: California Firms
Ok, I'll take the bait. Care to elaborate?Kronk wrote:That kind of laziness isn't gong to cut it at Keker.fatduck wrote:my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.
Sidenote, I voted for Munger because I want the OP to be as miserable as possible.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
(not OP)Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:It's a realistic hypo.L’Étranger wrote:Um, is this all a hypo? Getting offers from all of these firms would be a quite a feat.
Bullshit. I've talked to people that've had 7 CBs after 2 days of interviewing and I still think getting ALL or even most of these firms is a fucking joke.
I had offers at all of these that I chose to interview at (didn't interview at Quinn or MTO) and also DPW, Kirkland, and STB, so it is definitely possible.
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: California Firms
I am not a fisherman, sir. Just common knowledge that MTO works sweatshop hours, even worse than most biglawl.sundance95 wrote:Ok, I'll take the bait. Care to elaborate?Kronk wrote:That kind of laziness isn't gong to cut it at Keker.fatduck wrote:my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.
Sidenote, I voted for Munger because I want the OP to be as miserable as possible.
- Dignan
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm
Re: California Firms
First, I've never heard MTO described as a sweatshop. I'm sure people work hard there—everyone works hard in big law litigation—but the conventional wisdom is that MTO associates work less than the associates at Gibson, Quinn, Irell, Skadden, etc.
Second, I don't find it hard to believe that the OP has offers from all the firms listed in the poll. An applicant with an offer from KVN likely has the credentials to gets offers from all the other firms on the list. True, some of these firms have reputations for valuing different personality traits (e.g., Latham likes fratty, Quinn likes aggressive, Gibson likes extroverted and bubbly), but I think these firms care mostly about grades. If you have the grades for KVN, and if you interview well, then you're probably going to get offers from most or all of the other elite firms in California.
Second, I don't find it hard to believe that the OP has offers from all the firms listed in the poll. An applicant with an offer from KVN likely has the credentials to gets offers from all the other firms on the list. True, some of these firms have reputations for valuing different personality traits (e.g., Latham likes fratty, Quinn likes aggressive, Gibson likes extroverted and bubbly), but I think these firms care mostly about grades. If you have the grades for KVN, and if you interview well, then you're probably going to get offers from most or all of the other elite firms in California.
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: California Firms
I find it hard to believe the OP has offers at all of the firms because he said he didn't have offers at all the firms.Dignan wrote:First, I've never heard MTO described as a sweatshop. I'm sure people work hard there—everyone works hard in big law litigation—but the conventional wisdom is that MTO associates work less than the associates at Gibson, Quinn, Irell, Skadden, etc.
Second, I don't find it hard to believe that the OP has offers from all the firms listed in the poll. An applicant with an offer from KVN likely has the credentials to gets offers from all the other firms on the list. True, some of these firms have reputations for valuing different personality traits (e.g., Latham likes fratty, Quinn likes aggressive, Gibson likes extroverted and bubbly), but I think these firms care mostly about grades. If you have the grades for KVN, and if you interview well, then you're probably going to get offers from most or all of the other elite firms in California.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
This tread has a lot of wrong information, but nothing as egregious as this. MTO shares its internal finances with all summers, associates, and partners. Almost all associates feel very comfortable in the 1900-2000 maybe 2100 hour range. There is no way MTO associates, on average, work the kind of hours Quinn/Gibson/Irell associates work on average (nor does MTO have this reputation). One caveat, MTO does not currently credit associates with billable hour credit for working on non-case matters (such as recruiting) and so compared to firms that do, this may cut into the difference.Kronk wrote: I am not a fisherman, sir. Just common knowledge that MTO works sweatshop hours, even worse than most biglawl.
With that said, there are plenty of people who voluntarily work longer hours or staffed on cases that may be quickly approaching trial. Some (and, by some, I mean a very discrete minority) associates may end up working "sweatshop" hours, but that's purely by choice.
- Kronk
- Posts: 32987
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: California Firms
You sound like you work there so I'll not defend my point of view, it was just what I heard, sort of confirmed by the lack of an official billable requirement and the level of student who gets offers there. I will say 2100 is sweatshop hours as an associate, when a lot of time is not billed. I would say 2000 is your average sweatshop. At mine 1950 was still sweatshoppy.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
Sorry, I probably came across too harsh. Feel free to defend your view, but let me say a few more things.Kronk wrote:You sound like you work there so I'll not defend my point of view, it was just what I heard, sort of confirmed by the lack of an official billable requirement and the level of student who gets offers there. I will say 2100 is sweatshop hours as an associate, when a lot of time is not billed. I would say 2000 is your average sweatshop. At mine 1950 was still sweatshoppy.
