Williams & Connolly v. GDC DC? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Sorry for the anonymity but I don't want to be outed at school. I'm speculating about options but want some opinions on this matchup. I hope to be an appellate practitioner, but I'm also thinking about positioning myself for my clerkship applications. Is this clear towards Williams & Connolly or should it be a harder decision? Thanks for the input.

[Anonymous User]

If you want to be an appellate practitioner, GDC DC is the clear choice because it actually does the kind of work that you want to do. W&C is a trial litigation shop. Don't let the clowns on this board who are in awe of W&C's prestige sway you. GDC DC is just as prestigious in any case.

[Old Gregg]

GDC DC is just as prestigious in any case.

I agree that GDC DC is probably where you want to go if you want to do appellate work, but in no way is it just as prestigious as W&C.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

GDC DC is just as prestigious in any case.

I agree that GDC DC is probably where you want to go if you want to do appellate work, but in no way is it just as prestigious as W&C.

GDC's appellate group is more prestigious that W&C and the rest of GDC is waaaaaaaay less prestigious than W&C.

[Anonymous User]

go to GDC DC

its the best for what your interested in

whatever firm you go to won't take away from you during clerkship apps

its not like everyone who summers at W&C gets a feeder clerkship

[Anonymous User]

go to GDC DC

its the best for what your interested in

whatever firm you go to won't take away from you during clerkship apps

its not like everyone who summers at W&C gets a feeder clerkship

I agree completely. I'm probably going to make the opposite decision but I still think, based on your interests, that GDC is the best choice.

[Anonymous User]

Judges care WAAAAY more about your grades (2L grades included) than the local Vault ranking of your summer firm. The difference between W&C and GDC for clerkship apps will be negligible. Even if you went to a lower V100 in DC your clerkship application wouldn't be much less competitive.

[Anonymous User]

GDC clearly for appellate opportunities.

[chipchip]

First, there's some rampant abuse of Anonymous in this thread.

Second, I think you should go to W&C. I think that both firms will look fine for clerking opportunities, but other than the likelihood that GDC would give you the opportunity to do some appellate work this summer, there is almost no certainty that you could break into the appellate practice. You obviously have good grades, but what happens if COA doesn't work out? You're not going into the appellate practice. And for many of the DC powerhouses, a SCOTUS clerkship is particularly important for actually becoming a go-to appellate practitioner. Instead, your option is either W&C and the risk of less appellate work than you would like, with the chance of trying to get an offer at GDC if the clerkship stuff works out, OR GDC + appellate clerkship = better shot OR GDC + no COA = no appellate and maybe not the firm you want otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

First, there's some rampant abuse of Anonymous in this thread.

Second, I think you should go to W&C. I think that both firms will look fine for clerking opportunities, but other than the likelihood that GDC would give you the opportunity to do some appellate work this summer, there is almost no certainty that you could break into the appellate practice. You obviously have good grades, but what happens if COA doesn't work out? You're not going into the appellate practice. And for many of the DC powerhouses, a SCOTUS clerkship is particularly important for actually becoming a go-to appellate practitioner. Instead, your option is either W&C and the risk of less appellate work than you would like, with the chance of trying to get an offer at GDC if the clerkship stuff works out, OR GDC + appellate clerkship = better shot OR GDC + no COA = no appellate and maybe not the firm you want otherwise.

I am not OP but am in the same boat as OP. This point is well-taken.

I tend to agree with this analysis from a logical standpoint. At the same time, if you are in the position to be choosing between these two firms, COA chances are probably very good assuming you have some regional flexibility and keep up the good work grade-wise. I have to say that based on my interviews and talking to people so far, GDC has really stood out to me in terms of work culture/vibe - which is high on my list, personally.

[chipchip]

Oh, if you believe that fit is better at one or the other, definitely go with your gut. I'm just saying that all else being equal, the appellate vs. no appellate distinction requires you to consider that that appellate clerkship may not come down the pipeline no matter how well you do. It happens.

