Top Law Schools

Interested in litigation, but some interest in regulatory work as well. Long term want to be in DC, but don't mind staying in NY for a couple years? What are the downsides and upsides of each?

Added Milbank into the mix.

Thanks.

Anonymous User wrote:Interested in litigation, but some interest in regulatory work as well. Long term want to be in DC, but don't mind staying in NY for a couple years? What are the downsides and upsides of each?

Thanks.

Sidley DC or NY or Chi?

If Sidley DC, then definitely go for Sidley DC if you want litigation + regulatory.

Sidley NY.

vamedic03 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Interested in litigation, but some interest in regulatory work as well. Long term want to be in DC, but don't mind staying in NY for a couple years? What are the downsides and upsides of each?

Thanks.

Sidley DC or NY or Chi?

If Sidley DC, then definitely go for Sidley DC if you want litigation + regulatory.

Easily Quinn. Go there.

Any more comments? Anyone have ideas about the different exit opportunities? For litigation, where do folks go? Do employers care about firm more than experience? I would guess not.

OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

QUINN REMAINS

Any comments on the differences (beyond what seems to be the correct assumption that Quinn's hours are longer). Which would be better if I wanted to lateral to a DC litigation boutique (W&C (as an example, I know this is incredibly prestigious)).

Anonymous User wrote:OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

QUINN REMAINS

SECOND TIER

ftfy

OP, go to Sidley.

If OP is considering Sidley DC, maybe Sidley. But if it's between Quinn NY and Sidley NY for litigation, it's Quinn without a doubt. No amount of kool-aid can change that.

I have heard that Sidley appellate is more accessible (more folks get to work on appellate matters even if they aren't specifically designated appellate group members), whereas at Quinn Kathleen Sullivan seems to rely on the same small team.

Anonymous User wrote:I have heard that Sidley appellate is more accessible (more folks get to work on appellate matters even if they aren't specifically designated appellate group members), whereas at Quinn Kathleen Sullivan seems to rely on the same small team.

Skillful name drop.

Any more comments? If the prestige of practice is judged by how often they win or are perceived to win, why would an associate care about this, except that might change clients (though institutional clients seem to be more the norm).

Does Fannie/Freddie litigation bode well for Quinn, or is this a sign that it is institutionalizing?

Anonymous User wrote:Does Fannie/Freddie litigation bode well for Quinn, or is this a sign that it is institutionalizing?

if by "institutionalizing" you mean representing the typical BIGLAW bank clients (and this is how quinn is typically described as being different from other BIGLAW firms), then no.

since the fannie/freddie litigation will generally have BIGFEDGOV adverse to BIGBANKING, it should come as no surprise that quinn has been tapped to do the fannie/freddie litigation; unlike most other BIGLAW firms, it has few conflicts in prosecuting cases against BIGBANKING.

On the other hand, it almost guarantees that Quinn will never represent a big bank. Could be a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.