What firm is considered the hardest to get into? Forum

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

I made the original list and agree. If these were tiers, I'd say 1=2>3=4>>5>>>6, 7, 8...

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

I made the original list and agree. If these were tiers, I'd say 1=2>3=4>>5>>>6, 7, 8...

This is sort of ridiculous wrt W&C. They are no more competitive than any other elite DC firm. At HYS, they hire quite a bit—and recently, the most competitive applicants and future scotus clerks have not been ending up at W&C as much as the top appellate firms like PW, Wilmer, Gibson, Kirkland etc. True, the self-sorting of the most competitive applicants doesn’t reflect overall competitiveness, but it’s just a fact that there are several other DC offices which are both more sought after and generally regarded as harder to get offers at.

To get past W&C, I think it’s hard to say that Munger in Cali or WLRK are harder to get—at least for 2L SA—are more competitive than those top DC offices. Wachtell has been dipping quite a bit at HYS in the last few years, for instance. And they don’t take fewer summers overall than some of the smaller elite DC offices. I’d say instead they’re roughly similar, although they look for different stuff; the only transactional focused or NY firm that’s as competitive as DC. Susman is somewhat similar, from what I’ve seen. They look for different things, but are not significantly more competitive than the best DC offices from what I’ve seen of OCI outcomes at the top couple schools. Kellogg, I’ll grant, is very very competitive.

But this is all silly because more broadly, competitiveness isn’t fixed in time. Some firms are harder to get into as summers, others harder as laterals or for partnership or partner-level laterals. And even just within SA competitiveness, it varies significantly by recruiting school, year, practice, etc.

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

I made the original list and agree. If these were tiers, I'd say 1=2>3=4>>5>>>6, 7, 8...

This is sort of ridiculous wrt W&C. They are no more competitive than any other elite DC firm. At HYS, they hire quite a bit—and recently, the most competitive applicants and future scotus clerks have not been ending up at W&C as much as the top appellate firms like PW, Wilmer, Gibson, Kirkland etc. True, the self-sorting of the most competitive applicants doesn’t reflect overall competitiveness, but it’s just a fact that there are several other DC offices which are both more sought after and generally regarded as harder to get offers at.

To get past W&C, I think it’s hard to say that Munger in Cali or WLRK are harder to get—at least for 2L SA—are more competitive than those top DC offices. Wachtell has been dipping quite a bit at HYS in the last few years, for instance. And they don’t take fewer summers overall than some of the smaller elite DC offices. I’d say instead they’re roughly similar, although they look for different stuff; the only transactional focused or NY firm that’s as competitive as DC. Susman is somewhat similar, from what I’ve seen. They look for different things, but are not significantly more competitive than the best DC offices from what I’ve seen of OCI outcomes at the top couple schools. Kellogg, I’ll grant, is very very competitive.

But this is all silly because more broadly, competitiveness isn’t fixed in time. Some firms are harder to get into as summers, others harder as laterals or for partnership or partner-level laterals. And even just within SA competitiveness, it varies significantly by recruiting school, year, practice, etc.

That list is only about the difficulty of getting any job in any office at each of the V100 firms. W&C benefits from not having a New York office, unlike most of the others.

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

I made the original list and agree. If these were tiers, I'd say 1=2>3=4>>5>>>6, 7, 8...

This is sort of ridiculous wrt W&C. They are no more competitive than any other elite DC firm. At HYS, they hire quite a bit—and recently, the most competitive applicants and future scotus clerks have not been ending up at W&C as much as the top appellate firms like PW, Wilmer, Gibson, Kirkland etc. True, the self-sorting of the most competitive applicants doesn’t reflect overall competitiveness, but it’s just a fact that there are several other DC offices which are both more sought after and generally regarded as harder to get offers at.

