LA Biglaw Forum

[Anonymous User]

1L here -- East Coast T14. Gunning for LA biglaw but no ties. Worth it to pursue 1L summer in LA to demonstrate commitment?

TYIA

[almondjoy]

1L here -- East Coast T14. Gunning for LA biglaw but no ties. Worth it to pursue 1L summer in LA to demonstrate commitment?

TYIA

Definitely. I wouldn't want to go into OCI with the goal of landing an LA gig without ever having worked/lived/have family in SoCal. That would make things so much more difficult for you.

[bruinfan10]

is this thread all law students or are there legit CA attorneys in here? as I said in the other LA thread, I'm blown away that everyone is just accepting that Gibson has stronger lit across the board than Latham. I had only ever heard of them as peers in LA. But I could be wrong--I'm just bummed to hear it because Latham pays a higher clerkship bonus than GDC, and I'd be annoyed to hear that the firm offers appreciably worse lit options than GDC or MTO given that the latter two pay below market signing bonuses.

[WheninLaw]

is this thread all law students or are there legit CA attorneys in here? as I said in the other LA thread, I'm blown away that everyone is just accepting that Gibson has stronger lit across the board than Latham. I had only ever heard of them as peers in LA. But I could be wrong--I'm just bummed to hear it because Latham pays a higher clerkship bonus than GDC, and I'd be annoyed to hear that the firm offers appreciably worse lit options than GDC or MTO given that the latter two pay below market signing bonuses.

I don't think anyone would say it offers "appreciably worse" lit options than GDC. The vast majority of my friends are LA attorney's, and it has always been described as: MTO >> Irell (pre-HH, who knows now) > or = Gibson > or = Latham >> Others.

It's probably a push in the end. Who cares.

[rpupkin]

is this thread all law students or are there legit CA attorneys in here? as I said in the other LA thread, I'm blown away that everyone is just accepting that Gibson has stronger lit across the board than Latham. I had only ever heard of them as peers in LA. But I could be wrong--I'm just bummed to hear it because Latham pays a higher clerkship bonus than GDC, and I'd be annoyed to hear that the firm offers appreciably worse lit options than GDC or MTO given that the latter two pay below market signing bonuses.

It's hard to imagine that someone with your credentials would choose Latham over MTO. I mean, if you're really desperate for that extra bonus money, I guess I can understand. But MTO strikes me as a much better place to work as a junior associate than either GDC or Latham.

When it comes to GDC versus Latham, I agree that the lines aren't as bright. Fairly or not, Latham has more of a sweat-shoppy, churn-through-associates reputation. I think of Latham as in the Quinn/Skadden/Kirkland category of rough firms for associates in LA. But that's just an impression based on anecdotes.

Anyway, I really think MTO is the right answer for you unless I'm missing something major.

[Anonymous User]

What's the perception of Sidley Austin in LA? Didn't see it addressed earlier in the thread

Also interested in this... I know they have been rapidly expanding of late (opening CC office, adding STB M&A partner and laterals from Loeb and Strook). Curious how this will translate to their regional reputation. I get the sense that Sidley is on a tier below MTO, Irell, GDC, Latham, OMM, PH, but maybe that will change soon? It's also not clear if summers or new attorneys will get to do much entertainment (transactional or lit) work with the new attorneys they brought over.

Anyone else have thoughts? Would anyone consider Sidley for lit over say Irell/OMM?

[bruinfan10]

is this thread all law students or are there legit CA attorneys in here? as I said in the other LA thread, I'm blown away that everyone is just accepting that Gibson has stronger lit across the board than Latham. I had only ever heard of them as peers in LA. But I could be wrong--I'm just bummed to hear it because Latham pays a higher clerkship bonus than GDC, and I'd be annoyed to hear that the firm offers appreciably worse lit options than GDC or MTO given that the latter two pay below market signing bonuses.

It's hard to imagine that someone with your credentials would choose Latham over MTO. I mean, if you're really desperate for that extra bonus money, I guess I can understand. But MTO strikes me as a much better place to work as a junior associate than either GDC or Latham.

When it comes to GDC versus Latham, I agree that the lines aren't as bright. Fairly or not, Latham has more of a sweat-shoppy, churn-through-associates reputation. I think of Latham as in the Quinn/Skadden/Kirkland category of rough firms for associates in LA. But that's just an impression based on anecdotes.

Anyway, I really think MTO is the right answer for you unless I'm missing something major.

