Munger vs Williams & Connolly for General Lit Forum

[SmokeytheBear]

It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

I did, actually. I didn't find a thread that compared these two -- care to provide a link to one that does? If not, please get lost.

I'm not your RA, you can't afford my billing rate, and I found the thread in less than 30 seconds. Get lost.

[runinthefront]

You seem easily frustrated. I don't know why you would even feel the need to disclose any more details about where you work; it suffices to say you that you have never worked at either firm (much less both of them), and are thus in no real position to comment about the cultural differences between the two.

So one must have worked at two firms for an extended period of time before one is in a position to compare the firms? What if I worked at MTO and my wife worked at W&C? Am I allowed to comment?

Also, I thought that 1:49 p.m. anon's post was good.

No, I think someone who has worked at one of the firms has a wealth of information to share about that particular firm. Maybe the reach of my earlier posts was unclear and/or too broad.

[rpupkin]

You seem easily frustrated. I don't know why you would even feel the need to disclose any more details about where you work; it suffices to say you that you have never worked at either firm (much less both of them), and are thus in no real position to comment about the cultural differences between the two.

So one must have worked at two firms for an extended period of time before one is in a position to compare the firms? What if I worked at MTO and my wife worked at W&C? Am I allowed to comment?

Also, I thought that 1:49 p.m. anon's post was good.

No! I think someone who has worked at one of the firms has a wealth of information to share about that particular firm. Maybe the reach of my earlier posts weren't clear and/or too broad.

I was just responding to the sentence of yours that I quoted above. Your reasoning is very clear. I don't agree with your reasoning, but it was easy to follow.

[runinthefront]

You seem easily frustrated. I don't know why you would even feel the need to disclose any more details about where you work; it suffices to say you that you have never worked at either firm (much less both of them), and are thus in no real position to comment about the cultural differences between the two.

So one must have worked at two firms for an extended period of time before one is in a position to compare the firms? What if I worked at MTO and my wife worked at W&C? Am I allowed to comment?

Also, I thought that 1:49 p.m. anon's post was good.

No! I think someone who has worked at one of the firms has a wealth of information to share about that particular firm. Maybe the reach of my earlier posts weren't clear and/or too broad.

I was just responding to the sentence of yours that I quoted above. Your reasoning is very clear. I don't agree with your reasoning, but it was easy to follow.

That's fair. It was too broad.

[KBJ2011]

It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

I did, actually. I didn't find a thread that compared these two -- care to provide a link to one that does? If not, please get lost.

I'm not your RA, you can't afford my billing rate, and I found the thread in less than 30 seconds. Get lost.

Translation: You couldn't find a thread that answered this question so now you're making excuses because you're embarrassed. It would've been less pathetic to just admit you were wrong. Sorry if I hurt your feelings with the "get lost" bit.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard from folks who worked or summered at both places that they're much worse places to work than people let on.

Take it for what you paid for it

[KBJ2011]

I'm a little shocked by how unhelpful people are being. If you feel like you could work in either city, it's completely reasonable to ask if folks could compare what it's like to work at one firm vs the other. if you're serious about a career in biglaw, the firms are different enough that I would absolutely move to one or the other great city in question depending on which firm is a better fit for me.

OP, I looked at both these firms. They may be "peers" in that they're both at the top of the vault selectivity lists, they're both pretty small, etc, but I got VERY different vibes. I believe that hours expectations may be substantially different, work cultures, etc. I've heard from a number of folks that W&C likes ex-military folks and has a very intensive vibe. I would say the opposite is likely true of mto, by reputation---mto has more of a nerdy/bookish vibe by reputation than anything else. look at the chambers bands for each firm; i believe they practice in different areas. i doubt W&C does entertainment like MTO does, I doubt MTO does the type of DC-specific white-collary stuff that W&C does (caveat: i guess mto does have a new dc office, but, OP....you're not qualified to work there lol).

by all means, apply to both places. get a sense for the different types of lawyers working at each firm in the interviews.

I was surprised too. But honestly I get it, TLS is sensitive about the prestige-chasing thing so people are quick to get defensive or show their teeth even if there's no need. I didn't take it personally. Thanks for your input!

