Irell or O'Melveny? Forum

[b123456]

If there's any difference in "prestige" it's not enough to matter

agreed

[patogordo]

Tbf that's true for like 99% of the questions in this forum

[Anonymous User]

Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.

Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.

So basically this is just a bump.

[Anonymous User]

Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.

Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.

So basically this is just a bump.

if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.

If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)

[Anonymous User]

Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.

Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.

So basically this is just a bump.

if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.

If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)

Thanks for the response - that's kind of what my thinking has been.

I don't have any damning trepidation about MTO - they were great. I just clicked very strongly with the O'Melveny people and have been sort of trying to talk myself into them. I do worry a bit about the turnover at MTO - seems like a very large summer class for the size of the firm - but it's still nothing close to as bad as the big NYC shops, and the hours/environment seem much more humane. Mostly I've only heard good things about Munger and am waiting for the other shoe to drop, if that makes sense.

I'd honestly prefer being at a smaller firm - that's my drawback with OMM. Though their LA office is actually the smallest of the three firms by a slim margin, it still seems like the big firm model (which I'd rather avoid). I also don't know how much credence to give to fit - I know the fit vs prestige question has been done to death on TLS, but it feels slightly different with these three firms in particular. And it's not like the fit was bad with MTO/Irell, I liked the people a lot, just not on the instant-good-friends level of OMM. It's to their credit, I suppose, that even with all the objective points against them, they're still in the picture given other options.

[b123456]

Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.

Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.

So basically this is just a bump.

if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.

If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)

What are you basing this on? All three are peer firms. Even if there is a difference in prestige or whatever else you're saying makes this an easy choice, I seriously doubt that the difference is big enough to affect anon's career prospects. Just go where you think you'll be happiest. Out of the three choices presented, I personally would choose Irell because I think it would be better to work in Century City than downtown (commuting/living situation much better for CC) and because I like the people in that office. I agree that Irell would be best for IP stuff but if you're basing this 'munger is best' stuff off of prestige then I think you're going about it the wrong way.

[sideroxylon]

OMM trolling

we get it, you really like OMM

[Anonymous User]

Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.

Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.

So basically this is just a bump.

if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.

If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)

Thanks for the response - that's kind of what my thinking has been.

I don't have any damning trepidation about MTO - they were great. I just clicked very strongly with the O'Melveny people and have been sort of trying to talk myself into them. I do worry a bit about the turnover at MTO - seems like a very large summer class for the size of the firm - but it's still nothing close to as bad as the big NYC shops, and the hours/environment seem much more humane. Mostly I've only heard good things about Munger and am waiting for the other shoe to drop, if that makes sense.

I'd honestly prefer being at a smaller firm - that's my drawback with OMM. Though their LA office is actually the smallest of the three firms by a slim margin, it still seems like the big firm model (which I'd rather avoid). I also don't know how much credence to give to fit - I know the fit vs prestige question has been done to death on TLS, but it feels slightly different with these three firms in particular. And it's not like the fit was bad with MTO/Irell, I liked the people a lot, just not on the instant-good-friends level of OMM. It's to their credit, I suppose, that even with all the objective points against them, they're still in the picture given other options.

From what I can tell, MTO's 'turnover' reflects a completely different process from cravath et al. Summer class is large relative to the number of incoming associates because 70-80% of any given class will be in chambers for a year or two. The firm gives you an open ended offer (probably with some reasonableness conditions) so you don't need to commit immediately, you can get a fellowship or clerk for a time first before accepting to return. It's not because people are completely miserable and looking to bail as soon as they have an easy out (although I'm not trying to say its all roses either, certainly some attrition from unhappy people occurs). While I've heard of people summering there and then heading to other elite lit boutiques post-clerkship, you don't see a lot of Munger to [Insert Large Vault Firm] lateral transplants a couple years out, in contrast to the mass exodus from the V10 to other firms that happens every year.

They say that they give offers with partnership as a reasonable prospect in mind. Some of this might be koolaid but I'm curious what your perceptions of "turnover" were

[b123456]

OMM trolling

we get it, you really like OMM

chill. i just don't think minute differences in prestige are important. and anyway, it's not trolling bc i said i'd pick irell...

[glitter178]

IIRC Irell pays double market bonus.

[Anonymous User]

Different anon than OP - looking at OMM (downtown office), MTO (LA), and Irell (CC). Would love to hear bad things about each of them to help pare down the field - most of the differentiation I've gotten so far has been on the positive side.

Not super concerned about the OMM financial stuff from 2011/recession. Will be splitting with a 100% offer firm in a different market.

So basically this is just a bump.

if you just want the input of others who have navigated the LA market, as far as I'm concerned, for non-IP litigation the only firm in southern california that should really be considered from the offeree perspective alongside munger is gibson dunn. And even when presented with that choice most should take munger.

