Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:35 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If I am interested in M&A work, can you rank the top few firms I should focus on?
What about for capital markets?


Cap markets isn't a big practice in LA, so you shouldn't focus on firms here that do cap markets. If you want cap markets go to NYC. Certainly some firms in LA do cap markets, but they do other work for the most part and cap markets when a deal comes up.

For large M&A, look at Latham, Skadden, Kirkland, MTO.
For middle market M&A, look at Sheppard, Paul Hastings.


I read the discussion above - and elsewhere on TLS - about the difference between a Latham/Skadden and a PH/Sheppard in terms of large v. middle market deals. If you are in a position where you probably have the grades for one of the large M&A firms, is there any reason to choose a firm like Sheppard or PH. This is assuming you enjoy the environment at both equally. I guess you mentioned more substantive work early on in smaller deals, but how would exit options play out between the two?

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If I am interested in M&A work, can you rank the top few firms I should focus on?
What about for capital markets?


Cap markets isn't a big practice in LA, so you shouldn't focus on firms here that do cap markets. If you want cap markets go to NYC. Certainly some firms in LA do cap markets, but they do other work for the most part and cap markets when a deal comes up.

For large M&A, look at Latham, Skadden, Kirkland, MTO.
For middle market M&A, look at Sheppard, Paul Hastings.


I read the discussion above - and elsewhere on TLS - about the difference between a Latham/Skadden and a PH/Sheppard in terms of large v. middle market deals. If you are in a position where you probably have the grades for one of the large M&A firms, is there any reason to choose a firm like Sheppard or PH. This is assuming you enjoy the environment at both equally. I guess you mentioned more substantive work early on in smaller deals, but how would exit options play out between the two?


The substance and exposure is a big difference. But you are correct to think about the differences in exit ops.

You'll have more exit options from a place like Latham/Skadden than Sheppard. Latham/Skadden you're often dealing with institutional clients; partners and the firm have relationships with clients that come to the firm looking for hires. You're also dealing with larger, public companies often and companies will want to see that kind of experience (which you wont get at a Sheppard). So even if you're not getting hired from a direct client of the firm, you're going to have the kind of experience they want. I'm sure something could be said about the "brand" of Latham and Skadden helping you on the market. But a place like Sheppard, that does mostly non-private equity sell side M&A, the clients of the firm aren't going to hire you because after they sell the business, they are just a dude with ton of cash and a margarita without a business or need for an attorney.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:49 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If I am interested in M&A work, can you rank the top few firms I should focus on?
What about for capital markets?


Cap markets isn't a big practice in LA, so you shouldn't focus on firms here that do cap markets. If you want cap markets go to NYC. Certainly some firms in LA do cap markets, but they do other work for the most part and cap markets when a deal comes up.

For large M&A, look at Latham, Skadden, Kirkland, MTO.
For middle market M&A, look at Sheppard, Paul Hastings.


I read the discussion above - and elsewhere on TLS - about the difference between a Latham/Skadden and a PH/Sheppard in terms of large v. middle market deals. If you are in a position where you probably have the grades for one of the large M&A firms, is there any reason to choose a firm like Sheppard or PH. This is assuming you enjoy the environment at both equally. I guess you mentioned more substantive work early on in smaller deals, but how would exit options play out between the two?


The substance and exposure is a big difference. But you are correct to think about the differences in exit ops.

You'll have more exit options from a place like Latham/Skadden than Sheppard. Latham/Skadden you're often dealing with institutional clients; partners and the firm have relationships with clients that come to the firm looking for hires. You're also dealing with larger, public companies often and companies will want to see that kind of experience (which you wont get at a Sheppard). So even if you're not getting hired from a direct client of the firm, you're going to have the kind of experience they want. I'm sure something could be said about the "brand" of Latham and Skadden helping you on the market. But a place like Sheppard, that does mostly non-private equity sell side M&A, the clients of the firm aren't going to hire you because after they sell the business, they are just a dude with ton of cash and a margarita without a business or need for an attorney.