[dtlaatty]

Work/worked at one of these firms and am pretty familiar with the other.

The predominant issue is whether you want to live in DC or LA. As you know if you have ties to both places, it is hard to find two major coastal cities that are as different as these two. I understand that you want to bracket this issue aside, but this inflects the other issues you're looking at.

For QoL, the firms are probably similar. Munger probably has marginally lower average billables and may have a slightly more relaxed culture; this is just a reflection of general differences between the two markets. Moreover, the partners you work for at each will matter more than the firms themselves. Above all, DC and LA are very very different cities, and that will matter more for your QoL than anything else. Do you like driving everywhere? Do you care about having great hiking nearby? Do you care about being a train ride away from NY, etc.? Do you want to live in a huge sprawling city or a small-feeling city?

Early experience is probably pretty similar at both places; again, this will defend on which partners you work for and what cases you get assigned to. Hard to tell ex ante.

Exit opportunities are where the choice of city really matters. Do you want to be an AUSA in CDCal, go in-house at a studio, or get appointed to something in CA government? Go to Munger. Do you want to be an AUSA in DDC or work at the WH Counsel's Office? Go to W&C. Neither is really "better" in the abstract. Relative to other DC firms, W&C is less of a revolving door place for the federal government (once you leave, you generally don't come back), though this is less true than in the past and isn't relevant to the decision between MTO and W&C.

Also work/worked at one of these firms and am pretty familiar with the other and I agree with this post in its entirety. OP, this is not about being unhelpful; it is that while there are some differences as noted above, the junior associate experience at these firms is quite similar compared to other biglaw firms (work, hours, substance, exit opps, partnership prospects, etc.), such that you are better off choosing based on the city in which you want to live. I get that you "could live" in either one, but we are talking about building your legal practice and, as a practical matter, very likely making a lifelong decision to live in one of them. They are really different cities (in my experience, very few people tend to like both of them) and if you don't have a preference for either one, you should investigate further.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a little shocked by how unhelpful people are being. If you feel like you could work in either city, it's completely reasonable to ask if folks could compare what it's like to work at either firm. if you're serious about a career in biglaw, the firms are different enough that I would absolutely move to one or the other great city in question depending on which firm is a better fir for me. suggesting otherwise is sperglordy even by TLS standards. if you don't want to engage with OP, leave the thread duders. JFC.

OP, I looked at both these firms. They may be "peers" in that they're both at the top of the vault selectivity lists, they're both pretty small, etc, but I got VERY different vibes. I believe that hours expectations may be substantially different, work cultures, etc. I've heard from a number of folks that W&C likes ex-military folks and has a very intensive vibe. I would say the opposite is likely true of mto, by reputation---mto has more of a nerdy/bookish vibe by reputation than anything else. look at the chambers bands for each firm; i believe they practice in different areas. i doubt W&C does entertainment like MTO does, I doubt MTO does the type of DC-specific white-collary stuff that W&C does.

by all means, apply to both places. get a sense for the different types of lawyers working at each firm in the interviews.

MTO is not laid back. People are intense, the hours for juniors are crazy due to no leverage, and there's little room for mistakes or errors. Parners are quick to judge and offer no training so you will receive unparalleled substantive opportunities with a very steep learning curve and little support. The firm is very flexible from a lifestyle perspective; you could basically work from home or on the road and be in the office twice a week. But that's not the same thing as chill.

Work/worked at MTO. That is not my experience at all (except for the flexibility part). I find the people with the craziest hours choose/chose to do so because they were overachievers by nature who didn't have the ability and/or diplomatic skills to turn down work when they were already at capacity.

[AspiringAspirant]

It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

I did, actually. I didn't find a thread that compared these two -- care to provide a link to one that does? If not, please get lost.

I'm not your RA, you can't afford my billing rate, and I found the thread in less than 30 seconds. Get lost.

Translation: You couldn't find a thread that answered this question so now you're making excuses because you're embarrassed. It would've been less pathetic to just admit you were wrong. Sorry if I hurt your feelings with the "get lost" bit.

My search is bringing up a few random posts that mention MTO and W&C together, usually bc of selectivity; but no thread that compares them in the way you asked. I think you're right that you struck a chord for whatever reason, but I think the posters warning that you're getting some conjectural comparisons are right too. That said, many things on TLS should be taken with caution.

