Prestigewhore DC Lit: Hogan v. Latham Forum

[Anonymous User]

DC. Litigation-focused, potentially want to work for the gov't as an AUSA. What should I do, friends?

[Anonymous User]

Different anon:

Also very curious to hear any insight into working at Hogan DC. Seems respectable across the board and folks apparently like the firm and their colleagues, though multiple sources have said the bonuses are typically not awesome.

[thesealocust]

Hogan has a reputation for being one of the best firms in D.C. Latham has a reputation for firing first year associates.

[Anonymous User]

Also considering Hogan - can anyone confirm the culture/lifestyle that everyone from the firm raves about?

[Anonymous User]

Hogan has a reputation for being one of the best firms in D.C. Latham has a reputation for firing first year associates.

OP here.

I've spoken to practitioners in DC who have worked in firms and for the gov't, and I've gotten strongly varied opinions.

Latham's got more national prestige, and is consistently ranked as one of the best firms in DC. Hogan has always been known as a DC powerhouse, in part due to the fact that it is huge and HQ'd there, but I have heard from some practitioners that they have the impression that Hogan isn't as discriminating with regards to quality due to their large size. Hogan also now has more of an international platform after its integration with Lovells 5 years ago. They're both not in that top tier DC (W&C, A&P, Wilmer, Covington), but I think they are both solidly in that 2nd tier of DC firms.

My goal is to spend a long and successful career practicing litigation in DC, ideally with some time as an AUSA and in government. Based on my connections in DC (worked there for a bit), I know a lot of AUSAs from Latham, but none from Hogan. I'm sure that my sample isn't representative and that there are some Hogan people in gov't, but the numbers from my experience were striking.

Any responses or thoughts would be appreciated in helping me navigate this decision. Again, as the title of the thread indicates, DC Litigation Prestige is the overriding factor here.

[thesealocust]

Dunno how else to say it. Hogan is one of the best firms in D.C., I guess Latham has an office in D.C.?

Here's as close to an objective source as you will get for this question: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1224 ... torial/5/1

[Anonymous User]

Dunno how else to say it. Hogan is one of the best firms in D.C., I guess Latham has an office in D.C.?

Here's as close to an objective source as you will get for this question: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1224 ... torial/5/1

Yeah, I looked at that. Just wish there was some data on some factor that would push me unequivocally in one direction. Any other insights would be appreciated. Thanks so much for all the input so far.

[Anonymous User]

Hogan has a reputation for being one of the best firms in D.C. Latham has a reputation for firing first year associates.

I usually like TSL and think his word is solid, but this is ridiculous.

Latham in DC has extremely strong practices that rival or exceed Hogan. It's got a crazy large corp practice, but for lit does a lot of antitrust, communications, and white collar work, with some healthcare and other lit thrown in there. Is it better than the other V10's for lit? Extremely unlikely. Is it at the very least equal to Hogan? Very much yes.

Layoffs are a possibility at Latham as much as any other firm. And other firms DID lay off people; Latham's crimes were to do it en masse and to lie beforehand - these are bad but frankly you're not inherently safer going, well, anywhere in the top v50 firms. Frankly, I would be more concerned about the long-term aftereffects of a massive merger (Hogan and Lovells) than I would about the possibility of a second round of Lathaming following a hypothetical massive surprise sustained recession.

ETA: Full disclosure - I chose between Latham and Hogan DC, and picked Latham so take the above with a grain of salt. I know people who work at both at multiple levels within the organization (well, not too familiar with many partners at either). The cultures are different but in terms of 'prestige,' Latham serves as well as Hogan. What exactly do you need with 'prestige?' Exit options? Both will serve you well in DC. Latham is better connected into the admin agencies and corporate world than Hogan, but Hogan might have better local recognition for lateraling to smaller DC firms.

[Anonymous User]

I generally follow the principle that if you follow Neal Katyal you won't be making a bad decision. Would make my inner prestige whore happy.