Very interesting take. It seems like the smart move would be to work at a place like Latham/Skadden if you have the chance, assuming you get along with the folks there. It seems like receiving more substantive work at Sheppard may be more interesting but wont really help your professional trajectory much.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If I am interested in M&A work, can you rank the top few firms I should focus on?
What about for capital markets?


Cap markets isn't a big practice in LA, so you shouldn't focus on firms here that do cap markets. If you want cap markets go to NYC. Certainly some firms in LA do cap markets, but they do other work for the most part and cap markets when a deal comes up.

For large M&A, look at Latham, Skadden, Kirkland, MTO.
For middle market M&A, look at Sheppard, Paul Hastings.


I read the discussion above - and elsewhere on TLS - about the difference between a Latham/Skadden and a PH/Sheppard in terms of large v. middle market deals. If you are in a position where you probably have the grades for one of the large M&A firms, is there any reason to choose a firm like Sheppard or PH. This is assuming you enjoy the environment at both equally. I guess you mentioned more substantive work early on in smaller deals, but how would exit options play out between the two?


The substance and exposure is a big difference. But you are correct to think about the differences in exit ops.

You'll have more exit options from a place like Latham/Skadden than Sheppard. Latham/Skadden you're often dealing with institutional clients; partners and the firm have relationships with clients that come to the firm looking for hires. You're also dealing with larger, public companies often and companies will want to see that kind of experience (which you wont get at a Sheppard). So even if you're not getting hired from a direct client of the firm, you're going to have the kind of experience they want. I'm sure something could be said about the "brand" of Latham and Skadden helping you on the market. But a place like Sheppard, that does mostly non-private equity sell side M&A, the clients of the firm aren't going to hire you because after they sell the business, they are just a dude with ton of cash and a margarita without a business or need for an attorney.


Very interesting take. It seems like the smart move would be to work at a place like Latham/Skadden if you have the chance, assuming you get along with the folks there. It seems like receiving more substantive work at Sheppard may be more interesting but wont really help your professional trajectory much.


Not necessarily. You can partner at a place like sheppard. You can also likely find your way into a middle market investment bank (though I dont think it'd be a smart move). but if you end up at a latham/skadden, realize you want to do that kind of work long term but see that you can't partner there, you could probalby just drop your resume at Sheppard and get an interview regardless of if they need someone.

Getting along with folks is going to be an issue at either spot. Dont think that just because you're at Sheppard you're going to have a better lifestyle. Hours are the same and personalities are a wild card there just as much as they are at Latham/Skadden.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:02 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If I am interested in M&A work, can you rank the top few firms I should focus on?
What about for capital markets?


Cap markets isn't a big practice in LA, so you shouldn't focus on firms here that do cap markets. If you want cap markets go to NYC. Certainly some firms in LA do cap markets, but they do other work for the most part and cap markets when a deal comes up.

For large M&A, look at Latham, Skadden, Kirkland, MTO.
For middle market M&A, look at Sheppard, Paul Hastings.


I read the discussion above - and elsewhere on TLS - about the difference between a Latham/Skadden and a PH/Sheppard in terms of large v. middle market deals. If you are in a position where you probably have the grades for one of the large M&A firms, is there any reason to choose a firm like Sheppard or PH. This is assuming you enjoy the environment at both equally. I guess you mentioned more substantive work early on in smaller deals, but how would exit options play out between the two?


The substance and exposure is a big difference. But you are correct to think about the differences in exit ops.

You'll have more exit options from a place like Latham/Skadden than Sheppard. Latham/Skadden you're often dealing with institutional clients; partners and the firm have relationships with clients that come to the firm looking for hires. You're also dealing with larger, public companies often and companies will want to see that kind of experience (which you wont get at a Sheppard). So even if you're not getting hired from a direct client of the firm, you're going to have the kind of experience they want. I'm sure something could be said about the "brand" of Latham and Skadden helping you on the market. But a place like Sheppard, that does mostly non-private equity sell side M&A, the clients of the firm aren't going to hire you because after they sell the business, they are just a dude with ton of cash and a margarita without a business or need for an attorney.


