Top Law Schools

What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

What doors do u want opened

I was also impressed by Quinn and Irell too.

Munger kind of stands alone. Followed by Irell/Gibson. Quinn's a newer player but it's getting attention.

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

No. Munger/Irell>>Gibson>>>>>>everything else

Anonymous User wrote:

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

No. Munger/Irell>>Gibson>>>>>>everything else

That's pretty silly. What magic "doors for you in the future" will Gibson open that, say, Quinn and Latham won't?

Anonymous User wrote:

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

No. Munger/Irell>>Gibson>>>>>>everything else

Munger and Irell are probably only truly balanced in IP

baal hadad wrote:

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

What doors do u want opened

Not really sure I guess but maybe US Attorney's or in-house, basically I would want to be somewhere that has good exit options in case I realize big-law isn't for me

Any of the 5 will have solid exit opps, so the best move is to see what alumni of each firm go to. But as has been said, Munger > Irell > GDC >> everyone else

ETA: whoever mentioned Vault, that's not super helpful for LA or Lit, never mind both

notcreativeenough wrote:

baal hadad wrote:

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

What doors do u want opened

Not really sure I guess but maybe US Attorney's or in-house, basically I would want to be somewhere that has good exit options in case I realize big-law isn't for me

That's still really vague. If you wanted to work in-house doing patent-related work, Irell/Quinn would probably be good options (though going in-house from litigation isn't necessarily the easiest thing in the world). If you want to be an AUSA, going to a place which would give you the most opportunities to work with a former AUSA and where their attorneys have gone on to be AUSAs would probably be best (my suspicion is that Munger would be quite good for this).

At this stage it seems like your exit opportunity desires are really vague. Unless you have a specific practice area in mind that you are interested in (in which case you should go to a firm that is one of the top firms in that area), I would suggest going to whichever firm you think will work best for you and figure out the other stuff later. While MTO/Irell/Quinn/GDC/etc are generally perceived as top firms in LA, if you didn't particularly like your experience or the people you met or the culture or whatever at a firm, no matter which of those firms it is, then I wouldn't suggest going there over another firm which you felt you liked better. Even if you are only going to spend a few years in biglaw and biglaw can be a rough experience, it doesn't make sense to make it any worse than it has to be.

Anonymous User wrote:

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

No. Munger/Irell>>Gibson>>>>>>everything else

Irell is not in the same tier as Munger in terms of selectivity; not sure why you are trying to put them on the same level...

Lol quinn

I've heard a lot of shitty people work at Irell. A LOT.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

notcreativeenough wrote:What are the best (top 5) litigation firms in Los Angeles? By "best" I mean those that will open more doors for you in the future.

Vault says Gibson, Latham, Munger for top 3 is that pretty accurate?

No. Munger/Irell>>Gibson>>>>>>everything else

Irell is not in the same tier as Munger in terms of selectivity; not sure why you are trying to put them on the same level...

Because selectivity =/= litigation quality?

I think Munger is above the rest and would actually say Gibson and Irell are on similar footing. Significant drop after those two.

Seems like people are buying that Gibson's LA office is "better" (the exact metric for that seems unclear in this thread) than Latham's LA office. Is that actually true, and if so, why do people think that is? My understanding is that they were the top two megafirms (as distinct from semi-boutiques like Irell/Munger) in LA now that O'Melveny is having so much financial difficulty.

Also I wouldn't work at Irell now for litigation unless I really really liked Morgan Chu and patent work--are people saying their lit group has recovered from Hueston taking all their best kids and their entire white collar practice away with him? I wouldn't even consider Irell to be a lit contender outside patent these days.

I would also pay close attention to life as a junior at a firm like MTO v. GDC, especially in terms of staffing and leverage. I got the impression that MTO gave its juniors a lot of substantive responsibility early on but how much of that was marketing and truth is unclear.

cookiejar1 wrote:I would also pay close attention to life as a junior at a firm like MTO v. GDC, especially in terms of staffing and leverage. I got the impression that MTO gave its juniors a lot of substantive responsibility early on but how much of that was marketing and truth is unclear.

I mean, that's why you look at leverage. If a firm has a 1:1 partner-to-associate ratio and works on big cases, it's hard to avoid giving substantive work to junior associates. Marketing aside, the fact that MTO has a leaner partner-to-associate ratio makes it more likely that an associate will get more substantive work there than at GDC.

bruinfan10 wrote:Seems like people are buying that Gibson's LA office is "better" (the exact metric for that seems unclear in this thread) than Latham's LA office. Is that actually true, and if so, why do people think that is? My understanding is that they were the top two megafirms (as distinct from semi-boutiques like Irell/Munger) in LA now that O'Melveny is having so much financial difficulty.