[smaug]

I mean if the question is "prestige whore" and you're looking at lit, I think TSL is totally in the right. Hogan by a considerable amount.

[Anonymous User]

I mean if the question is "prestige whore" and you're looking at lit, I think TSL is totally in the right. Hogan by a considerable amount.

OP here. Why do you think so? By prestige whore + lit, I mean it has good across-the-board litigation practices, especially in the white collar area. I also mean will keep my exit options open as much as possible, especially for DOJ/SEC. Whichever firm is going to look the best on my resume in DC, give me the best chance of getting a job as an AUSA or for the SEC, and has the best litigation practices- that's what I am going to choose.

[smaug]

I don't know the market well enough so maybe I should shut up, but I'd look at Chambers and Partners and I'd expect that Hogan has a much stronger lit practice with a broader base than Latham does.

[dcpanther]

I mean if the question is "prestige whore" and you're looking at lit, I think TSL is totally in the right. Hogan by a considerable amount.

OP here. Why do you think so? By prestige whore + lit, I mean it has good across-the-board litigation practices, especially in the white collar area. I also mean will keep my exit options open as much as possible, especially for DOJ/SEC. Whichever firm is going to look the best on my resume in DC, give me the best chance of getting a job as an AUSA or for the SEC, and has the best litigation practices- that's what I am going to choose.

I would guess that the difference between the two firms won't matter that much relative to the types of experiences you get, how you perform, and who you get to know as you practice. At either firm, you'd probably have to work hard to get trial exposure and develop the right sorts of skills/connections.

[rpupkin]

I mean if the question is "prestige whore" and you're looking at lit, I think TSL is totally in the right. Hogan by a considerable amount.

OP here. Why do you think so? By prestige whore + lit, I mean it has good across-the-board litigation practices, especially in the white collar area. I also mean will keep my exit options open as much as possible, especially for DOJ/SEC. Whichever firm is going to look the best on my resume in DC, give me the best chance of getting a job as an AUSA or for the SEC, and has the best litigation practices- that's what I am going to choose.

If those are your preferences, I can't imagine why someone would vote "Latham" here.

[84651846190]

Latham is overrated.

[jbagelboy]

Latham is overrated.

I've never understood the hype.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Latham is overrated.


I've never understood the hype.

Overrated is an inherently relative term. Overrated relative to Hogan in DC for the reasons that I want to go to a firm, outlined above? (DC prestige, better litigation, better exit opps to gov't) I would rather hear your thinking behind your opinion than unexplained criticism.

[84651846190]

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Latham is overrated.

I've never understood the hype.

Overrated is an inherently relative term. Overrated relative to Hogan in DC for the reasons that I want to go to a firm, outlined above? (DC prestige, better litigation, better exit opps to gov't) I would rather hear your thinking behind your opinion than unexplained criticism.

Exit opps are a wash. It will depend 100% on who you work with. The best at both firms probably give you the same, or nearly the same, opportunities, but you would have to get someone's opinion who has actually worked at either of these firms to know for sure.

Latham is a great firm for the equity partners who work there. For everyone else, it's no better than any run of the mill biglaw firm--and it's probably worse than quite a few. Latham's model is, and has always been, built on stealth layoffs. The announced layoffs during the 2008 meltdown were a drop in the bucket compared to the number of associates who have been subtly transitioned away to other careers or starved of hours until getting fired "for cause." The place is just not an associate-friendly firm--never has been, never will be. Their business model is built on a lot of leverage. A LOT. Look at their equity partner to associate ratios in the various offices. You'll see that it's about as bad as it gets among the "top" firms, excepting places like Skadden.

All firms are built on leverage to some extent, but I would say that Latham is clearly below average in terms of long-term prospects and overall concern with the growth of your career. The fact of the matter is that no one gives a shit about you at places like Latham. Turnover is high enough that no one will want to put in the time to build a working relationship with you.

[runinthefront]

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Latham is overrated.

I've never understood the hype.

