Top Law Schools

Thoughts on Gibson's LA office in general? On their litigation practice?

Anonymous User wrote:Thoughts on Gibson's LA office in general? On their litigation practice?

Great office, smart people. Next to MTO and maybe QE, probably the best lit dept in SoCal.

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Thoughts on Gibson's LA office in general? On their litigation practice?

Great office, smart people. Next to MTO and maybe QE, probably the best lit dept in SoCal.

Can't really say much beyond this. The firm is very well managed, the cases are high-profile, and all the attorneys (lit, corp, real estate, bankruptcy) are kind yet brilliant. One major upshot is that GDC attorneys really seem to like working there. Can't say the same about MTO or QE.

How selective are they? What's with the huge summer class in LA?

Anonymous User wrote:

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Thoughts on Gibson's LA office in general? On their litigation practice?

Great office, smart people. Next to MTO and maybe QE, probably the best lit dept in SoCal.

Can't really say much beyond this. The firm is very well managed, the cases are high-profile, and all the attorneys (lit, corp, real estate, bankruptcy) are kind yet brilliant. One major upshot is that GDC attorneys really seem to like working there. Can't say the same about MTO or QE.

I wouldn't disagree with you about Quinn, but every lawyer I've talked to at MTO seems to love it. In fact, I would say they were on average the most satisfied lawyers I met at various receptions last year.

Anonymous User wrote:How selective are they? What's with the huge summer class in LA?

Pretty selective, at least from schools outside YHS. I think, as a rough estimate, they take top 1/2 YHS, 1/3-1/4 CCN, 1/10 of the rest of the T-14 and UCLA/USC, and top 1-2 people at lower-ranked schools. They also seem to like law review.

And no one really knows why the class size is so large. They're a really busy firm, and friends working there have told me GDC has the ability to give each summer an offer. Some mix of clerkships and voluntary selection of other offices (a number of people are splitting either w/n GDC or w/ a 1L firm) will smooth out the numbers. I've hung out with their SA class a fair bit, though, and they are a really fun group.

Anonymous User wrote:I wouldn't disagree with you about Quinn, but every lawyer I've talked to at MTO seems to love it. In fact, I would say they were on average the most satisfied lawyers I met at various receptions last year.

The MTO attorneys I met either disliked it, or liked it but were somewhat odd ducks. The firm, like Irell, seems to attract some pretty introverted people.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:How selective are they? What's with the huge summer class in LA?

Pretty selective, at least from schools outside YHS. I think, as a rough estimate, they take top 1/2 YHS, 1/3-1/4 CCN, 1/10 of the rest of the T-14 and UCLA/USC, and top 1-2 people at lower-ranked schools. They also seem to like law review.

This is just plain wrong, but thanks for posting this anonymously. There's no meaningful distinction between CCN and MVPB for LA, and you certainly don't need to be top 10% at Michigan to get GDC.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I wouldn't disagree with you about Quinn, but every lawyer I've talked to at MTO seems to love it. In fact, I would say they were on average the most satisfied lawyers I met at various receptions last year.

The MTO attorneys I met either disliked it, or liked it but were somewhat odd ducks. The firm, like Irell, seems to attract some pretty introverted people.

+1

You have to know what you are getting yourself into when you go to MTO.

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I wouldn't disagree with you about Quinn, but every lawyer I've talked to at MTO seems to love it. In fact, I would say they were on average the most satisfied lawyers I met at various receptions last year.

The MTO attorneys I met either disliked it, or liked it but were somewhat odd ducks. The firm, like Irell, seems to attract some pretty introverted people.

+1

You have to know what you are getting yourself into when you go to MTO.

Go on...

sundance95 wrote:

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I wouldn't disagree with you about Quinn, but every lawyer I've talked to at MTO seems to love it. In fact, I would say they were on average the most satisfied lawyers I met at various receptions last year.

The MTO attorneys I met either disliked it, or liked it but were somewhat odd ducks. The firm, like Irell, seems to attract some pretty introverted people.

+1

You have to know what you are getting yourself into when you go to MTO.

Go on...

Interested as well

FlightoftheEarls wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:How selective are they? What's with the huge summer class in LA?

Pretty selective, at least from schools outside YHS. I think, as a rough estimate, they take top 1/2 YHS, 1/3-1/4 CCN, 1/10 of the rest of the T-14 and UCLA/USC, and top 1-2 people at lower-ranked schools. They also seem to like law review.

This is just plain wrong, but thanks for posting this anonymously. There's no meaningful distinction between CCN and MVPB for LA, and you certainly don't need to be top 10% at Michigan to get GDC.

Yea. It's definitely wrong. It's more like top 25-30% from USC/UCLA. I think they've even dipped lower than that on occasion.

What are they like culturally? Start/end times? ability to work from home/face time? Dress code?

The LA office is more formal/hierarchical/buttoned-up than other LA offices, but everyone I've met there seems quite nice and they're far more laid back than comparable East Coast firms. FWIW, I get the sense they're quite picky about fit. I was top-third at H with rock-solid SoCal ties and didn't get a CB, and know people with worse grades who did.

