Top Law Schools

Which would you choose for general lit? Are they so close that it should just come down to "feel" and how much you'd fit in?

I would also appreciate any insight into which has better government exit opportunities. My sense is Wilmer, partly because of politics, but is that true?

Anonymous User wrote:I would also appreciate any insight into which has better government exit opportunities. My sense is Wilmer, partly because of politics, but is that true?

I think the answer to your question would depend greatly on whether you're a FedSoc or an ACS person.

wwwcol wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I would also appreciate any insight into which has better government exit opportunities. My sense is Wilmer, partly because of politics, but is that true?

I think the answer to your question would depend greatly on whether you're a FedSoc or an ACS person.

Thanks. I can and have thrived in both sorts of environments. Whether I decide to pursue government exit options will have nothing to do with which administration is in power. Of course, one firm or the other might have an advantage depending on the outcome of the 2016 election, but no one can really predict that at this point.

How/why are you making this decision in April?

Your hypothetical exit options are going to be principally limited by your subject matter expertise and your firm's connections and reputation in that area is going to be what matters. If you're going to make your decision on exit options, I think you really need a better idea of what you plan to do than "general litigation." If you're planning to just work on random commercial litigation matters for 3 years and then waltz into government, you're probably going to be facing an uphill battle from either place unless you have pretty outlandish credentials (which you might, since both of these options are decently selective).

If you know / plan / hope to do antitrust litigation or securities litigation or appellate ligation or environmental litigation, etc., then you can actually make a reasonable effort at trying to figure out which of the two firms has better connections in that area. Even then it's pretty hard to quantify though.

Anonymous User wrote:

wwwcol wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I would also appreciate any insight into which has better government exit opportunities. My sense is Wilmer, partly because of politics, but is that true?

I think the answer to your question would depend greatly on whether you're a FedSoc or an ACS person.

Thanks. I can and have thrived in both sorts of environments. Whether I decide to pursue government exit options will have nothing to do with which administration is in power. Of course, one firm or the other might have an advantage depending on the outcome of the 2016 election, but no one can really predict that at this point.

Did you happen to recently get an offer at Gibson? I only ask bc I'm waiting for a response from my recent interviews.

KidStuddi wrote:How/why are you making this decision in April?

Your hypothetical exit options are going to be principally limited by your subject matter expertise and your firm's connections and reputation in that area is going to be what matters. If you're going to make your decision on exit options, I think you really need a better idea of what you plan to do than "general litigation." If you're planning to just work on random commercial litigation matters for 3 years and then waltz into government, you're probably going to be facing an uphill battle from either place unless you have pretty outlandish credentials (which you might, since both of these options are decently selective).

If you know / plan / hope to do antitrust litigation or securities litigation or appellate ligation or environmental litigation, etc., then you can actually make a reasonable effort at trying to figure out which of the two firms has better connections in that area. Even then it's pretty hard to quantify though.

I'd rather not say much about my situation or interests because I think it would be easy to out myself. My hope was to start a thread for comparing these firms' current statuses within DC. Looking back at TLS threads from around 2011-12, I think WH was generally perceived more favorably than GDC. But GDC has a lot of momentum, and the Chambers bands have changed in its favor. I'm just trying to get a sense of where these firms' reputations are at this point. And I also wonder, in a general sense, whether people think one firm has better government exit options.

Congratulations! These are both excellent, well-regarded options and I would make your decision based entirely on fit and intangibles.

Anonymous User wrote:

KidStuddi wrote:How/why are you making this decision in April?

Your hypothetical exit options are going to be principally limited by your subject matter expertise and your firm's connections and reputation in that area is going to be what matters. If you're going to make your decision on exit options, I think you really need a better idea of what you plan to do than "general litigation." If you're planning to just work on random commercial litigation matters for 3 years and then waltz into government, you're probably going to be facing an uphill battle from either place unless you have pretty outlandish credentials (which you might, since both of these options are decently selective).

If you know / plan / hope to do antitrust litigation or securities litigation or appellate ligation or environmental litigation, etc., then you can actually make a reasonable effort at trying to figure out which of the two firms has better connections in that area. Even then it's pretty hard to quantify though.

I'd rather not say much about my situation or interests because I think it would be easy to out myself. My hope was to start a thread for comparing these firms' current statuses within DC. Looking back at TLS threads from around 2011-12, I think WH was generally perceived more favorably than GDC. But GDC has a lot of momentum, and the Chambers bands have changed in its favor. I'm just trying to get a sense of where these firms' reputations are at this point. And I also wonder, in a general sense, whether people think one firm has better government exit options.

I think should treat them as basically equivalent and make your decision based on fit (to the extent that you get offers from both/have offers from both). They're both phenomenal firms with strong DC presences and great groups across a wide variety of core DC practices.

Gibson DC also just placed a fair number in SCOTUS clerkships, according to ATL. Another factor to consider.

Having gone through the full recruiting process with both firms and considered both offers, I will say that the cultures of these two firms could not be more different IMO. They both draw similarly qualified candidates, but Gibson had very social, confident, almost aggressive associates and an aristocratic, aloof partnership class -- still friendly and attentive though. Winning seemed very important to them, which has great aspects (they make excellent attorneys) and less great ones.

Wilmer attorneys were quirky, cranial/intellectual, introverted. Some of them were pretty awkward, which I didn't find as much at GDC. Partners and associates seemed to have less distance between them, both literally in terms of office structure and relationally (of course there were partner mentors and associate mentees at Gibson that were extremely close, but in a different way). They "loved the law" more than "loving to win," so to speak. I don't really see how you could go through callbacks ect. at both and not have these differences stand out to you and make a definitive impression.

The professional histories and trajectories of associates were also somewhat different - not better or worse, just different. Naturally, lots of clerks at each. But I met several Wilmer associates who had done academic or journalism fellowships or were leaving to do them, or who had serious graduate training in a field outside law. At Gibson I met extremely distinguished associates but no one who had pursued that kind of interest.

The diversity stats might pretend to show otherwise, but Gibson also seemed whiter and more male -- or at least, getting ahead at the firm was easier if you were white and male.

hlsperson1111 wrote:Congratulations! These are both excellent, well-regarded options and I would make your decision based entirely on fit and intangibles.

This. These are both great options. Ignore chambers / arbitrary rankings and think about which firm gives you the best opportunity to succeed in terms of culture, atmosphere, your own intuitive gut feelings.

WH DC Associate here.

WH has hired some great senior people from government over the last couple of years: Ron Machen (United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, ex-WH); Michael Gordon (senior counselor to the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ex-WH);
Anjan Sahni (The SDNY Chief of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force); Debo P. Adegbile (Senior Counsel for the US Senate Judiciary Committee); Rob Lehman (Chief of Staff to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH)); Robert S. Mueller (Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation); Edward Siskel (Deputy Assistant to the President); Aaron Zebley (Chief of Staff FBI); Ken Salazar (US Secretary of the Interior); Heather Tewksbury (Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice in San Francisco; Matthew Martens (Chief Litigation Counsel SEC); Mark Cahn (General Counsel SEC); Meredith Cross (Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, ex-WH); and Dan Berkowitz (General Counsel CFTC).

Agree with the above. From my experience, my friends in practice working at WH have had greater success transitioning to gov than those at GD (but obviously, it's a small sample size). I also think that WH is more equal leaning politically than GD (which is pretty conservative).

OP: What'd you end up deciding?