What firm is considered the hardest to get into? Forum

[Anonymous User]

For those who have experience with, and/or have friends at, some of the most "difficult" to get hired at boutiques in DC (e.g. Kellogg, MoLo, Munger DC), would you mind sharing what you've heard of those places? Frankly, I've found it hard to try and figure out how current clerks should pick amongst them, particularly given that so few lawyers have had experience at multiple firms where they could provide a proper comparison.

Munger DC is going to be the hardest by far to get into - SCOTUS clerkship is going to be almost mandatory, but not sufficient.

I wasn’t even aware MoLo has a DC presence.

Kellogg is attainable if you have excellent grades, they care about “fit” more than anything else. I assume this means showcasing the capability to work 2800+ hrs without complaining. Most of their associates are there to get top notch experience and truckloads of cash before leaving in 2 years.

This is simply not true about Munger DC.

[Anonymous User]

Looking at my HYS' offer statistics...

Keker > Jenner DC = Munger LA > Susman = W&C = WLRK > Gibson DC = Covington DC = Wilmer DC = Cravath = Latham DC = Hogan DC > S&C NY >>> Kirkland DC = Jones Day DC > Gibson NY = Kirkland SF = MoFo DC

Should note that while this represents median % of Hs, some firms have very narrow ranges (Jenner, Munger, Gibson) others go significantly deeper in the class, I assume on fit (Keker, Susman, WLRK)

Edited: added firms

Similar here except (i) I haven't seen enough data to make a real assessment of Jenner DC among this list, (ii) Keker becomes less fiercely competitive coming off a clerkship so I'm not sure it deserves top billing, and (iii) Cravath is much less picky, placing it below Cov/Wilmer/GDC, which come in behind Munger/Susman/W&C/WLRK.

The original list is weird. Cravath and S&C have no business being in this conversation. 6Hs will get you an auto-offer at S&C and Cravath regularly dips to median. Neither does Gibson NYC belong in this conversation. It's the least competitive office in the firm, both the LA and Dallas offices are significantly harder to get than NYC (for litigation at least), for example. Gibson is a great spot for lit, but they have a weaker NYC office relative to other centers of gravity within the firm. Keker isn't harder to get than Munger and Susman. Also, for a lot of these DC offices, the level of selectivity depends in large part on whether or not you're gunning for appellate. For example, Jones Day Issues & Appeals is probably harder to get than most of the better boutiques. But general lit is much easier, etc.

Agreed that Keker is easier to get post-clerkship, but that's basically true of *all* elite litigation boutiques that have a summer program. The reason is sheer numbers. By the time you get to pure post-clerkship applicants, the number of people competing is obviously much smaller than during law school. Still, they hire such a small number of post-clerkship associates that weren't summer associates relative to the number of people in the pool that apply each year, which makes Keker very hard to get. Just think of the number of people who want to be in the Bay Area and work at a litigation boutique. That number far exceeds the number of spots available at the three places they all try to go to in the Bay Area: Keker, Munger, and Durie Tangri. A big part of selectivity is the attractiveness of the market, the dearth of spots, and the large pool of applicants. I do think that Keker emphasizes culture fit more than Munger, such that someone who may have not gotten a look from Keker in law school will get a closer look post-clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Sheppard Mullin

[Anonymous User]

MILBANK

[Anonymous User]

Looking at my HYS' offer statistics...

Keker > Jenner DC = Munger LA > Susman = W&C = WLRK > Gibson DC = Covington DC = Wilmer DC = Cravath = Latham DC = Hogan DC > S&C NY >>> Kirkland DC = Jones Day DC > Gibson NY = Kirkland SF = MoFo DC

Should note that while this represents median % of Hs, some firms have very narrow ranges (Jenner, Munger, Gibson) others go significantly deeper in the class, I assume on fit (Keker, Susman, WLRK)

Edited: added firms

Similar here except (i) I haven't seen enough data to make a real assessment of Jenner DC among this list, (ii) Keker becomes less fiercely competitive coming off a clerkship so I'm not sure it deserves top billing, and (iii) Cravath is much less picky, placing it below Cov/Wilmer/GDC, which come in behind Munger/Susman/W&C/WLRK.

