Top Law Schools

Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state. No family in DC. Have cb and I need a good answer to this question. Thanks

Seat of the most powerful ruling authority the planet has ever seen, a living breathing experiment in the triumph of reason and law and democracy over our baser instinct. Home of the 3 highest branches in the federal system, who derive their power from the constitution you will soon take an oath to support and defend.

On the other hand, it is built on a swamp. Life is compromise.

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state.

Start by not saying that you want to do litigation. Actual commercial litigation is not a very big practice area in most DC firms. Say you like regulatory issues and the complexities of working with the government. Have a few examples of practice areas that you find interesting that the firm actually has people working in.

bdubs wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state.

Start by not saying that you want to do litigation. Actual commercial litigation is not a very big practice area in most DC firms. Say you like regulatory issues and the complexities of working with the government. Have a few examples of practice areas that you find interesting that the firm actually has people working in.

All the people I'm meeting are litigation. This is big firm big office. What does regulatory include: administrative law?

Anonymous User wrote:

bdubs wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state.

Start by not saying that you want to do litigation. Actual commercial litigation is not a very big practice area in most DC firms. Say you like regulatory issues and the complexities of working with the government. Have a few examples of practice areas that you find interesting that the firm actually has people working in.

All the people I'm meeting are litigation. This is big firm big office. What does regulatory include: administrative law?

I am interviewing someone at a lit heavy big firm big office tomorrow. Alas, the interviewee is not at school in a flyover. Maybe I'll start with "what does regulatory include".

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

bdubs wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state.

Start by not saying that you want to do litigation. Actual commercial litigation is not a very big practice area in most DC firms. Say you like regulatory issues and the complexities of working with the government. Have a few examples of practice areas that you find interesting that the firm actually has people working in.

All the people I'm meeting are litigation. This is big firm big office. What does regulatory include: administrative law?

I am interviewing someone at a lit heavy big firm big office tomorrow. Alas, the interviewee is not at school in a flyover. Maybe I'll start with "what does regulatory include".

Maybe you should start with "I don't understand what DC firms do." Oh wait, you already said that. Carry on.

Anonymous User wrote:All the people I'm meeting are litigation. This is big firm big office. What does regulatory include: administrative law?

You're kidding me right? How on earth do you not know this

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state. No family in DC. Have cb and I need a good answer to this question. Thanks

1) Mention your fiance who lives in DC (if you are a man)

2) You want X regulatory work, where X is something the firm does well. You can say you want that or shitigation and are not sure yet.

3) You hate living in a real city.

It's a myth that DC has no litigation, but wanting regulatory work is a damn good reason to want DC.

It was a bit of an overstatement to say litigation doesn't exist in DC, it does. It just isn't a good reason to want to go to the city.

Anonymous User wrote:All the people I'm meeting are litigation. This is big firm big office. What does regulatory include: administrative law?

Also some firms call certain areas litigation that are not, IMO. Corporate white collar cases, for instance, are rarely litigated but many firms call it "litigation." IMO anything where the government is on the other side and you are 90% likely not to ever file anything other than a guilty plea/consent decree in court is not litigation.

bdubs wrote:It was a bit of an overstatement to say litigation doesn't exist in DC, it does. It just isn't a good reason to want to go to the city.

Anonymous User wrote:All the people I'm meeting are litigation. This is big firm big office. What does regulatory include: administrative law?

Also some firms call certain areas litigation that are not, IMO. Corporate white collar cases, for instance, are rarely litigated but many firms call it "litigation." IMO anything where the government is on the other side and you are 90% likely not to ever file anything other than a guilty plea/consent decree in court is not litigation.

Yea true. Some lump things like anti trust, FCPA, trade compliance stuff, securities regulation, patent etc. etc. into a litigation group.

OP find out what the people you are meeting with actually do. If it's heavily government related work, you should be able to spit out an answer.

Well, why do you want to be in DC?

dr123 wrote:Well, why do you want to be in DC?

Perhaps it has something to do with the OP's driving...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr- ... _blog.html

stoogesreal wrote:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKI ... plPyJdXKIY

This is all anyone really needs to know.

bdubs wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state.

Start by not saying that you want to do litigation. Actual commercial litigation is not a very big practice area in most DC firms. Say you like regulatory issues and the complexities of working with the government. Have a few examples of practice areas that you find interesting that the firm actually has people working in.

bdubs wrote:It was a bit of an overstatement to say litigation doesn't exist in DC, it does. It just isn't a good reason to want to go to the city.

You're still way overstating this. Gibson, Sidley, Kirkland, A&P, Cov, Williams and Connolly, Skadden, etc. all have very large litigation departments that do very real commercial litigation.

People always seem to forget D.C. is the second biggest legal market in the country, and by far the most dense. I think it's like 1/12 people who work in the city are attorneys. Yes, regulatory practices exist here more than anywhere else, but the sheer size of the market means that there are still almost certainly more commercial litigators in DC than anywhere but NYC.

KidStuddi wrote:

bdubs wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state.

Start by not saying that you want to do litigation. Actual commercial litigation is not a very big practice area in most DC firms. Say you like regulatory issues and the complexities of working with the government. Have a few examples of practice areas that you find interesting that the firm actually has people working in.

bdubs wrote:It was a bit of an overstatement to say litigation doesn't exist in DC, it does. It just isn't a good reason to want to go to the city.

