Top Law Schools

Thank you all

MTO. GDC might have the stronger national appellate practice, but that is going to be in the D.C. office and you need to be qualified to focus on appellate work. MTO has the stronger appellate practice in CA.

Where do you want to be?

Fit is going to be huge here. They are all downtown so location doesn't play in, but as far as personality types go I'd imagine you've picked up on the vast differences between the three.

What does your gut say about the firm personalities?

Anonymous User wrote:Setting big new york firms aside for now, I'm struggling to decide between Gibson LA, Skadden LA and Munger. I would be joining litigation at any of the three (I have yet to hear back post-cb from Irell). Strangely, I really liked the people at all three, even though Gibson/Skadden and MTO have very different vibes. I feel like I could see myself working at any of them and all their lit teams do incredible work with a generalist bent , which is what I'm looking for.

It seems like Gibson and Munger had the most overqualified/elite attorneys. Gibson definitely has the stronger appellate practice; both firms operate similarly with regard to finding assignments as a junior. (FWIW, I hated Cravath's rotation system when I visited so I see these models as positive alternatives). Obviously better partnership prospects at Munger but also less geographic flexibility and arguably less transnational work. Several people at each had described having to choose between the two so I don't think this choice is meant to be easy. Skadden has a great litigation team & top rated practice, and obviously they are the most global of the three, but I was a little concerned about how many of their resources were consumed on one huge case since it is a smaller office.

Any thoughts appreciated (other than the par for the course derivative online petulancy so many of these threads descend into). Thanks!

Skadden is a great firm, but it simply isn't on the same level in LA as MTO and Gibson. I'd choose between those two -- probably Munger, though I'd be a bit wary of their propensity to no offer. Just something to keep in mind.

SLS_AMG wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Setting big new york firms aside for now, I'm struggling to decide between Gibson LA, Skadden LA and Munger. I would be joining litigation at any of the three (I have yet to hear back post-cb from Irell). Strangely, I really liked the people at all three, even though Gibson/Skadden and MTO have very different vibes. I feel like I could see myself working at any of them and all their lit teams do incredible work with a generalist bent , which is what I'm looking for.

It seems like Gibson and Munger had the most overqualified/elite attorneys. Gibson definitely has the stronger appellate practice; both firms operate similarly with regard to finding assignments as a junior. (FWIW, I hated Cravath's rotation system when I visited so I see these models as positive alternatives). Obviously better partnership prospects at Munger but also less geographic flexibility and arguably less transnational work. Several people at each had described having to choose between the two so I don't think this choice is meant to be easy. Skadden has a great litigation team & top rated practice, and obviously they are the most global of the three, but I was a little concerned about how many of their resources were consumed on one huge case since it is a smaller office.

Any thoughts appreciated (other than the par for the course derivative online petulancy so many of these threads descend into). Thanks!

Skadden is a great firm, but it simply isn't on the same level in LA as MTO and Gibson. I'd choose between those two -- probably Munger, though I'd be a bit wary of their propensity to no offer. Just something to keep in mind.

This is a overblown. There were only 2 no-offers at MTO in summer 2013 (I don't believe summer 2014 offers have been made yet) and those were both due to non-work product issues and would've probably resulted in no-offers at any firm.

SLS_AMG wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Setting big new york firms aside for now, I'm struggling to decide between Gibson LA, Skadden LA and Munger. I would be joining litigation at any of the three (I have yet to hear back post-cb from Irell). Strangely, I really liked the people at all three, even though Gibson/Skadden and MTO have very different vibes. I feel like I could see myself working at any of them and all their lit teams do incredible work with a generalist bent , which is what I'm looking for.

It seems like Gibson and Munger had the most overqualified/elite attorneys. Gibson definitely has the stronger appellate practice; both firms operate similarly with regard to finding assignments as a junior. (FWIW, I hated Cravath's rotation system when I visited so I see these models as positive alternatives). Obviously better partnership prospects at Munger but also less geographic flexibility and arguably less transnational work. Several people at each had described having to choose between the two so I don't think this choice is meant to be easy. Skadden has a great litigation team & top rated practice, and obviously they are the most global of the three, but I was a little concerned about how many of their resources were consumed on one huge case since it is a smaller office.