[Anonymous User]

.

[flashdril]

It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

I did, actually. I didn't find a thread that compared these two -- care to provide a link to one that does? If not, please get lost.

I'm not your RA, you can't afford my billing rate, and I found the thread in less than 30 seconds. Get lost.

I'm trying to imagine what it must be like to be this much of a dick when you could just link the thread.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a little shocked by how unhelpful people are being. If you feel like you could work in either city, it's completely reasonable to ask if folks could compare what it's like to work at either firm. if you're serious about a career in biglaw, the firms are different enough that I would absolutely move to one or the other great city in question depending on which firm is a better fir for me. suggesting otherwise is sperglordy even by TLS standards. if you don't want to engage with OP, leave the thread duders. JFC.

OP, I looked at both these firms. They may be "peers" in that they're both at the top of the vault selectivity lists, they're both pretty small, etc, but I got VERY different vibes. I believe that hours expectations may be substantially different, work cultures, etc. I've heard from a number of folks that W&C likes ex-military folks and has a very intensive vibe. I would say the opposite is likely true of mto, by reputation---mto has more of a nerdy/bookish vibe by reputation than anything else. look at the chambers bands for each firm; i believe they practice in different areas. i doubt W&C does entertainment like MTO does, I doubt MTO does the type of DC-specific white-collary stuff that W&C does.

by all means, apply to both places. get a sense for the different types of lawyers working at each firm in the interviews.

MTO is not laid back. People are intense, the hours for juniors are crazy due to no leverage, and there's little room for mistakes or errors. Parners are quick to judge and offer no training so you will receive unparalleled substantive opportunities with a very steep learning curve and little support. The firm is very flexible from a lifestyle perspective; you could basically work from home or on the road and be in the office twice a week. But that's not the same thing as chill.

Work/worked at MTO. That is not my experience at all (except for the flexibility part). I find the people with the craziest hours choose/chose to do so because they were overachievers by nature who didn't have the ability and/or diplomatic skills to turn down work when they were already at capacity.

Which part of the post do you take issue with? Just the hours? I overstated by saying all associate hours are bad at MTO. And honestly compared to new york corporate, its not bad at all. But a lot of folks in their first year at the firm (which makes them 2d or 3d yrs) are working 200+ hours month over month (and not just overachievers by choice, except to the extent everyone there's an ivy league over achievers), while similarly situated folks at other firms in california have gentler commitments. As for the culture, my point was that its an intense environment (just like W&C) and I wouldn't avoid W&C and come to Munger on the assumption that your quality of work life will substantially improve (and if W&C partners don't ever humiliate associates in meetings as the deleted post suggested, there are certainly some MTO partners that do...) The trade off for the intensity is that, as I said, you access unparalleled professional opportunity and experience as a junior litigator, if you can handle it. And I imagine you wouldn't disagree with that point either.

[KBJ2011]

Work/worked at one of these firms and am pretty familiar with the other.

The predominant issue is whether you want to live in DC or LA. As you know if you have ties to both places, it is hard to find two major coastal cities that are as different as these two. I understand that you want to bracket this issue aside, but this inflects the other issues you're looking at.

For QoL, the firms are probably similar. Munger probably has marginally lower average billables and may have a slightly more relaxed culture; this is just a reflection of general differences between the two markets. Moreover, the partners you work for at each will matter more than the firms themselves. Above all, DC and LA are very very different cities, and that will matter more for your QoL than anything else. Do you like driving everywhere? Do you care about having great hiking nearby? Do you care about being a train ride away from NY, etc.? Do you want to live in a huge sprawling city or a small-feeling city?

Early experience is probably pretty similar at both places; again, this will defend on which partners you work for and what cases you get assigned to. Hard to tell ex ante.

Exit opportunities are where the choice of city really matters. Do you want to be an AUSA in CDCal, go in-house at a studio, or get appointed to something in CA government? Go to Munger. Do you want to be an AUSA in DDC or work at the WH Counsel's Office? Go to W&C. Neither is really "better" in the abstract. Relative to other DC firms, W&C is less of a revolving door place for the federal government (once you leave, you generally don't come back), though this is less true than in the past and isn't relevant to the decision between MTO and W&C.

