Kirkland (LA) v. Latham (LA) v. Gibson (LA) for corporate? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I guess the subject line says it all. If there's anyone who is familiar with the Southern California legal market who could tell me anything about these offices (firm culture, reputation, etc.) I'd really appreciate it.

[Anonymous User]

For once I actually had some relevant advice!

-1L, I had a good friend who lucked into a corporate SA with Kirkland and Ellis LA. He was working with a VERY busy team, and got some great experience working on a deal. But to be frank, he despised it there. He went home between 11pm and 1am on most nights and was back again around 7 or 8. He didn't speak much about the general culture or the people outside his team. I don't mean to trash Kirkland because I'm not sure if this experience is typical, but it really soured him on biglaw and the following summer he opted for a very different kind of firm (this time in silicon valley) where he had a much better experience.

-I had several friends who worked at Gibson LA (mix of lit and corporate so i'll give a general overview). They all had a steady flow of work (heavy at times). Late nights weren't uncommon but typical hours seemed like 9am to 7 or 8 pm. Culture wise, it seems like Gibson LA is about as good as it gets in big law. The summers were an outgoing, friendly group (as far as law students go) and they seemed to bond well with one another. The firm's reputation is great in LA, but I doubt it's considered quite as strong nationally. One friend warned me that Gibson LA's size can be a detriment, in that it can be difficult to stand out or get really interesting work. Also, the office is just a teensy bit on the fratty side, especially compared to somewhere like Skadden LA which seems a bit more brainy.

-TBQH I never heard much about Latham LA's summer program. No one I was close with went there. It's considered a great firm though.

I think Gibson is the best option here. I went to law school in Cali, and though I've gone a very different route career wise I was always struck by the fact that people from Gibson LA seemed to be among the saner, happier biglaw attorneys I've ever met. But really none of these are bad options. Good luck!

[Anonymous User]

Gibson, but I didn't really enjoy my callbacks at Kirkland LA or Latham LA. I never interviewed with Gibson, but from what I've heard, I think it would be a better choice.

[Anonymous User]

I'll echo the general sentiment that Gibson is probably the best option. I ended up at a nerdy litigation-focused LA shop that was better for my goals and my socially awkward demeanor, but I seriously considered GDC and would likely have gone with them if I wanted to do corporate work. They have a reputation for fiscally conservative management and it's probably the "safest" bet in a restructuring legal market. It also has a reputation for being sociable and "young" without Latham's fratty "work hard play hard" reputation (though a junior associate will, of course, be working very hard). My friends who worked at GDC are all going back without regrets. I can't say the same for my friends at Latham. GDC also seems to have a slight (though only slight) advantage in the LA prestige department - people at my firm most often lumped together Irell/MTO/GDC at the top of the LA pyramid - but I doubt the distinction has much in the way of real world consequences and the culture and fiscal management aspects of the choice should overwhelm any perceived difference in prestige. Don't know much about Kirkland, except that they're not a homegrown shop (which has ups and downs) and that they pay fierce bonuses (which only has ups).