If 2000 hours makes a firm a sweatshop, MTO definitely fits that bill, but so would every other major LA shop. Having spoken with and interviewed with other big LA firms, it seems that other firms require significantly more than 2100 hours to be on pace with your associate class. Quinn, for example, in calculating bonuses, has categories for as high as 2800-2900 hours and does not give any bonuses typically for less than 2000 hours. http://abovethelaw.com/2011/12/associat ... h-billers/ That, of course, does not mean people are not billing less than 2000 hours. Still, you would expect the average Quinn associate to be billing much more than 2000 hours. In my limited understanding, the average at these places seems to be closer to the 2200-2300 hour range.
Now, don't get me wrong. Quinn or Irell or Gibson are all probably great places to gain litigation experience and, if you account for bonuses, they almost certainly pay more than MTO. But Quinn et al, like many more traditional LA big law shops, definitely requires more hours and has more of a sweatshop reputation relative to Munger.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm
Re: California Firms
Bullshit.Anonymous User wrote:This tread has a lot of wrong information, but nothing as egregious as this. MTO shares its internal finances with all summers, associates, and partners. Almost all associates feel very comfortable in the 1900-2000 maybe 2100 hour range. There is no way MTO associates, on average, work the kind of hours Quinn/Gibson/Irell associates work on average (nor does MTO have this reputation). One caveat, MTO does not currently credit associates with billable hour credit for working on non-case matters (such as recruiting) and so compared to firms that do, this may cut into the difference.Kronk wrote: I am not a fisherman, sir. Just common knowledge that MTO works sweatshop hours, even worse than most biglawl.
With that said, there are plenty of people who voluntarily work longer hours or staffed on cases that may be quickly approaching trial. Some (and, by some, I mean a very discrete minority) associates may end up working "sweatshop" hours, but that's purely by choice.
You, my friend, have a talent for understatement.
This whole fucking board has a lot of wrong information. Not just this thread (or "tread" as you like to say).
I don't have the requisite bandwidth to post and correct all the misconceptions.
Last edited by anon168 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:24 pm
Re: California Firms
This thread is egregiously absurd. MoFo is coming in second? Over MTO and KVN? Absurd.
Don't get me wrong, MoFo is not a terrible place by any stretch, but outside some niche practice areas it doesn't compare to the other two.
Don't get me wrong, MoFo is not a terrible place by any stretch, but outside some niche practice areas it doesn't compare to the other two.
-
- Posts: 20063
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm
Re: California Firms
For someone who isn't set on litigation it probably does make sense to pick MoFo over MTO/KVN.Staberinde wrote:This thread is egregiously absurd. MoFo is coming in second? Over MTO and KVN? Absurd.
Don't get me wrong, MoFo is not a terrible place by any stretch, but outside some niche practice areas it doesn't compare to the other two.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
Would anyone's thoughts change if Irell and Susman were thrown into the picture?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 20063
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm
Re: California Firms
You really need to qualify what you mean by "leaning litigation." You've thrown around a lot of firms that wouldn't make sense for someone who still might want to do transactional. These are two more firms (not saying I would or would not pick them over any of the above) that don't make sense for someone who might want to do transactional. If you mean something along the lines of 90/10 lit/trans then it would be safer to take an MTO/KVN/Irell/Quinn/etc, but if it's more like 60/40 lit/trans then you're taking a big risk by going to one of those firms.Anonymous User wrote:Would anyone's thoughts change if Irell and Susman were thrown into the picture?
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
Okay, point well-taken. I'll say that i'm about 80/90% leaning litigation. I also have an offer from my 1L summer job that has a solid corporate practice that I could accept if necessary (as well as some solid NY corporate options).bk187 wrote:You really need to qualify what you mean by "leaning litigation." You've thrown around a lot of firms that wouldn't make sense for someone who still might want to do transactional. These are two more firms (not saying I would or would not pick them over any of the above) that don't make sense for someone who might want to do transactional. If you mean something along the lines of 90/10 lit/trans then it would be safer to take an MTO/KVN/Irell/Quinn/etc, but if it's more like 60/40 lit/trans then you're taking a big risk by going to one of those firms.Anonymous User wrote:Would anyone's thoughts change if Irell and Susman were thrown into the picture?