Any thoughts appreciated (other than the par for the course derivative online petulancy so many of these threads descend into). Thanks!

Skadden is a great firm, but it simply isn't on the same level in LA as MTO and Gibson. I'd choose between those two -- probably Munger, though I'd be a bit wary of their propensity to no offer. Just something to keep in mind.

Would you say the same in regards to corporate work?

If you wanna do lit in CA there really is no equal to MTO. Irell maybe but the culture there is a bit more stuffy/nerdy and you will get worked. My vote is for MTO, given that you seem to like all three equally in terms of fit

Anonymous User wrote:

SLS_AMG wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Setting big new york firms aside for now, I'm struggling to decide between Gibson LA, Skadden LA and Munger. I would be joining litigation at any of the three (I have yet to hear back post-cb from Irell). Strangely, I really liked the people at all three, even though Gibson/Skadden and MTO have very different vibes. I feel like I could see myself working at any of them and all their lit teams do incredible work with a generalist bent , which is what I'm looking for.

It seems like Gibson and Munger had the most overqualified/elite attorneys. Gibson definitely has the stronger appellate practice; both firms operate similarly with regard to finding assignments as a junior. (FWIW, I hated Cravath's rotation system when I visited so I see these models as positive alternatives). Obviously better partnership prospects at Munger but also less geographic flexibility and arguably less transnational work. Several people at each had described having to choose between the two so I don't think this choice is meant to be easy. Skadden has a great litigation team & top rated practice, and obviously they are the most global of the three, but I was a little concerned about how many of their resources were consumed on one huge case since it is a smaller office.

Any thoughts appreciated (other than the par for the course derivative online petulancy so many of these threads descend into). Thanks!

Skadden is a great firm, but it simply isn't on the same level in LA as MTO and Gibson. I'd choose between those two -- probably Munger, though I'd be a bit wary of their propensity to no offer. Just something to keep in mind.

This is a overblown. There were only 2 no-offers at MTO in summer 2013 (I don't believe summer 2014 offers have been made yet) and those were both due to non-work product issues and would've probably resulted in no-offers at any firm.

MTO no offers every year. For 2013, 3 no offers out of 24 people. When more than 10% of people get no-offered, don't trust anyone that says it's "overblown."

After receiving an offer, I asked Munger why they routinely no-offer people when other firms in the area don't. They said directly, among other reasons, "writing issues." Fuck that.

Anonymous User wrote:If you wanna do lit in CA there really is no equal to MTO. Irell maybe but the culture there is a bit more stuffy/nerdy and you will get worked. My vote is for MTO, given that you seem to like all three equally in terms of fit

You're getting worked at all of these firms. MTO said in their 2013 NALP form that the average associate hours were 1900. Irell average billables by their 2013 form were 1840. I'm sure the hours are similar in the LA offices for the other two firms as well.

Don't choose the firm based on "prestige." Go to the firm where you like the people the best (with the exception that if you want to be safe and not at a legit risk for a no-offer, don't go to Munger).

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:If you wanna do lit in CA there really is no equal to MTO. Irell maybe but the culture there is a bit more stuffy/nerdy and you will get worked. My vote is for MTO, given that you seem to like all three equally in terms of fit

You're getting worked at all of these firms. MTO said in their 2013 NALP form that the average associate hours were 1900. Irell average billables by their 2013 form were 1840. I'm sure the hours are similar in the LA offices for the other two firms as well.

Don't choose the firm based on "prestige." Go to the firm where you like the people the best (with the exception that if you want to be safe and not at a legit risk for a no-offer, don't go to Munger).

Given that OP liked the people at all three equally, prestige should weigh into the equation in order to help differentiate. prestige shouldn't be the sole criterion, but it should definitely factor in.

Anonymous User wrote:If you wanna do lit in CA there really is no equal to MTO. Irell maybe but the culture there is a bit more stuffy/nerdy and you will get worked. My vote is for MTO, given that you seem to like all three equally in terms of fit

LOL at Irell being more stuffy/nerdy than Munger. Someone clearly doesn't have a clue.

