MTO (LA) vs. W&C (DC) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do you have a clerkship lined up? Not sure if W&C or MTO requires a clerkship before giving full-time offer but that may be something to consider.

And if you're truly considering government as a serious exit op, seems like W&C's long and deep DC connections would be a huge boost. Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump have been clients of W&C lawyers.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have a clerkship lined up? Not sure if W&C or MTO requires a clerkship before giving full-time offer but that may be something to consider.

And if you're truly considering government as a serious exit op, seems like W&C's long and deep DC connections would be a huge boost. Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump have been clients of W&C lawyers.

If a person summers at W&C, they do not need a clerkship to work there after graduation. (Most former summers do clerk but not all.). Not sure about MTO.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have a clerkship lined up? Not sure if W&C or MTO requires a clerkship before giving full-time offer but that may be something to consider.

OP here. I don't have a clerkship because of the plan, but both firms have disavowed requiring a clerkship to be an associate. Would either firm be better at helping me land a clerkship (e.g. connections to judges, former clerks, interview prep)?

And if you're truly considering government as a serious exit op, seems like W&C's long and deep DC connections would be a huge boost. Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump have been clients of W&C lawyers.

This makes sense to me, but W&C seems to dislike the revolving door model. Other firms, including MTO, seem to be more eager about going to bat for associates when they apply to, e.g., competitive DOJ jobs. Do you think the W&C name compensates for the lack of institutional support when it comes to government exit opportunities?

[Anonymous User]

Do you have a clerkship lined up? Not sure if W&C or MTO requires a clerkship before giving full-time offer but that may be something to consider.

OP here. I don't have a clerkship because of the plan, but both firms have disavowed requiring a clerkship to be an associate. Would either firm be better at helping me land a clerkship (e.g. connections to judges, former clerks, interview prep)?

And if you're truly considering government as a serious exit op, seems like W&C's long and deep DC connections would be a huge boost. Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump have been clients of W&C lawyers.

This makes sense to me, but W&C seems to dislike the revolving door model. Other firms, including MTO, seem to be more eager about going to bat for associates when they apply to, e.g., competitive DOJ jobs. Do you think the W&C name compensates for the lack of institutional support when it comes to government exit opportunities?

My school's JCO has advised that firm is irrelevant to getting a clerkship. However, not sure I believe it. Certain firms (W&C and MTO among them) sent significantly more clerks to judges and I think it would be silly to think that a judge seeing one of those names on your resume wouldn't think it was a measure of quality. FWIW, I had an associate during my interview at W&C tell me that certain judges steer their clerks to W&C because they think so highly of the lawyers there.

W&C is definitely less of a revolving door and I think views themselves in opposition to the government. the firm will probably not give you as much support as MTO, but I think you'll have way more exposure (i.e. sitting across the table from govt lawyers) at W&C.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have a clerkship lined up? Not sure if W&C or MTO requires a clerkship before giving full-time offer but that may be something to consider.

OP here. I don't have a clerkship because of the plan, but both firms have disavowed requiring a clerkship to be an associate. Would either firm be better at helping me land a clerkship (e.g. connections to judges, former clerks, interview prep)?

And if you're truly considering government as a serious exit op, seems like W&C's long and deep DC connections would be a huge boost. Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump have been clients of W&C lawyers.

This makes sense to me, but W&C seems to dislike the revolving door model. Other firms, including MTO, seem to be more eager about going to bat for associates when they apply to, e.g., competitive DOJ jobs. Do you think the W&C name compensates for the lack of institutional support when it comes to government exit opportunities?

W&C has started to change its aversion to the revolving door in a limited way. It’s recently hired back a few former associates as counsel on partner track. Eg, https://www.wc.com/Attorneys/Rachel-S-Rodman. But still definitely less common than at other firms.

[jbagelboy]

Do you have a clerkship lined up? Not sure if W&C or MTO requires a clerkship before giving full-time offer but that may be something to consider.

OP here. I don't have a clerkship because of the plan, but both firms have disavowed requiring a clerkship to be an associate. Would either firm be better at helping me land a clerkship (e.g. connections to judges, former clerks, interview prep)?

And if you're truly considering government as a serious exit op, seems like W&C's long and deep DC connections would be a huge boost. Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump have been clients of W&C lawyers.

This makes sense to me, but W&C seems to dislike the revolving door model. Other firms, including MTO, seem to be more eager about going to bat for associates when they apply to, e.g., competitive DOJ jobs. Do you think the W&C name compensates for the lack of institutional support when it comes to government exit opportunities?

My school's JCO has advised that firm is irrelevant to getting a clerkship. However, not sure I believe it. Certain firms (W&C and MTO among them) sent significantly more clerks to judges and I think it would be silly to think that a judge seeing one of those names on your resume wouldn't think it was a measure of quality. FWIW, I had an associate during my interview at W&C tell me that certain judges steer their clerks to W&C because they think so highly of the lawyers there.

W&C is definitely less of a revolving door and I think views themselves in opposition to the government. the firm will probably not give you as much support as MTO, but I think you'll have way more exposure (i.e. sitting across the table from govt lawyers) at W&C.

Correlation =\= Causation

[run26.2]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

Where you summer doesn’t matter at all for clerking. Whether you can secure a dc circuit clerkship will be based on your grades, your letters/advocates, and your writing.

Of course it matters. Everything in the legal field is a vetting process and that's how prestige derives its power. We count on institutions to screen people for us and then we believe them once they do. That's why someone at HYS is presumed smart until proven stupid. That someone is able to work at MTO/W&C means they've been successfully vetted for many of the same criteria judges use for extending interviews.

this.