DC Market, Kinda Lib Forum

[Anonymous User]

OP. I don’t really care to engage further about the meta-conversation (and I will reply with more substantive questions to the helpful posters above in the morning), but honestly the cynicism driving the gatekeeping (about *market advice*, not state secrets) is kinda the flip side of the hair-trigger snark that can be the watchword of these kinds of forums. I’ll reveal that I’m at at least a T6 with one semester of grades such that upperclassmen / career services have told me many, if not all, of the firms mentioned are at least in range. Not locks, not auto-offers, and heck I readily admitted I may not have a choice when all’s said and done. But it’s disappointing to see that what I thought was a good-faith question about firms in not a “chance me” thread, not even a bidding advice thread, but a request for more knowledge, turn into some kind of lambasting about how I’m having pipe dreams. I’m sorry your clerkship buddies struck out at DC, and hell maybe I will too, but don’t treat me like I’m a 0L frothing at the mouth about stuff way out of range just because of that experience. Anyways, I’ve perused plenty of X vs. Y threads about several firms mentioned above and wanted a more consolidated view heading into the last few months before OCI, and I don’t think that’s unwarranted.

[aegor]

Nah, you’re just wrong about how hard it is. It’s much, much more difficult than NY as we all know, but it’s nowhere near the high-wire act that’s been presented by some folks here.

I also don’t know how much different diversity is now vs. when I got my offers - I suspect that it is different now, but I don’t know for sure. It certainly played a role during my cycle as well.

I am actually not. In the last three years at my T6, W&C has offered between 1-3 people from 40-50 screeners. Covington 5-10 from 40-50 screeners. The other firms ITT vary between 1-2 depending on year from 20-50 screeners. These data are made available to students.

If your school has way better placement, then congrats to you. But OP should just look at the numbers, look at the DC class sizes on NALP etc., and make an informed decision.

I have nothing more to add to this.

[aegor]

Anyways, I’ve perused plenty of X vs. Y threads about several firms mentioned above and wanted a more consolidated view heading into the last few months before OCI, and I don’t think that’s unwarranted.

Then for the sake of yourself and the other people reading this thread, please do what several other posters have asked and clarify your OP with more detail about what kind of synthesis you want beyond the other threads here and information on Chambers/Vault etc.

[2013]

OP. I don’t really care to engage further about the meta-conversation (and I will reply with more substantive questions to the helpful posters above in the morning), but honestly the cynicism driving the gatekeeping (about *market advice*, not state secrets) is kinda the flip side of the hair-trigger snark that can be the watchword of these kinds of forums. I’ll reveal that I’m at at least a T6 with one semester of grades such that upperclassmen / career services have told me many, if not all, of the firms mentioned are at least in range. Not locks, not auto-offers, and heck I readily admitted I may not have a choice when all’s said and done. But it’s disappointing to see that what I thought was a good-faith question about firms in not a “chance me” thread, not even a bidding advice thread, but a request for more knowledge, turn into some kind of lambasting about how I’m having pipe dreams. I’m sorry your clerkship buddies struck out at DC, and hell maybe I will too, but don’t treat me like I’m a 0L frothing at the mouth about stuff way out of range just because of that experience. Anyways, I’ve perused plenty of X vs. Y threads about several firms mentioned above and wanted a more consolidated view heading into the last few months before OCI, and I don’t think that’s unwarranted.

OP, instead of searching for X vs. Y threads, you should search for DC Lit threads. There are a handful on here discussing this information. That may help answer your questions. However, every time a question like this is brought up on here, people do point out what has been mentioned here. So you will see a lot of that as well.

Good luck with OCI.

[Anonymous User]

Nah, you’re just wrong about how hard it is. It’s much, much more difficult than NY as we all know, but it’s nowhere near the high-wire act that’s been presented by some folks here.

I also don’t know how much different diversity is now vs. when I got my offers - I suspect that it is different now, but I don’t know for sure. It certainly played a role during my cycle as well.

I am actually not. In the last three years at my T6, W&C has offered between 1-3 people from 40-50 screeners. Covington 5-10 from 40-50 screeners. The other firms ITT vary between 1-2 depending on year from 20-50 screeners. These data are made available to students.

If your school has way better placement, then congrats to you. But OP should just look at the numbers, look at the DC class sizes on NALP etc., and make an informed decision.

I have nothing more to add to this.

My bottom half T14 has more people who accepted offers at W&C (let alone received) in one class alone than you’re saying your T6 got offers over three years. So, I guess our experiences are quite a bit different and likely neither are representative. Your school should probably have its career office reach out to some W&C partners!

[Elston Gunn]

Nah, you’re just wrong about how hard it is. It’s much, much more difficult than NY as we all know, but it’s nowhere near the high-wire act that’s been presented by some folks here.

I also don’t know how much different diversity is now vs. when I got my offers - I suspect that it is different now, but I don’t know for sure. It certainly played a role during my cycle as well.

