Susman TX vs Covington DC vs Gibson LA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Geography not important. Want to litigate.

[Anonymous User]

susman is gonna be hell on earth

covington probably has pretty sweet exit options in DC if you want gov or something

Gibson is great, but I think the only reason to go there is if u wanted to be in LA


I mean these are all very different firms. All are amazing really. You really don't have a preference b/w DC, TX and CA? Also Susman has a very...unique...vibe. I find it hard to believe you didn't have some sort of reaction to this when u interviewed there

Are you coming from COA clerkship or something?

[Anonymous User]

Geography not important. Want to litigate.

Truly no geographic preference? If you want to gun hard at litigation that's great and all, but even at Susman you will have some semblance of a life. And DC/TX/LA are all such different places to live, how can you not prefer one over another?

I can respond with more detail about the differences between them if you say what your ultimate goal is, what you're really looking for, but briefly -- if interested in money and you truly have a superhuman capacity for work, maybe Susman; if interested in government/federal prosecutor/regulatory type stuff (either doing that work eventually or staying at the firm for work related to those), Cov is your place; and Gibson, I guess, if you're interested in LA? At all 3 you can find good litigation opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thank you for your replies.

I am interested in litigation and plan to return to my home state eventually (3-10 years). Very slight preference for DC bc I am interested in politics and policy, but that preference would easily be trumped if I were to get better litigation experience elsewhere. Cov, I imagine, would provide more useful connections and networking. The other two might provide more opportunities to make more money, esp. if I stayed on as a partner for a few years, thus potentially freeing up career choices down the road.