I'm going to redo the poll and edit OP.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Firms like Quinn, Gibson, and MoFo are absolute TRASH compared to some of the other choices on here. To even speak of these firms as if they are peers with Susman/Keker/MTO is ridiculous. Any young lawyer who wants to be a litigator would be a fool to big any of those large highly leveraged firms with more boutique firms like Susman/Keker.
If you want to do commercial litigation, then Susman is peerless when it comes to pay and the type of work you get as a young associate. Only at Susman can you take depos and argue hearings before court as a FIRST YEAR!!! The LA office is small and tough to get hired in but its possible.
After Susman, I would consider Keker. Like Susman its a small boutique which allows you as a first year to get experience that most associates won't see until they are partners at other firms.
MTO comes next and although its a small firm with great associate to partner ratio compared to other big law firms, its still a big law firm. Its definitely better than all other firms in California but it is no longer what it used to be.
If you want to do commercial litigation, then Susman is peerless when it comes to pay and the type of work you get as a young associate. Only at Susman can you take depos and argue hearings before court as a FIRST YEAR!!! The LA office is small and tough to get hired in but its possible.
After Susman, I would consider Keker. Like Susman its a small boutique which allows you as a first year to get experience that most associates won't see until they are partners at other firms.
MTO comes next and although its a small firm with great associate to partner ratio compared to other big law firms, its still a big law firm. Its definitely better than all other firms in California but it is no longer what it used to be.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
There's more than a bit of hyperbole here. Yes, the experience and pay of a small boutique firm will generally be higher than at a big firm, but there are very good reasons to choose an offer from Gibson, Quinn, or OMM instead of an offer from a boutique. If you don't want to clerk, for example. Or if you're interested in a specialist practice (e.g. OMM's entertainment practice). Or if you want to take a job where you're unlikely to get no-offered after summer. Or if you want to take advantage of a particular firm's relationship with a particular institutional client. Sure, the boutiques are a higher risk, higher reward option, but calling Gibson, Quinn, and OMM "absolute trash" is patently absurd.Anonymous User wrote:There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Firms like Quinn, Gibson, and MoFo are absolute TRASH compared to some of the other choices on here. To even speak of these firms as if they are peers with Susman/Keker/MTO is ridiculous. Any young lawyer who wants to be a litigator would be a fool to big any of those large highly leveraged firms with more boutique firms like Susman/Keker.
If you want to do commercial litigation, then Susman is peerless when it comes to pay and the type of work you get as a young associate. Only at Susman can you take depos and argue hearings before court as a FIRST YEAR!!! The LA office is small and tough to get hired in but its possible.
After Susman, I would consider Keker. Like Susman its a small boutique which allows you as a first year to get experience that most associates won't see until they are partners at other firms.
MTO comes next and although its a small firm with great associate to partner ratio compared to other big law firms, its still a big law firm. Its definitely better than all other firms in California but it is no longer what it used to be.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
OP here: I am interested in clerking, not interested in a specialist practice (at least, as of now), but I would like a job where I would be unlikely to get no-offered. However, I already have an offer from my 1L firm, so I am not too concerned.Anonymous User wrote:There's more than a bit of hyperbole here. Yes, the experience and pay of a small boutique firm will generally be higher than at a big firm, but there are very good reasons to choose an offer from Gibson, Quinn, or OMM instead of an offer from a boutique. If you don't want to clerk, for example. Or if you're interested in a specialist practice (e.g. OMM's entertainment practice). Or if you want to take a job where you're unlikely to get no-offered after summer. Or if you want to take advantage of a particular firm's relationship with a particular institutional client. Sure, the boutiques are a higher risk, higher reward option, but calling Gibson, Quinn, and OMM "absolute trash" is patently absurd.Anonymous User wrote:There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Firms like Quinn, Gibson, and MoFo are absolute TRASH compared to some of the other choices on here. To even speak of these firms as if they are peers with Susman/Keker/MTO is ridiculous. Any young lawyer who wants to be a litigator would be a fool to big any of those large highly leveraged firms with more boutique firms like Susman/Keker.
If you want to do commercial litigation, then Susman is peerless when it comes to pay and the type of work you get as a young associate. Only at Susman can you take depos and argue hearings before court as a FIRST YEAR!!! The LA office is small and tough to get hired in but its possible.
After Susman, I would consider Keker. Like Susman its a small boutique which allows you as a first year to get experience that most associates won't see until they are partners at other firms.
