Interested in both transaction and litigation (like 50/50)
"Clicked" with Latham and OMM
Downtown LA is closer for me than CC
Irell v. Latham v. OMM Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
If 50/50 with transactional then not Irell.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432635
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
What about GDC?
-
2016LA
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:50 pm
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
Did the dinner with GDC but have yet to hear anything back re: CB
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432635
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
ITC, Latham.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
jbagelboy
- Posts: 10361
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
Irell for lit, Latham for undecided
-
WheninLaw
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
Why is Irell on the radar if thinking transactional? I'd do Latham.2016LA wrote:Interested in both transaction and litigation (like 50/50)
"Clicked" with Latham and OMM
Downtown LA is closer for me than CC
Last edited by WheninLaw on Wed May 18, 2016 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
2016LA
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:50 pm
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
I'm not thinking
I'm not leaning transactional, I'm 50/50. How are you really supposed to know after one year of law school? Irell has a small transactional group (as I'm sure you know) and you CAN get work if you push for it, but that work might not always be there. I guess I'm asking if the chance of me not liking litigation or liking transactional and not getting enough work is worth the extra jump in prestige that Irell affords?
WheninLaw wrote:Why is Irell on the radar if thinking transactional? I'd do Latham.2016LA wrote:Interested in both transaction and litigation (like 50/50)
"Clicked" with Latham and OMM
Downtown LA is closer for me than CC
FYI: Current Irell summer (and fucking loved it)
I'm not leaning transactional, I'm 50/50. How are you really supposed to know after one year of law school? Irell has a small transactional group (as I'm sure you know) and you CAN get work if you push for it, but that work might not always be there. I guess I'm asking if the chance of me not liking litigation or liking transactional and not getting enough work is worth the extra jump in prestige that Irell affords?
-
JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
Voted Irell til seeing your preferences. But in that case, Latham. I have a friend who worked there this summer if you're interested in talking to him.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432635
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
Just curious, why no votes for OMM? It also seems super well-regarded and hard to get a job there.
And aswe're just talking about California offices here, isn't it about on par with the others?
And aswe're just talking about California offices here, isn't it about on par with the others?
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432635
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
Because if you decide to go transactional Latham > OMMAnonymous User wrote:Just curious, why no votes for OMM? It also seems super well-regarded and hard to get a job there.
And aswe're just talking about California offices here, isn't it about on par with the others?
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432635
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
in California, OMM is not as regarded as Latham and Irell. Plus, there are some rumblings about financial trouble (who knows how true that is).Anonymous User wrote:Just curious, why no votes for OMM? It also seems super well-regarded and hard to get a job there.
And aswe're just talking about California offices here, isn't it about on par with the others?
Irell does have a small amount of transactional work, and you could push for it. Still is a gamble.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432635
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Irell v. Latham v. OMM
Difference between:Anonymous User wrote:in California, OMM is not as regarded as Latham and Irell. Plus, there are some rumblings about financial trouble (who knows how true that is).Anonymous User wrote:Just curious, why no votes for OMM? It also seems super well-regarded and hard to get a job there.
And aswe're just talking about California offices here, isn't it about on par with the others?
Irell does have a small amount of transactional work, and you could push for it. Still is a gamble.
Latham and Irell transactional: Latham is better (prestige, deal size/clients, exit ops) by probably 40-50%
Latham and Irell litigation: Irell probably better (prestige, clients, cool cases) by 25%.
Sounds like Latham is the place for you if considering corporate, especially if the fit is better.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