Also work/worked at one of these firms and am pretty familiar with the other and I agree with this post in its entirety. OP, this is not about being unhelpful; it is that while there are some differences as noted above, the junior associate experience at these firms is quite similar compared to other biglaw firms (work, hours, substance, exit opps, partnership prospects, etc.), such that you are better off choosing based on the city in which you want to live. I get that you "could live" in either one, but we are talking about building your legal practice and, as a practical matter, very likely making a lifelong decision to live in one of them. They are really different cities (in my experience, very few people tend to like both of them) and if you don't have a preference for either one, you should investigate further.

To be clear, I found the above anon's post really helpful. My point in reiterating that I'm familiar with both cities is that I already know LA and DC are different, have thought about where I'd like to practice, and can weigh that consideration myself if all else is equal between two firms (I like both cities and have several yrs worth of investigation, btw). My OP was about whether all else was indeed equal between these two. A few comments have noted that they basically are and I appreciate that perspective.

Also -- looking at that username I could probably guess which of the two you work[ed] for lol

[cron1834]

This is the worst kind of prestige whoring. These are peer firms - decide which of two radically different cities/regions you want to live in first, and go from there.

Cravath and S&C and Simpson and Paul Weiss and Debevoise are peer firms, but people don't flip a coin by that reasoning to decide where they should summer.

Cravath, S&C, Simpson, Paul Weiss, and Debevoise are not all in different cities. Well, they could be if you decided to apply to different offices for each one. But the point was that the decision here is LA or DC, not Munger or Williams & Connolly.

Cav is right. Suggesting that I somehow implied OP should flip a coin is ignorant and not at all useful. The differences between cities/regions here almost certainly OVERWHELM the differences between firms, so...

Accidental anon, this is Cron.

[dtlaatty]

This is the worst kind of prestige whoring. These are peer firms - decide which of two radically different cities/regions you want to live in first, and go from there.

Cravath and S&C and Simpson and Paul Weiss and Debevoise are peer firms, but people don't flip a coin by that reasoning to decide where they should summer.

Cravath, S&C, Simpson, Paul Weiss, and Debevoise are not all in different cities. Well, they could be if you decided to apply to different offices for each one. But the point was that the decision here is LA or DC, not Munger or Williams & Connolly.

Cav is right. Suggesting that I somehow implied OP should flip a coin is ignorant and not at all useful. The differences between cities/regions here almost certainly OVERWHELM the differences between firms, so...

Accidental anon, this is Cron.

+1

[Anonymous User]

I'm a little shocked by how unhelpful people are being. If you feel like you could work in either city, it's completely reasonable to ask if folks could compare what it's like to work at either firm. if you're serious about a career in biglaw, the firms are different enough that I would absolutely move to one or the other great city in question depending on which firm is a better fir for me. suggesting otherwise is sperglordy even by TLS standards. if you don't want to engage with OP, leave the thread duders. JFC.

OP, I looked at both these firms. They may be "peers" in that they're both at the top of the vault selectivity lists, they're both pretty small, etc, but I got VERY different vibes. I believe that hours expectations may be substantially different, work cultures, etc. I've heard from a number of folks that W&C likes ex-military folks and has a very intensive vibe. I would say the opposite is likely true of mto, by reputation---mto has more of a nerdy/bookish vibe by reputation than anything else. look at the chambers bands for each firm; i believe they practice in different areas. i doubt W&C does entertainment like MTO does, I doubt MTO does the type of DC-specific white-collary stuff that W&C does.

by all means, apply to both places. get a sense for the different types of lawyers working at each firm in the interviews.

MTO is not laid back. People are intense, the hours for juniors are crazy due to no leverage, and there's little room for mistakes or errors. Parners are quick to judge and offer no training so you will receive unparalleled substantive opportunities with a very steep learning curve and little support. The firm is very flexible from a lifestyle perspective; you could basically work from home or on the road and be in the office twice a week. But that's not the same thing as chill.