Very interesting take. It seems like the smart move would be to work at a place like Latham/Skadden if you have the chance, assuming you get along with the folks there. It seems like receiving more substantive work at Sheppard may be more interesting but wont really help your professional trajectory much.


Not necessarily. You can partner at a place like sheppard. You can also likely find your way into a middle market investment bank (though I dont think it'd be a smart move). but if you end up at a latham/skadden, realize you want to do that kind of work long term but see that you can't partner there, you could probalby just drop your resume at Sheppard and get an interview regardless of if they need someone.

Getting along with folks is going to be an issue at either spot. Dont think that just because you're at Sheppard you're going to have a better lifestyle. Hours are the same and personalities are a wild card there just as much as they are at Latham/Skadden.


This may be a tough q to answer...but ill ask anyways. Do you think lateraling "down" to a place like Sheppard will create a better opportunity to make partner than beginning your career there?

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If I am interested in M&A work, can you rank the top few firms I should focus on?
What about for capital markets?


Cap markets isn't a big practice in LA, so you shouldn't focus on firms here that do cap markets. If you want cap markets go to NYC. Certainly some firms in LA do cap markets, but they do other work for the most part and cap markets when a deal comes up.

For large M&A, look at Latham, Skadden, Kirkland, MTO.
For middle market M&A, look at Sheppard, Paul Hastings.


I read the discussion above - and elsewhere on TLS - about the difference between a Latham/Skadden and a PH/Sheppard in terms of large v. middle market deals. If you are in a position where you probably have the grades for one of the large M&A firms, is there any reason to choose a firm like Sheppard or PH. This is assuming you enjoy the environment at both equally. I guess you mentioned more substantive work early on in smaller deals, but how would exit options play out between the two?


The substance and exposure is a big difference. But you are correct to think about the differences in exit ops.

You'll have more exit options from a place like Latham/Skadden than Sheppard. Latham/Skadden you're often dealing with institutional clients; partners and the firm have relationships with clients that come to the firm looking for hires. You're also dealing with larger, public companies often and companies will want to see that kind of experience (which you wont get at a Sheppard). So even if you're not getting hired from a direct client of the firm, you're going to have the kind of experience they want. I'm sure something could be said about the "brand" of Latham and Skadden helping you on the market. But a place like Sheppard, that does mostly non-private equity sell side M&A, the clients of the firm aren't going to hire you because after they sell the business, they are just a dude with ton of cash and a margarita without a business or need for an attorney.


Very interesting take. It seems like the smart move would be to work at a place like Latham/Skadden if you have the chance, assuming you get along with the folks there. It seems like receiving more substantive work at Sheppard may be more interesting but wont really help your professional trajectory much.


Not necessarily. You can partner at a place like sheppard. You can also likely find your way into a middle market investment bank (though I dont think it'd be a smart move). but if you end up at a latham/skadden, realize you want to do that kind of work long term but see that you can't partner there, you could probalby just drop your resume at Sheppard and get an interview regardless of if they need someone.

Getting along with folks is going to be an issue at either spot. Dont think that just because you're at Sheppard you're going to have a better lifestyle. Hours are the same and personalities are a wild card there just as much as they are at Latham/Skadden.


This may be a tough q to answer...but ill ask anyways. Do you think lateraling "down" to a place like Sheppard will create a better opportunity to make partner than beginning your career there?


Not necessarily. A lot of making partner is based on your relationships with the then current partners. So in some ways you might be behind someone who came up through the ranks, especially if you're coming up under a rainmaker and he wants to usher you to partnership to run his deals.