Okay, that makes sense, thanks for the reality check. The signing bonus difference only registers if you're planning on spending just a short time in biglaw, and regardless, it's probably dumb to pick a firm based on an extra 20-30k that the bonus tax rate likely reduces by 40%. I knew MTO was a cut above in LA, but I didn't realize Gibson was also better regarded than Latham.

[Anonymous User]

1L here -- East Coast T14. Gunning for LA biglaw but no ties. Worth it to pursue 1L summer in LA to demonstrate commitment?

TYIA

Did this. No ties to LA, was able to get a few offers there at OCI.

Steps you need to follow:

1. Know your story. Know why LA. And know how to talk about it convincingly. Always remember, their concern is you're going to do a few years in LA, have fun, and bolt back to NY, or Philly, or DC, or Boston, or Chicago, or [enter other market here]. These concerns tend not to exist for NYC big law firs.

2. It will help (if you have very strong grades) to perhaps ONLY bid LA. Many will advise against this, especially career services, but it will strengthen your story for step 1.

3. You're exactly right, apply to firms for 1L SA. I had multiple of firms mention that I applied to them for last year during my screening interviews. It shows you are interested in the region and builds interest in their firm.

4. Last helpful thing, if you do not get a 1L SA in LA... try to do anything legal there. I know this can be really challenging, but try to use your winter break to look for lots of summer internships in LA for the summer. It helps show your commitment to the region.

Overall, if you have good grades and can do step 1 well (really 2-3 are just there to strengthen 1), you will be able to find something in LA.

[rpupkin]

is this thread all law students or are there legit CA attorneys in here? as I said in the other LA thread, I'm blown away that everyone is just accepting that Gibson has stronger lit across the board than Latham. I had only ever heard of them as peers in LA. But I could be wrong--I'm just bummed to hear it because Latham pays a higher clerkship bonus than GDC, and I'd be annoyed to hear that the firm offers appreciably worse lit options than GDC or MTO given that the latter two pay below market signing bonuses.

It's hard to imagine that someone with your credentials would choose Latham over MTO. I mean, if you're really desperate for that extra bonus money, I guess I can understand. But MTO strikes me as a much better place to work as a junior associate than either GDC or Latham.

When it comes to GDC versus Latham, I agree that the lines aren't as bright. Fairly or not, Latham has more of a sweat-shoppy, churn-through-associates reputation. I think of Latham as in the Quinn/Skadden/Kirkland category of rough firms for associates in LA. But that's just an impression based on anecdotes.

Anyway, I really think MTO is the right answer for you unless I'm missing something major.

Okay, that makes sense, thanks for the reality check. The signing bonus difference only registers if you're planning on spending just a short time in biglaw, and regardless, it's probably dumb to pick a firm based on an extra 20-30k that the bonus tax rate likely reduces by 40%. I knew MTO was a cut above in LA, but I didn't realize Gibson was also better regarded than Latham.

I guess I have the vague sense that Gibson is better regarded than Latham. I think that general perception exists for at least two reasons. First, Gibson has a more highly regarded (and definitely more visible) appellate practice. Attorneys and law students generally equate appellate law with prestige (which is kinda silly because the vast majority of Gibson associates won't get to focus on appellate work unless they clerked for SCOTUS or something). Second, I believe Gibson has slightly higher hiring standards than Latham--at least that was true when I did OCI many years ago. I suspect that many students remember that you needed slightly better grades to get a Gibson Dunn callback, and they translate that experience into the idea that Gibson is a better law firm.

[cron1834]

Latham has higher median and cutoff GPA numbers than Gibson at my T14, per the career office data made available. That's a 5-year average, so it may hide recent trends or something, but it's true for both NY and LA. Numbers are fairly close, however.

I'm just a 2L, but it seems pretty obvious to me that they're close peers. Worry about practice area and fit, no?

(obvs MTO is way more selective than both)

[rpupkin]

Latham has higher median and cutoff GPA numbers than Gibson at my T14, per the career office data made available. That's a 5-year average, so it may hide recent trends or something, but it's true for both NY and LA. Numbers are fairly close, however.

Well, my experience definitely isn't part of any "recent trend." Like I said, it was just my recollection from my particular law school for my particular year. It could well be that Latham is more selective now. Now that I think more about of it, I did OCI soon after Latham infamously "Lathamed" their first-year associates. I think Latham was really struggling to get 2Ls to accept offers, so they may have had to relax their standards a bit at the time.

[cron1834]

The reverse may be true at other T14s, dunno. All I'm saying is that they seem like peers to me.