I am actually not. In the last three years at my T6, W&C has offered between 1-3 people from 40-50 screeners. Covington 5-10 from 40-50 screeners. The other firms ITT vary between 1-2 depending on year from 20-50 screeners. These data are made available to students.

If your school has way better placement, then congrats to you. But OP should just look at the numbers, look at the DC class sizes on NALP etc., and make an informed decision.

I have nothing more to add to this.

My bottom half T14 has more people who accepted offers at W&C (let alone received) in one class alone than you’re saying your T6 got offers over three years. So, I guess our experiences are quite a bit different and likely neither are representative. Your school should probably have its career office reach out to some W&C partners!

Sounds like they mean, on average 1-3 per year, over the last three years.

[Anonymous User]

Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture.

I think others have covered in detail why your OP is too vague to give any real assistance, but as a Cov associate, I'm morbidly curious about this. I totally understand not targeting Cov for appellate work because (as mentioned earlier up-thread) it's more of a white collar/regulatory shop, but that's not really a firm-culture thing. I know we're widely regarded as quiet/bookish (or somewhat anti-social), but I've never heard the culture described as "iffy" by anyone.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is weird. I was top 10-15% at MVP, no clerkship lined up at OCI and got offers from Cov, Gibson, W&C, Sidley, and Kirkland in the last 2 years. No diversity factor, litigation. Saying some people get shut out with good credentials doesn't mean that a critical mass of people with good credentials do just fine and have plenty of options. FWIW, I think networking helped me because I was able to get some pre-OCI interviews from conversations with partners/associates (no idea if it actually helped of course, just my impression).

[Anonymous User]

This thread is weird. I was top 10-15% at MVP, no clerkship lined up at OCI and got offers from Cov, Gibson, W&C, Sidley, and Kirkland in the last 2 years. No diversity factor, litigation. Saying some people get shut out with good credentials doesn't mean that a critical mass of people with good credentials do just fine and have plenty of options. FWIW, I think networking helped me because I was able to get some pre-OCI interviews from conversations with partners/associates (no idea if it actually helped of course, just my impression).

This thread is indeed weird. Even besides the fact that many of our experiences don't line up with the folks in here talking about how difficult the DC market is to crack, *that's not what OP asked*. If you don't want to answer the question, don't fucking answer the question. Nobody is making you respond. We aren't his/her parents, here to tell him/her the "hard truth."

OP, while I don't have a lot to add about the profiles of many of the firms you noted, I will say that you can rarely predict a firm's overall culture and/or how the statistics will affect you. Every firm has many types of people, and most try to keep shit somewhat neutral. There's of course exceptions, and that may affect you, but it's going to be extremely difficult to predict how a firm will be, since you can't know what partner(s) you'll be working with.

One thing I'd suggest is to look into each of these firms' political contributions. There's a site out there (maybe ATL) that tracks that stuff. Good luck!

[Anonymous User]

Moderate lib working in gov this summer with general lit interest in DC for next. Would prefer appellate work, and may have an outside shot at the right credentials / clerkships necessary for that, but don't want to be presumptuous and pick only based on that criterion. Pretty flexible on politics though I understand the appeal of being around places that can be more overtly political like Jenner.

Basically trying to parse out the DC landscape with Wilmer, Jenner, GDC / Jones Day (wouldn't have a problem working at these places, even with politics being what they are). Have heard K&E, PW, and Sidley are all good in the area, but don't know how they compare to the set mentioned. Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture. I'd consider W&C if their lit practice isn't purely white-collar and actually has generalist elements.

Also, how does the top of the DC market compare (or not) to an MTO (assume not-DC grades to be safe) / Sus NY? DC is my top market primarily because of the substantive opportunities there, but I have no special reason for preferring moving there over somewhere else with an equal or better substantive experience / fit.

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

All of the firms you mention have excellent appellate practices. There are a couple of things I'd pay attention to though: 1) how deep the firm's bench is and 2) how much they spread the appellate work around. Some appellate practices are very top heavy and are reliant on one or two big names. Paul Weiss is reliant on Kannon; W&C is reliant on Lisa Blatt; S&C is reliant on Jeff Wall; Jenner is reliant on Adam Unikowsky. There's less work to go around (because there's only one or two partners bringing it in), its riskier (the partner might leave, or you might not vibe with him/her), but potentially more rewarding (if you're one of the partner's go-to associates). By contrast, firms like Kirkland, Gibson, JD, and Wilmer have deeper benches and more appellate work.

You should also pay attention to how much firms are willing to spread the appellate work around. You probably won't be getting appellate work at Wilmer, for example, unless you're a former SCOTUS clerk. Likewise, you won't be getting appellate work at JD unless you're part of their Issues & Appeals group (which is mostly made up of SCOTUS clerks). My sense is that Kirkland and Gibson are better about spreading the work around, I think in part because they are "free-market" firms rather than firms with siloed appellate groups. That's not to say its easy to get appellate work at those firms; you'll still need a court of appeals clerkship and you'll need to do excellent work. You can get a sense of how much firms are willing to spread work around by checking out the names on recently-filed SCOTUS/appellate briefs.

