LA Biglaw Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts or sentiments from anyone who knows about S&C LA?

How are they seen in the community?

I've heard they generate some fairly large deals, even if the office is (I think) very small.

[Anonymous User]

do any LA firms require LR/journal other than MTO and Irell?

[Anonymous User]

do any LA firms require LR/journal other than MTO and Irell?

MTO/Irell don't require law review, it's just an important consideration for them. I know people who summered at both (albeit from HYS) who weren't on law review.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts or sentiments from anyone who knows about S&C LA?

How are they seen in the community?

I've heard they generate some fairly large deals, even if the office is (I think) very small.

Very busy firm with lots of big deals due to a few rainmaker partners and the firm's "brand name." Hours are long.

No idea what the community thinks of us.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts or sentiments from anyone who knows about S&C LA?

How are they seen in the community?

I've heard they generate some fairly large deals, even if the office is (I think) very small.

Very busy firm with lots of big deals due to a few rainmaker partners and the firm's "brand name." Hours are long.

No idea what the community thinks of us.

Does working there as a legal assistant help with recruiting post LS?

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts or sentiments from anyone who knows about S&C LA?

How are they seen in the community?

I've heard they generate some fairly large deals, even if the office is (I think) very small.

Very busy firm with lots of big deals due to a few rainmaker partners and the firm's "brand name." Hours are long.

No idea what the community thinks of us.

Does working there as a legal assistant help with recruiting post LS?

Won't hurt, but won't make up for bad grades.

[Anonymous User]

do any LA firms require LR/journal other than MTO and Irell?

MTO/Irell don't require law review, it's just an important consideration for them. I know people who summered at both (albeit from HYS) who weren't on law review.

This advice is only slightly credited. You are not getting a MTO offer without LR unless you go to Y/S (maybe H?), or are diverse. Just so people know how they do hiring: they put your resume and transcript on a big projector and discuss you over lunch. It is brutal. People without LR (with great grades) get a lot of hate. Trust me.

Irell doesn't care about LR - just so happens that almost everyone there is on it because of their high grade requirements.

[Anonymous User]

do any LA firms require LR/journal other than MTO and Irell?

MTO/Irell don't require law review, it's just an important consideration for them. I know people who summered at both (albeit from HYS) who weren't on law review.

This advice is only slightly credited. You are not getting a MTO offer without LR unless you go to Y/S (maybe H?), or are diverse. Just so people know how they do hiring: they put your resume and transcript on a big projector and discuss you over lunch. It is brutal. People without LR (with great grades) get a lot of hate. Trust me.

Irell doesn't care about LR - just so happens that almost everyone there is on it because of their high grade requirements.

Blatant anti-H trolling. I know someone a MTO summer in the past 3 classes from HLS without law review.

Edit: Also, look at MTO's website. There are a handful of recent graduates from UCLA (the sample I randomly picked) that weren't on law review. It's an important consideration, MTO definitely values law review more than most firms, but I would not say that it is a requirement. Of course, all the people who got positions with MTO that weren't on law review had high grades and some were diverse.

[Anonymous User]

I really struggle to understand what's desireble about MTO.

Yes the people are smart. Yes they aren't leveraged from a partner standpoint. But who really cares?

The PPP measure is less than half of peer firms like Gibson. They're not as well known as a brand as places like Latham.

What is the enormous allure besides it's hard to get?

[Anonymous User]

do any LA firms require LR/journal other than MTO and Irell?

MTO/Irell don't require law review, it's just an important consideration for them. I know people who summered at both (albeit from HYS) who weren't on law review.

This advice is only slightly credited. You are not getting a MTO offer without LR unless you go to Y/S (maybe H?), or are diverse. Just so people know how they do hiring: they put your resume and transcript on a big projector and discuss you over lunch. It is brutal. People without LR (with great grades) get a lot of hate. Trust me.

Irell doesn't care about LR - just so happens that almost everyone there is on it because of their high grade requirements.

Blatant anti-H trolling. I know someone a MTO summer in the past 3 classes from HLS without law review.