You could be in a good spot if, say, you're someplace like Latham, you've somehow developed a small book of clients who can't afford latham's rates, and you want to go to a place like sheppard with your clients. That's a clear path ahead of someone who starts at sheppard and does not have a book yet (for whatever reason). Also you might have a better shot if you come from a firm where you were in a group that had industry specific focus and a place like sheppard wants a partner who can do that kind of work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Just read through the thread...Latham and Skadden get brought up a lot as the top players. How would you distinguish the two?

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Just read through the thread...Latham and Skadden get brought up a lot as the top players. How would you distinguish the two?


I'll need someone else to chime in here.

One thing that I liked about Latham is the rotational system when you start, so that you can figure out which group in the transaction side you want to be part of.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:24 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just read through the thread...Latham and Skadden get brought up a lot as the top players. How would you distinguish the two?


I'll need someone else to chime in here.

One thing that I liked about Latham is the rotational system when you start, so that you can figure out which group in the transaction side you want to be part of.


Is there a difference in exit options between the two?

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just read through the thread...Latham and Skadden get brought up a lot as the top players. How would you distinguish the two?


I'll need someone else to chime in here.

One thing that I liked about Latham is the rotational system when you start, so that you can figure out which group in the transaction side you want to be part of.


Is there a difference in exit options between the two?


Again, would need to defer to anyone who has direct experience. But Latham's "brand" is more recognizable in LA as it was at one point an LA based firm. Skadden has more pull on the east coast. (But that's like saying Stanford has more pull in the Bay area than Harvard).

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:44 pm

Can anyone rank the following firms (corporate)?

Sheppard Mullin
Proskauer Rose
Milbank
Paul Hastings
Akin Gump
Jones Day (do they even have a corporate group?)
Mofo

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone rank the following firms (corporate)?

Sheppard Mullin
Proskauer Rose
Milbank
Paul Hastings
Akin Gump
Jones Day (do they even have a corporate group?)
Mofo


Do you now what kind of corporate you want to do?

I'd say for the LA offices:
Milbank (their transactional stuff is mostly project finance, but they do you have a strong (but small) corporate practice aside from that)
Proskauer
MoFo
Sheppard Mullin (per my earlier posts, if you want to do middle market M&A this is a good option)
Akin Gump (good real estate group)

I'm wary of Paul Hastings. They've been getting a lot of bad press lately. And their corporate group has serious, serious turnover; usually not a good sign.

No opinion on the rest.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:06 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone rank the following firms (corporate)?

Sheppard Mullin
Proskauer Rose
Milbank
Paul Hastings
Akin Gump
Jones Day (do they even have a corporate group?)
Mofo


Do you now what kind of corporate you want to do?

I'd say for the LA offices:
Milbank (their transactional stuff is mostly project finance, but they do you have a strong (but small) corporate practice aside from that)
Proskauer
MoFo
Sheppard Mullin (per my earlier posts, if you want to do middle market M&A this is a good option)
Akin Gump (good real estate group)

I'm wary of Paul Hastings. They've been getting a lot of bad press lately. And their corporate group has serious, serious turnover; usually not a good sign.

No opinion on the rest.


Interested in general corp/M&A (i think??) I have no idea honestly, since I have no experience in this field...Which firm would be best for someone who has no idea?

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Could you speak to these tiers in LA biglaw in regards to lit? What is the culture like in the lit departments of the major players?


I'll need to let someone else chime in on this. But, from my experience, top tier is going to be Munger, irell, Latham, Quinn, Sidley, GDC. Probably missing a few.

Also depends what kind of lit you want to be doing--IP, appellate, insurance, complex corporate, white collar, labor/employment. Will be vastly different depending on type.


For a young associate I'd put Munger in its own tier at the top (uber elite with unsurpassed opportunities for young attorneys), followed by GDC and Irell, although this could possibly change if you're dead set on one practice area. Quinn also does interesting work, although I've heard not-so-great things about the culture there.


I'm not sure why people keep including Irell in top lit shop lists. Don't get me wrong, its still a great firm, but its not 2015, and prospective summers should probably only consider Irell if they want to do IP lit.