In terms of general lit, I'd say that Kirkland, Paul Weiss, Gibson, and W&C have the best reputations. For some reason I think of Covington as a firm that is known more for their investigations/regulatory work than for litigation. I also get the sense that Wilmer/Jenner/JD are less well-regarded than the firms above for general lit, but that is just my gut. Of course, this is all relatively speaking; all of these firms are excellent. Don't know much about Sidley.

I think all these lit practices are pretty comparable to MTO. Susman is a totally different firm since they do a ton of plaintiff work. Kellogg Hansen is Susman's closest equivalent in DC.

Hope this helps.

OP posting questions as promised; not sure if you're the same anon as below who said they knew a fair bit about the market, but in any case, thank you to you or you both.

1. W&C pitched itself as a truly generalist lit shot at a recruiting event I went to, though online it has the rep of being a white-collar only (with one appellate partner) place. What are its practices outside of white-collar and appellate like compared to comparable DC firms?

2. For K&E, is their general lit strength generally commercial lit / downstream of their transactional practice, or are they strong overall?

3. For Wilmer, does most of their general non-regulatory lit tend to be government-adjacent in some sense because of the revolving door, or do they have strong commercial / other lit practices outside of the government focus?

4. I don't know much about S&C DC at all; what are their strengths besides their appellate and how might lit there compare to their NY office (or to the other DC places mentioned)?

[Anonymous User]

Moderate lib working in gov this summer with general lit interest in DC for next. Would prefer appellate work, and may have an outside shot at the right credentials / clerkships necessary for that, but don't want to be presumptuous and pick only based on that criterion. Pretty flexible on politics though I understand the appeal of being around places that can be more overtly political like Jenner.

Basically trying to parse out the DC landscape with Wilmer, Jenner, GDC / Jones Day (wouldn't have a problem working at these places, even with politics being what they are). Have heard K&E, PW, and Sidley are all good in the area, but don't know how they compare to the set mentioned. Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture. I'd consider W&C if their lit practice isn't purely white-collar and actually has generalist elements.

Also, how does the top of the DC market compare (or not) to an MTO (assume not-DC grades to be safe) / Sus NY? DC is my top market primarily because of the substantive opportunities there, but I have no special reason for preferring moving there over somewhere else with an equal or better substantive experience / fit.

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

All of the firms you mention have excellent appellate practices. There are a couple of things I'd pay attention to though: 1) how deep the firm's bench is and 2) how much they spread the appellate work around. Some appellate practices are very top heavy and are reliant on one or two big names. Paul Weiss is reliant on Kannon; W&C is reliant on Lisa Blatt; S&C is reliant on Jeff Wall; Jenner is reliant on Adam Unikowsky. There's less work to go around (because there's only one or two partners bringing it in), its riskier (the partner might leave, or you might not vibe with him/her), but potentially more rewarding (if you're one of the partner's go-to associates). By contrast, firms like Kirkland, Gibson, JD, and Wilmer have deeper benches and more appellate work.

You should also pay attention to how much firms are willing to spread the appellate work around. You probably won't be getting appellate work at Wilmer, for example, unless you're a former SCOTUS clerk. Likewise, you won't be getting appellate work at JD unless you're part of their Issues & Appeals group (which is mostly made up of SCOTUS clerks). My sense is that Kirkland and Gibson are better about spreading the work around, I think in part because they are "free-market" firms rather than firms with siloed appellate groups. That's not to say its easy to get appellate work at those firms; you'll still need a court of appeals clerkship and you'll need to do excellent work. You can get a sense of how much firms are willing to spread work around by checking out the names on recently-filed SCOTUS/appellate briefs.

In terms of general lit, I'd say that Kirkland, Paul Weiss, Gibson, and W&C have the best reputations. For some reason I think of Covington as a firm that is known more for their investigations/regulatory work than for litigation. I also get the sense that Wilmer/Jenner/JD are less well-regarded than the firms above for general lit, but that is just my gut. Of course, this is all relatively speaking; all of these firms are excellent. Don't know much about Sidley.

I think all these lit practices are pretty comparable to MTO. Susman is a totally different firm since they do a ton of plaintiff work. Kellogg Hansen is Susman's closest equivalent in DC.

Hope this helps.

OP posting questions as promised; not sure if you're the same anon as below who said they knew a fair bit about the market, but in any case, thank you to you or you both.

1. W&C pitched itself as a truly generalist lit shot at a recruiting event I went to, though online it has the rep of being a white-collar only (with one appellate partner) place. What are its practices outside of white-collar and appellate like compared to comparable DC firms?

2. For K&E, is their general lit strength generally commercial lit / downstream of their transactional practice, or are they strong overall?

3. For Wilmer, does most of their general non-regulatory lit tend to be government-adjacent in some sense because of the revolving door, or do they have strong commercial / other lit practices outside of the government focus?