Edit: Also, look at MTO's website. There are a handful of recent graduates from UCLA (the sample I randomly picked) that weren't on law review. It's an important consideration, MTO definitely values law review more than most firms, but I would not say that it is a requirement. Of course, all the people who got positions with MTO that weren't on law review had high grades and some were diverse.

Chill out. I said H? because I didn't know the answer.

And I think this discussion is getting sort of stupid, but I'm bored, and decided to engage it. I looked at recent UCLA hires. Of the first ten, eight were on LR. The two that were not? One was #1 in the class, the other had a 9th Circuit Clerkship. So sure, I rescind my hyperbolic "requirement" comment. But it's damn near impossible.

[Anonymous User]

I really struggle to understand what's desireble about MTO.

Yes the people are smart. Yes they aren't leveraged from a partner standpoint. But who really cares?

The PPP measure is less than half of peer firms like Gibson. They're not as well known as a brand as places like Latham.

What is the enormous allure besides it's hard to get?

PPP is an absolutely terrible measure of anything for an associate selecting a firm. High quality of work with interesting clients (e.g., Google), meaningful substantive work as an associate, good quality of life (relatively speaking, of course), and connections to the California and national legal community, the signaling mechanism of having such a selective firm on your resume, among other things. The fact that three 9th Circuit judges were appointed in the past few years were all from MTO should speak a lot about the firm and its reputation in the legal community.

[Anonymous User]

This advice is only slightly credited. You are not getting a MTO offer without LR unless you go to Y/S (maybe H?), or are diverse. Just so people know how they do hiring: they put your resume and transcript on a big projector and discuss you over lunch. It is brutal. People without LR (with great grades) get a lot of hate. Trust me.

Irell doesn't care about LR - just so happens that almost everyone there is on it because of their high grade requirements.

Blatant anti-H trolling. I know someone a MTO summer in the past 3 classes from HLS without law review.

Edit: Also, look at MTO's website. There are a handful of recent graduates from UCLA (the sample I randomly picked) that weren't on law review. It's an important consideration, MTO definitely values law review more than most firms, but I would not say that it is a requirement. Of course, all the people who got positions with MTO that weren't on law review had high grades and some were diverse.

Chill out. I said H? because I didn't know the answer.

And I think this discussion is getting sort of stupid, but I'm bored, and decided to engage it. I looked at recent UCLA hires. Of the first ten, eight were on LR. The two that were not? One was #1 in the class, the other had a 9th Circuit Clerkship. So sure, I rescind my hyperbolic "requirement" comment. But it's damn near impossible.

I was being a little bit tongue in cheek with the anti-H trolling, though your post did seem to read to me at least that you didn't think someone at H without law review could get MTO.

I took a quick look and counted 11/15 that were on UCLA law review (assuming that the website is correct). I'm not arguing that it's not a very selective firm, clearly it is, and clearly law review is important to them (but not required in the sense of Susman Godfrey literally requires a federal clerkship). I think we're pretty much in agreement, though, so I hope that this doesn't come off like i'm arguing with you.

[Anonymous User]

I really struggle to understand what's desireble about MTO.

Yes the people are smart. Yes they aren't leveraged from a partner standpoint. But who really cares?

The PPP measure is less than half of peer firms like Gibson. They're not as well known as a brand as places like Latham.

What is the enormous allure besides it's hard to get?

PPP is an absolutely terrible measure of anything for an associate selecting a firm. High quality of work with interesting clients (e.g., Google), meaningful substantive work as an associate, good quality of life (relatively speaking, of course), and connections to the California and national legal community, the signaling mechanism of having such a selective firm on your resume, among other things. The fact that three 9th Circuit judges were appointed in the past few years were all from MTO should speak a lot about the firm and its reputation in the legal community.

PPP is not a terrible measure if you have dreams of making partner. At the least it's very relevant. And from a transactional standpoint, it's hard for me to believe MTO is doing anything that much more fascinating than a place like GDC. Also as far as connections go, I feel that GDC and MTO are both extremely well respected in LA so not sure what differentiates the two here.

In what way is quality of life better? I believe it may be, and this is one area that I can see being a difference maker, but I know nothing about it. Less hours? Better balance?