If you have an MTO offer and you are still seriously debating options like Omelveny, to me it shows you've already made some pretty damning conclusions about MTO or you have some strong aversion to being at a smaller firm. So why don't you lay out some of your trepidations or more specific reasoning because otherwise I don't see why everyone wouldn't just tell you to go to munger (or irell if you want IP lit)

What are you basing this on? All three are peer firms. Even if there is a difference in prestige or whatever else you're saying makes this an easy choice, I seriously doubt that the difference is big enough to affect anon's career prospects. Just go where you think you'll be happiest. Out of the three choices presented, I personally would choose Irell because I think it would be better to work in Century City than downtown (commuting/living situation much better for CC) and because I like the people in that office. I agree that Irell would be best for IP stuff but if you're basing this 'munger is best' stuff off of prestige then I think you're going about it the wrong way.

anon you are responding to --

I'm not basing this off "prestige" or some opaque criterion, I'm providing my input as someone who has navigated the LA legal market, been presented with these options, talked with hundreds of knowledgeable attorneys on the issue and made tough choices. I opened with this and said it was just my perception -- I was very clear about this. You are strawmaning the TLS exclusivity bias.

I don't personally think O'Melveny is a peer firm to Irell or Munger as far as starting your career as a young litigation associate is concerned, although they handle similarly significant matters and for partnership its probably a wash (although Irell partners are incredibly loaded and its an exceedingly tough track). And you'd be hard pressed to find someone who agreed with you on that point. Substantively, not only will your compensation be higher at the smaller firms, but you'll receive more early responsibility and litigation experience (chairing depo's earlier, tackling MSJ's sooner, ect.), which makes you more of a value add, you work more closely with partnership, the small firms are far more selective about the work they take on so by extension you can be as well, your hours are more flexible, and in MTO's case, be able to share in the decision making of the firm at the highest level and have greater access to partnership on a shorter track (4-7 yrs). I agree it's fair for the anon who asked to go where he'll be happiest, but that wasn't how he or she framed the question and they made no mention of their relative happiness at each place.

As for the people, that's an inherently "personal" decision. I didn't click as much with Irell as Gibson/Munger when I was making the decision, but I won't question that anyone could have a different response there.

[Anonymous User]

OMM trolling

we get it, you really like OMM

chill. i just don't think minute differences in prestige are important. and anyway, it's not trolling bc i said i'd pick irell...

read my post above - if you still think this is about "minute differences in prestige," then I'm starting to doubt you've actually been to, researched and considered offers from all these places.

[Anonymous User]

From what I can tell, MTO's 'turnover' reflects a completely different process from cravath et al. Summer class is large relative to the number of incoming associates because 70-80% of any given class will be in chambers for a year or two. The firm gives you an open ended offer (probably with some reasonableness conditions) so you don't need to commit immediately, you can get a fellowship or clerk for a time first before accepting to return. It's not because people are completely miserable and looking to bail as soon as they have an easy out (although I'm not trying to say its all roses either, certainly some attrition from unhappy people occurs). While I've heard of people summering there and then heading to other elite lit boutiques post-clerkship, you don't see a lot of Munger to [Insert Large Vault Firm] lateral transplants a couple years out, in contrast to the mass exodus from the V10 to other firms that happens every year.

They say that they give offers with partnership as a reasonable prospect in mind. Some of this might be koolaid but I'm curious what your perceptions of "turnover" were

Right, yea fully agreed - that meshes with everything I've heard. I guess my trepidation w/r/t turnover was that I know of a number who summered there and switched to other lit boutiques post-clerkship, which makes me wonder what it was about MTO that made them want to switch (since places like Keker are basically peeres, if perhaps even more selective). But I suppose I should just ask them personally. And thinking about it now, in each case it was switching geographic markets rather than moving between LA firms.

Thanks for the responses once again - it's good to be talked off the ledge.

[Anonymous User]

From what I can tell, MTO's 'turnover' reflects a completely different process from cravath et al. Summer class is large relative to the number of incoming associates because 70-80% of any given class will be in chambers for a year or two. The firm gives you an open ended offer (probably with some reasonableness conditions) so you don't need to commit immediately, you can get a fellowship or clerk for a time first before accepting to return. It's not because people are completely miserable and looking to bail as soon as they have an easy out (although I'm not trying to say its all roses either, certainly some attrition from unhappy people occurs). While I've heard of people summering there and then heading to other elite lit boutiques post-clerkship, you don't see a lot of Munger to [Insert Large Vault Firm] lateral transplants a couple years out, in contrast to the mass exodus from the V10 to other firms that happens every year.

They say that they give offers with partnership as a reasonable prospect in mind. Some of this might be koolaid but I'm curious what your perceptions of "turnover" were

Right, yea fully agreed - that meshes with everything I've heard. I guess my trepidation w/r/t turnover was that I know of a number who summered there and switched to other lit boutiques post-clerkship, which makes me wonder what it was about MTO that made them want to switch (since places like Keker are basically peeres, if perhaps even more selective). But I suppose I should just ask them personally. And thinking about it now, in each case it was switching geographic markets rather than moving between LA firms.

