Top Law Schools

I'm currently choosing between Cahill and Gibson Dunn in New York. My interest is in litigation, although I'm not sure what type of litigation as of now. I do have an odd preference for being in the financial district, which weighs in Cahill's favor but I recognize that it's not a primary consideration. If anyone with insight into either office could share their thoughts on reasons for or against going to either, I would seriously appreciate it.

And if you have any suggestions for types of questions to ask associates who work there (on a second look) that would be helpful too.

Muchas gracias.

GDC is one of the best litigation firms nationwide handling huge matters and its quite selective, whereas I don't even think Cahill is Band 1 in its main market (NY). I'm a little surprised you find these two so comparable. I would take Gibson but both are good options

OP here. Thanks for your thoughts. I think gun to head right now I'm leaning GDC. I am aware of GDC's national rep for litigation, but is it lost a bit in NY? I guess that's my main concern. I am giving strong consideration to Cahill as well because I'm left with the impression that it's underrated because it's smaller and not really looking to expand much.

GDC is probably better for lit, but don't forget you get paid more at Cahill

Morgan12Oak wrote:GDC is probably better for lit, but don't forget you get paid more at Cahill

Yah those cashill bonuses are nice

Morgan12Oak wrote:GDC is probably better for lit, but don't forget you get paid more at Cahill

the marginal returns of a few thousand in the mid year bonus do not outweigh the career long advantages of being at a top practice, but yes, it is a consideration

Anonymous User wrote:

Morgan12Oak wrote:GDC is probably better for lit, but don't forget you get paid more at Cahill

the marginal returns of a few thousand in the mid year bonus do not outweigh the career long advantages of being at a top practice, but yes, it is a consideration

First years got 20k more last year than Cravath scale. Not sure I'd call that a few thousand. I think the differences of exit options from GDC lit and Cahill lit would probably be marginal on a general basis. GDCs big difference would have better ops to move elsewhere in the country though. In terms of going elsewhere in NY, say its a wash

Anonymous User wrote:GDC is one of the best litigation firms nationwide handling huge matters and its quite selective, whereas I don't even think Cahill is Band 1 in its main market (NY). I'm a little surprised you find these two so comparable. I would take Gibson but both are good options

Eh. A firm "handling huge matters" isn't necessarily a good thing for a junior associate; it means you're less likely to get substantive experience. And, as another poster pointed out, Cahill has paid above-market bonuses the last couple of years. Also, GDC's NYC office isn't as strong as its LA and DC offices (not for litigation, at least).

GDC is solid--go there if you feel like it would be a better fit--but don't discount Cahill because of Vault or some other prestige marker.

Morgan12Oak wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Morgan12Oak wrote:GDC is probably better for lit, but don't forget you get paid more at Cahill

the marginal returns of a few thousand in the mid year bonus do not outweigh the career long advantages of being at a top practice, but yes, it is a consideration

First years got 20k more last year than Cravath scale. Not sure I'd call that a few thousand. I think the differences of exit options from GDC lit and Cahill lit would probably be marginal on a general basis. GDCs big difference would have better ops to move elsewhere in the country though. In terms of going elsewhere in NY, say its a wash

You are right, my mistake. I thought it was one special bonus above market that would be like $6K after tax. Seems like they actually had two last year.

OP here. So would the consensus be Gibson if I'm not planning on keeping my career in New York, and Cahill if I am?

I'd take GDC either way, but that's just me.

I would have picked GDC 4 years ago when I was looking at law firms, but now after being an associate , I would go to Cahill because they pay more.

Exit options are generally better at the higher ranked firm you get to, but at the end of the day they're pretty much all complete shit (other law firms/compliance). The only people that get good exit options from what I've seen are people who make good personal connections and don't rely just on their firm/work to get exit options.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. So would the consensus be Gibson if I'm not planning on keeping my career in New York, and Cahill if I am?

I think it depends on what you mean by "not planning on keeping my career in New York." If you want the option of moving to LA or SF or something while remaining a big law lawyer, you could conceivably transfer to another office of GDC, which is easier than lateraling to another firm. But if you're just thinking of amorphous "exit options," then I don't know. I share Morgan12Oak's sense about exit options. When I was a student, I assumed that exit options would roughly correlate to the national prestige of a firm. But now that I've worked as a lawyer in litigation, I'm finding that personal connections (as well as the actual skills you acquire in practice) matter more.

Anonymous User wrote:

Morgan12Oak wrote:GDC is probably better for lit, but don't forget you get paid more at Cahill

the marginal returns of a few thousand in the mid year bonus do not outweigh the career long advantages of being at a top practice, but yes, it is a consideration

GDC associate here. I loled at this. There is no marginal difference between GDC associate exit options and Cahill exit options when it comes to lit (at least not when it comes to things that "firm prestige" bestows on someone). I know senior litigation associates who struggle to find their next jobs coming from GDC. It's hard for anyone in lit and really doesn't matter what firm you come from (as long as we're talking only about biglaw firms). Practice area is much more important than firm name. Also, personal connections matter a lot more, as the poster above me noted.

If you would enjoy doing doc review as a third and fourth year, then yes, go with Cahill.

Anonymous User wrote:If you would enjoy doing doc review as a third and fourth year, then yes, go with Cahill.

What's your source for this? I don't have a dog in this fight--I've never worked at either GDC or Cahill--but my sense is that the fate you warn against is, if anything, more likely to happen at GDC.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:If you would enjoy doing doc review as a third and fourth year, then yes, go with Cahill.

What's your source for this? I don't have a dog in this fight--I've never worked at either GDC or Cahill--but my sense is that the fate you warn against is, if anything, more likely to happen at GDC.

I would like to know the source of this information as well.

Anonymous User wrote:If you would enjoy doing doc review as a third and fourth year, then yes, go with Cahill.

this is bullshit