In terms of elite lit shops in LA, I would say Susman/Hueston/Munger/Gibson are in the top tier, maybe also throwing in a couple other LA biglaw firms (e.g., Latham). If you are talking about individual niche areas in litigation, however, the top tiers will shift wildly. (e.g., Gibson is in a league of its own for appellate, etc.)


The fact that Irell was number one on the American Lawyer's A-list last year is probably a big, fairly legitimate reason. I'd certainly take them over Latham.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Could you speak to these tiers in LA biglaw in regards to lit? What is the culture like in the lit departments of the major players?


I'll need to let someone else chime in on this. But, from my experience, top tier is going to be Munger, irell, Latham, Quinn, Sidley, GDC. Probably missing a few.

Also depends what kind of lit you want to be doing--IP, appellate, insurance, complex corporate, white collar, labor/employment. Will be vastly different depending on type.


For a young associate I'd put Munger in its own tier at the top (uber elite with unsurpassed opportunities for young attorneys), followed by GDC and Irell, although this could possibly change if you're dead set on one practice area. Quinn also does interesting work, although I've heard not-so-great things about the culture there.


I'm not sure why people keep including Irell in top lit shop lists. Don't get me wrong, its still a great firm, but its not 2015, and prospective summers should probably only consider Irell if they want to do IP lit.

In terms of elite lit shops in LA, I would say Susman/Hueston/Munger/Gibson are in the top tier, maybe also throwing in a couple other LA biglaw firms (e.g., Latham). If you are talking about individual niche areas in litigation, however, the top tiers will shift wildly. (e.g., Gibson is in a league of its own for appellate, etc.)


The fact that Irell was number one on the American Lawyer's A-list last year is probably a big, fairly legitimate reason. I'd certainly take them over Latham.


Irell is mostly (if not all, at this point) IP litigation. Latham you're going to get broader exposure.

KM2016
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:20 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby KM2016 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:19 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone rank the following firms (corporate)?

Sheppard Mullin
Proskauer Rose
Milbank
Paul Hastings
Akin Gump
Jones Day (do they even have a corporate group?)
Mofo


Do you now what kind of corporate you want to do?

I'd say for the LA offices:
Milbank (their transactional stuff is mostly project finance, but they do you have a strong (but small) corporate practice aside from that)
Proskauer
MoFo
Sheppard Mullin (per my earlier posts, if you want to do middle market M&A this is a good option)
Akin Gump (good real estate group)

I'm wary of Paul Hastings. They've been getting a lot of bad press lately. And their corporate group has serious, serious turnover; usually not a good sign.

No opinion on the rest.


Generally agree. Just a couple notes.

Milbank does do a good amount of corporate work outside of PF. In fact, their corporate group is the largest group in the LA office by headcount and number of partners. I've been opposite them a few times and they do high level work (e.g., Zuffa's sale of UFC).
Proskauer and MoFo both do good corporate work, with MoFo doing a bit more in the tech sector, as would be expected for a SF/SV firm.
Sheppard does good middle market work, and has an excellent labor and employment group. Their work isn't as sexy, but still good work.
Akin Gump also does some PF apart from general corporate, but as Smokey said, their strength is in real estate.
Stay away from PH unless it's your only offer. The place is a mess and morale, quality of life and turnover are very problematic.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:22 pm

KM2016 wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone rank the following firms (corporate)?

Sheppard Mullin
Proskauer Rose
Milbank
Paul Hastings
Akin Gump
Jones Day (do they even have a corporate group?)
Mofo


Do you now what kind of corporate you want to do?

I'd say for the LA offices:
Milbank (their transactional stuff is mostly project finance, but they do you have a strong (but small) corporate practice aside from that)
Proskauer
MoFo
Sheppard Mullin (per my earlier posts, if you want to do middle market M&A this is a good option)
Akin Gump (good real estate group)

I'm wary of Paul Hastings. They've been getting a lot of bad press lately. And their corporate group has serious, serious turnover; usually not a good sign.