Also I wouldn't work at Irell now for litigation unless I really really liked Morgan Chu and patent work--are people saying their lit group has recovered from Hueston taking all their best kids and their entire white collar practice away with him? I wouldn't even consider Irell to be a lit contender outside patent these days.

Why are there two threads for this?

Irell is still strong in Securities, and added a badass entertainment/transactional group. Firm is doing fine, though yes, if you want to do WC, best to stay away.

Anyone have an perspective on Irell post HH? I am not particularly interested in WC lit, but find IP, entertainment, and appellate lit interesting (might even try a patent thing or two over the summer. Would you guys avoid Irell at all costs? I have other options in LA but none that are particularly strong in lit (not GDC, Latham, Kirkland, PH, MTO, or OMM).

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone have an perspective on Irell post HH? I am not particularly interested in WC lit, but find IP, entertainment, and appellate lit interesting (might even try a patent thing or two over the summer. Would you guys avoid Irell at all costs? I have other options in LA but none that are particularly strong in lit (not GDC, Latham, Kirkland, PH, MTO, or OMM).

Irell's taken big hits, but there's still no firm other than Munger, Gibson, Quinn, or maybe Latham that I would take over it for litigation in LA.

Anyone have an perspective on Irell post HH? I am not particularly interested in WC lit, but find IP, entertainment, and appellate lit interesting (might even try a patent thing or two over the summer. Would you guys avoid Irell at all costs? I have other options in LA but none that are particularly strong in lit (not GDC, Latham, Kirkland, PH, MTO, or OMM).

Irell's taken big hits, but there's still no firm other than Munger, Gibson, Quinn, or maybe Latham that I would take over it for litigation in LA.

Any sense of Irell's national reputation? Would exit options out of Irell be limited to California?

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone have an perspective on Irell post HH? I am not particularly interested in WC lit, but find IP, entertainment, and appellate lit interesting (might even try a patent thing or two over the summer. Would you guys avoid Irell at all costs? I have other options in LA but none that are particularly strong in lit (not GDC, Latham, Kirkland, PH, MTO, or OMM).

Irell is still VERY STRONG in IP, and well regarded in entertainment. Doesn't do much appellate work, but you're not going to really find much of that anywhere (and even at places that do it, you won't be).

I don't get why people are so down on Irell after Hueston left. It was a blow to the firm, no doubt, but it just reverted back to what it was a few years previous (with the addition of Entertainment).

Anonymous User wrote:

Anyone have an perspective on Irell post HH? I am not particularly interested in WC lit, but find IP, entertainment, and appellate lit interesting (might even try a patent thing or two over the summer. Would you guys avoid Irell at all costs? I have other options in LA but none that are particularly strong in lit (not GDC, Latham, Kirkland, PH, MTO, or OMM).

Irell's taken big hits, but there's still no firm other than Munger, Gibson, Quinn, or maybe Latham that I would take over it for litigation in LA.

Any sense of Irell's national reputation? Would exit options out of Irell be limited to California?

Strong in IP everywhere, otherwise, not super well known outside of the West Coast.

LA atty here. The distinctions law students make are much larger than what exists in the market.

MTO/Irell/Gibson and maybe Latham are roughly in a tier of their own. Then there's everyone else.

Granted this is different than individual attorneys lateraling. But that has as much to do with individual resumes than anything else. If you have the resume to go to Munger but work at Gibson, you'll have the same opportunities available. It's just that the people with the resume to work at Munger usually pick Munger.

I don't know what this is about Hueston taking Irell's "best kids." But I'm guessing someone who compared a newly formed firm of purely ex-Irell attorneys to Keker isn't exactly a neutral observer.

Anonymous User wrote:LA atty here. The distinctions law students make are much larger than what exists in the market.

MTO/Irell/Gibson and maybe Latham are roughly in a tier of their own. Then there's everyone else.

Granted this is different than individual attorneys lateraling. But that has as much to do with individual resumes than anything else. If you have the resume to go to Munger but work at Gibson, you'll have the same opportunities available. It's just that the people with the resume to work at Munger usually pick Munger.

I don't know what this is about Hueston taking Irell's "best kids." But I'm guessing someone who compared a newly formed firm of purely ex-Irell attorneys to Keker isn't exactly a neutral observer.

sorry, didn't mean to offend. given a quick comparative scan of the rosters, pretty sure you have to admit HH got some good ones though =) (excluding, obviously, the patent associates). that said, i give a lot of weight to CDCA clerkships. i don't know how anyone survives those gigs.

and re: being neutral, i'm likely not going to either boutique at this point, but regardless thank you for the input.