[Anonymous User]

I really struggle to understand what's desireble about MTO.

Yes the people are smart. Yes they aren't leveraged from a partner standpoint. But who really cares?

The PPP measure is less than half of peer firms like Gibson. They're not as well known as a brand as places like Latham.

What is the enormous allure besides it's hard to get?

PPP is an absolutely terrible measure of anything for an associate selecting a firm. High quality of work with interesting clients (e.g., Google), meaningful substantive work as an associate, good quality of life (relatively speaking, of course), and connections to the California and national legal community, the signaling mechanism of having such a selective firm on your resume, among other things. The fact that three 9th Circuit judges were appointed in the past few years were all from MTO should speak a lot about the firm and its reputation in the legal community.

PPP is not a terrible measure if you have dreams of making partner. At the least it's very relevant. And from a transactional standpoint, it's hard for me to believe MTO is doing anything that much more fascinating than a place like GDC. Also as far as connections go, I feel that GDC and MTO are both extremely well respected in LA so not sure what differentiates the two here.

In what way is quality of life better? I believe it may be, and this is one area that I can see being a difference maker, but I know nothing about it. Less hours? Better balance?

1. MTO is mainly a litigation shop.
2. Yes, PPP is a terrible measure for picking a firm to be an associate at. I'll refrain from commenting on the soundness of selecting a biglaw firm based on the profits per partner, as that's pretty self-evident.
3. The quality of life at MTO is high for a biglaw firm. There's a reason why they have a bunch of people who could work at any firm they want, just about, and it's not because they pay a higher base salary or bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

I really struggle to understand what's desireble about MTO.

Yes the people are smart. Yes they aren't leveraged from a partner standpoint. But who really cares?

The PPP measure is less than half of peer firms like Gibson. They're not as well known as a brand as places like Latham.

What is the enormous allure besides it's hard to get?

PPP is an absolutely terrible measure of anything for an associate selecting a firm. High quality of work with interesting clients (e.g., Google), meaningful substantive work as an associate, good quality of life (relatively speaking, of course), and connections to the California and national legal community, the signaling mechanism of having such a selective firm on your resume, among other things. The fact that three 9th Circuit judges were appointed in the past few years were all from MTO should speak a lot about the firm and its reputation in the legal community.

PPP is not a terrible measure if you have dreams of making partner. At the least it's very relevant. And from a transactional standpoint, it's hard for me to believe MTO is doing anything that much more fascinating than a place like GDC. Also as far as connections go, I feel that GDC and MTO are both extremely well respected in LA so not sure what differentiates the two here.

In what way is quality of life better? I believe it may be, and this is one area that I can see being a difference maker, but I know nothing about it. Less hours? Better balance?

1. MTO is mainly a litigation shop.
2. Yes, PPP is a terrible measure for picking a firm to be an associate at. I'll refrain from commenting on the soundness of selecting a biglaw firm based on the profits per partner, as that's pretty self-evident.
3. The quality of life at MTO is high for a biglaw firm. There's a reason why they have a bunch of people who could work at any firm they want, just about, and it's not because they pay a higher base salary or bonuses.

I'm going to stay polite, but your showing your teeth a bit so it looks like I've struck a nerve. Did you summer there?

1) I know it's a lit shop but I'm evaluating it from a transational perspective because that's my area of interest. I know I didn't spell that out. Now I have.
2) Don't refrain. Explain why. RPL and PPP are considered two of the best metrics for measuring the overall health of a firm. How are you just discarding one by saying te metric is fallacious when common sentiment disgrees? I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters, but it matters. Especially if you want to shoot for partner, despite the longshot odds.
3) I know that it's high. But explain why. That's what I'm curious about. I don't want proxies. I want to know specifics.

[Yukos]

I'm going to stay polite, but your showing your teeth a bit so it looks like I've struck a nerve. Did you summer there?