4. I don't know much about S&C DC at all; what are their strengths besides their appellate and how might lit there compare to their NY office (or to the other DC places mentioned)?

I’m in lit at KE DC. I don’t think of the practice as downstream of transactional work at all. We go out, pitch, and win big cases from clients who don’t have transactional relationships with the firm all the time.

For litigation at KE, I think DC is the place to be. It’s certainly the most lit-focused office. There are enough partners to keep people from getting siloed (although some people choose to be siloed and that’s whatever). There’s a variety of work and if you’re good you can do whatever parts of it you want to thanks to the open assignment system. If you put your head down, say yes a lot, and grind for 1-2 years, by the time you come out as a mid level you’ll be in a good position to take the cases and partners that you want. I’ve seen it happen with lots of people.

Certainly not all sunshine and rainbows over here but there are certain advantages that KE DC offers. And at the end of the year it’s nice to make more money than your friends at other firms that pay market.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because I don’t want to dox myself but I got an offer at one of these firms (didn’t accept because I wanted to go to my home market) just by being top 1/3 at GW with no clerkship or special connections to the firm. I am a white man, k-jd without a particularly impressive resume. I am not trying to brag but it’s not that hard if you are a good culture fit in your interviews.

[Anonymous User]

Moderate lib working in gov this summer with general lit interest in DC for next. Would prefer appellate work, and may have an outside shot at the right credentials / clerkships necessary for that, but don't want to be presumptuous and pick only based on that criterion. Pretty flexible on politics though I understand the appeal of being around places that can be more overtly political like Jenner.

Basically trying to parse out the DC landscape with Wilmer, Jenner, GDC / Jones Day (wouldn't have a problem working at these places, even with politics being what they are). Have heard K&E, PW, and Sidley are all good in the area, but don't know how they compare to the set mentioned. Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture. I'd consider W&C if their lit practice isn't purely white-collar and actually has generalist elements.

Also, how does the top of the DC market compare (or not) to an MTO (assume not-DC grades to be safe) / Sus NY? DC is my top market primarily because of the substantive opportunities there, but I have no special reason for preferring moving there over somewhere else with an equal or better substantive experience / fit.

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

All of the firms you mention have excellent appellate practices. There are a couple of things I'd pay attention to though: 1) how deep the firm's bench is and 2) how much they spread the appellate work around. Some appellate practices are very top heavy and are reliant on one or two big names. Paul Weiss is reliant on Kannon; W&C is reliant on Lisa Blatt; S&C is reliant on Jeff Wall; Jenner is reliant on Adam Unikowsky. There's less work to go around (because there's only one or two partners bringing it in), its riskier (the partner might leave, or you might not vibe with him/her), but potentially more rewarding (if you're one of the partner's go-to associates). By contrast, firms like Kirkland, Gibson, JD, and Wilmer have deeper benches and more appellate work.

You should also pay attention to how much firms are willing to spread the appellate work around. You probably won't be getting appellate work at Wilmer, for example, unless you're a former SCOTUS clerk. Likewise, you won't be getting appellate work at JD unless you're part of their Issues & Appeals group (which is mostly made up of SCOTUS clerks). My sense is that Kirkland and Gibson are better about spreading the work around, I think in part because they are "free-market" firms rather than firms with siloed appellate groups. That's not to say its easy to get appellate work at those firms; you'll still need a court of appeals clerkship and you'll need to do excellent work. You can get a sense of how much firms are willing to spread work around by checking out the names on recently-filed SCOTUS/appellate briefs.

In terms of general lit, I'd say that Kirkland, Paul Weiss, Gibson, and W&C have the best reputations. For some reason I think of Covington as a firm that is known more for their investigations/regulatory work than for litigation. I also get the sense that Wilmer/Jenner/JD are less well-regarded than the firms above for general lit, but that is just my gut. Of course, this is all relatively speaking; all of these firms are excellent. Don't know much about Sidley.

I think all these lit practices are pretty comparable to MTO. Susman is a totally different firm since they do a ton of plaintiff work. Kellogg Hansen is Susman's closest equivalent in DC.

Hope this helps.

OP posting questions as promised; not sure if you're the same anon as below who said they knew a fair bit about the market, but in any case, thank you to you or you both.

1. W&C pitched itself as a truly generalist lit shot at a recruiting event I went to, though online it has the rep of being a white-collar only (with one appellate partner) place. What are its practices outside of white-collar and appellate like compared to comparable DC firms?

2. For K&E, is their general lit strength generally commercial lit / downstream of their transactional practice, or are they strong overall?

3. For Wilmer, does most of their general non-regulatory lit tend to be government-adjacent in some sense because of the revolving door, or do they have strong commercial / other lit practices outside of the government focus?

4. I don't know much about S&C DC at all; what are their strengths besides their appellate and how might lit there compare to their NY office (or to the other DC places mentioned)?