The original list is weird. Cravath and S&C have no business being in this conversation. 6Hs will get you an auto-offer at S&C and Cravath regularly dips to median. Neither does Gibson NYC belong in this conversation. It's the least competitive office in the firm, both the LA and Dallas offices are significantly harder to get than NYC (for litigation at least), for example. Gibson is a great spot for lit, but they have a weaker NYC office relative to other centers of gravity within the firm. Keker isn't harder to get than Munger and Susman. Also, for a lot of these DC offices, the level of selectivity depends in large part on whether or not you're gunning for appellate. For example, Jones Day Issues & Appeals is probably harder to get than most of the better boutiques. But general lit is much easier, etc.

Agreed that Keker is easier to get post-clerkship, but that's basically true of *all* elite litigation boutiques that have a summer program. The reason is sheer numbers. By the time you get to pure post-clerkship applicants, the number of people competing is obviously much smaller than during law school. Still, they hire such a small number of post-clerkship associates that weren't summer associates relative to the number of people in the pool that apply each year, which makes Keker very hard to get. Just think of the number of people who want to be in the Bay Area and work at a litigation boutique. That number far exceeds the number of spots available at the three places they all try to go to in the Bay Area: Keker, Munger, and Durie Tangri. A big part of selectivity is the attractiveness of the market, the dearth of spots, and the large pool of applicants. I do think that Keker emphasizes culture fit more than Munger, such that someone who may have not gotten a look from Keker in law school will get a closer look post-clerkship.

I've seen no evidence Keker is more selective than Susman NY or Kellogg Hansen. It's a good boutique, just not in a different tier than the others.

[Anonymous User]

Looking at my HYS' offer statistics...

Keker > Jenner DC = Munger LA > Susman = W&C = WLRK > Gibson DC = Covington DC = Wilmer DC = Cravath = Latham DC = Hogan DC > S&C NY >>> Kirkland DC = Jones Day DC > Gibson NY = Kirkland SF = MoFo DC

Should note that while this represents median % of Hs, some firms have very narrow ranges (Jenner, Munger, Gibson) others go significantly deeper in the class, I assume on fit (Keker, Susman, WLRK)

Edited: added firms

Similar here except (i) I haven't seen enough data to make a real assessment of Jenner DC among this list, (ii) Keker becomes less fiercely competitive coming off a clerkship so I'm not sure it deserves top billing, and (iii) Cravath is much less picky, placing it below Cov/Wilmer/GDC, which come in behind Munger/Susman/W&C/WLRK.

The original list is weird. Cravath and S&C have no business being in this conversation. 6Hs will get you an auto-offer at S&C and Cravath regularly dips to median. Neither does Gibson NYC belong in this conversation. It's the least competitive office in the firm, both the LA and Dallas offices are significantly harder to get than NYC (for litigation at least), for example. Gibson is a great spot for lit, but they have a weaker NYC office relative to other centers of gravity within the firm. Keker isn't harder to get than Munger and Susman. Also, for a lot of these DC offices, the level of selectivity depends in large part on whether or not you're gunning for appellate. For example, Jones Day Issues & Appeals is probably harder to get than most of the better boutiques. But general lit is much easier, etc.

Agreed that Keker is easier to get post-clerkship, but that's basically true of *all* elite litigation boutiques that have a summer program. The reason is sheer numbers. By the time you get to pure post-clerkship applicants, the number of people competing is obviously much smaller than during law school. Still, they hire such a small number of post-clerkship associates that weren't summer associates relative to the number of people in the pool that apply each year, which makes Keker very hard to get. Just think of the number of people who want to be in the Bay Area and work at a litigation boutique. That number far exceeds the number of spots available at the three places they all try to go to in the Bay Area: Keker, Munger, and Durie Tangri. A big part of selectivity is the attractiveness of the market, the dearth of spots, and the large pool of applicants. I do think that Keker emphasizes culture fit more than Munger, such that someone who may have not gotten a look from Keker in law school will get a closer look post-clerkship.