1) I know it's a lit shop but I'm evaluating it from a transational perspective because that's my area of interest. I know I didn't spell that out. Now I have.
2) Don't refrain. Explain why. RPL and PPP are considered two of the best metrics for measuring the overall health of a firm. How are you just discarding one by saying te metric is fallacious when common sentiment disgrees? I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters, but it matters. Especially if you want to shoot for partner, despite the longshot odds.
3) I know that it's high. But explain why. That's what I'm curious about. I don't want proxies. I want to know specifics.

Can we not turn this thread into a pissing contest like every other thread in the legal employment forum?

[Anonymous User]

PPP is an absolutely terrible measure of anything for an associate selecting a firm. High quality of work with interesting clients (e.g., Google), meaningful substantive work as an associate, good quality of life (relatively speaking, of course), and connections to the California and national legal community, the signaling mechanism of having such a selective firm on your resume, among other things. The fact that three 9th Circuit judges were appointed in the past few years were all from MTO should speak a lot about the firm and its reputation in the legal community.

PPP is not a terrible measure if you have dreams of making partner. At the least it's very relevant. And from a transactional standpoint, it's hard for me to believe MTO is doing anything that much more fascinating than a place like GDC. Also as far as connections go, I feel that GDC and MTO are both extremely well respected in LA so not sure what differentiates the two here.

In what way is quality of life better? I believe it may be, and this is one area that I can see being a difference maker, but I know nothing about it. Less hours? Better balance?

1. MTO is mainly a litigation shop.
2. Yes, PPP is a terrible measure for picking a firm to be an associate at. I'll refrain from commenting on the soundness of selecting a biglaw firm based on the profits per partner, as that's pretty self-evident.
3. The quality of life at MTO is high for a biglaw firm. There's a reason why they have a bunch of people who could work at any firm they want, just about, and it's not because they pay a higher base salary or bonuses.

I'm going to stay polite, but your showing your teeth a bit so it looks like I've struck a nerve. Did you summer there?

1) I know it's a lit shop but I'm evaluating it from a transational perspective because that's my area of interest. I know I didn't spell that out. Now I have.
2) Don't refrain. Explain why. RPL and PPP are considered two of the best metrics for measuring the overall health of a firm. How are you just discarding one by saying te metric is fallacious when common sentiment disgrees? I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters, but it matters. Especially if you want to shoot for partner, despite the longshot odds.
3) I know that it's high. But explain why. That's what I'm curious about. I don't want proxies. I want to know specifics.

1. Most of MTO's reputation/strength comes from it's litigation department. If you don't want to do litigation, then MTO will (obviously) be less attractive to you, and reasonably so.
2. You're being really inconsistent here. You said earlier: "PPP is not a terrible measure if you have dreams of making partner." That means you are interested in PPP because you want to make more profits if you make partner. Again, that's a terrible reason to pick a firm as an associate. Firms get PPP high by having a highly leveraged model (meaning you get less substantive experience, are more faceless and interchangeable, and the firm has less interest in teaching you marketable skills) and by working associates very, very hard (with so many associates, turnover and burnout is not a significant problem for the most part). Again, of course, your odds of making partner at any biglaw firm are very low, so making a decision based on profits per partner once you make partner is not a very smart way to pick a firm as an associate. Now you are saying that PPP is one of the best metrics for measuring the overall health of a firm. I don't necessarily think it's a bad metric of measuring firm health. High firm profits does mean that the firm has business (though it's not always indicative of the health of the firm; Dewey had high profits per partner before it collapsed). RPL is a bit better, though you didn't mention it earlier and clearly were talking about PPP in the context of how much money you would make if you made partner.
3. If you want specifics, give me some specific questions.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts or sentiments from anyone who knows about S&C LA?

How are they seen in the community?

I've heard they generate some fairly large deals, even if the office is (I think) very small.

Very busy firm with lots of big deals due to a few rainmaker partners and the firm's "brand name." Hours are long.

No idea what the community thinks of us.

I'll echo this. S&C LA is a smaller office but with some big-name partners, especially on the transactional side. I think that they have a good reputation in the LA community (and nationally, too; one of the benefits of working at a place like S&C LA is that you get both the big national firm brand and accompanying deals/cases, but at the same time get to work out in beautiful Century City and have a smaller office). They are a smaller office than the other biglaw firms headquartered in LA and are geographically separated from the downtown firms. S&C LA has a significant amount of deals and cases and they are not really short for work, which has both pluses and minuses to it.