W&C has an excellent general lit practice. They're obviously well known for white collar work too, but in general W&C stacks up with the best of them. At least when I was going through OCI, they were known for getting some of the most interesting and unique cases.

K&E has a diverse lit practice, and I think its pretty well regarded across the board. Not sure what you mean by "downstream of their transactional practice," but I imagine having a strong transactional practice helps them get some lit work. They probably have more debtor-side bankruptcy lit work than other DC firms and a little less regulatory work than say, Wilmer or Gibson. But overall they have all the sorts.

My impression is that Wilmer's non-regulatory lit practice is IP heavy.

S&C DC is small. Probably wouldn't go there unless you get the chance to work with Jeff Wall. Client roster is heavy on financial institutions, so you'll be doing a lot of securities work.

One firm you haven't mentioned is Latham, which has strong appellate and general lit practices. Latham is probably most similar to GDC and Kirkland work-wise. Probably a little more humane though.

[Anonymous User]

Data point: recent grad, top 1% CCN, double semi-feeder clerkship (not secured at the time but I killed it on the clerkship market so I'm not a bad interviewer), no ties to DC, white guy, came 1 offer away from striking out in DC at OCI (and I landed in a top appellate group, there are so few spots that it's just random). I wasn't the only one with this experience. You can't be picky.

Imo interviewing explicitly for appellate is a very bad idea, there just aren't many spots for them and you can always transition into appellate post-clerkship (assuming you land at a firm like GDC that's open to non-SCOTUS appellate associates).

[Anonymous User]

Latham has an open appellate group like GDC and a top-shelf practice, I think it's a bit underrated on this forum due to the Lathaming and that it's not a native firm but it should absolutely be on your shortlist if you want to do appellate. Fwiw it's maybe liberal-ish but I also think the political angle (except for maybe JD or boutique practices like MTO or Consovoy) is overrated.

[Anonymous User]

Data point: recent grad, top 1% CCN, double semi-feeder clerkship (not secured at the time but I killed it on the clerkship market so I'm not a bad interviewer), no ties to DC, white guy, came 1 offer away from striking out in DC at OCI (and I landed in a top appellate group, there are so few spots that it's just random). I wasn't the only one with this experience. You can't be picky.

Imo interviewing explicitly for appellate is a very bad idea, there just aren't many spots for them and you can always transition into appellate post-clerkship (assuming you land at a firm like GDC that's open to non-SCOTUS appellate associates).

I'm one of the anons from above that questioned how difficult it was to get DC. I'll agree with this--its absolutely idiotic to tell firms that you're only interested in doing appellate. It is suicide because 1) there are fewer appellate associate positions; and 2) you'll be competing with the top kids at HYS that have big time feeder clerkships (or two) locked up. Telling firms during OCI that you're only interested in appellate work or even primarily interested in appellate work conveys that you 1) are arrogant; 2) closed minded about trying new things; 3) think you're too good for dirty work that young associates necessarily have to do, even if its citechecking or putting together a joint appendix for an appellate brief. Its extra suicide if you tell any of this to a general litigator. Hell, I'm an associate at one of these firms that does primarily appeals and I would 100% ding any 1L/2L who told me they were interested only in appellate work. Firms want young associates who come in with good attitudes and are willing to try anything and who don't think they're above doing doc review or fact development. You tell the firm during OCI that you're interested in litigation and are willing to try all the sorts--whether its district ct or appellate, and whether its IP, ERISA, labor, admin, false claims act, class actions, bankruptcy--because you love litigation and because once you dig into a case, you find that every case is interesting. Once you get the offer, you come in with a good attitude, work hard, do good work, and you'll get the opportunities you want.

Just because you did well in the clerkship interview process doesn't mean you're a good interviewer. There are a lot more federal appellate clerkships out there than appellate positions at firms. You might be social and can carry on a conversation, but if you told firms that you were primarily interested in appellate work with only a semi-feeder clerkship--you're a shit interviewer, and that's probably why you got 1 offer. Sorry to break it to you. You can get away with saying you want primarily appellate work only if you're a scotus/feeder clerk (and even that's iffy).

Also, "diversity" is not the reason why some of you are getting 1 or 2 offers. The reality is that appellate practices--even at the liberal law firms--are overwhelmingly white/asian. If you think Hogan or Orrick or Jenner is going to let associates work on Supreme Court briefs just because they're diverse, you're out of your mind.

If you're top 1% at CCN and only got 1 offer at a DC firm then you did something wrong. I can't imagine not offering someone with those credentials unless they came off poorly during the interview, such as by conveying that they were only/primarily interested in appellate work.

[Anonymous User]

Data point: recent grad, top 1% CCN, double semi-feeder clerkship (not secured at the time but I killed it on the clerkship market so I'm not a bad interviewer), no ties to DC, white guy, came 1 offer away from striking out in DC at OCI (and I landed in a top appellate group, there are so few spots that it's just random). I wasn't the only one with this experience. You can't be picky.