OP - Go with fit. I had a similar choice as you (GDC/Irell/MTO) and went to the place where I felt more comfortable. I didn't pick MTO because of the risk of no-offer (despite what the other poster said, MTO regularly no-offer's 1-3 of the summer class. I asked about this point blank in my CB and was also told "writing issues."), but it's a great firm. I think your threshold question is what size of firm you want to be at. After that, location and the people you met.

im a corporate lawyer and id kill to be at a place like munger. i understand hte fears over no offers, but for someone with the credentials to get an MTO offer i don't think it would be super difficult to recover (at the least by calling up firms that gave u a summer offer initially). the firm is just so well sized, well managed and well run for an associate. GDC is JABLF (just another big law firm).

OP here - thank you everyone for the commentary. It provides good perspective to supplement my CB experience. I'm thinking I might not wind up with an Irell offer (should know sometime this week) so I don't really want to think about that quite yet. Sounds like wheninlaw went with Irell though (congrats!).

I appreciate the word for the wise about no-offers, honestly I wasn't aware of that specifically although I tend to assume with CA firms that it could happen. What I sense is that if you don't wind up with at least a dist. ct. clerkship, your offer will be rather chilly, if extended at all.

What I'm hearing is that Skadden LA, despite their powerhouse performance on Toyota and lit department of the yr ect. ect. probably shouldn't remain in consideration. Zweit, I hear what you are saying about Gibson as "just another big law firm," and if this was the new york office I would agree, but in southern california it manages to attract top talent (if not munger level, not trailing by that far) in a way that I haven't seen at some of the other LA-based firms. Also the number of really heavy hitters in LA on that level is less than new york, where at least from my perspective you have some fungibility in level of work b/t CSM/S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/ect.

To the anon who said Gibson's appellate work would be only concentrated in DC - besides the general emphasis of DC offices and the fact that a few of the key appellate partners are out there, what makes you say that? There's a big appellate group in LA actually and they seem to work rather fluidly with partners in other offices (all the teams span the US offices). Actually, one of my concerns with Gibson is far more trivial and please don't make fun of me, but I have to ask: would their reputation make a future career in democratic/left-leaning politics untenable? Of any firm I can think of they definitely have the most politically charged set of clients/victories, which doesn't trouble me in terms of my staffing on matters but might as far as government administrations/appointments are concerned - of course these are just pipe dreams anyway.

Re: the thoughts on 'prestige', while MTO has the most 'prestigious' reputation on TLS because they only pull from top schools & people here are obsessed with exclusivity, is it really fair to say there's a substantial gap with GDC?

thanks again all

Zweit, I hear what you are saying about Gibson as "just another big law firm," and if this was the new york office I would agree, but in southern california it manages to attract top talent (if not munger level, not trailing by that far) in a way that I haven't seen at some of the other LA-based firms.

This doesn't refute my point. GDC LA is substantially larger than MTO (as is GDC as a whole). This influences everything from culture to advancement opportunities.

zweitbester wrote:

Zweit, I hear what you are saying about Gibson as "just another big law firm," and if this was the new york office I would agree, but in southern california it manages to attract top talent (if not munger level, not trailing by that far) in a way that I haven't seen at some of the other LA-based firms.

This doesn't refute my point. GDC LA is substantially larger than MTO (as is GDC as a whole). This influences everything from culture to advancement opportunities.

Oh yea, as far as partnership potential and influence on firm policy, indisputably different.

+1 take munger and don't look back

Anonymous User wrote:OP here - thank you everyone for the commentary. It provides good perspective to supplement my CB experience. I'm thinking I might not wind up with an Irell offer (should know sometime this week) so I don't really want to think about that quite yet. Sounds like wheninlaw went with Irell though (congrats!).

I appreciate the word for the wise about no-offers, honestly I wasn't aware of that specifically although I tend to assume with CA firms that it could happen. What I sense is that if you don't wind up with at least a dist. ct. clerkship, your offer will be rather chilly, if extended at all.

