Top Law Schools

For LA litigation.

Munger

How about more info. What are you looking for in a firm? what kind of personality do you have?

With that, I have heard Munger is one of the best firms to work for and does great work. I have met a couple former attorneys from there and they loved it. According to them, they are the best lit shop in CA. But I think they are obviously biased..

AssumptionRequired wrote:How about more info. What are you looking for in a firm? what kind of personality do you have?

With that, I have heard Munger is one of the best firms to work for and does great work. I have met a couple former attorneys from there and they loved it. According to them, they are the best lit shop in CA. But I think they are obviously biased..

This is true. But it takes a certain personality to thrive and enjoy the atmo at MTO. It's not just about being smart either.

anon168 wrote:

AssumptionRequired wrote:How about more info. What are you looking for in a firm? what kind of personality do you have?

With that, I have heard Munger is one of the best firms to work for and does great work. I have met a couple former attorneys from there and they loved it. According to them, they are the best lit shop in CA. But I think they are obviously biased..

This is true. But it takes a certain personality to thrive and enjoy the atmo at MTO. It's not just about being smart either.

OP here, Can you explain?

I'm just looking for the best litigation shop.

Anonymous User wrote:

anon168 wrote:

AssumptionRequired wrote:How about more info. What are you looking for in a firm? what kind of personality do you have?

With that, I have heard Munger is one of the best firms to work for and does great work. I have met a couple former attorneys from there and they loved it. According to them, they are the best lit shop in CA. But I think they are obviously biased..

This is true. But it takes a certain personality to thrive and enjoy the atmo at MTO. It's not just about being smart either.

OP here, Can you explain?

I'm just looking for the best litigation shop.

Sure, this is what I wrote previously on a PM to another poster:

There's this bit of holier-than-thou attitude at MTO. Because they target really high academic achievers from some of the very top law schools in the country, and concentrate on former clerks and specifically SCOTUS clerks (at one point I think they had the highest concentration of SCOTUS clerks per attorney outside of any firm in DC), they sometimes care too much about how smart they are.

In many ways, one gets the feeling that MTO would be very happy losing a motion as long as the motion that they wrote was superbly briefed and researched and of Harvard Law Review quality. That's all well and good -- if you're in academia. But as a practitioner, your first and ultimate goal is to win. Not prove how smart you are.

It's almost like they replaced the pressure to bill with the pressure to be smart.

And unless you've clerked at some level, preferably COA, you're going to feel like the red-headed step child as an associate.

All of that said, MTO is a fine fine fine firm, and a wonderful place to work.


Good luck. Let me know if you have other questions.

I was making the same choice last summer, and ended up choosing GDC.

At the end of the day, any superiority between the firms is only at the margin. Both have great, high-profile work. And both are extremely prestigious. Munger is probably a bit more "elite," but at some point it really isn't a huge distinction.

I went with GDC for a few reasons. First, they seem generally more social and are a younger crowd. Second, they have a more fun summer program from what I'd heard. And third, I am hoping to clerk, so I figured I'll have another chance at interviews if I want it.

I think this really comes down to what you want and where you think you'd fit. After asking this same question last year, I realize it's sort of silly. Both are great. MTO may be slightly more prestigious, but that won't make you have a better time if it isn't the right fit.

Anonymous User wrote:I was making the same choice last summer, and ended up choosing GDC.

At the end of the day, any superiority between the firms is only at the margin. Both have great, high-profile work. And both are extremely prestigious. Munger is probably a bit more "elite," but at some point it really isn't a huge distinction.

I went with GDC for a few reasons. First, they seem generally more social and are a younger crowd. Second, they have a more fun summer program from what I'd heard. And third, I am hoping to clerk, so I figured I'll have another chance at interviews if I want it.

I think this really comes down to what you want and where you think you'd fit. After asking this same question last year, I realize it's sort of silly. Both are great. MTO may be slightly more prestigious, but that won't make you have a better time if it isn't the right fit.

Anyone else picking between the two?

Bump. Looking for help in making this decision. Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:Bump. Looking for help in making this decision. Thanks!

What else do you want to know?

Making this choice as well. GDC seems like more fun, and I really liked the lawyers I met there. They also do some fairly niche work that I'm interested in. But I'm worried that the higher leverage will make it harder to gain substantive experience, especially for the first few years. Since very few people stay at a law firm long enough to make partner, it seems smart to me to focus on what skills I would be carrying forward. I feel like MTO has the edge on access to substantive work and (FWIW) partnership prospects. Also seems like the resume line might carry a bit further since GCD hires many more associates. However, I generally find people who take themselves too seriously to be insufferable, and I'm worried that MTO's "intellectual" reputation will foster that attitude.

Anonymous User wrote:Making this choice as well. GDC seems like more fun, and I really liked the lawyers I met there. They also do some fairly niche work that I'm interested in. But I'm worried that the higher leverage will make it harder to gain substantive experience, especially for the first few years. Since very few people stay at a law firm long enough to make partner, it seems smart to me to focus on what skills I would be carrying forward. I feel like MTO has the edge on access to substantive work and (FWIW) partnership prospects. Also seems like the resume line might carry a bit further since GCD hires many more associates. However, I generally find people who take themselves too seriously to be insufferable, and I'm worried that MTO's "intellectual" reputation will foster that attitude.

I thought GDC also had relatively low leverage, something like 2.5:1...?

I'll never understand why TLS thinks that MTO is on a higher level than GDC. In the Vault rankings for Southern California, Gibson Dunn is the consistent #1 while MTO is #4. Overall Vault prestige, GDC is #12 while MTO is #38 (which says a lot about the firm's limited geographical reputation). But, of course, Vault is by itself a metric of limited usefulness. So turn to the American Lawyer A-List, Gibson Dunn is #4 and MTO is #3, a negligible difference and one based solely on MTO's higher "diversity" score despite MTO's lower associate satisfaction scores, etc.

I think that there are a lot of factors people making this decision should consider. In many respects, these firms are very different. Is there an even slight possibility you might want to do corporate work? If so, GDC is the better choice of the two. Are you a more academic person who feels comfortable in more intellectual, as opposed to socially extroverted, environments? Then choose MTO. Do you think you might want to live or practice somewhere other than Southern California? Then GDC, with its larger national and much larger international brand, might be the place to go. Etc.

This isn't an easy question for anyone. Both of these are great firms. But the idea that MTO will look better on your resume seems pretty baseless, especially outside of California.

In my view, the biggest difference between the two is simple: Munger's associate-partner ratio is 1:1. The only big firms that match this are W&C and WLRK. Munger caters to those who want to write briefs or take depositions as first years. GDC is a great firm, but the firm's structure is similar to, say, Latham's, O'Melvaney's, and so on. Munger is different. Partnership prospects are better. Hours are bearable—around 2,000. And the people are great. Sure there are introverted intellectuals, but there are a lot of fun people, too. Finally, Munger has an excellent corporate group—they do all the work for Berkshire Hathaway, so top of the line stuff.

Look at the bios of a few GDC and Munger associates. Nearly everyone who works Munger could've worked at GDC—but the opposite isn't true. Again, I think GDC is a great big firm. But Munger is in a different ball park—as is W&C in DC—because the firm structure is so different.

OP here. Leaning Munger, but i'm really torn. GDC seems to do lots of great litigation, has a solid appellate practice, a national reach, and a corporate department if it turns out that I don't like litigation.