Anonymous User wrote:The LA office is more formal/hierarchical/buttoned-up than other LA offices, but everyone I've met there seems quite nice and they're far more laid back than comparable East Coast firms. FWIW, I get the sense they're quite picky about fit. I was top-third at H with rock-solid SoCal ties and didn't get a CB, and know people with worse grades who did.

What do you mean by the bolded? I know for a fact that their dress code is business casual.

Anonymous User wrote:The LA office is more formal/hierarchical/buttoned-up than other LA offices, but everyone I've met there seems quite nice and they're far more laid back than comparable East Coast firms. FWIW, I get the sense they're quite picky about fit. I was top-third at H with rock-solid SoCal ties and didn't get a CB, and know people with worse grades who did.

Pm me please.

Anonymous User wrote:The LA office is more formal/hierarchical/buttoned-up than other LA offices, but everyone I've met there seems quite nice and they're far more laid back than comparable East Coast firms. FWIW, I get the sense they're quite picky about fit. I was top-third at H with rock-solid SoCal ties and didn't get a CB, and know people with worse grades who did.

Current SA at another LA law firm. The following is all hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt.

First, No jeans Fridays, unless you're in real estate. And their summer program is formal in that summer coordinators assign SAs work, but impose somewhat artificial deadlines--kidna interesting, considering GDC is a free market firm (maybe it's a necessity given the size of this year's summer class). Don't know about the hierarchy, though--the partners and associates seem to interact all the time, and delegation of work is fluid. I know first- and second-years who are taking depositions and writing dispositive motions.

They definitely seem interested in fit, though. All the SAs I have met are all bubbly, extraverted, down-to-earth people, and they say the attorneys (from the most junior to the most senior) generally fit this mold.

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I wouldn't disagree with you about Quinn, but every lawyer I've talked to at MTO seems to love it. In fact, I would say they were on average the most satisfied lawyers I met at various receptions last year.

The MTO attorneys I met either disliked it, or liked it but were somewhat odd ducks. The firm, like Irell, seems to attract some pretty introverted people.

+1

You have to know what you are getting yourself into when you go to MTO.

Gibson is a great firm, and the associates in LA seem to love it. But I'm not sure where the Munger hate is coming from. I've spent some time at multiple biglaw firms--including at Munger--and the associates at Munger seem happier than elsewhere, partly because the hours aren't particularly demanding. Sure, there are some odd ducks. But there are people like that at every firm. I think the main difference between MTO and Gibson is leverage. Gibson is more of a standard biglaw firm, and MTO is more like a large boutique.

Tag

sundance95 wrote:

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I wouldn't disagree with you about Quinn, but every lawyer I've talked to at MTO seems to love it. In fact, I would say they were on average the most satisfied lawyers I met at various receptions last year.

The MTO attorneys I met either disliked it, or liked it but were somewhat odd ducks. The firm, like Irell, seems to attract some pretty introverted people.

+1

You have to know what you are getting yourself into when you go to MTO.

Go on...

No one is "hating" on Munger; certainly not me. I almost accepted an offer there post-COA clerkship. So let me preface what I am about to say by stating unequivocally that MTO is a great firm, with outstanding and brilliant people, and first-rate work.

Ok, that being said, what I meant when I said what I did up above is that MTO is really self-indulgent when it comes to credentials. (At one point in the early 2000s, they liked to boast that they had the most SCOTUS clerks per lawyer. I don't think that's true today, but I think at one point it was and they made sure people knew it.) The culture there fosters a sense of "how smart are you" as opposed to "how good of a lawyer are you". I remember speaking to a client who decided not to retain MTO on a big "bet the company" type case because the client said he didn't want to pay for someone to write a law review article, and then tell you what a great law review article it was. He just wanted someone to get practical results.

So, with that understanding, MTO attracts not just smart people, but smart people who really enjoy being smart and letting others know how smart they are -- not in an arrogant fashion, but in a very prideful manner.

If you go to MTO, just be aware that you will always feel like you have to prove to the person next to you how smart you are, what a great school you went to, how great your judge was, etc.

If you enjoy that uber-academic elitist atmosphere, then you'll love practicing law there. If you don't, you might want to think twice.

Anonymous User wrote:What are they like culturally? Start/end times? ability to work from home/face time? Dress code?

Llike others have said, GDC is pretty buttoned-up, conservative culturally (not politically necessarily). It, along with OMM, are probably the most "white-shoe" litigation LA-based firms. This is just of for the LA office. The OC office is a bit more laid-back, but can be very OC-centric and parochial.

I'm sure you can telecommute, but like with just about every firm out there (explicit or otherwise), face-time is kind of important.

anon168 wrote: No one is "hating" on Munger; certainly not me. I almost accepted an offer there post-COA clerkship. So let me preface what I am about to say by stating unequivocally that MTO is a great firm, with outstanding and brilliant people, and first-rate work.