Overrated is an inherently relative term. Overrated relative to Hogan in DC for the reasons that I want to go to a firm, outlined above? (DC prestige, better litigation, better exit opps to gov't) I would rather hear your thinking behind your opinion than unexplained criticism.

Exit opps are a wash. It will depend 100% on who you work with. The best at both firms probably give you the same, or nearly the same, opportunities, but you would have to get someone's opinion who has actually worked at either of these firms to know for sure.

Latham is a great firm for the equity partners who work there. For everyone else, it's no better than any run of the mill biglaw firm--and it's probably worse than quite a few. Latham's model is, and has always been, built on stealth layoffs. The announced layoffs during the 2008 meltdown were a drop in the bucket compared to the number of associates who have been subtly transitioned away to other careers or starved of hours until getting fired "for cause." The place is just not an associate-friendly firm--never has been, never will be. Their business model is built on a lot of leverage. A LOT. Look at their equity partner to associate ratios in the various offices. You'll see that it's about as bad as it gets among the "top" firms, excepting places like Skadden.

All firms are built on leverage to some extent, but I would say that Latham is clearly below average in terms of long-term prospects and overall concern with the growth of your career. The fact of the matter is that no one gives a shit about you at places like Latham. Turnover is high enough that no one will want to put in the time to build a working relationship with you.

According to American Lawyer's leverage reports (albeit, 2014's since 2015 isn't out yet), Latham seems to be, surprisingly, middle of the pack in terms of leverage (associates: equity partners). Almost equal to Hogan (3.6 v. 3.64).

This is a random sidenote, but the worst offenders are who you'd expect: DLA Piper, Squire Patton, Cadwalader, K&L, Boies...but also Paul Weiss and White and Case (both averaging around 6 associates per equity partner).

That's a far cry for Latham's leverage a decade ago, though. Anyway, Hogan's definitely the best choice here if you want to be in DC, OP.

[84651846190]

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Latham is overrated.

I've never understood the hype.

Overrated is an inherently relative term. Overrated relative to Hogan in DC for the reasons that I want to go to a firm, outlined above? (DC prestige, better litigation, better exit opps to gov't) I would rather hear your thinking behind your opinion than unexplained criticism.

Exit opps are a wash. It will depend 100% on who you work with. The best at both firms probably give you the same, or nearly the same, opportunities, but you would have to get someone's opinion who has actually worked at either of these firms to know for sure.

Latham is a great firm for the equity partners who work there. For everyone else, it's no better than any run of the mill biglaw firm--and it's probably worse than quite a few. Latham's model is, and has always been, built on stealth layoffs. The announced layoffs during the 2008 meltdown were a drop in the bucket compared to the number of associates who have been subtly transitioned away to other careers or starved of hours until getting fired "for cause." The place is just not an associate-friendly firm--never has been, never will be. Their business model is built on a lot of leverage. A LOT. Look at their equity partner to associate ratios in the various offices. You'll see that it's about as bad as it gets among the "top" firms, excepting places like Skadden.

All firms are built on leverage to some extent, but I would say that Latham is clearly below average in terms of long-term prospects and overall concern with the growth of your career. The fact of the matter is that no one gives a shit about you at places like Latham. Turnover is high enough that no one will want to put in the time to build a working relationship with you.

According to American Lawyer's leverage reports (albeit, 2014's since 2015 isn't out yet), Latham seems to be, surprisingly, middle of the pack in terms of leverage (associates: equity partners). Almost equal to Hogan (3.6 v. 3.64).

This is a random sidenote, but the worst offenders are who you'd expect: DLA Piper, Squire Patton, Cadwalader, K&L, Boies...but also Paul Weiss and White and Case (both averaging around 6 associates per equity partner).

That's a far cry for Latham's leverage a decade ago, though. Anyway, Hogan's definitely the best choice here if you want to be in DC, OP.