MTO comes next and although its a small firm with great associate to partner ratio compared to other big law firms, its still a big law firm. Its definitely better than all other firms in California but it is no longer what it used to be.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
Go to Susman. Or anywhere but KVN in case I end up there.Anonymous User wrote:OP here: I am interested in clerking, not interested in a specialist practice (at least, as of now), but I would like a job where I would be unlikely to get no-offered. However, I already have an offer from my 1L firm, so I am not too concerned.Anonymous User wrote:There's more than a bit of hyperbole here. Yes, the experience and pay of a small boutique firm will generally be higher than at a big firm, but there are very good reasons to choose an offer from Gibson, Quinn, or OMM instead of an offer from a boutique. If you don't want to clerk, for example. Or if you're interested in a specialist practice (e.g. OMM's entertainment practice). Or if you want to take a job where you're unlikely to get no-offered after summer. Or if you want to take advantage of a particular firm's relationship with a particular institutional client. Sure, the boutiques are a higher risk, higher reward option, but calling Gibson, Quinn, and OMM "absolute trash" is patently absurd.Anonymous User wrote:There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Firms like Quinn, Gibson, and MoFo are absolute TRASH compared to some of the other choices on here. To even speak of these firms as if they are peers with Susman/Keker/MTO is ridiculous. Any young lawyer who wants to be a litigator would be a fool to big any of those large highly leveraged firms with more boutique firms like Susman/Keker.
If you want to do commercial litigation, then Susman is peerless when it comes to pay and the type of work you get as a young associate. Only at Susman can you take depos and argue hearings before court as a FIRST YEAR!!! The LA office is small and tough to get hired in but its possible.
After Susman, I would consider Keker. Like Susman its a small boutique which allows you as a first year to get experience that most associates won't see until they are partners at other firms.
MTO comes next and although its a small firm with great associate to partner ratio compared to other big law firms, its still a big law firm. Its definitely better than all other firms in California but it is no longer what it used to be.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
Huh?Anonymous User wrote:Go to Susman. Or anywhere but KVN in case I end up there.Anonymous User wrote:OP here: I am interested in clerking, not interested in a specialist practice (at least, as of now), but I would like a job where I would be unlikely to get no-offered. However, I already have an offer from my 1L firm, so I am not too concerned.Anonymous User wrote:There's more than a bit of hyperbole here. Yes, the experience and pay of a small boutique firm will generally be higher than at a big firm, but there are very good reasons to choose an offer from Gibson, Quinn, or OMM instead of an offer from a boutique. If you don't want to clerk, for example. Or if you're interested in a specialist practice (e.g. OMM's entertainment practice). Or if you want to take a job where you're unlikely to get no-offered after summer. Or if you want to take advantage of a particular firm's relationship with a particular institutional client. Sure, the boutiques are a higher risk, higher reward option, but calling Gibson, Quinn, and OMM "absolute trash" is patently absurd.Anonymous User wrote:There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Firms like Quinn, Gibson, and MoFo are absolute TRASH compared to some of the other choices on here. To even speak of these firms as if they are peers with Susman/Keker/MTO is ridiculous. Any young lawyer who wants to be a litigator would be a fool to big any of those large highly leveraged firms with more boutique firms like Susman/Keker.
If you want to do commercial litigation, then Susman is peerless when it comes to pay and the type of work you get as a young associate. Only at Susman can you take depos and argue hearings before court as a FIRST YEAR!!! The LA office is small and tough to get hired in but its possible.
After Susman, I would consider Keker. Like Susman its a small boutique which allows you as a first year to get experience that most associates won't see until they are partners at other firms.
MTO comes next and although its a small firm with great associate to partner ratio compared to other big law firms, its still a big law firm. Its definitely better than all other firms in California but it is no longer what it used to be.
-
- Posts: 428130
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: California Firms
What is the Keker payscale? Is it like Susman, market biglaw salary, or something else?Anonymous User wrote:There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Firms like Quinn, Gibson, and MoFo are absolute TRASH compared to some of the other choices on here. To even speak of these firms as if they are peers with Susman/Keker/MTO is ridiculous. Any young lawyer who wants to be a litigator would be a fool to big any of those large highly leveraged firms with more boutique firms like Susman/Keker.
If you want to do commercial litigation, then Susman is peerless when it comes to pay and the type of work you get as a young associate. Only at Susman can you take depos and argue hearings before court as a FIRST YEAR!!! The LA office is small and tough to get hired in but its possible.
After Susman, I would consider Keker. Like Susman its a small boutique which allows you as a first year to get experience that most associates won't see until they are partners at other firms.
MTO comes next and although its a small firm with great associate to partner ratio compared to other big law firms, its still a big law firm. Its definitely better than all other firms in California but it is no longer what it used to be.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login