You're still way overstating this. Gibson, Sidley, Kirkland, A&P, Cov, Williams and Connolly, Skadden, etc. all have very large litigation departments that do very real commercial litigation.

People always seem to forget D.C. is the second biggest legal market in the country, and by far the most dense. I think it's like 1/12 people who work in the city are attorneys. Yes, regulatory practices exist here more than anywhere else, but the sheer size of the market means that there are still almost certainly more commercial litigators in DC than anywhere but NYC.

OP here. I'm interviewing at one of these firms listed (DC office) so I don't think it's crazy to say I want litigation. This firm has a ton if people doing actual litigation. I'm going to figure out some way to spin this to make it DC-centered. And no, I'm not going to say I want a major legal market that's not a real city or built on a swamp.

I find it kind of amusing that DC always asks you to demonstrate you want to be there, where NY kind of just assumes - why would you want to be anywhere else? I think it helps to approach questions like this with that kind of attitude.

Generally, I feel you can structure your answer in three parts:

1) The ties: if you can establish some sort of ties to the area, whether it be a significantly significant other or family, this is the best thing to start with.

2) The work: what does practicing in DC offer you that no other cities does? I think wanting to go to DC for litigation is fine - plenty of DC firms have sizable lit groups (I summered at one where the largest amount of summer associates were in lit). However, I think saying that you want litigation may not be enough because it doesn't necessarily answer the "Why DC" when a lot of other cities can offer you the same. So in that vein, talking about regulatory work may be more prudent. I think some of the aforementioned answers suffice as well. Just look at the sheer volume of law-related stuff IN the city - the courts, the agencies, even Congress. There's something to be said about practicing law in the place where laws are made.

3) The personal: this ties into (2), but it helps if you can show that you LOVE this place. Even something along the lines of "I have extended family in the area so I grew up visiting all the time" will demonstrate familiarity.

Can I just say that lying appears to me to be a really poor strategy. While I can understand that you want a job, if you don't actually have a genuine compelling reason to be in DC, you will most likely hate DC.

People who know nothing of DC, and then move here for work because "it's DC" are quite possibly some of the most insufferable and miserable people I've ever met. So to me, the fact that you don't have a compelling answer is reason enough that you should be looking elsewhere.

I will also just say: don't mention Congress, the DOJ, or other random shit. To me, that makes you come off as a legitimate flight risk. Mention regulatory work, not the DOJ. Mention advisory work, not "I love agencies."

Lastly, and this point kind of follows the previous post in this thread, I think you should turn "why DC" into "why this firm in DC." Don't just show why DC has a lot to offer. Try hard to integrate a reason why that particular firm has a lot to offer in that location. I say this because, while interviewing in DC, people have just assumed I want to be in DC because it's home. Recognizing that, the follow-up question is always "So why this firm?"

KidStuddi wrote: You're still way overstating this. Gibson, Sidley, Kirkland, A&P, Cov, Williams and Connolly, Skadden, etc. all have very large litigation departments that do very real commercial litigation.

People always seem to forget D.C. is the second biggest legal market in the country, and by far the most dense. I think it's like 1/12 people who work in the city are attorneys. Yes, regulatory practices exist here more than anywhere else, but the sheer size of the market means that there are still almost certainly more commercial litigators in DC than anywhere but NYC.

Yes, you can do basically any kind of law in DC because it is the 2nd largest legal market in the country. That doesn't make "I want to do litigation" a proper answer for "Why DC?" which is essentially why I brought this up and others have mentioned.

I think the undertone when someone says they want DC for litigation is that NYC is better for transactional work, so DC must be better for litigation.
Also, anecdotally, I got a funny look and a "i guess we still do some commercial litigation" from Sidley DC when I said I wanted to do comm. litigation in their office but it may have been my interviewers.

bdubs wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Compelling answers for why Washington DC? I want litigation and attend law school in a flyover state.

Start by not saying that you want to do litigation. Actual commercial litigation is not a very big practice area in most DC firms. Say you like regulatory issues and the complexities of working with the government. Have a few examples of practice areas that you find interesting that the firm actually has people working in.

This is flat-out wrong. I work for a DC firm that does basically no regulatory work and almost all litigation. I auto-ding candidates who say they want to do regulatory in either screeners or callbacks, because it indicates they did no actual research into our firm and relied upon blanket "Why DC" advice from anonymous internet posters.

Depends on the firm.

thesealocust wrote:Seat of the most powerful ruling authority the planet has ever seen, a living breathing experiment in the triumph of reason and law and democracy over our baser instinct. Home of the 3 highest branches in the federal system, who derive their power from the constitution you will soon take an oath to support and defend.

On the other hand, it is built on a swamp. Life is compromise.

180

I'm the OP thanks for your help. I had two interviews in D.C. one firm every single interviewer was "Why DC?" and although I have answers to that question, they aren't great. One interviewer asked me directly: So have you lived in D.C. before? The answer is no. The other firm asked why DC but the interviews went fantastic. So my takeaway is that some firms are much more concerned with this than others. I have my fingers crossed that the one firm will extend an offer. I don't think I have a shot with the other.

also: sea locust's response is awesome.

The zoo is free