Work/worked at MTO. That is not my experience at all (except for the flexibility part). I find the people with the craziest hours choose/chose to do so because they were overachievers by nature who didn't have the ability and/or diplomatic skills to turn down work when they were already at capacity.

Which part of the post do you take issue with? Just the hours? I overstated by saying all associate hours are bad at MTO. And honestly compared to new york corporate, its not bad at all. But a lot of folks in their first year at the firm (which makes them 2d or 3d yrs) are working 200+ hours month over month (and not just overachievers by choice, except to the extent everyone there's an ivy league over achievers), while similarly situated folks at other firms in california have gentler commitments. As for the culture, my point was that its an intense environment (just like W&C) and I wouldn't avoid W&C and come to Munger on the assumption that your quality of work life will substantially improve (and if W&C partners don't ever humiliate associates in meetings as the deleted post suggested, there are certainly some MTO partners that do...) The trade off for the intensity is that, as I said, you access unparalleled professional opportunity and experience as a junior litigator, if you can handle it. And I imagine you wouldn't disagree with that point either.

That makes sense. Really, I haven't seen/didn't see many associates working 200 hours a month consistently. Obviously there are ups and downs but hours like that on a consistent basis are/were quite unusual. (And since all attorneys' hours get circulated each month, I'm pretty sure about this.) There are a couple folks who push/pushed 200 hours all the time - but I really do think that's an issue of their own making and, in my experience, is actually harmful to their careers here insofar as it causes their work quality and professional activities to decline. (Outside professional activities mean a lot at a firm that consistently makes associates in their fifth year at the firm.) I also haven't found/didn't find the personalities intense and haven't observed/didn't observe partners to be anything but cordial and professional in their dealings with associates or quick to judge. It is true that the firm is not big on formal training but I never observed partners being unwilling to help explain any project when asked -- if folks feel lost and are taking on projects without any guidance, they just need to ask.

I do agree that MTO is not a good place to turn in less than perfect work.

Of course, this is all my subjective impression, and everyone's mileage can vary.

[Anonymous User]

I do agree that MTO is not a good place to turn in less than perfect work.

Of course, this is all my subjective impression, and everyone's mileage can vary.

At any firm in this tier... is there a good place to turn in less than perfect work?

[rpupkin]

I do agree that MTO is not a good place to turn in less than perfect work.

Of course, this is all my subjective impression, and everyone's mileage can vary.

At any firm in this tier... is there a good place to turn in less than perfect work?

LOL @ the notion of "perfect work product" at any law firm.

[Anonymous User]

I do agree that MTO is not a good place to turn in less than perfect work.

Of course, this is all my subjective impression, and everyone's mileage can vary.

At any firm in this tier... is there a good place to turn in less than perfect work?

LOL @ the notion of "perfect work product" at any law firm.

You're right, that was bad phrasing. I was responding to the point above that "there's little room for mistakes or errors." I agree with that.

[Anonymous User]

I do agree that MTO is not a good place to turn in less than perfect work.

Of course, this is all my subjective impression, and everyone's mileage can vary.

At any firm in this tier... is there a good place to turn in less than perfect work?

LOL @ the notion of "perfect work product" at any law firm.

Fair - how about "free from obvious errors".

[rpupkin]

I do agree that MTO is not a good place to turn in less than perfect work.

Of course, this is all my subjective impression, and everyone's mileage can vary.

At any firm in this tier... is there a good place to turn in less than perfect work?

LOL @ the notion of "perfect work product" at any law firm.

Fair - how about "free from obvious errors".

Fine, but that's the standard at every law firm.

[bruinfan10]

This thread has improved considerably. Which I attribute to rpupkin appearing. For the record, I stand by MTO being more laid back culturally than W&C, from the availability of working remotely if necessary to the fact that California shops are generally much more chill than DC shops.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

This is the worst kind of prestige whoring. These are peer firms - decide which of two radically different cities/regions you want to live in first, and go from there.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has improved considerably. Which I attribute to rpupkin appearing. For the record, I stand by MTO being more laid back culturally than W&C, from the availability of working remotely if necessary to the fact that California shops are generally much more chill than DC shops.

While I won't dispute the overall point, you can work remotely at W&C. No one notices if you're out of the office, as long as you aren't missing meetings.