California 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.

Which would you pick?

Irell & Manella (CC)
7
13%
Susman Godfrey (LA)
5
9%
O'Melveny & [deleted] (LA)
1
2%
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (LA)
9
17%
Munger, Tolles & Olson (LA)
5
9%
Keker & Van Nest (SF)
7
13%
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (LA)
2
4%
Morrison & Foerster (SF)
6
11%
Skadden (LA)
1
2%
I just want to see the results without voting.
10
19%
 
Total votes: 53

Skyblaze
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:11 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Skyblaze » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:53 am

No Orrick SF?

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28262
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Kronk » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:09 pm

I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby fatduck » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:49 pm

Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.

my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28262
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Kronk » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:55 pm

fatduck wrote:
Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.

my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"


That kind of laziness isn't gong to cut it at Keker.

Sidenote, I voted for Munger because I want the OP to be as miserable as possible.

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

Re: California Firms

Postby sundance95 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:11 pm

Kronk wrote:
fatduck wrote:
Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.

my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"


That kind of laziness isn't gong to cut it at Keker.

Sidenote, I voted for Munger because I want the OP to be as miserable as possible.

Ok, I'll take the bait. Care to elaborate?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
L’Étranger wrote:Um, is this all a hypo? Getting offers from all of these firms would be a quite a feat.


It's a realistic hypo.



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.


(not OP)

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.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28262
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Kronk » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:29 pm

sundance95 wrote:
Kronk wrote:
fatduck wrote:
Kronk wrote:I like the "I just want to see the results" option right above the "view poll results" link.

my favorite part was where he wrote out "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan" but then just wrote "Skadden"


That kind of laziness isn't gong to cut it at Keker.

Sidenote, I voted for Munger because I want the OP to be as miserable as possible.

Ok, I'll take the bait. Care to elaborate?


I am not a fisherman, sir. Just common knowledge that MTO works sweatshop hours, even worse than most biglawl.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:19 pm

.

User avatar
Dignan
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Dignan » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:21 pm

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.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28262
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Kronk » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:22 pm

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.


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.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:53 pm

Kronk wrote: I am not a fisherman, sir. Just common knowledge that MTO works sweatshop hours, even worse than most biglawl.


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.

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.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28262
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Kronk » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:14 pm

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.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:08 pm

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.


Sorry, I probably came across too harsh. Feel free to defend your view, but let me say a few more things.

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.

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

Re: California Firms

Postby anon168 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Kronk wrote: I am not a fisherman, sir. Just common knowledge that MTO works sweatshop hours, even worse than most biglawl.


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.

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.


Bullshit.

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.

Staberinde
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:24 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby Staberinde » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:56 pm

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.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby bk1 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:05 am

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.


For someone who isn't set on litigation it probably does make sense to pick MoFo over MTO/KVN.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:10 am

Would anyone's thoughts change if Irell and Susman were thrown into the picture?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: California Firms

Postby bk1 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:Would anyone's thoughts change if Irell and Susman were thrown into the picture?


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
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:19 am

bk1 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Would anyone's thoughts change if Irell and Susman were thrown into the picture?


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.


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).

I'm going to redo the poll and edit OP.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:39 pm

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.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:53 pm

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.


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
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
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.


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.


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
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
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.


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.


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.


Go to Susman. Or anywhere but KVN in case I end up there.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
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.


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.


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.


Go to Susman. Or anywhere but KVN in case I end up there.


Huh?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: California Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:22 pm

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.


What is the Keker payscale? Is it like Susman, market biglaw salary, or something else?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.