I've seen no evidence Keker is more selective than Susman NY or Kellogg Hansen. It's a good boutique, just not in a different tier than the others.

I missed the "top billing" qualification. Agreed. They're all hard to get.

[Anonymous User]

Baker McKenzie

[Anonymous User]

Baker McKenzie

[Anonymous User]

Munger = Susman = Kellogg > GDC Appellate = Keker = W&C = Jenner = Sidley Appellate > Bartlit = JD Appellate = MoLo = Dovel >> Wilmer Appellate = PW Appellate > Latham Appellate = Cooper = Kaplan >> K&E Appellate = Durie >>>>>> BSF

[Joachim2017]

Munger = Susman = Kellogg > GDC Appellate = Keker = W&C = Jenner = Sidley Appellate > Bartlit = JD Appellate = MoLo = Dovel >> Wilmer Appellate = PW Appellate > Latham Appellate = Cooper = Kaplan >> K&E Appellate = Durie >>>>>> BSF

Molo too high.

Dovel too low, K&E appellate too low.

BSF too high.

[Anonymous User]

Munger = Susman = Kellogg > GDC Appellate = Keker = W&C = Jenner = Sidley Appellate > Bartlit = JD Appellate = MoLo = Dovel >> Wilmer Appellate = PW Appellate > Latham Appellate = Cooper = Kaplan >> K&E Appellate = Durie >>>>>> BSF

Molo too high.

Dovel too low, K&E appellate too low.

BSF too high.

Everything about the post you're responding to is completely wrong. I'm pretty sure it's a troll.

[Anonymous User]

Munger = Susman = Kellogg > GDC Appellate = Keker = W&C = Jenner = Sidley Appellate > Bartlit = JD Appellate = MoLo = Dovel >> Wilmer Appellate = PW Appellate > Latham Appellate = Cooper = Kaplan >> K&E Appellate = Durie >>>>>> BSF

This is all over the place and not accurate from a selectivity perspective

[Joachim2017]

Munger = Susman = Kellogg > GDC Appellate = Keker = W&C = Jenner = Sidley Appellate > Bartlit = JD Appellate = MoLo = Dovel >> Wilmer Appellate = PW Appellate > Latham Appellate = Cooper = Kaplan >> K&E Appellate = Durie >>>>>> BSF

Molo too high.

Dovel too low, K&E appellate too low.

BSF too high.

Everything about the post you're responding to is completely wrong. I'm pretty sure it's a troll.

lol yeah, the joke is that this can be done in such a specific, fine-grained way. and the next joke was a set-up about BSF. I don't think either was meant to be taken seriously!

[Anonymous User]

For those who have experience with, and/or have friends at, some of the most "difficult" to get hired at boutiques in DC (e.g. Kellogg, MoLo, Munger DC), would you mind sharing what you've heard of those places? Frankly, I've found it hard to try and figure out how current clerks should pick amongst them, particularly given that so few lawyers have had experience at multiple firms where they could provide a proper comparison.

Munger DC is going to be the hardest by far to get into - SCOTUS clerkship is going to be almost mandatory, but not sufficient.

I wasn’t even aware MoLo has a DC presence.

Kellogg is attainable if you have excellent grades, they care about “fit” more than anything else. I assume this means showcasing the capability to work 2800+ hrs without complaining. Most of their associates are there to get top notch experience and truckloads of cash before leaving in 2 years.

This is simply not true about Munger DC.

Agree. Look at Munger DC's newest set of associates--obviously they are all highly, highly credentialed. But it is clear that a SCOTUS clerkship is not necessary for consideration. I think part of this is that I have heard (second hand) that Munger is trying to slowly expand their DC office. I think it is true that, at its founding, Munger DC was basically all SCOTUS clerks/SG alums, but that will naturally change as the office grows.

[Anonymous User]

Interviewed with many of the firms mentioned in this thread, at one of them now: it’s hopefully obvious that this discussion is very silly.