Ok, that being said, what I meant when I said what I did up above is that MTO is really self-indulgent when it comes to credentials. (At one point in the early 2000s, they liked to boast that they had the most SCOTUS clerks per lawyer. I don't think that's true today, but I think at one point it was and they made sure people knew it.) The culture there fosters a sense of "how smart are you" as opposed to "how good of a lawyer are you". I remember speaking to a client who decided not to retain MTO on a big "bet the company" type case because the client said he didn't want to pay for someone to write a law review article, and then tell you what a great law review article it was. He just wanted someone to get practical results.

So, with that understanding, MTO attracts not just smart people, but smart people who really enjoy being smart and letting others know how smart they are -- not in an arrogant fashion, but in a very prideful manner.

If you go to MTO, just be aware that you will always feel like you have to prove to the person next to you how smart you are, what a great school you went to, how great your judge was, etc.

If you enjoy that uber-academic elitist atmosphere, then you'll love practicing law there. If you don't, you might want to think twice.

I agree that Munger is academic, which may not appeal to some people.

My main point was this: the idea that Munger associates are generally unhappy is off base. I'm sure some are unhappy, but the majority I know are happy and claim they couldn't imagine working elsewhere. In associate satisfaction surveys--taken with an obvious grain of salt--Munger is always near the top, as is Gibson.

Anonymous User wrote:

anon168 wrote: No one is "hating" on Munger; certainly not me. I almost accepted an offer there post-COA clerkship. So let me preface what I am about to say by stating unequivocally that MTO is a great firm, with outstanding and brilliant people, and first-rate work.

Ok, that being said, what I meant when I said what I did up above is that MTO is really self-indulgent when it comes to credentials. (At one point in the early 2000s, they liked to boast that they had the most SCOTUS clerks per lawyer. I don't think that's true today, but I think at one point it was and they made sure people knew it.) The culture there fosters a sense of "how smart are you" as opposed to "how good of a lawyer are you". I remember speaking to a client who decided not to retain MTO on a big "bet the company" type case because the client said he didn't want to pay for someone to write a law review article, and then tell you what a great law review article it was. He just wanted someone to get practical results.

So, with that understanding, MTO attracts not just smart people, but smart people who really enjoy being smart and letting others know how smart they are -- not in an arrogant fashion, but in a very prideful manner.

If you go to MTO, just be aware that you will always feel like you have to prove to the person next to you how smart you are, what a great school you went to, how great your judge was, etc.

If you enjoy that uber-academic elitist atmosphere, then you'll love practicing law there. If you don't, you might want to think twice.

I agree that Munger is academic, which may not appeal to some people.

My main point was this: the idea that Munger associates are generally unhappy is off base. I'm sure some are unhappy, but the majority I know are happy and claim they couldn't imagine working elsewhere. In associate satisfaction surveys--taken with an obvious grain of salt--Munger is always near the top, as is Gibson.

I don't think I ever said MTO associates were unhappy, or at least anymore unhappy than your average class of biglaw associates.

My point only was that unless you are the MTO-type, as described above, you are not going to be happy at MTO, no matter how smart you are.

I work at Gibson, but have nothing to do with hiring. Thought I'd try to clarify some points.

In terms of dress code, it's more on the business side of business casual than some other biglaw offices I've seen. People who wear jackets without ties, or ties without jackets, are not out of place. But most men wear a dressy button-up and dress pants, no jacket or tie. Women generally dress relatively conservatively, with some exceptions, but they don't generally wear jackets.

The firm puts an enormous emphasis on personality and fit. I'd say in general, the poster who described Gibson's percentage preferences at each school is actually pretty on. There are, of course, exceptions, and these exceptions seem to be made for people with exceptional experience or abilities demonstrated in other ways. And again, personality and fit go a long way. If I had to elaborate, I might not say "bubbly" exactly, but it seems like they're looking for someone who is energetic, very extroverted, very confident, and always professional. We have less of a happy hour culture than say, Latham, but everyone gets along and likes each other. Actually, the atmosphere is always very professional in general, and I'm not necessarily saying that as a positive. Everyone is genuinely kind and pleasant at all times, but that said, if your looking for a place that's a little more boisterous/cocky/casual, this isn't it (except real estate, and the latest SA's seem to be shifting that way). Again, these are generalities.

I'd personally say it's a happier place than Quinn Emmanuel, based on anecdotal evidence. I can't say we're happier than MTO, but I think the other posters have captured MTO's culture accurately. MTO attorneys seem to be much more intellectual/academic than we are, and if that's your personality then you'd be more happy there than you would be at Gibson.

Sorry to bump this thread after being dormant for so long, but I had a couple questions:

1) My first 4 weeks of my 2L summer will be taken up by a firm I am doing this summer as a 1L (in a different state) but I have solid SoCal ties (lived there first 18 years, entire family lives there), I have heard they dont like splitting, is it possible to do first 4 weeks somewhere else then go to GDC (either LA or OC).

2) How much different is the OC office in terms of quality work? What about partnership prospects?

3) How much more selective is GDC than OMM, are they on a similar level work wise? I have heard GDC is a notch above, but have only heard great things about OMM from people who have worked there.

Thanks for any insight.