The actual EP/Associate ratio is one metric. Turnover is equally vital (since the ratio between the two firms might be similar because people are leaving / getting hired at Latham all the time whereas people stay put longer at Hogan). I always see a ton of lateral openings at Latham, so I wouldn't be surprised if their turnover were much higher than Hogan's.

Also, doesn't Latham have a bunch of low-leveraged foreign offices? They probably drag down the numbers. I would be shocked if Latham's NY office didn't have comparable EP/Associate ratio to Paul Weiss's NY office.

I never worked at Latham, but the people I interviewed with were all insufferable douchebags FWIW. Then again, that's kinda par for the course in this profession.

[Anonymous User]

Based on what OP seems to really be getting at (prestige above all), I think s/he probably won't be happy unless s/he gives into the darker impulse and chases that Vault dream: Latham all the way. Only one of these firms is a V10, after all.

[jbagelboy]

Based on what OP seems to really be getting at (prestige above all), I think s/he probably won't be happy unless s/he gives into the darker impulse and chases that Vault dream: Latham all the way. Only one of these firms is a V10, after all.

Vault doesn't apply to DC or any other non-NY market, or litigation for that matter.

[Anonymous User]

Anonymous User wrote:
Based on what OP seems to really be getting at (prestige above all), I think s/he probably won't be happy unless s/he gives into the darker impulse and chases that Vault dream: Latham all the way. Only one of these firms is a V10, after all.


Vault doesn't apply to DC or any other non-NY market, or litigation for that matter.

Except for the region/city specific rankings, of course, and the fact that a higher Vault overall ranking gives any firm more national chache. It looks like you're going through OCI now too, jbagelboy. Where are you working?

[jbagelboy]

Anonymous User wrote:
Based on what OP seems to really be getting at (prestige above all), I think s/he probably won't be happy unless s/he gives into the darker impulse and chases that Vault dream: Latham all the way. Only one of these firms is a V10, after all.


Vault doesn't apply to DC or any other non-NY market, or litigation for that matter.

Except for the region/city specific rankings, of course, and the fact that a higher Vault overall ranking gives any firm more national chache. It looks like you're going through OCI now too, jbagelboy. Where are you working?

I'm not going through OCI. You are mistaken.

Vault does not confer national cache (or chache). It provides the misguided flippant opinions of disgruntled midlevels clicking through a survey. It lacks any pretense of objective metric or peer review.

[Anonymous User]

I never worked at Latham

Most important part of his advice ITT.

I've worked with several dozen law firms (not as a lawyer, but law firms were my company's clients, and I worked directly with associates from varying levels), some over a period of months and some over a period of years. This includes the vast majority of the top Vault firms (for what that's worth as a metric) and then a handful of the other V100. The reputation advice you get here is amazingly different from my actual experience with the people at almost all of these firms (excepting Cravath and SullCrom - TLS seems to have those pretty right on the money).

I would (and did) choose culture over "reputation." Reputation gets you only so far, having a culture of people that you get along with helps determine how long you can "hack it" at said firm and whether you can get people in your corner to boost your chances at a good exit. Prestige helps more if you have a partner or two that has your back. My advice to OP is to pick a firm that A. maximizes your chances at your post-BigLaw career goals and B. has a group of people you get along with.

A trends towards Hogan. Latham isn't a "wrong" choice - but Hogan is very, very good in both Lit and in DC.

B you can only really get from friends or fellow alumni who have been at either firm (preferably people who have left the firm and can speak freely). You will not get that information here. Honestly, you won't really get that much reliable information on point A here either. What you will get is a common perception from a bunch of fellow know-nothings.

It sounds like you don't care much about fit or culture, but purely are looking to long-term post-BigLaw goals. This is a recipe for guaranteeing you will be miserable for the chance that you will get some imperceptible boost in exit options down the line. A lot of people do this and - surprise! - a lot of people are pretty damn unhappy AND don't get their planned exit or decide they want something else. All I'm saying is just please consider it. Figure out which firm will make you as happy as is possible in this f'ed up market.