To get past W&C, I think it’s hard to say that Munger in Cali or WLRK are harder to get—at least for 2L SA—are more competitive than those top DC offices. Wachtell has been dipping quite a bit at HYS in the last few years, for instance. And they don’t take fewer summers overall than some of the smaller elite DC offices. I’d say instead they’re roughly similar, although they look for different stuff; the only transactional focused or NY firm that’s as competitive as DC. Susman is somewhat similar, from what I’ve seen. They look for different things, but are not significantly more competitive than the best DC offices from what I’ve seen of OCI outcomes at the top couple schools. Kellogg, I’ll grant, is very very competitive.

But this is all silly because more broadly, competitiveness isn’t fixed in time. Some firms are harder to get into as summers, others harder as laterals or for partnership or partner-level laterals. And even just within SA competitiveness, it varies significantly by recruiting school, year, practice, etc.

That list is only about the difficulty of getting any job in any office at each of the V100 firms. W&C benefits from not having a New York office, unlike most of the others.

Okay well that’s beyond stupid then, because competitiveness is driven so much by market. Like beyond WLRK there’s nearly no firm in all of NY that’s as competitive as any half-way decent DC office at OCI lol

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

I'd assume Georgetown

[apricots]

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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

I'd assume Georgetown

not t14 lol

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

If you mean "easy" in terms of bidding, sure. If you mean "easy" in terms of grades it's still a level above cov/wilmer/latham/gibson (though they have a good amount of overlap). Jenner is harder tho.

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

If you mean "easy" in terms of bidding, sure. If you mean "easy" in terms of grades it's still a level above cov/wilmer/latham/gibson (though they have a good amount of overlap). Jenner is harder tho.

Jenner DC is certainly harder.

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

[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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

If you mean "easy" in terms of bidding, sure. If you mean "easy" in terms of grades it's still a level above cov/wilmer/latham/gibson (though they have a good amount of overlap). Jenner is harder tho.

Jenner DC is certainly harder.

Know several people at W&C from SLS that struck out at cov/wilmer/latham/gibson and several people who chose those firms over W&C. I think they're all about the same in terms of grades/qualifications. Not sure I agree with the idea that Jenner is any harder, either. They have a smaller class and hire for slightly different stuff. I think the top few DC firms are all the same, and getting an offer at one tends to be more about luck, fit, etc. Most of the folks could have gotten hired at any of that tier of competitive DC firms. Absolutely nothing setting apart Jenner or W&C folks (in fact, often people at the other firms listed here have had better clerkships, resumes, etc. to my mind).

[Anonymous User]

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.

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

If you mean "easy" in terms of bidding, sure. If you mean "easy" in terms of grades it's still a level above cov/wilmer/latham/gibson (though they have a good amount of overlap). Jenner is harder tho.

Jenner DC is certainly harder.

Know several people at W&C from SLS that struck out at cov/wilmer/latham/gibson and several people who chose those firms over W&C. I think they're all about the same in terms of grades/qualifications. Not sure I agree with the idea that Jenner is any harder, either. They have a smaller class and hire for slightly different stuff. I think the top few DC firms are all the same, and getting an offer at one tends to be more about luck, fit, etc. Most of the folks could have gotten hired at any of that tier of competitive DC firms. Absolutely nothing setting apart Jenner or W&C folks (in fact, often people at the other firms listed here have had better clerkships, resumes, etc. to my mind).

Looking at the grades database, it's actually more Jenner > W&C/Gibson > Cov/Latham, though again lots of overlap. It may just be that Cov/Latham are willing to go deeper for fit while Jenner, W&C, and Gibson are not. Still, you need at least top third to be even in the ballpark for these so I could concede that the difference here is at the margins at most.

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

KH does more "elite" work (i.e. appellate)

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

gap isn’t real it’s the same half-dozen people yanking over imagined differences in prestige and quality of work between like 5 extremely elite firms.

I know one dude from my CCN who graduated with a 3.9 and elite clerkships and is a partner at KH, I know another guy at MVPB who graduated with a 3.9 or thereabouts with elite clerkships and is a partner at Susman. The ability to qualitatively differentiate between these two guys based on a single point or two on the fucking LSAT is absolutely absurd.

the lit boutique circle sessions on this board are boring beyond belief—like I’m listening to a bunch of assholes debate vinyl vs digital for neutral milk hotel.