Imo interviewing explicitly for appellate is a very bad idea, there just aren't many spots for them and you can always transition into appellate post-clerkship (assuming you land at a firm like GDC that's open to non-SCOTUS appellate associates).

I'm one of the anons from above that questioned how difficult it was to get DC. I'll agree with this--its absolutely idiotic to tell firms that you're only interested in doing appellate. It is suicide because 1) there are fewer appellate associate positions; and 2) you'll be competing with the top kids at HYS that have big time feeder clerkships (or two) locked up. Telling firms during OCI that you're only interested in appellate work or even primarily interested in appellate work conveys that you 1) are arrogant; 2) closed minded about trying new things; 3) think you're too good for dirty work that young associates necessarily have to do, even if its citechecking or putting together a joint appendix for an appellate brief. Its extra suicide if you tell any of this to a general litigator. Hell, I'm an associate at one of these firms that does primarily appeals and I would 100% ding any 1L/2L who told me they were interested only in appellate work. Firms want young associates who come in with good attitudes and are willing to try anything and who don't think they're above doing doc review or fact development. You tell the firm during OCI that you're interested in litigation and are willing to try all the sorts--whether its district ct or appellate, and whether its IP, ERISA, labor, admin, false claims act, class actions, bankruptcy--because you love litigation and because once you dig into a case, you find that every case is interesting. Once you get the offer, you come in with a good attitude, work hard, do good work, and you'll get the opportunities you want.

Just because you did well in the clerkship interview process doesn't mean you're a good interviewer. There are a lot more federal appellate clerkships out there than appellate positions at firms. You might be social and can carry on a conversation, but if you told firms that you were primarily interested in appellate work with only a semi-feeder clerkship--you're a shit interviewer, and that's probably why you got 1 offer. Sorry to break it to you. You can get away with saying you want primarily appellate work only if you're a scotus/feeder clerk (and even that's iffy).

Also, "diversity" is not the reason why some of you are getting 1 or 2 offers. The reality is that appellate practices--even at the liberal law firms--are overwhelmingly white/asian. If you think Hogan or Orrick or Jenner are going to let associates work on Supreme Court briefs just because they're diverse, you're out of your mind.

If you're top 1% at CCN and only got 1 offer at a DC firm then you did something wrong. I can't imagine not offering someone with those credentials unless they came off poorly during the interview, such as by conveying that they were only/primarily interested in appellate work.

New poster here. Specifically to the point of being a good interviewer, clerkship interviews and firm interviews are two different skills. I landed one of the top feeder judges in the country, but I struggled to land a firm job in DC (I didn't have the clerkship when I applied). I suspect I gave off a vibe that I wasn't interested in spending my career at a firm—which I am not.

I didn't get dinged for mentioning appellate (I said any type of lit), but I bet I got a decent chunk of dings for not being super enthusiastic about working at a firm. I guess the above poster is right in that you have to screw something up if you are top 1% at CNN to only get 1 offer, but there are a lot of things you can screw up.

[Anonymous User]

Data point: recent grad, top 1% CCN, double semi-feeder clerkship (not secured at the time but I killed it on the clerkship market so I'm not a bad interviewer), no ties to DC, white guy, came 1 offer away from striking out in DC at OCI (and I landed in a top appellate group, there are so few spots that it's just random). I wasn't the only one with this experience. You can't be picky.

Imo interviewing explicitly for appellate is a very bad idea, there just aren't many spots for them and you can always transition into appellate post-clerkship (assuming you land at a firm like GDC that's open to non-SCOTUS appellate associates).

I'm one of the anons from above that questioned how difficult it was to get DC. I'll agree with this--its absolutely idiotic to tell firms that you're only interested in doing appellate. It is suicide because 1) there are fewer appellate associate positions; and 2) you'll be competing with the top kids at HYS that have big time feeder clerkships (or two) locked up. Telling firms during OCI that you're only interested in appellate work or even primarily interested in appellate work conveys that you 1) are arrogant; 2) closed minded about trying new things; 3) think you're too good for dirty work that young associates necessarily have to do, even if its citechecking or putting together a joint appendix for an appellate brief. Its extra suicide if you tell any of this to a general litigator. Hell, I'm an associate at one of these firms that does primarily appeals and I would 100% ding any 1L/2L who told me they were interested only in appellate work. Firms want young associates who come in with good attitudes and are willing to try anything and who don't think they're above doing doc review or fact development. You tell the firm during OCI that you're interested in litigation and are willing to try all the sorts--whether its district ct or appellate, and whether its IP, ERISA, labor, admin, false claims act, class actions, bankruptcy--because you love litigation and because once you dig into a case, you find that every case is interesting. Once you get the offer, you come in with a good attitude, work hard, do good work, and you'll get the opportunities you want.

