Top Law Schools

Between Quinn LA, OMM Century City, and Irell Century City, who is better for entertainment lit (especially IP entertainment lit)?

What about overall for lit in LA? I think Quinn is awesome, everyone I met was awesome, they have tons of interesting clients, and pay way better than everyone else it seems (something like 2600 billable gets you 230k). Is there anyone better in LA than Quinn for lit?

Have fun billing 2600 hours. Try to go outside sometime.

Anonymous User wrote:Have fun billing 2600 hours. Try to go outside sometime.

There are associates who bill 3600. At a firm like Quinn, which you will go to trial with, and has a high percentage of billable work, 2600 may be more like 2200 or 2300 for a NYC M&A shop.

If you think you're going to get IP entertainment lit at OMM CC, you are crazy. They have a stronger claim to entertainment work in the transactions department; litigation is far more varied and tends to be heavier in the general business lit area. If you don't mind doing non-entertainment lit and if you want to give up every shred of your free time starting from your first day as a summer and then for the rest of your life (assuming you get an offer, which is competitive as they do no-offer/cold offer summers, as told to me by associates at the firm), then feel free to go there.

Otherwise, I'd probably pick Irell. No real face time requirement, actually do IP-related work, and Century City >>> downtown.

How about if Munger is thrown into the mix? (Not OP, but curious.)

Anonymous User wrote:How about if Munger is thrown into the mix? (Not OP, but curious.)

For entertainment lit or general lit? For general lit, Munger is obviously one of the best firms in LA. Not sure how much entertainment work they do (although, IIRC, they did represent Warner Brothers when that whole Charlie Sheen fiasco blew up). The other factors that go into work life (e.g., billable hours, time until partner, etc.) seem to favor Munger as well. If I was ranking/picking, I'd probably put it in order (for the firms listed in this thread) as: Munger, Irell, Quinn, OMM.

I'm a bit confused. I have been under the impression that quinn, irell, and munger are peers, but specialize in different areas.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:How about if Munger is thrown into the mix? (Not OP, but curious.)

For entertainment lit or general lit? For general lit, Munger is obviously one of the best firms in LA. Not sure how much entertainment work they do (although, IIRC, they did represent Warner Brothers when that whole Charlie Sheen fiasco blew up). The other factors that go into work life (e.g., billable hours, time until partner, etc.) seem to favor Munger as well. If I was ranking/picking, I'd probably put it in order (for the firms listed in this thread) as: Munger, Irell, Quinn, OMM.

I'm mostly curious about copyright/trademark lit and (to a lesser extend) media/freedom of speech lit, especially for new media. I think good entertainment lit programs often imply strong media/copyright groups. Also interested in patent work which makes the decision difficult...

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Have fun billing 2600 hours. Try to go outside sometime.

There are associates who bill 3600. At a firm like Quinn, which you will go to trial with, and has a high percentage of billable work, 2600 may be more like 2200 or 2300 for a NYC M&A shop.

I would question the billing practices of any associate who claimed to honestly bill 3600 hours. But hey, it's your life (or lack thereof).

I don't really have anything productive to say so I'll let you be.

for IP entertainment lit you should go to Irell and it's not even close. David Nimmer brings in some of the most high-profile work in the area.

Anonymous User wrote:for IP entertainment lit you should go to Irell and it's not even close. David Nimmer brings in some of the most high-profile work in the area.

Yeah. I'm leaning Quinn though. People there are awesome, and overall they may have better lit. They really have some interesting defense work as well that runs the gammet of areas (ie. private space law and Rico defense).

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Have fun billing 2600 hours. Try to go outside sometime.

There are associates who bill 3600. At a firm like Quinn, which you will go to trial with, and has a high percentage of billable work, 2600 may be more like 2200 or 2300 for a NYC M&A shop.

I would question the billing practices of any associate who claimed to honestly bill 3600 hours. But hey, it's your life (or lack thereof).

I don't really have anything productive to say so I'll let you be.

3600 billed is 4500 worked at 80% efficiency. Over 50 weeks, that's 90 hours a week. There are 168 hours in a week. That leaves you with 78 hours per week to do things other than be in the office. Anybody who claims to bill 3600 is either full of shit, or should not be considered sane enough to be trusted with legal issues.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:for IP entertainment lit you should go to Irell and it's not even close. David Nimmer brings in some of the most high-profile work in the area.

Yeah. I'm leaning Quinn though. People there are awesome, and overall they may have better lit. They really have some interesting defense work as well that runs the gammet of areas (ie. private space law and Rico defense).

Then if you want to go to Quinn, go there. Not sure why you asked other people's opinions though. For entertainment IP lit, Irell seems objectively better than the others. If you want a broader litigation experience, Quinn is quite good. Have you also thought about whether you'd prefer to be at a plaintiff's side firm like Quinn, or a defense-side firm like most other big law shops?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:for IP entertainment lit you should go to Irell and it's not even close. David Nimmer brings in some of the most high-profile work in the area.

Yeah. I'm leaning Quinn though. People there are awesome, and overall they may have better lit. They really have some interesting defense work as well that runs the gammet of areas (ie. private space law and Rico defense).

Then if you want to go to Quinn, go there. Not sure why you asked other people's opinions though. For entertainment IP lit, Irell seems objectively better than the others. If you want a broader litigation experience, Quinn is quite good. Have you also thought about whether you'd prefer to be at a plaintiff's side firm like Quinn, or a defense-side firm like most other big law shops?

No I haven't. Is there a big difference? Is Quinn a plaintiffs firm? I also asked the first question because the answer is relevant to my decision, and I really don't know where everyone stanndds in LA. You hear so much of the same stuff from the firms and I can't figure out which might be better for me, just a gut feeling.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:for IP entertainment lit you should go to Irell and it's not even close. David Nimmer brings in some of the most high-profile work in the area.

Yeah. I'm leaning Quinn though. People there are awesome, and overall they may have better lit. They really have some interesting defense work as well that runs the gammet of areas (ie. private space law and Rico defense).

Then if you want to go to Quinn, go there. Not sure why you asked other people's opinions though. For entertainment IP lit, Irell seems objectively better than the others. If you want a broader litigation experience, Quinn is quite good. Have you also thought about whether you'd prefer to be at a plaintiff's side firm like Quinn, or a defense-side firm like most other big law shops?

No I haven't. Is there a big difference? Is Quinn a plaintiffs firm? I also asked the first question because the answer is relevant to my decision, and I really don't know where everyone stanndds in LA. You hear so much of the same stuff from the firms and I can't figure out which might be better for me, just a gut feeling.

Quinn is not a plaintiffs' firm. Quinn does some plaintiffs' work, but this is a minority compared to their defense work. They got a lot of press for suing the banks during and after the '08 crash; law firms with corporate practices, who regularly act in the interests of the banks, were unable to do this because of conflict of interest considerations. A plaintiffs' firm is a firm that primarily represents plaintiffs; they sue big corporations and don't defend them. Quinn, on the other hand, makes most of its money defending big corporations - in fact, they've defended the same banks I refer to above, but are free of conflict because they have no ongoing relationship with those banks.

Quinn is different from other biglaw not primarily because of the companies they represent, but because they never represent them in a transactional capacity - Quinn is the largest solely business litigation firm in the country (and I'm guessing world). The impact of this on a junior associate is 1. you'll never get the chance to try out transactional work to see if you'd prefer it and 2. you might get to work on some cases as plaintiff.

They do enough plaintiffs' work to be on the NLJ Plaintiffs' Hot List for something like the last three years. So perhaps they do a majority of defense work, but the plaintiff-side work that is done is major enough that the firm is recognized for it/known for it.