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

KH does more "elite" work (i.e. appellate)

Do they even do that much appellate work?

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

KH does more "elite" work (i.e. appellate)

Do they even do that much appellate work?

They do a fair amount, especially if it involves antitrust or telecoms in some way. But the real differences between KH and SG are location and partnership prospects. KH attracts people that want to work to the bone in DC for 2-3 years, collect an enormous paycheck, and leave for the government or their SCOTUS clerkship. SG attracts people much more willing to be trial lawyers that stay at the firm in Houston for a long time.

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

KH does more "elite" work (i.e. appellate)

Do they even do that much appellate work?

They do a fair amount, especially if it involves antitrust or telecoms in some way. But the real differences between KH and SG are location and partnership prospects. KH attracts people that want to work to the bone in DC for 2-3 years, collect an enormous paycheck, and leave for the government or their SCOTUS clerkship. SG attracts people much more willing to be trial lawyers that stay at the firm in Houston for a long time.

Is KH better at minting SCOTUS clerks?

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

KH does more "elite" work (i.e. appellate)

Do they even do that much appellate work?

They do a fair amount, especially if it involves antitrust or telecoms in some way. But the real differences between KH and SG are location and partnership prospects. KH attracts people that want to work to the bone in DC for 2-3 years, collect an enormous paycheck, and leave for the government or their SCOTUS clerkship. SG attracts people much more willing to be trial lawyers that stay at the firm in Houston for a long time.

Is KH better at minting SCOTUS clerks?

Something like 10% of their associates this year left to clerk for SCOTUS, which seems higher than most other firms.

[Anonymous User]

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

If you mean "easy" in terms of bidding, sure. If you mean "easy" in terms of grades it's still a level above cov/wilmer/latham/gibson (though they have a good amount of overlap). Jenner is harder tho.

Jenner DC is certainly harder.

Know several people at W&C from SLS that struck out at cov/wilmer/latham/gibson and several people who chose those firms over W&C. I think they're all about the same in terms of grades/qualifications. Not sure I agree with the idea that Jenner is any harder, either. They have a smaller class and hire for slightly different stuff. I think the top few DC firms are all the same, and getting an offer at one tends to be more about luck, fit, etc. Most of the folks could have gotten hired at any of that tier of competitive DC firms. Absolutely nothing setting apart Jenner or W&C folks (in fact, often people at the other firms listed here have had better clerkships, resumes, etc. to my mind).

Looking at the grades database, it's actually more Jenner > W&C/Gibson > Cov/Latham, though again lots of overlap. It may just be that Cov/Latham are willing to go deeper for fit while Jenner, W&C, and Gibson are not. Still, you need at least top third to be even in the ballpark for these so I could concede that the difference here is at the margins at most.

Not to needlessly continue the DC lit navel-gazing, but it's probably useful to separate out appellate shop recruiting from everything else. At YLS, at least, it seems like the summers who want exclusively appellate work tend to turn down W&C for other places in DC with bigger / more insular appellate practices. But it's definitely one of the hardest firms to get for people who don't want or don't care about appellate work, and have a reputation for being pickier than other DC firms about grades and things like YLJ. (And, for what it's worth, there's been a trend over the last few years of people turning down WLRK for W&C/other DC firms, and it seems like many of the people who go there end up doing a split with Susman anyway. Which makes sense given their reputation as a trial firm.)

I'd also throw on Keker to the list, at least for 2L summer -- it's a tiny program, and it seems like they give offers to only one or two YLS people each year.

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

gap isn’t real it’s the same half-dozen people yanking over imagined differences in prestige and quality of work between like 5 extremely elite firms.

I know one dude from my CCN who graduated with a 3.9 and elite clerkships and is a partner at KH, I know another guy at MVPB who graduated with a 3.9 or thereabouts with elite clerkships and is a partner at Susman. The ability to qualitatively differentiate between these two guys based on a single point or two on the fucking LSAT is absolutely absurd.

the lit boutique circle sessions on this board are boring beyond belief—like I’m listening to a bunch of assholes debate vinyl vs digital for neutral milk hotel.