Is there anything more specific that you want to know?

[Anonymous User]

PPP is not a terrible measure if you have dreams of making partner. At the least it's very relevant. And from a transactional standpoint, it's hard for me to believe MTO is doing anything that much more fascinating than a place like GDC. Also as far as connections go, I feel that GDC and MTO are both extremely well respected in LA so not sure what differentiates the two here.

In what way is quality of life better? I believe it may be, and this is one area that I can see being a difference maker, but I know nothing about it. Less hours? Better balance?

1. MTO is mainly a litigation shop.
2. Yes, PPP is a terrible measure for picking a firm to be an associate at. I'll refrain from commenting on the soundness of selecting a biglaw firm based on the profits per partner, as that's pretty self-evident.
3. The quality of life at MTO is high for a biglaw firm. There's a reason why they have a bunch of people who could work at any firm they want, just about, and it's not because they pay a higher base salary or bonuses.

I'm going to stay polite, but your showing your teeth a bit so it looks like I've struck a nerve. Did you summer there?

1) I know it's a lit shop but I'm evaluating it from a transational perspective because that's my area of interest. I know I didn't spell that out. Now I have.
2) Don't refrain. Explain why. RPL and PPP are considered two of the best metrics for measuring the overall health of a firm. How are you just discarding one by saying te metric is fallacious when common sentiment disgrees? I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters, but it matters. Especially if you want to shoot for partner, despite the longshot odds.
3) I know that it's high. But explain why. That's what I'm curious about. I don't want proxies. I want to know specifics.

1. Most of MTO's reputation/strength comes from it's litigation department. If you don't want to do litigation, then MTO will (obviously) be less attractive to you, and reasonably so.
2. You're being really inconsistent here. You said earlier: "PPP is not a terrible measure if you have dreams of making partner." That means you are interested in PPP because you want to make more profits if you make partner. Again, that's a terrible reason to pick a firm as an associate. Firms get PPP high by having a highly leveraged model (meaning you get less substantive experience, are more faceless and interchangeable, and the firm has less interest in teaching you marketable skills) and by working associates very, very hard (with so many associates, turnover and burnout is not a significant problem for the most part). Again, of course, your odds of making partner at any biglaw firm are very low, so making a decision based on profits per partner once you make partner is not a very smart way to pick a firm as an associate. Now you are saying that PPP is one of the best metrics for measuring the overall health of a firm. I don't necessarily think it's a bad metric of measuring firm health. High firm profits does mean that the firm has business (though it's not always indicative of the health of the firm; Dewey had high profits per partner before it collapsed). RPL is a bit better, though you didn't mention it earlier and clearly were talking about PPP in the context of how much money you would make if you made partner.
3. If you want specifics, give me some specific questions.

1) Agreed.
2) Not being inconsistent at all. I said it was "at least very relevant" in regards to looking at what you would make as a partner.This is true. Looking at it in that light is not to the exclusion of using it as a metric for firm health. You said categorically that "PPP is a terrible measure for picking a firm to be an associate at" and that's just not true. It is a great proxy for firm health AND what you will make if you want to make partner. I know it's hard to make partner. Stipulated fact. But to say it's dumb to disregard one aspect of an otherwise important factor because places like Wachtell, S&C, Skadden etc. are too "leveraged" makes no sense. My point was, all things equal, MTO has a much lower PPP and so IF you make partner the returns are lower--therefore, wondering what other factors made up for this fact.
3) See earlier post: "Less hours? Better balance?"

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts or sentiments from anyone who knows about S&C LA?

How are they seen in the community?

I've heard they generate some fairly large deals, even if the office is (I think) very small.

Very busy firm with lots of big deals due to a few rainmaker partners and the firm's "brand name." Hours are long.

No idea what the community thinks of us.