All of these places are selective; none are so selective as to be able to draw moats saying non-HYS, non-T14, non-COA, or certainly non-SCOTUS clerk need not apply. For that matter, none except maybe Susman can even hire SCOTUS clerk associates like a Gibson or Kirkland or Latham can because they’re expensive, fairly senior, and can’t be shielded from getting hands dirty on trial level work.

I’d also agree that these firms are all looking for pretty different things coming off the clerkship market. Between politics and geography, that made the application pool for each firm among the folks I knew at my and others’ HYS very self-selective - eg, LA people would prioritize HH and one Susman office; but no DCer would apply to Susman at all; in no case would an R go to Kaplan Hecker and in no case would a D go to Cooper & Kirk, etc. The result was that at least at the level of HYS & a not necessarily fancy clerkship, boutique hiring felt much more like a matching process than one where qualified applicants where just getting shot down.

Exceptions:
1) This doesn’t apply to summer hiring. Susman’s program is short and doesn’t give offers; Keker hires like one person. This is fine. People’s lives and priorities change enough between August after 1L year and coming off maybe a second clerkship that nobody has an interest in being locked in so early.

2) Gupta Wessler is actually uniquely hard to get and turns down lots of qualified people. Maybe Goldstein and Russell is too. But these places are very small and hire very personally - more like clerkships than like law firms - so aren’t really structured around being an environment to stick around a build a career like the other boutiques in this thread are. But if you want to pick a name as truly the hardest, I guess it’d be one of those.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

1. Munger DC
2. Dovel & Luner
3. Susman NY

Kellogg is tough but not as tough as these 3. Too many associates with law degrees outside the top 50.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

1. Munger DC
2. Dovel & Luner
3. Susman NY

Kellogg is tough but not as tough as these 3. Too many associates with law degrees outside the top 50.

There is conflict about how competitive Munger DC is now, I originally wrote it was the most difficult, but maybe that's wrong now, I wouldn't be in a good place to know. I do recall when they first started the office, it was almost impossible to get hired or transfer internally.

Dovel doesn't belong on a list like this, they have like 3 associates and they basically only hire from Harvard.

Susman NY has multiple non-RBG scholars from CLS as associates, which presumably indicates they aren't as laser-focused on academics as opposed to aptitude for trial work. I wouldn't say it was harder to work at than Kellogg, which now has something like 10% of its associates scheduled to clerk for SCOTUS in the upcoming term, let alone some of the other boutiques.

[Anonymous User]

For a focus on appellate work, does that lift some of the biglaw places above the more "trial-y" boutiques? Also, which firms are either free market (so associates can "opt in" to appellate; I only know GDC) or have appellate work so predominant that any non-free-market hire in litigation is bound to get substantial / primarily appellate work?

Thinking about Jenner, JD, Wilmer, etc. in this regard. I don't really know how practice "placement" works at non-free-market firms and/or when/how that placement process occurs.

[Anonymous User]

The hardest firms to get into are small, have little work, and can’t afford to hire anyone. Combine the former with SCOTUS clerk credentialed partners and you’ve just created the most exclusive and prestigious TLS law firm of all time.

[Anonymous User]

For a focus on appellate work, does that lift some of the biglaw places above the more "trial-y" boutiques? Also, which firms are either free market (so associates can "opt in" to appellate; I only know GDC) or have appellate work so predominant that any non-free-market hire in litigation is bound to get substantial / primarily appellate work?

Thinking about Jenner, JD, Wilmer, etc. in this regard. I don't really know how practice "placement" works at non-free-market firms and/or when/how that placement process occurs.

