Top Law Schools

Hello --

Deciding between firms.

I'm in big law for the training and the exit opportunities.

100% litigation. No desire to even touch transactional work.

Also important to me is a firm that allows me to get substantive experience early. The earlier I can take depos and be 1st or 2nd chair on smaller trials, or at least put on or cross examine some witnesses, the better.

Don't want to make partner. 4-5 years to pay off/minimize debt and then I want to either lateral into a lit boutique (think Keker or Susman), or start my own lit boutique in a secondary market (think Houston).

In terms of people I liked the most, the order is Gibson, PW, Kirkland, Quinn. But since it's a means to an end, that may not be as important.

Thoughts?

Training is tops at K&E. Also, free market easily allows for more substantive experience early on. It's band 2 for lit in NY, while GDC and Quinn are band 3. I don't think they should be in the equation though taking Paul Weiss is certainly also credited, but I don't know how training and assignments work there.

Go with Gibson. They are all great lit shops, so really you just need to think about fit. Quinn is great for some people, but sounds like you did not like them that much.

PW might be the knee-jerk choice here, but I would go with Kirkland or Gibson over PW. They both have much lower leverage than PW, and thus there's a better likelihood of getting substantive work earlier. Gibson also has a very diverse practice - securities, antitrust, media, first amendment, etc.

Only reason I would pick PW is if you wanted to do white collar.

Only reason I would pick PW is if you wanted to do white collar.

Well... Paul Weiss also has all the financial crisis litigation work, so that's there if you want it.

Even if you're not trials at K&E, KITA gives you a lot of training for that. But I know many midlevels who are given the opportunity to do directs and crosses. I know plenty of juniors who depositions too.

OP here: I think I'm going to go with Gibson. I just loved the people there, and they seem so much happier than everywhere else.

Exit opportunities don't seem to be hugely different for what I want to do, as all these firms seem very reputable.

It's hard to imagine you'd have much of a leg up trying to get to Susman from Kirkland vs getting there from GDC, and I think I'll be happier during my years GDC than I would be at Kirkland.

Thanks guys!

I'm voting Quinn. You're interested in lit, and all they do is litigation. Have a friend who just interviewed there, and apparently they can "sue everyone" since they don't have a corporate practice (and thus, no conflicts). Also, they wear jeans and band tees to the office. It sounds pretty awesome to me.

IzziesGal wrote:I'm voting Quinn. You're interested in lit, and all they do is litigation. Have a friend who just interviewed there, and apparently they can "sue everyone" since they don't have a corporate practice (and thus, no conflicts). Also, they wear jeans and band tees to the office. It sounds pretty awesome to me.

Sounds like the Flea Market of law firms. I prefer business dress. You're a lawyer, not a b-boy hippie for Christ's sake.

Pablo Ramirez wrote:

IzziesGal wrote:I'm voting Quinn. You're interested in lit, and all they do is litigation. Have a friend who just interviewed there, and apparently they can "sue everyone" since they don't have a corporate practice (and thus, no conflicts). Also, they wear jeans and band tees to the office. It sounds pretty awesome to me.

Sounds like the Flea Market of law firms. I prefer business dress. You're a lawyer, not a b-boy hippie for Christ's sake.

I like wearing my suits as much as the next guy... but in appropriate context. Like, going to court, or taking a deposition. If I am just going to be working at my desk, I would much rather be comfortable. Which is part of the reason I love IP. Business Casual FTW.

That said, I can see where jeans and band tees would get distracting.

K&E or Quinn if you really want substantive experience as a trial lawyer. I would pick K&E because of the extensive formal (they put something like $10 mil into this) and informal training. I don't think you'd get the same experience at Gibson. And K&E has the reputation of being "trial-ready" and having a deep bench. If you want to move into a more trial heavy position later on, I think that reputation would serve you well.

I don't get the amount of weight people give to "liking the people." I know we have little to go on, but I didn't give much weight at all to this. Really, these are just a handful of people at a huge firm. There will be people you click with and people you don't and that's going to be the case anywhere you go. At both Gibson & Kirkland you'll have the free market system to allow you to pick who you want to work with, to a certain degree. You can't go wrong here, but if it were me (and it was me a few weeks ago--I also want trial experience & training) I would/did choose Kirkland.

Anonymous User wrote:K&E or Quinn if you really want substantive experience as a trial lawyer. I would pick K&E because of the extensive formal (they put something like $10 mil into this) and informal training. I don't think you'd get the same experience at Gibson. And K&E has the reputation of being "trial-ready" and having a deep bench. If you want to move into a more trial heavy position later on, I think that reputation would serve you well.

I don't get the amount of weight people give to "liking the people." I know we have little to go on, but I didn't give much weight at all to this. Really, these are just a handful of people at a huge firm. There will be people you click with and people you don't and that's going to be the case anywhere you go. At both Gibson & Kirkland you'll have the free market system to allow you to pick who you want to work with, to a certain degree. You can't go wrong here, but if it were me (and it was me a few weeks ago--I also want trial experience & training) I would/did choose Kirkland.

I completely understand the importance of liking people. The idea behind it is not to evaluate how you interacted with individuals, but what they all had in common. You are evaluating the personality of the organization as a whole, not the individual. And you can usually get a good measure of that after meeting ten or so members of the organization.

That said, there are some people (and you might be one of them) that just don't care about this. Fine, more power to you. But most of us need to feel comfortable at work to remain motivated to come in after that second all nighter that week. Just because you don't understand it does not mean that it is not an important factor - indeed, maybe THE most important factor - for other people.