What I'm hearing is that Skadden LA, despite their powerhouse performance on Toyota and lit department of the yr ect. ect. probably shouldn't remain in consideration. Zweit, I hear what you are saying about Gibson as "just another big law firm," and if this was the new york office I would agree, but in southern california it manages to attract top talent (if not munger level, not trailing by that far) in a way that I haven't seen at some of the other LA-based firms. Also the number of really heavy hitters in LA on that level is less than new york, where at least from my perspective you have some fungibility in level of work b/t CSM/S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/ect.

To the anon who said Gibson's appellate work would be only concentrated in DC - besides the general emphasis of DC offices and the fact that a few of the key appellate partners are out there, what makes you say that? There's a big appellate group in LA actually and they seem to work rather fluidly with partners in other offices (all the teams span the US offices). Actually, one of my concerns with Gibson is far more trivial and please don't make fun of me, but I have to ask: would their reputation make a future career in democratic/left-leaning politics untenable? Of any firm I can think of they definitely have the most politically charged set of clients/victories, which doesn't trouble me in terms of my staffing on matters but might as far as government administrations/appointments are concerned - of course these are just pipe dreams anyway.

Re: the thoughts on 'prestige', while MTO has the most 'prestigious' reputation on TLS because they only pull from top schools & people here are obsessed with exclusivity, is it really fair to say there's a substantial gap with GDC?

thanks again all

1L summered at one of Irell/MTO/GDC/Skadden. Obviously worked closely with my firm's lawyers, but also met tons of attorneys throughout SoCal during several of our events. From what I gathered, there is just no discernible prestige gap between Irell/MTO/GDC for lit. Skadden is an LA powerhouse for corp and is viewed as such prestige-wise in SoCal (but of course, not as prestigious for lit). You hit the nail on the head w/r/t TLS and its obsession w/ MTO. Certainly a top top firm, and in terms of selectivity slightly higher notch than the others I mentioned, but that marginally increased selectivity yields a virtually non-existent boost in prestige and reputation amongst top SoCal lawyers.

And in terms of focusing on which firm to choose, you really should just focus on where you think you will personally thrive the most. Prestige only factors into this analysis insofar as it affects the types of matters that clients come to your firm with. For litigation, Irell/MTO/GDC all get the same types of non-commodity work in CA b/c they are all equally respected by clients in the area (w/ the exception of Irell for patent lit, but you mentioned you're not looking at them so that's neither here nor there). You obviously have very strong credentials to get offers at those 3 firms, so just remember that those credentials stay on your resume wherever you end up. I never understood the extreme obsession some people have with always taking the more selective firm. If you were top of your class at HYS, future employers and opportunities won't be foreclosed just b/c you chose to go to a firm with a few less SCOTUS clerks. HTH

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here - thank you everyone for the commentary. It provides good perspective to supplement my CB experience. I'm thinking I might not wind up with an Irell offer (should know sometime this week) so I don't really want to think about that quite yet. Sounds like wheninlaw went with Irell though (congrats!).

I appreciate the word for the wise about no-offers, honestly I wasn't aware of that specifically although I tend to assume with CA firms that it could happen. What I sense is that if you don't wind up with at least a dist. ct. clerkship, your offer will be rather chilly, if extended at all.

What I'm hearing is that Skadden LA, despite their powerhouse performance on Toyota and lit department of the yr ect. ect. probably shouldn't remain in consideration. Zweit, I hear what you are saying about Gibson as "just another big law firm," and if this was the new york office I would agree, but in southern california it manages to attract top talent (if not munger level, not trailing by that far) in a way that I haven't seen at some of the other LA-based firms. Also the number of really heavy hitters in LA on that level is less than new york, where at least from my perspective you have some fungibility in level of work b/t CSM/S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/ect.

To the anon who said Gibson's appellate work would be only concentrated in DC - besides the general emphasis of DC offices and the fact that a few of the key appellate partners are out there, what makes you say that? There's a big appellate group in LA actually and they seem to work rather fluidly with partners in other offices (all the teams span the US offices). Actually, one of my concerns with Gibson is far more trivial and please don't make fun of me, but I have to ask: would their reputation make a future career in democratic/left-leaning politics untenable? Of any firm I can think of they definitely have the most politically charged set of clients/victories, which doesn't trouble me in terms of my staffing on matters but might as far as government administrations/appointments are concerned - of course these are just pipe dreams anyway.

