Kirkland (NYC) vs Gibson Dunn (NYC) - Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

Offers from both. Looking to get as much real litigation work as possible (depos, witness prep, etc).

Liked the people at GDC more, but the training at Kirkland seems better.

Both have the free market system.

Not in big law for the long haul. 5 years max then would like to either start own practice or move to a boutique.

Thanks guys.

[chipchip]

Kirkland, as far as I know, is the better litigation shop and will give you the better training. But if your gut says you liked GDC people more, then go there. I'd do a second visit at each to get a better sense of them. Both great choices, congrats.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has the better litigation practice and better training by far. GDC doesn't do much in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland, definitely. For what you're looking for (substantive work in litigation), Kirkland seems to fit the bill. As for people, I don't know if I would make a decision based on just one visit - maybe make a second visit? Regardless, I'll be working at Kirkland NY next year, and would be happy to talk with you if you like!

[Anonymous User]

So I'll disagree and say GDC, here's why:

-GDC New York does do a lot of high-profile work in NYC. They also have very, very interesting cases. Things that are currently being run primarily out of new york or recently were include (1) the Chevron litigation, (2) Bloomberg term limits litigation, (3) Project Runway litigation, (4) Facebook ownership litigation, (5) FCC fleeting expletives litigation. They do lots of media work, lots of securities work, lots of antitrust, and some interesting niches like election law.

-GDC has very low leverage - less than half most new york firms. I think Kirkland is similar, but I would not be worried about not getting substantive work.

-GDC is growing fast in New York. This probably means more opportunities whether you decide to stay or move on.

-GDC probably has a better national litigation practice, and hopefully you will experience some of that spillover in terms of the cases/clients the NY office is able to attract. GDC is also pretty good about cross-staffing cases. Several of the associates I met were working on cases being run out of other offices. I don't think this is how they do the DC appellate work, but NY office associates may be able to get stuff from other offices from time to time.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's perfectly reasonable to choose Kirkland. My point is, I don't think Kirkland has a clearly better litigation practice, nor do I think you will get more substantive work there. Thus, I would go with the people you like more, i.e., Gibson.

[Anonymous User]

GDC probably has a better national litigation practice

This is just completely false (even if GDC was litigation department of the year).

[Anonymous User]

This is just completely false (even if GDC was litigation department of the year).

I mean, I think reasonable people can disagree, but care to back up that statement (especially since the American Lawyer disagrees with you)?

[Anonymous User]

Mind telling us when your callback and offer were?

[Anonymous User]

This is just completely false (even if GDC was litigation department of the year).

I mean, I think reasonable people can disagree, but care to back up that statement (especially since the American Lawyer disagrees with you)?

1) AmLaw doesn't "disagree with me." "Litigation Department of the Year" doesn't mean Gibson is actually good in litigation, or at least that it's better than litigation firms like Kirkland and Paul, Weiss.
2) Look at any practice group ranking, be it Vault or Chambers, and Kirkland wins out. Well, they might not win out in CA, but we're not talking about CA offices.

GDC is obviously not bad at litigation. But Kirkland is traditionally considered one of the best litigation firms in the country.