No opinion on the rest.


Generally agree. Just a couple notes.

Milbank does do a good amount of corporate work outside of PF. In fact, their corporate group is the largest group in the LA office by headcount and number of partners. I've been opposite them a few times and they do high level work (e.g., Zuffa's sale of UFC).
Proskauer and MoFo both do good corporate work, with MoFo doing a bit more in the tech sector, as would be expected for a SF/SV firm.
Sheppard does good middle market work, and has an excellent labor and employment group. Their work isn't as sexy, but still good work.
Akin Gump also does some PF apart from general corporate, but as Smokey said, their strength is in real estate.
Stay away from PH unless it's your only offer. The place is a mess and morale, quality of life and turnover are very problematic.


Concur.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:24 pm

Now that I am hangover free and this thread has evolved, I've changed the name.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:29 pm

Someone asked about Pillsbury earlier.

I've worked opposite their LA office twice. They were jerks. Not Kirkland style jerks, where it seems like all attorneys there take a class on how to be jerks. But the kind of jerky assholeness where it seemed like they were jerks because they didn't like their job/office/partner. But I got this vibe from a few people, so that's something to think about.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:44 pm

Is it appropriate to ask recruiting coordinator/younger associates about compensation package after you have received an offer?

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Is it appropriate to ask recruiting coordinator/younger associates about compensation package after you have received an offer?


After you receive an offer, yes. Ask the recruiting coordinator (the staff person, not the partner in charge of recruitment).

Which firm? We might be able to help.

EDIT: Do you mean ask for a compensation package (which I assume you mean benefits and stuff) after you've received an offer for a SA?

If that is your question, then the answer is no, don't ask the recruiting coordinator. You're putting the cart before the horse. You'll get that after you get an offer for a full time associate position. Although you likely will get the offer, I would see your asking for that as being unduly presumptive. I also wouldn't ask an associate. I'd ask on here or elsewhere.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Could you speak to these tiers in LA biglaw in regards to lit? What is the culture like in the lit departments of the major players?


I'll need to let someone else chime in on this. But, from my experience, top tier is going to be Munger, irell, Latham, Quinn, Sidley, GDC. Probably missing a few.

Also depends what kind of lit you want to be doing--IP, appellate, insurance, complex corporate, white collar, labor/employment. Will be vastly different depending on type.


For a young associate I'd put Munger in its own tier at the top (uber elite with unsurpassed opportunities for young attorneys), followed by GDC and Irell, although this could possibly change if you're dead set on one practice area. Quinn also does interesting work, although I've heard not-so-great things about the culture there.


I'm not sure why people keep including Irell in top lit shop lists. Don't get me wrong, its still a great firm, but its not 2015, and prospective summers should probably only consider Irell if they want to do IP lit.

In terms of elite lit shops in LA, I would say Susman/Hueston/Munger/Gibson are in the top tier, maybe also throwing in a couple other LA biglaw firms (e.g., Latham). If you are talking about individual niche areas in litigation, however, the top tiers will shift wildly. (e.g., Gibson is in a league of its own for appellate, etc.)


The fact that Irell was number one on the American Lawyer's A-list last year is probably a big, fairly legitimate reason. I'd certainly take them over Latham.


Also they're still a decent sized firm (over 2x Hueston and like 10x Susman). When someone thinks of the best litigation places in LA they're not thinking about Dovel or Susman because the question almost always means "biglaw-sized office" and not "hyper prestigious boutique with <20 attorneys." (Yes, Susman has more outside of LA, but that's not relevant). Hueston is somewhat in the same boat - they're bigger than Dovel, but they're still more comparable to Bird Marella and, formerly, Caldwell Leslie, than they are to a GIbson Dunn. Not that they don't have elite talent, but they're still more on the boutique-y side than the full service side.