[Anonymous User]

quick question I've had because this idea gets tossed around a lot, but I've never understood it. common wisdom seems to be that if an appellate practice is really good (eg, GDC DC) its good for a young associate to go there. is that necessarily true? what if there are a bunch of midlevel/senior associates who are "ahead of you" when it comes to work assignments because the firm attracts so much top talent in that practice group? or is this offset by the fact that a firm like GDC might get much more appellate work generally, and so can still give young associates more responsibility than a less well-known practice group?

i do not pretend to know anything about firm practice, so I really have no idea - just wondering if someone could comment on how a good/prestigious practice group would translate to the experience of a young associate. is it better in part because of the relationships you might form with great appellate partners?

[Anonymous User]

With a stated interest (via cover letter) in appellate practice, no judge will look down on a GDC summer; moreover, a recommendation/phone call from a GDC appellate practitioner will go further than from a trial lawyer. W&C is great for the work you don't want to do, but so are corporate-focused firms. Having spoken to multiple GDC D.C. associates recently, I can tell you that there is a lot of appellate work to go around in that office. You'd be silly to pass on that appellate department, in your situation.

[Anonymous User]

quick question I've had because this idea gets tossed around a lot, but I've never understood it. common wisdom seems to be that if an appellate practice is really good (eg, GDC DC) its good for a young associate to go there. is that necessarily true? what if there are a bunch of midlevel/senior associates who are "ahead of you" when it comes to work assignments because the firm attracts so much top talent in that practice group? or is this offset by the fact that a firm like GDC might get much more appellate work generally, and so can still give young associates more responsibility than a less well-known practice group?

i do not pretend to know anything about firm practice, so I really have no idea - just wondering if someone could comment on how a good/prestigious practice group would translate to the experience of a young associate. is it better in part because of the relationships you might form with great appellate partners?

Yes, it's good, if you're interested in appellate, to go to a place with a large, great appellate practice. OP obviously has great stats and will likely rejoin GDC after a COA clerkship. The best thing you can do is go somewhere where that does a lot of the work you want to do.

[Anonymous User]

You obviously have good grades, but what happens if COA doesn't work out? You're not going into the appellate practice. And for many of the DC powerhouses, a SCOTUS clerkship is particularly important for actually becoming a go-to appellate practitioner.

Not true. At GDC DC, there are young associates who never clerked who work on appellate matters and COA clerks who can't/don't break into the group. Granted, having a great clerkship certainly helps, but it's more important to actually impress an attorney with your work. If you do impressive work, then they'll keep giving you work.

[Karneval03]

.

[snailio]

OP, As per your interest, GDC is the obvious choice here, if you really truly know what you want to do, don't be dissuaded by the strategy of others, do what you want to do. WC is a great firm, many would say the best, but GDC is king of appellate. In any event you have two great choices, you could hardly go wrong with either.

Good Luck

[snailio]

P. S.

GDC hired 6 SCOTUS clerks last year out of 36, the most of any firm from what I understand, not bad.

[Anonymous User]

P. S.

GDC hired 6 SCOTUS clerks last year out of 36, the most of any firm from what I understand, not bad.

Exactly, and do you really think you're going to get appellate work before those SCOTUS clerks? Besides, every other 2L at t6 schools are convinced they want to do appellate work. Word to the wise: appellate work is boring as hell. There are only so many sexy cases, and you're most likely not going to get a piece of them. The rest of the work tends to be on boring topics, and you're poring through the record someone else created and researching esoteric case law in order to persuade two judges that the POV of your large corporate client is correct--and someone senior to you will probably do the only somewhat fun part, oral argument. Most people find that actually being in the trenches at the beginning, developing the record, arguing the issues in the first instance, is much more exciting. That's what Williams & Connolly does. Of course, if you want to taste some appellate work, they have some of that to go around as well (I've been told that there is not high demand, so your chances of doing it are probably higher than at GDC).

That said, it really is all about fit. If you fit in better at GDC, go there. But I wouldn't go there expecting to be an "appellate practitioner" unless you have a SCOTUS clerkship under your belt. And if you get that, they'll take you even if you didn't summer there.

[Karneval03]

.