Re: the thoughts on 'prestige', while MTO has the most 'prestigious' reputation on TLS because they only pull from top schools & people here are obsessed with exclusivity, is it really fair to say there's a substantial gap with GDC?

thanks again all

1L summered at one of Irell/MTO/GDC/Skadden. Obviously worked closely with my firm's lawyers, but also met tons of attorneys throughout SoCal during several of our events. From what I gathered, there is just no discernible prestige gap between Irell/MTO/GDC for lit. Skadden is an LA powerhouse for corp and is viewed as such prestige-wise in SoCal (but of course, not as prestigious for lit). You hit the nail on the head w/r/t TLS and its obsession w/ MTO. Certainly a top top firm, and in terms of selectivity slightly higher notch than the others I mentioned, but that marginally increased selectivity yields a virtually non-existent boost in prestige and reputation amongst top SoCal lawyers.

And in terms of focusing on which firm to choose, you really should just focus on where you think you will personally thrive the most. Prestige only factors into this analysis insofar as it affects the types of matters that clients come to your firm with. For litigation, Irell/MTO/GDC all get the same types of non-commodity work in CA b/c they are all equally respected by clients in the area (w/ the exception of Irell for patent lit, but you mentioned you're not looking at them so that's neither here nor there). You obviously have very strong credentials to get offers at those 3 firms, so just remember that those credentials stay on your resume wherever you end up. I never understood the extreme obsession some people have with always taking the more selective firm. If you were top of your class at HYS, future employers and opportunities won't be foreclosed just b/c you chose to go to a firm with a few less SCOTUS clerks. HTH

Alumni here and I would disagree on the first paragraph of this post, as did many of the people I talked to when I was deciding where to summer a few years ago.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here - thank you everyone for the commentary. It provides good perspective to supplement my CB experience. I'm thinking I might not wind up with an Irell offer (should know sometime this week) so I don't really want to think about that quite yet. Sounds like wheninlaw went with Irell though (congrats!).

I appreciate the word for the wise about no-offers, honestly I wasn't aware of that specifically although I tend to assume with CA firms that it could happen. What I sense is that if you don't wind up with at least a dist. ct. clerkship, your offer will be rather chilly, if extended at all.

What I'm hearing is that Skadden LA, despite their powerhouse performance on Toyota and lit department of the yr ect. ect. probably shouldn't remain in consideration. Zweit, I hear what you are saying about Gibson as "just another big law firm," and if this was the new york office I would agree, but in southern california it manages to attract top talent (if not munger level, not trailing by that far) in a way that I haven't seen at some of the other LA-based firms. Also the number of really heavy hitters in LA on that level is less than new york, where at least from my perspective you have some fungibility in level of work b/t CSM/S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/ect.

To the anon who said Gibson's appellate work would be only concentrated in DC - besides the general emphasis of DC offices and the fact that a few of the key appellate partners are out there, what makes you say that? There's a big appellate group in LA actually and they seem to work rather fluidly with partners in other offices (all the teams span the US offices). Actually, one of my concerns with Gibson is far more trivial and please don't make fun of me, but I have to ask: would their reputation make a future career in democratic/left-leaning politics untenable? Of any firm I can think of they definitely have the most politically charged set of clients/victories, which doesn't trouble me in terms of my staffing on matters but might as far as government administrations/appointments are concerned - of course these are just pipe dreams anyway.

Re: the thoughts on 'prestige', while MTO has the most 'prestigious' reputation on TLS because they only pull from top schools & people here are obsessed with exclusivity, is it really fair to say there's a substantial gap with GDC?

thanks again all

1L summered at one of Irell/MTO/GDC/Skadden. Obviously worked closely with my firm's lawyers, but also met tons of attorneys throughout SoCal during several of our events. From what I gathered, there is just no discernible prestige gap between Irell/MTO/GDC for lit. Skadden is an LA powerhouse for corp and is viewed as such prestige-wise in SoCal (but of course, not as prestigious for lit). You hit the nail on the head w/r/t TLS and its obsession w/ MTO. Certainly a top top firm, and in terms of selectivity slightly higher notch than the others I mentioned, but that marginally increased selectivity yields a virtually non-existent boost in prestige and reputation amongst top SoCal lawyers.