As an LA-based litigator, I honestly think some of the distinctions ITT are overblown. I think Munger and maybe Gibson are considered a notch above, but after that, you have a mess of firms like Quinn, Irell, Latham, and O'Melveny - big firms that have been here for a while and are reasonably all-around prestigious. Depending on the type of lit you want different ones will be "best." For entertainment lit it might be O'Melveny CC, for patent, Irell, etc... and yes, boutiques and tiny biglaw offices fit into the equation as well, e.g. Hueston for white collar-ish lit or Sullivan for giant securities / financial work.

Figuring out the sub-specialty of lit you want is going to be pretty determinative of what your rankings look like. If you can't decide or for some reason you just want general commercial, I'd probably advise going to one of the bigger firms (so Latham/Gibson/Quinn/OMM) and just hoping for the best.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301599
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:14 pm

Interested in corporate , but unsure of a specific practice area. What firms would you recommend?

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: UCLA/USC/UCI OCI Stuff -- Free Advice

Postby SmokeytheBear » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Could you speak to these tiers in LA biglaw in regards to lit? What is the culture like in the lit departments of the major players?


I'll need to let someone else chime in on this. But, from my experience, top tier is going to be Munger, irell, Latham, Quinn, Sidley, GDC. Probably missing a few.

Also depends what kind of lit you want to be doing--IP, appellate, insurance, complex corporate, white collar, labor/employment. Will be vastly different depending on type.


For a young associate I'd put Munger in its own tier at the top (uber elite with unsurpassed opportunities for young attorneys), followed by GDC and Irell, although this could possibly change if you're dead set on one practice area. Quinn also does interesting work, although I've heard not-so-great things about the culture there.


I'm not sure why people keep including Irell in top lit shop lists. Don't get me wrong, its still a great firm, but its not 2015, and prospective summers should probably only consider Irell if they want to do IP lit.

In terms of elite lit shops in LA, I would say Susman/Hueston/Munger/Gibson are in the top tier, maybe also throwing in a couple other LA biglaw firms (e.g., Latham). If you are talking about individual niche areas in litigation, however, the top tiers will shift wildly. (e.g., Gibson is in a league of its own for appellate, etc.)


The fact that Irell was number one on the American Lawyer's A-list last year is probably a big, fairly legitimate reason. I'd certainly take them over Latham.


Also they're still a decent sized firm (over 2x Hueston and like 10x Susman). When someone thinks of the best litigation places in LA they're not thinking about Dovel or Susman because the question almost always means "biglaw-sized office" and not "hyper prestigious boutique with <20 attorneys." (Yes, Susman has more outside of LA, but that's not relevant). Hueston is somewhat in the same boat - they're bigger than Dovel, but they're still more comparable to Bird Marella and, formerly, Caldwell Leslie, than they are to a GIbson Dunn. Not that they don't have elite talent, but they're still more on the boutique-y side than the full service side.

As an LA-based litigator, I honestly think some of the distinctions ITT are overblown. I think Munger and maybe Gibson are considered a notch above, but after that, you have a mess of firms like Quinn, Irell, Latham, and O'Melveny - big firms that have been here for a while and are reasonably all-around prestigious. Depending on the type of lit you want different ones will be "best." For entertainment lit it might be O'Melveny CC, for patent, Irell, etc... and yes, boutiques and tiny biglaw offices fit into the equation as well, e.g. Hueston for white collar-ish lit or Sullivan for giant securities / financial work.

Figuring out the sub-specialty of lit you want is going to be pretty determinative of what your rankings look like. If you can't decide or for some reason you just want general commercial, I'd probably advise going to one of the bigger firms (so Latham/Gibson/Quinn/OMM) and just hoping for the best.


Nice to have a litigator say what I have been trying to emphasize regarding tranasactional.

Thank you for chiming in.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions

Postby SmokeytheBear » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Interested in corporate , but unsure of a specific practice area. What firms would you recommend?


Already covered above.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.