Best litigation firms in LA Forum

[Anonymous User]

LA atty here. The distinctions law students make are much larger than what exists in the market.

MTO/Irell/Gibson and maybe Latham are roughly in a tier of their own. Then there's everyone else.

Granted this is different than individual attorneys lateraling. But that has as much to do with individual resumes than anything else. If you have the resume to go to Munger but work at Gibson, you'll have the same opportunities available. It's just that the people with the resume to work at Munger usually pick Munger.

I don't know what this is about Hueston taking Irell's "best kids." But I'm guessing someone who compared a newly formed firm of purely ex-Irell attorneys to Keker isn't exactly a neutral observer.

sorry, didn't mean to offend. given a quick comparative scans of the rosters, pretty sure you have to admit HH got some good ones though =) (excluding, obviously, the patent associates). that said, i give a lot of weight on CDCA clerkships. i don't know how anyone survives those gigs.

and re: being neutral, i'm likely not going to either boutique at this point, but regardless thank you for the input.

My post came off more hostile than intended.

Hueston undoubtedly has a really strong roster of attys that competes with the top (like, top top) firms in LA.

[WheninLaw]

LA atty here. The distinctions law students make are much larger than what exists in the market.

MTO/Irell/Gibson and maybe Latham are roughly in a tier of their own. Then there's everyone else.

Granted this is different than individual attorneys lateraling. But that has as much to do with individual resumes than anything else. If you have the resume to go to Munger but work at Gibson, you'll have the same opportunities available. It's just that the people with the resume to work at Munger usually pick Munger.

I don't know what this is about Hueston taking Irell's "best kids." But I'm guessing someone who compared a newly formed firm of purely ex-Irell attorneys to Keker isn't exactly a neutral observer.

I agree with most of this. I chose between MTO/Irell/Gibson/Latham and really didn't think there was a huge difference outside of the culture/people. They are all great places to work.

It's both right/wrong to say Hueston took the "best kids," because, I mean, he took pretty much anyone that worked on his cases...but obviously left the completely amazing young IP associates.

[Anonymous User]

LA atty here. The distinctions law students make are much larger than what exists in the market.

MTO/Irell/Gibson and maybe Latham are roughly in a tier of their own. Then there's everyone else.

Granted this is different than individual attorneys lateraling. But that has as much to do with individual resumes than anything else. If you have the resume to go to Munger but work at Gibson, you'll have the same opportunities available. It's just that the people with the resume to work at Munger usually pick Munger.

I don't know what this is about Hueston taking Irell's "best kids." But I'm guessing someone who compared a newly formed firm of purely ex-Irell attorneys to Keker isn't exactly a neutral observer.

I agree with most of this. I chose between MTO/Irell/Gibson/Latham and really didn't think there was a huge difference outside of the culture/people. They are all great places to work.

It's both right/wrong to say Hueston took the "best kids," because, I mean, he took pretty much anyone that worked on his cases...but obviously left the completely amazing young IP associates.

I mean, there's definitely a difference between the smaller firms, MTO and Irell, and Gibson/Latham. For litigation, those are not interchangeable, and there are big differences in firm management, partnership prospects, staff support, leverage-driven experience, and other qualitative variables between the two groups aside from culture and personalities. That doesn't make one group better or worse, and there are advantages to both the larger and smaller firm models, but they are different.

[rpupkin]

LA atty here. The distinctions law students make are much larger than what exists in the market.

MTO/Irell/Gibson and maybe Latham are roughly in a tier of their own. Then there's everyone else.

I disagree. Gibson and Latham are way more like Quinn/Skadden/O'Melveny than they are like MTO. The difference isn't about the "prestige" or "tier" of the firms (whatever that means). It's about the difference between working in a leveraged big law firm and working in a smaller firm that invests more heavily in its associates.

[Anonymous User]

MTO is the best firm in the city, the quality of their attorneys are ridiculous--just look at how many SCOTUS clerks they have. Gibson is a close second, and then you have the traditional powerhouses, OMM and Latham. Others may be ok but don't have the breadth of talent these firms do.

[Anonymous User]

MTO is the best firm in the city, the quality of their attorneys are ridiculous--just look at how many SCOTUS clerks they have. Gibson is a close second, and then you have the traditional powerhouses, OMM and Latham. Others may be ok but don't have the breadth of talent these firms do.

Lol at Irell being "ok."

[WheninLaw]

MTO is the best firm in the city, the quality of their attorneys are ridiculous--just look at how many SCOTUS clerks they have. Gibson is a close second, and then you have the traditional powerhouses, OMM and Latham. Others may be ok but don't have the breadth of talent these firms do.

1L or something?

[bruinfan10]

MTO is the best firm in the city, the quality of their attorneys are ridiculous--just look at how many SCOTUS clerks they have. Gibson is a close second, and then you have the traditional powerhouses, OMM and Latham. Others may be ok but don't have the breadth of talent these firms do.

Lol at Irell being "ok."

I'm not sure that non-patent lit at Irell is looking great right now, but I could be wrong. otherwise that post does sound awful 1L-y .

[Anonymous User]

MTO is the best firm in the city, the quality of their attorneys are ridiculous--just look at how many SCOTUS clerks they have. Gibson is a close second, and then you have the traditional powerhouses, OMM and Latham. Others may be ok but don't have the breadth of talent these firms do.

Lol at Irell being "ok."

I'm not sure that non-patent lit at Irell is looking great right now, but I could be wrong. otherwise that post does sound awful 1L-y .

I've worked at several LA firms, including Irell. The distinctions people on this board try to draw are exaggerated at best, and artificial at worst. As for Irell, my understanding is that it's doing fine for general lit. White collar basically dissapeared (and some securities work), but overall it's looking good.

[rpupkin]

MTO is the best firm in the city, the quality of their attorneys are ridiculous--just look at how many SCOTUS clerks they have. Gibson is a close second, and then you have the traditional powerhouses, OMM and Latham. Others may be ok but don't have the breadth of talent these firms do.

Lol at Irell being "ok."

I'm not sure that non-patent lit at Irell is looking great right now, but I could be wrong. otherwise that post does sound awful 1L-y .

I've worked at several LA firms, including Irell. The distinctions people on this board try to draw are exaggerated at best, and artificial at worst. As for Irell, my understanding is that it's doing fine for general lit. White collar basically dissapeared (and some securities work), but overall it's looking good.

As an attorney? It seems like when anyone says something like this on TLS, it turns out that they actually worked pre-ls as a contractor doing clerical/administrative support for a bunch of firms.

[Anonymous User]

MTO is the best firm in the city, the quality of their attorneys are ridiculous--just look at how many SCOTUS clerks they have. Gibson is a close second, and then you have the traditional powerhouses, OMM and Latham. Others may be ok but don't have the breadth of talent these firms do.

Lol at Irell being "ok."

I'm not sure that non-patent lit at Irell is looking great right now, but I could be wrong. otherwise that post does sound awful 1L-y .

I've worked at several LA firms, including Irell. The distinctions people on this board try to draw are exaggerated at best, and artificial at worst. As for Irell, my understanding is that it's doing fine for general lit. White collar basically dissapeared (and some securities work), but overall it's looking good.

As an attorney? It seems like when anyone says something like this on TLS, it turns out that they actually worked pre-ls as a contractor doing clerical/administrative support for a bunch of firms.

I summered at two firms and worked as an associate at one. LA's not that large of a legal community really. You get a pretty good sense of things working there.