Just because you did well in the clerkship interview process doesn't mean you're a good interviewer. There are a lot more federal appellate clerkships out there than appellate positions at firms. You might be social and can carry on a conversation, but if you told firms that you were primarily interested in appellate work with only a semi-feeder clerkship--you're a shit interviewer, and that's probably why you got 1 offer. Sorry to break it to you. You can get away with saying you want primarily appellate work only if you're a scotus/feeder clerk (and even that's iffy).

Also, "diversity" is not the reason why some of you are getting 1 or 2 offers. The reality is that appellate practices--even at the liberal law firms--are overwhelmingly white/asian. If you think Hogan or Orrick or Jenner is going to let associates work on Supreme Court briefs just because they're diverse, you're out of your mind.

If you're top 1% at CCN and only got 1 offer at a DC firm then you did something wrong. I can't imagine not offering someone with those credentials unless they came off poorly during the interview, such as by conveying that they were only/primarily interested in appellate work.

The hostility here is way over-the-top. To clarify I didn't interview exclusively for appellate, I interviewed for general lit with interests in commercial stuff, appellate, and white collar--very generic DC interests--and got put in appellate after I hit it off with the appellate partners in my interviews. I was just telling OP/others not to explicitly interview for appellate, a lot of 1Ls don't know just how few summers appellate groups take.

I think your experience of the DC market may be out of step with the current reality, especially for non-diverse people without ties, as many have said. I know multiple people at my school with top 5% grades who later got great clerkships but came one or two offers away from being no-offered in DC. I also did well in other markets fwiw (which was probably part of my struggles in DC, I only interviewed for the top ~10 firms because I had multiple markets and didn't get many DC interviews at OCI, but still, top 1%, 1 offer, not great).

[Anonymous User]

I didn't get dinged for mentioning appellate (I said any type of lit), but I bet I got a decent chunk of dings for not being super enthusiastic about working at a firm. I guess the above poster is right in that you have to screw something up if you are top 1% at CNN to only get 1 offer, but there are a lot of things you can screw up.

Previous poster. Agree 100%, I messed up through poor luck in the OCI bid lottery and the same issue as you, being insufficiently persuasive re: my willingness to work in DC biglaw long-term, my resume had a lot of flight risk red flags. Luckily those things aren't relevant to clerkships. My point is that DC can be really hard to crack even with great grades and your margin for error is small.

[Anonymous User]

[youtube][/youtube]

Moderate lib working in gov this summer with general lit interest in DC for next. Would prefer appellate work, and may have an outside shot at the right credentials / clerkships necessary for that, but don't want to be presumptuous and pick only based on that criterion. Pretty flexible on politics though I understand the appeal of being around places that can be more overtly political like Jenner.

Basically trying to parse out the DC landscape with Wilmer, Jenner, GDC / Jones Day (wouldn't have a problem working at these places, even with politics being what they are). Have heard K&E, PW, and Sidley are all good in the area, but don't know how they compare to the set mentioned. Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture. I'd consider W&C if their lit practice isn't purely white-collar and actually has generalist elements.

Also, how does the top of the DC market compare (or not) to an MTO (assume not-DC grades to be safe) / Sus NY? DC is my top market primarily because of the substantive opportunities there, but I have no special reason for preferring moving there over somewhere else with an equal or better substantive experience / fit.

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

All of the firms you mention have excellent appellate practices. There are a couple of things I'd pay attention to though: 1) how deep the firm's bench is and 2) how much they spread the appellate work around. Some appellate practices are very top heavy and are reliant on one or two big names. Paul Weiss is reliant on Kannon; W&C is reliant on Lisa Blatt; S&C is reliant on Jeff Wall; Jenner is reliant on Adam Unikowsky. There's less work to go around (because there's only one or two partners bringing it in), its riskier (the partner might leave, or you might not vibe with him/her), but potentially more rewarding (if you're one of the partner's go-to associates). By contrast, firms like Kirkland, Gibson, JD, and Wilmer have deeper benches and more appellate work.

You should also pay attention to how much firms are willing to spread the appellate work around. You probably won't be getting appellate work at Wilmer, for example, unless you're a former SCOTUS clerk. Likewise, you won't be getting appellate work at JD unless you're part of their Issues & Appeals group (which is mostly made up of SCOTUS clerks). My sense is that Kirkland and Gibson are better about spreading the work around, I think in part because they are "free-market" firms rather than firms with siloed appellate groups. That's not to say its easy to get appellate work at those firms; you'll still need a court of appeals clerkship and you'll need to do excellent work. You can get a sense of how much firms are willing to spread work around by checking out the names on recently-filed SCOTUS/appellate briefs.

In terms of general lit, I'd say that Kirkland, Paul Weiss, Gibson, and W&C have the best reputations. For some reason I think of Covington as a firm that is known more for their investigations/regulatory work than for litigation. I also get the sense that Wilmer/Jenner/JD are less well-regarded than the firms above for general lit, but that is just my gut. Of course, this is all relatively speaking; all of these firms are excellent. Don't know much about Sidley.