If you're a 100% appellate gunner, you want to go to a firm with a significant appeals group, which rules out most lit boutiques. The best biglaw appellate practices are all on the Chambers Nationwide Appellate ranking, though K&E will soon slip (at least) to Band 2. The major appellate boutiques tend to be politically segregated, except for Goldstein & Russell. On the liberal side, there's Gupta Wessler. On the conservative side, there's Consovoy McCarthy, Cooper & Kirk, Lehotsky Keller, and now Clement & Murphy. Certain other markets, notably California and Texas, have regional appellate boutiques. This sounds like a 1L post, and the truth is that there is no biglaw firm where any given lit associate has a large probability of working in appellate, though some appeals groups are more insular than others. Appellate associates are generally recruited post-clerkship, and if you are a serious contender for appellate biglaw, you will likely clerk then re-recruit.

[Anonymous User]

For a focus on appellate work, does that lift some of the biglaw places above the more "trial-y" boutiques? Also, which firms are either free market (so associates can "opt in" to appellate; I only know GDC) or have appellate work so predominant that any non-free-market hire in litigation is bound to get substantial / primarily appellate work?

Thinking about Jenner, JD, Wilmer, etc. in this regard. I don't really know how practice "placement" works at non-free-market firms and/or when/how that placement process occurs.

If you're a 100% appellate gunner, you want to go to a firm with a significant appeals group, which rules out most lit boutiques. The best biglaw appellate practices are all on the Chambers Nationwide Appellate ranking, though K&E will soon slip (at least) to Band 2. The major appellate boutiques tend to be politically segregated, except for Goldstein & Russell. On the liberal side, there's Gupta Wessler. On the conservative side, there's Consovoy McCarthy, Cooper & Kirk, Lehotsky Keller, and now Clement & Murphy. Certain other markets, notably California and Texas, have regional appellate boutiques. This sounds like a 1L post, and the truth is that there is no biglaw firm where any given lit associate has a large probability of working in appellate, though some appeals groups are more insular than others. Appellate associates are generally recruited post-clerkship, and if you are a serious contender for appellate biglaw, you will likely clerk then re-recruit.

I mostly agree, with these friendly edits: Goldstein & Russell is liberal, and it's not uncommon for DC-office lit associates at certain free-market firms to do appellate work.

[Anonymous User]

If you're a 100% appellate gunner, you want to go to a firm with a significant appeals group, which rules out most lit boutiques. The best biglaw appellate practices are all on the Chambers Nationwide Appellate ranking, though K&E will soon slip (at least) to Band 2. The major appellate boutiques tend to be politically segregated, except for Goldstein & Russell. On the liberal side, there's Gupta Wessler. On the conservative side, there's Consovoy McCarthy, Cooper & Kirk, Lehotsky Keller, and now Clement & Murphy. Certain other markets, notably California and Texas, have regional appellate boutiques. This sounds like a 1L post, and the truth is that there is no biglaw firm where any given lit associate has a large probability of working in appellate, though some appeals groups are more insular than others. Appellate associates are generally recruited post-clerkship, and if you are a serious contender for appellate biglaw, you will likely clerk then re-recruit.

Caveat this with the fact that that lots of people have significant feeder/other prestigious clerkships by the time they get to their 2L SA, and the firms know it. Appellate groups can and do recruit at that time because they want to get ahead of the game.

[Anonymous User]

I think it would be better to consider only V100 firms generally instead of firms with a handful of associates, or by practice area.

In which case, WLRK is probably the most selective firm by far that is exceptionally strong in both corporate and litigation.

[nealric]

I think it would be better to consider only V100 firms generally instead of firms with a handful of associates, or by practice area.

In which case, WLRK is probably the most selective firm by far that is exceptionally strong in both corporate and litigation.

It can get a little silly with very small firms. The hardest firm to "get into" could be some solo personal injury firm that will never hire anybody.

[Anonymous User]

I think it would be better to consider only V100 firms generally instead of firms with a handful of associates, or by practice area.

In which case, WLRK is probably the most selective firm by far that is exceptionally strong in both corporate and litigation.

Okay. Limiting to V100 and erasing distinctions between offices/practice groups, you get:

1. Kellogg Hansen
2. Susman Godfrey
3. Wachtell Lipton
4. Munger Tolles
5. Williams & Connolly

Maybe flip 3/4. There's a significant drop-off after 5.