I'll echo this. S&C LA is a smaller office but with some big-name partners, especially on the transactional side. I think that they have a good reputation in the LA community (and nationally, too; one of the benefits of working at a place like S&C LA is that you get both the big national firm brand and accompanying deals/cases, but at the same time get to work out in beautiful Century City and have a smaller office). They are a smaller office than the other biglaw firms headquartered in LA and are geographically separated from the downtown firms. S&C LA has a significant amount of deals and cases and they are not really short for work, which has both pluses and minuses to it.

Is there anything more specific that you want to know?

Perhaps insight regarding workload in corporate compared to other firms like GDC, exit options, associate happiness, partnership prospects...any of these would be great.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, I picked my firm (not MTO) in part because a partner told me that "there is such a thing as making enough money." It's rare and refreshing to hear that.

Call me crazy, but I am happy to sacrifice some extra $ to work at a place where there is no tolerance for screaming, where people say please and thank you, and where partners treat associates and each other as colleagues. I have no illusions that my firm is a "lifestyle" shop; associates are expected to bill a lot of hours and to do great work. But I do think that culture matters. I understand why people say it doesn't, but frankly, people who don't think that culture matters probably wouldn't fit in at my firm or at MTO.

[Anonymous User]

I am a recent grad and picked a firm very similar to MTO for similar reasons outlined here. My firm is also a firm in which associates could have worked anywhere. Many seem to now regret their choice. Be careful.

I have, without a doubt, gotten to do more interesting things than peers of my class year at biglaw. But there are also several reasons why I regret coming here. First, one of the problems with the "lean" staffing model of MTO and firms like is it that associates become indispensable and it becomes very difficult to take time off. Sure you can get coverage, and people won't tell you not to go -- but if something comes up, and you're the only one that knows shit, you're going to get a call and end up doing work. Consequently, I'm in the mid - high 2000s. Nobody would have said shit to me if I was at 1900, but it would not have been possible to meet my obligations working that little.

Second (and I say this with the caveat that my firm is smaller than MTO so it may be more of a problem here), but small(er) firms are extremely dependent on a few partners and those partners wield disproportionate influence. if those partners are assholes, the tone and culture of the firm can change very quickly.

Third, if you're not engaged in plaintiff-side work (e.g., Susman), litigation is typically less profitable than transactional work. As a consequence, salaries are typically below market starting with mid-level associates and going forward. Depending on the firm, the haircut may be extremely small or in the tens of thousands of dollars. In addition (also with the caveat that my firm is smaller than MTO), firms like this cut corners on overhead, so you won't find you have the same level of paralegal, IT, etc. support as you would at big firms. This can be very frustrating at times.

Finally, I see no advantage in exit ops due to working at an uber-selective firm - despite the fact that all of my coworkers went to top schools, got top grades, and clerked, and some of whom must have been competitive for Supreme Court clerkships based on their credentials. At this level, exit ops are really about connections through the partners and which ones are willing to go to bat for you. You should ask the current associates there about partners' attitudes towards helping their associates get new and good jobs.

[Anonymous User]

Would anyone be willing to take a stab at articulating the downside of biglaw in LA as opposed to say.. New York?

I'm aiming for litigation and weighing the pros and cons of both cities (ties to neither, have grades/credentials to hopefully aim for the top firms in both), and I'm leaning towards LA due to cost of living/weather.

Are their particular practice areas that are unavailable in LA? Does New York have better exit opportunities?

[KD35]

Would anyone be willing to take a stab at articulating the downside of biglaw in LA as opposed to say.. New York?

I'm aiming for litigation and weighing the pros and cons of both cities (ties to neither, have grades/credentials to hopefully aim for the top firms in both), and I'm leaning towards LA due to cost of living/weather.

Are their particular practice areas that are unavailable in LA? Does New York have better exit opportunities?

I've seen people talking in other threads previously that one of the benefits of NY is the exit opportunities because other companies/firms understand what NYC hours are like and thus know you can work hard. I'd also imagine that there are a couple practice areas that are more present/focused in NYC, but maybe not many that are exclusively in NYC vs. LA. (Rising 2L so no real background in the matter though)

[Anonymous User]

Skadden LA...can someone comment on firm culture? Or any other insight about the office...