[Anonymous User]

I'm in SF biglaw litigation. Up here, I don't really see any daylight between Latham and Gibson. And quite frankly, not that much daylight between those firms and KVN/MTO either, even though KVN and MTO are more selective. My base of knowledge is primarily with government hiring, and my impression is that government employers are not making the same distinctions that law students are. I think there is a relatively large tier of firms that are seen as roughly equivalent. And once you're in that tier (and have the same good school + clerkship pedigree that your competitors at the more selective firm have), your substantive experience + connections are going to make the name of your firm more or less irrelevant. So the question is are you going to develop better experience or connections at MTO? I think on average yes, but the answer is probably more complicated than students realize.

[bruinfan10]

I'm in SF biglaw litigation. Up here, I don't really see any daylight between Latham and Gibson. And quite frankly, not that much daylight between those firms and KVN/MTO either, even though KVN and MTO are more selective. My base of knowledge is primarily with government hiring, and my impression is that government employers are not making the same distinctions that law students are. I think there is a relatively large tier of firms that are seen as roughly equivalent. And once you're in that tier (and have the same good school + clerkship pedigree that your competitors at the more selective firm have), your substantive experience + connections are going to make the name of your firm more or less irrelevant. So the question is are you going to develop better experience or connections at MTO? I think on average yes, but the answer is probably more complicated than students realize.

In the off chance you come back to this thread, do you have any impressions re: the litigators in the much smaller SV offices? Gibson, Latham, Quinn, etc have some securities and IP litigators out there, maybe practice groups of 5-10, and I'm curious if you think that would be a worse (by whatever metric you want to use) place to be a litigator than a more full service shop up the road in SF.

I wonder if associates in those small SV practice groups (3-4 associates working for a couple partners) get decently substantive work given that there's less of them to go around? Or are you chances of getting stuck in doc review hell just the same there as anywhere else.

[Anonymous User]

Resurrection!

Any more opinions on K&E corporate? I'm seeing mixed things through this thread (e.g. awesome people, mediocre hours vs. terrible people, soul-crushing hours).

Would really appreciate some comparisons.

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on V30 firms in LA with small satellite offices?

[rpupkin]

Thoughts on V30 firms in LA with small satellite offices?

Disastrous. V20 satellites are fine, as are the V40 satellites. But V30 satellites? In LA? Ouch.

[bobbyflayed]

Thoughts on V30 firms in LA with small satellite offices?

Disastrous. V20 satellites are fine, as are the V40 satellites. But V30 satellites? In LA? Ouch.

I second this. You want the work to be from local clients. However, if this is your only way to get back to LA, it isn't terrible. You can always lateral to another firm once you're here.

[bobbyflayed]

Thoughts on V30 firms in LA with small satellite offices?

Disastrous. V20 satellites are fine, as are the V40 satellites. But V30 satellites? In LA? Ouch.

I second this. You want the work to be from local clients. However, if this is your only way to get back to LA, it isn't terrible. You can always lateral to another firm once you're here.

[Yukos]

Thoughts on V30 firms in LA with small satellite offices?

Disastrous. V20 satellites are fine, as are the V40 satellites. But V30 satellites? In LA? Ouch.

I second this. You want the work to be from local clients. However, if this is your only way to get back to LA, it isn't terrible. You can always lateral to another firm once you're here.

The ol' double post sincerely agreeing with a joke post.

[Anonymous User]

Big time resurrection, here. Can we get an update on the hivemind's opinion re: GDC vs. Latham in corp/transactional practices?

[Anonymous User]

Big time resurrection, here. Can we get an update on the hivemind's opinion re: GDC vs. Latham in corp/transactional practices?

Both big dogs in LA, you'll get great substantive experience at both. I feel like the difference is felt far more in non-LA offices, but if you're interested in more traditional banking/finance then Latham may have the upper hand.

Chambers puts Gibson in Band 2 but I feel like the difference is minimal from an associate's perspective. Go with fit here. If fit is truly equal, maybe Latham?

[Anonymous User]

Big time resurrection, here. Can we get an update on the hivemind's opinion re: GDC vs. Latham in corp/transactional practices?

Both big dogs in LA, you'll get great substantive experience at both. I feel like the difference is felt far more in non-LA offices, but if you're interested in more traditional banking/finance then Latham may have the upper hand.

Chambers puts Gibson in Band 2 but I feel like the difference is minimal from an associate's perspective. Go with fit here. If fit is truly equal, maybe Latham?

OP anon here. Thanks - this basically squares with my thinking. Latham appears marginally better because they've got a bigger corp practice overall, but I'm not convinced that (or the mere fact that "Latham is Latham", etc) is enough to beat out on fit vis-à-vis GDC.