And in terms of focusing on which firm to choose, you really should just focus on where you think you will personally thrive the most. Prestige only factors into this analysis insofar as it affects the types of matters that clients come to your firm with. For litigation, Irell/MTO/GDC all get the same types of non-commodity work in CA b/c they are all equally respected by clients in the area (w/ the exception of Irell for patent lit, but you mentioned you're not looking at them so that's neither here nor there). You obviously have very strong credentials to get offers at those 3 firms, so just remember that those credentials stay on your resume wherever you end up. I never understood the extreme obsession some people have with always taking the more selective firm. If you were top of your class at HYS, future employers and opportunities won't be foreclosed just b/c you chose to go to a firm with a few less SCOTUS clerks. HTH

Alumni here and I would disagree on the first paragraph of this post, as did many of the people I talked to when I was deciding where to summer a few years ago.

Just chiming in here, but what part do you disagree with?

No discernible prestige gap? Lol when 80% of your attorneys have had federal clerkships and around 12% have been scotus clerks, there is DEFINITELY a prestige gap. Clearly the poster who commented earlier did not summer at Irell or MTO

And stop telling OP to go where he personally fits in the best. You don't think OP gets that? He can make that decision without any input from any of us. OP specifically said he likes people at all 3 and can see himself working at any of them.

Anonymous User wrote:No discernible prestige gap? Lol when 80% of your attorneys have had federal clerkships and around 12% have been scotus clerks, there is DEFINITELY a prestige gap. Clearly the poster who commented earlier did not summer at Irell or MTO

And stop telling OP to go where he personally fits in the best. You don't think OP gets that? He can make that decision without any input from any of us. OP specifically said he likes people at all 3 and can see himself working at any of them.

earlier anon here

lol, i believe you are "clearly" wrong; just for the sake of argument though, are you personally invested in either Irell or MTO's prestige? sure sounds like you are...

I think OP can definitely fit in at any one of them, but out of the 4 firms mentioned, cultures are VERY diff. Especially for Irell and MTO, there is a very strong academic vibe, which is awesome for some and not so awesome for others. I fully believe OP can fit in anywhere, but there is likely one type of firm that he/she can fit in seamlessly, and another type of firm where it might take a bit of getting used to

do everyone a favor and don't comment back unless you have something useful to say; MTO's clerk hires are well-documented on TLS and there is absolutely no way OP is not aware of this metric

Cultures are VERY different? Yea, OP doesn't seem to know that so good job adding something useful to the discussion.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here - thank you everyone for the commentary. It provides good perspective to supplement my CB experience. I'm thinking I might not wind up with an Irell offer (should know sometime this week) so I don't really want to think about that quite yet. Sounds like wheninlaw went with Irell though (congrats!).

I appreciate the word for the wise about no-offers, honestly I wasn't aware of that specifically although I tend to assume with CA firms that it could happen. What I sense is that if you don't wind up with at least a dist. ct. clerkship, your offer will be rather chilly, if extended at all.

What I'm hearing is that Skadden LA, despite their powerhouse performance on Toyota and lit department of the yr ect. ect. probably shouldn't remain in consideration. Zweit, I hear what you are saying about Gibson as "just another big law firm," and if this was the new york office I would agree, but in southern california it manages to attract top talent (if not munger level, not trailing by that far) in a way that I haven't seen at some of the other LA-based firms. Also the number of really heavy hitters in LA on that level is less than new york, where at least from my perspective you have some fungibility in level of work b/t CSM/S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/ect.

To the anon who said Gibson's appellate work would be only concentrated in DC - besides the general emphasis of DC offices and the fact that a few of the key appellate partners are out there, what makes you say that? There's a big appellate group in LA actually and they seem to work rather fluidly with partners in other offices (all the teams span the US offices). Actually, one of my concerns with Gibson is far more trivial and please don't make fun of me, but I have to ask: would their reputation make a future career in democratic/left-leaning politics untenable? Of any firm I can think of they definitely have the most politically charged set of clients/victories, which doesn't trouble me in terms of my staffing on matters but might as far as government administrations/appointments are concerned - of course these are just pipe dreams anyway.

