Anonymous User wrote:OP here -- thanks again everyone!
Here's a question I have: is it significant that Ropes' Boston office is the mothership, whereas Wilmer is more a dual-mothership between Boston and D.C.? I get the sense that certain key practice area (i.e. some appellate work) just isnt going to come through Boston, whereas with Ropes everything comes through that office. I'm leaning Ropes now, just seems like a strange choice to make for someone who is pretty hardcore about litigation (although I couldn't say at all what sort of litigation I'd most like to do).
While I'm not familiar with it specifically, the WilmerHale merger was, IIRC, combining a firm with a gangbusters DC practice but no Boston presence with one with a gangbusters Boston practice but no DC practice. In my head, I've always imagined WilmerHale as having dual-citizenship in terms of where it's from/HQ'd/strongest, but that's a very cursory impression not based on any actual recent research.
BECAUSE MOUTHING OFF IS FUN GET OVER IT.