I think all these lit practices are pretty comparable to MTO. Susman is a totally different firm since they do a ton of plaintiff work. Kellogg Hansen is Susman's closest equivalent in DC.

Hope this helps.

OP posting questions as promised; not sure if you're the same anon as below who said they knew a fair bit about the market, but in any case, thank you to you or you both.

1. W&C pitched itself as a truly generalist lit shot at a recruiting event I went to, though online it has the rep of being a white-collar only (with one appellate partner) place. What are its practices outside of white-collar and appellate like compared to comparable DC firms?

2. For K&E, is their general lit strength generally commercial lit / downstream of their transactional practice, or are they strong overall?

3. For Wilmer, does most of their general non-regulatory lit tend to be government-adjacent in some sense because of the revolving door, or do they have strong commercial / other lit practices outside of the government focus?

4. I don't know much about S&C DC at all; what are their strengths besides their appellate and how might lit there compare to their NY office (or to the other DC places mentioned)?

W&C has an excellent general lit practice. They're obviously well known for white collar work too, but in general W&C stacks up with the best of them. At least when I was going through OCI, they were known for getting some of the most interesting and unique cases.

K&E has a diverse lit practice, and I think its pretty well regarded across the board. Not sure what you mean by "downstream of their transactional practice," but I imagine having a strong transactional practice helps them get some lit work. They probably have more debtor-side bankruptcy lit work than other DC firms and a little less regulatory work than say, Wilmer or Gibson. But overall they have all the sorts.

My impression is that Wilmer's non-regulatory lit practice is IP heavy.

S&C DC is small. Probably wouldn't go there unless you get the chance to work with Jeff Wall. Client roster is heavy on financial institutions, so you'll be doing a lot of securities work.

One firm you haven't mentioned is Latham, which has strong appellate and general lit practices. Latham is probably most similar to GDC and Kirkland work-wise. Probably a little more humane though.

Really helpful, thanks. By "general lit" are you referring to general commercial lit or basically everything (commercial + antitrust + securities, etc.)?

[Anonymous User]

O'Melveny's another smaller DC office with a strong appellate group that's worth a shot. Their summer class is very small but it's supposed to be a really nice place to work.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because of identifying info. I'm curious how much of a regional effect there is in the discussion here. I was top ~15-20% at UVA for OGI, no diversity, no clerkship, no Law Review, no network, and I got offers from three of the firms ITT last year. I wonder how many of the more optimistic "lower T14" posters are also UVA (or GULC?). Combined with the positive story of the GW poster, I'm thinking maybe the DC schools (and DC-adjacent UVA) are skewing more favorable and that helps explain the differing accounts? Even as compared to HYS/CCN?

[Anonymous User]

Anon because of identifying info. I'm curious how much of a regional effect there is in the discussion here. I was top ~15-20% at UVA for OGI, no diversity, no clerkship, no Law Review, no network, and I got offers from three of the firms ITT last year. I wonder how many of the more optimistic "lower T14" posters are also UVA (or GULC?). Combined with the positive story of the GW poster, I'm thinking maybe the DC schools (and DC-adjacent UVA) are skewing more favorable and that helps explain the differing accounts? Even as compared to HYS/CCN?

Anecdotally Duke does better in DC than similarly ranked T14s with other primary markets (Michigan/Berkeley/Northwestern/Cornell). I’m sure Virginia gets the same sort of bump as a DC-first school. I know there’s a big Duke alum partner at one of the top DC firms who makes a particular effort to get the best he can from Duke.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because of identifying info. I'm curious how much of a regional effect there is in the discussion here. I was top ~15-20% at UVA for OGI, no diversity, no clerkship, no Law Review, no network, and I got offers from three of the firms ITT last year. I wonder how many of the more optimistic "lower T14" posters are also UVA (or GULC?). Combined with the positive story of the GW poster, I'm thinking maybe the DC schools (and DC-adjacent UVA) are skewing more favorable and that helps explain the differing accounts? Even as compared to HYS/CCN?

UVA has certainly been the place to be if you want DC and can't go to S or Y. H is so big that you probably still have to do very well to be competitive but median UVA people get DC lit all the time. Duke is a good option too.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because I don’t want to dox myself but I got an offer at one of these firms (didn’t accept because I wanted to go to my home market) just by being top 1/3 at GW with no clerkship or special connections to the firm. I am a white man, k-jd without a particularly impressive resume. I am not trying to brag but it’s not that hard if you are a good culture fit in your interviews.

Op anon, but to add another datapoint, I know someone with worse stats than me at GW who got a different one of these firms (think Latham/Kirkland tier). This was a really bizarre year because of covid, and there were plenty of pre-oci offers to be had, particularly to people with lower stats who networked like crazy. Anecdotally, maybe more than OCI offers in my class. So I actually suggest you network your ass off in case that trend continues (though returning to a normal OCI schedule makes that seem somewhat unlikely). You are at a better school than GW so I wouldn’t think it should be that miserably hard to get an offer, even if it may not be your first choice.