Ha. If you have top money, pound PPP/RPL; if you have top prestige, pound vault; if you have neither, pound the selectivity

[Anonymous User]

What explains the gap between KH and Susman? Is there more interesting work at KH? (assuming the gap is real.)

KH does more "elite" work (i.e. appellate)

Do they even do that much appellate work?

They do a fair amount, especially if it involves antitrust or telecoms in some way. But the real differences between KH and SG are location and partnership prospects. KH attracts people that want to work to the bone in DC for 2-3 years, collect an enormous paycheck, and leave for the government or their SCOTUS clerkship. SG attracts people much more willing to be trial lawyers that stay at the firm in Houston for a long time.

Is KH better at minting SCOTUS clerks?

Something like 10% of their associates this year left to clerk for SCOTUS, which seems higher than most other firms.

Probably, but KH is fairly Fed Soc-friendly, which surely plays a role in that

[Anonymous User]

I just don't know enough about Munger to say whether there's a huge gap between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, but there's a huge gap between 3 and 5 here, at least.

Wachtell doesn't even recruit at my lower T-14 but W&C might have hired from it more than any other single office in the country.

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

If you mean "easy" in terms of bidding, sure. If you mean "easy" in terms of grades it's still a level above cov/wilmer/latham/gibson (though they have a good amount of overlap). Jenner is harder tho.

Jenner DC is certainly harder.

Know several people at W&C from SLS that struck out at cov/wilmer/latham/gibson and several people who chose those firms over W&C. I think they're all about the same in terms of grades/qualifications. Not sure I agree with the idea that Jenner is any harder, either. They have a smaller class and hire for slightly different stuff. I think the top few DC firms are all the same, and getting an offer at one tends to be more about luck, fit, etc. Most of the folks could have gotten hired at any of that tier of competitive DC firms. Absolutely nothing setting apart Jenner or W&C folks (in fact, often people at the other firms listed here have had better clerkships, resumes, etc. to my mind).

Looking at the grades database, it's actually more Jenner > W&C/Gibson > Cov/Latham, though again lots of overlap. It may just be that Cov/Latham are willing to go deeper for fit while Jenner, W&C, and Gibson are not. Still, you need at least top third to be even in the ballpark for these so I could concede that the difference here is at the margins at most.

Susman NY is harder than all of those firms, as is Munger DC.

[Anonymous User]

What lower T14 sends more students to W&C than any other office in the country? What?

Not quite the same but W&C is often the largest Stanford DC office and one of the easier ones in DC to get from OCI

If you mean "easy" in terms of bidding, sure. If you mean "easy" in terms of grades it's still a level above cov/wilmer/latham/gibson (though they have a good amount of overlap). Jenner is harder tho.

Jenner DC is certainly harder.

Know several people at W&C from SLS that struck out at cov/wilmer/latham/gibson and several people who chose those firms over W&C. I think they're all about the same in terms of grades/qualifications. Not sure I agree with the idea that Jenner is any harder, either. They have a smaller class and hire for slightly different stuff. I think the top few DC firms are all the same, and getting an offer at one tends to be more about luck, fit, etc. Most of the folks could have gotten hired at any of that tier of competitive DC firms. Absolutely nothing setting apart Jenner or W&C folks (in fact, often people at the other firms listed here have had better clerkships, resumes, etc. to my mind).

Looking at the grades database, it's actually more Jenner > W&C/Gibson > Cov/Latham, though again lots of overlap. It may just be that Cov/Latham are willing to go deeper for fit while Jenner, W&C, and Gibson are not. Still, you need at least top third to be even in the ballpark for these so I could concede that the difference here is at the margins at most.

Susman NY is harder than all of those firms, as is Munger DC.

IDK about Susman NY. The people I know who had SAs there were very good, but like semi-feeder clerk good instead of SCOTUS good. Agreed with Munger DC.