Thanks for the responses once again - it's good to be talked off the ledge.

I'm pretty sure you are better compensated at Keker/Susman post-clerkship, unless its SCOTUS in which case MTO rewards you very generously, which would explain why some highly qualified people make the switch. Although a lot of former summers still head back to munger, its just staggered.

Also the lack of geographic flexibility certainly explains some people not returning. If your SO gets a job in Chicago/DC its not like you can switch offices at munger. Then again, anyone who is qualified enough for a munger offer can probably access those markets post-clerkship (or via 3L OCI) without too much sweat

[Anonymous User]

From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.

[Anonymous User]

From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.

I've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intense

[Anonymous User]

From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.

I've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intense

How is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?

[Anonymous User]

From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.

I've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intense

How is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?

[Anonymous User]

From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.

I've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intense

How is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?

Irell associate here. Newport office is now about half the size of the Century City office. To the best of my knowledge, there's no substantive difference between the two offices. Most matters are staffed by people from both offices.

Even with the shake-ups, things have been excellent this year. The firm is in good financial shape and there's steady work. I think the recent bonuses are telling. The firm has had some great results too the past year or so. Four trial wins with recoveries over $100 million, including a $1.1 billion judgment. Plus a 9-0 SCOTUS victory. We're a small firm, but were recognized as having one of the Practice Groups of the Year for both IP and Trials.

We're trying to expand our general litigation practice, but IP is still the main focus. If you want to do patent litigation, I don't think there's a better firm out there for an associate. If you want to do general litigation, I think it's still worth looking into, but be aware that you may still be staffed on some patent matters.

[Anonymous User]

From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.

I've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intense

How is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?

Irell associate here. Newport office is now about half the size of the Century City office. To the best of my knowledge, there's no substantive difference between the two offices. Most matters are staffed by people from both offices.

Even with the shake-ups, things have been excellent this year. The firm is in good financial shape and there's steady work. I think the recent bonuses are telling. The firm has had some great results too the past year or so. Four trial wins with recoveries over $100 million, including a $1.1 billion judgment. Plus a 9-0 SCOTUS victory. We're a small firm, but were recognized as having one of the Practice Groups of the Year for both IP and Trials.

We're trying to expand our general litigation practice, but IP is still the main focus. If you want to do patent litigation, I don't think there's a better firm out there for an associate. If you want to do general litigation, I think it's still worth looking into, but be aware that you may still be staffed on some patent matters.

This is excellent, thank you for sharing.

[Anonymous User]

Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.

I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.

[Anonymous User]

Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.

I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.

[Anonymous User]

Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.

I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.

[Anonymous User]

Irell is the right choice. Cault ranking are bs because they are NY centric and transactional heavy. Small elite boutiques just dont get placed high. As someone who got offers from.both and was at Irell at one point, irell gives you more deep exposure to trials and more interaction with partners. Start at irell and move to OMM if you want.

I didnt stay at either and am about to leave law totally because I hate it. But Irell was a good experience. Far more so than most other firms I've been to.

[Anonymous User]

From the associates that I've talked to, Irell century city is a bit intense, while Irell newport beach sounds pretty amazing (probably because it's a bit disconnected from the larger office and partners in CC). Irell Newport Beach would be fucking awesome if you can get that.

I've heard from numerous OC lawyers that Irell Newport is extremely intense

How is Irell Newport these days? Is the firm a sinking ship? Is general (non-patent) litigation still a thing there?

Irell associate here. Newport office is now about half the size of the Century City office. To the best of my knowledge, there's no substantive difference between the two offices. Most matters are staffed by people from both offices.

Even with the shake-ups, things have been excellent this year. The firm is in good financial shape and there's steady work. I think the recent bonuses are telling. The firm has had some great results too the past year or so. Four trial wins with recoveries over $100 million, including a $1.1 billion judgment. Plus a 9-0 SCOTUS victory. We're a small firm, but were recognized as having one of the Practice Groups of the Year for both IP and Trials.

We're trying to expand our general litigation practice, but IP is still the main focus. If you want to do patent litigation, I don't think there's a better firm out there for an associate. If you want to do general litigation, I think it's still worth looking into, but be aware that you may still be staffed on some patent matters.

This is excellent, thank you for sharing.

Different anon, but I would take such a rosy picture (which seems pulled directly from marketing materials, to be honest) with a grain of salt. Partners don’t leave a firm in the numbers they’ve been leaving Irell unless something is seriously wrong. There are more than a few similarities to Boies, another top flight lit firm facing mass partner defections and continued difficulty with reliance on a 70+ mega-rainmaker with outsized influence in firm affairs.

(Spoken as someone who spent most of the last decade in LA biglaw)