Re: the thoughts on 'prestige', while MTO has the most 'prestigious' reputation on TLS because they only pull from top schools & people here are obsessed with exclusivity, is it really fair to say there's a substantial gap with GDC?

thanks again all

1L summered at one of Irell/MTO/GDC/Skadden. Obviously worked closely with my firm's lawyers, but also met tons of attorneys throughout SoCal during several of our events. From what I gathered, there is just no discernible prestige gap between Irell/MTO/GDC for lit. Skadden is an LA powerhouse for corp and is viewed as such prestige-wise in SoCal (but of course, not as prestigious for lit). You hit the nail on the head w/r/t TLS and its obsession w/ MTO. Certainly a top top firm, and in terms of selectivity slightly higher notch than the others I mentioned, but that marginally increased selectivity yields a virtually non-existent boost in prestige and reputation amongst top SoCal lawyers.

And in terms of focusing on which firm to choose, you really should just focus on where you think you will personally thrive the most. Prestige only factors into this analysis insofar as it affects the types of matters that clients come to your firm with. For litigation, Irell/MTO/GDC all get the same types of non-commodity work in CA b/c they are all equally respected by clients in the area (w/ the exception of Irell for patent lit, but you mentioned you're not looking at them so that's neither here nor there). You obviously have very strong credentials to get offers at those 3 firms, so just remember that those credentials stay on your resume wherever you end up. I never understood the extreme obsession some people have with always taking the more selective firm. If you were top of your class at HYS, future employers and opportunities won't be foreclosed just b/c you chose to go to a firm with a few less SCOTUS clerks. HTH

Alumni here and I would disagree on the first paragraph of this post, as did many of the people I talked to when I was deciding where to summer a few years ago.

Well why should we listen to you over the 1L SA

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:No discernible prestige gap? Lol when 80% of your attorneys have had federal clerkships and around 12% have been scotus clerks, there is DEFINITELY a prestige gap. Clearly the poster who commented earlier did not summer at Irell or MTO

And stop telling OP to go where he personally fits in the best. You don't think OP gets that? He can make that decision without any input from any of us. OP specifically said he likes people at all 3 and can see himself working at any of them.

earlier anon here

lol, i believe you are "clearly" wrong; just for the sake of argument though, are you personally invested in either Irell or MTO's prestige? sure sounds like you are...

I think OP can definitely fit in at any one of them, but out of the 4 firms mentioned, cultures are VERY diff. Especially for Irell and MTO, there is a very strong academic vibe, which is awesome for some and not so awesome for others. I fully believe OP can fit in anywhere, but there is likely one type of firm that he/she can fit in seamlessly, and another type of firm where it might take a bit of getting used to

do everyone a favor and don't comment back unless you have something useful to say; MTO's clerk hires are well-documented on TLS and there is absolutely no way OP is not aware of this metric

OP here again. Yes, I know all the clerkship stats. I was asked during my screener at MTO whether I had a 9th cir clerkship lined up already so they don't hide the ball on that. Juniors seem to migrate in and out of their clerkships pretty fluidly.

Here's the thing - everyone I met with at both firms (and nearly everyone at skadden as well) had completed a federal clerkship, many of them multiple. I met SCOTUS clerks at both too. Sure, Gibson may have been throwing their full ammunition my way, whereas at Munger they weren't worried about impressing me, they were more interested in testing me since I am probably more of a borderline candidate. (On that note please don't quote any of this since I might be easily identifiable by this thread and I will delete). Just to clear this up because I don't mean to start a row, I am more interested in what those with experience at either could say about opportunities afforded to me than how many of my peers clerked.

Anonymous User wrote:Cultures are VERY different? Yea, OP doesn't seem to know that so good job adding something useful to the discussion.

Right - I recognized this in my first post, and as I said, I wish I could just go on my gut here. I really did like how everyone at MTO's had sincere intellectual interests outside of work - I definitely fall into that category - but I also felt a lot of friendly reciprocity with the Gibson folks. Needless to say, there was an alumni community from my school at both.

Thanks everyone again. What I'm sensing is that most people would take MTO, then Gibson second. Much appreciated