LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:11 pm

I'm interested in general litigation. What's the current thinking about these firms? Been reading ATL for recent news and turned up this: http://abovethelaw.com/2014/12/associat ... s-bonuses/ and http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/an-exodu ... l-manella/ Thanks for helping out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:45 pm

.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:38 pm

Munger has traditionally been the strongest in general lit, with Irell and Gibson close behind. My sense is now that most people here consider Gibson to be very strong and probably ahead of Irell for general lit. That said, Irell is still a great place if you're interested in patent work, and they did poach a couple big-name partners from OMM's entertainment group a couple months back. Keep in mind too that Munger's summer program is reportedly much more stressful and work-intensive than other firms, and Munger does no-offer multiple people each year.

WheninLaw

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by WheninLaw » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interested in general litigation. What's the current thinking about these firms? Been reading ATL for recent news and turned up this: http://abovethelaw.com/2014/12/associat ... s-bonuses/ and http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/an-exodu ... l-manella/ Thanks for helping out.
This topic has come up every year. Search function is your friend.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:48 pm

Go with Munger or Gibson. Both firms have a good variety of work (not so IP-focused) and offices in different cities if you decide you want to move out of the LA area.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:40 am

Does anyone have any knowledge or concern over Irell no-offers? Vault reports 1 from 2014 and I heard there was 1 in 2015 as well.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:Go with Munger or Gibson. Both firms have a good variety of work (not so IP-focused) and offices in different cities if you decide you want to move out of the LA area.
There are some discrete reasons for choosing Gibson Dunn here -- and I know attorneys at Gibson that made such a choice, but unless one or more of those reasons applies with some force, if you actually want to litigate and grow in a firm, Munger wins.

User avatar
First Offense

Platinum
Posts: 7091
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by First Offense » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone have any knowledge or concern over Irell no-offers? Vault reports 1 from 2014 and I heard there was 1 in 2015 as well.
1 no offer is not something to get concerned with if the class size is decently big. I generally assume small numbers of no offers mean someone just sucked.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10361
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by jbagelboy » Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:18 pm

First Offense wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone have any knowledge or concern over Irell no-offers? Vault reports 1 from 2014 and I heard there was 1 in 2015 as well.
1 no offer is not something to get concerned with if the class size is decently big. I generally assume small numbers of no offers mean someone just sucked.
Also, most LA based firms no offer on a somewhat regular basis (this doesn't include satellites of V10s, which are still typically 100%). It's not the market to choose if this is your primary concern.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


WheninLaw

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by WheninLaw » Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone have any knowledge or concern over Irell no-offers? Vault reports 1 from 2014 and I heard there was 1 in 2015 as well.
Both no-offers were for fairly intense behavior related issues. They would have been no-offered anywhere.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:25 pm

Both no-offers were for fairly intense behavior related issues. They would have been no-offered anywhere.
Did you summer there/are an associate there? If this is true, I would no longer be concerned. However, I would be more concerned if it was for "work product" because that could mean anything.

User avatar
cookiejar1

Silver
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by cookiejar1 » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:15 pm

Doesn't MTO routinely no offer a candidate every few years b/c of work quality issues? This isn't necessarily a big deal since MTO summers are clerking after anyways but I was given the impression that this was the case. Feel free to dispel.

WheninLaw

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by WheninLaw » Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Both no-offers were for fairly intense behavior related issues. They would have been no-offered anywhere.
Did you summer there/are an associate there? If this is true, I would no longer be concerned. However, I would be more concerned if it was for "work product" because that could mean anything.
It wasn't for work product.

As for MTO (where I have more experience) - I wouldn't use the word "routinely," but they aren't afraid to no-offer from time to time due to work quality issues. People with good grades can be surprisingly shitty associates.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by rpupkin » Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:24 pm

cookiejar1 wrote:Doesn't MTO routinely no offer a candidate every few years b/c of work quality issues? This isn't necessarily a big deal since MTO summers are clerking after anyways but I was given the impression that this was the case. Feel free to dispel.
At least as of three or four years ago, MTO would regularly no offer between two and four summers every year. It wasn't a planned thing--MTO didn't want to no offer folks. It was just that they would usually find that at least a couple of summer associates couldn't write. (And I mean really couldn't write. It's amazing how well some students can do on exams despite horrible writing mechanics.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:04 am

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone have any knowledge or concern over Irell no-offers? Vault reports 1 from 2014 and I heard there was 1 in 2015 as well.
Both no-offers were for fairly intense behavior related issues. They would have been no-offered anywhere.
What do you mean by "fairly intense behavior related issues?"

WheninLaw

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by WheninLaw » Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone have any knowledge or concern over Irell no-offers? Vault reports 1 from 2014 and I heard there was 1 in 2015 as well.
Both no-offers were for fairly intense behavior related issues. They would have been no-offered anywhere.
What do you mean by "fairly intense behavior related issues?"
I'm not going into detail. It was behavior that would have got someone no-offered by most firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428486
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:50 pm

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Both no-offers were for fairly intense behavior related issues. They would have been no-offered anywhere.
Did you summer there/are an associate there? If this is true, I would no longer be concerned. However, I would be more concerned if it was for "work product" because that could mean anything.
It wasn't for work product.

As for MTO (where I have more experience) - I wouldn't use the word "routinely," but they aren't afraid to no-offer from time to time due to work quality issues. People with good grades can be surprisingly shitty associates.
What does it even mean for Munger to no offer someone? If a person has a clerkship lined up, can Munger even make an offer in the first place? I know not everyone there clerks, but I was curious

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10361
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by jbagelboy » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Both no-offers were for fairly intense behavior related issues. They would have been no-offered anywhere.
Did you summer there/are an associate there? If this is true, I would no longer be concerned. However, I would be more concerned if it was for "work product" because that could mean anything.
It wasn't for work product.

As for MTO (where I have more experience) - I wouldn't use the word "routinely," but they aren't afraid to no-offer from time to time due to work quality issues. People with good grades can be surprisingly shitty associates.
What does it even mean for Munger to no offer someone? If a person has a clerkship lined up, can Munger even make an offer in the first place? I know not everyone there clerks, but I was curious
They offer the vast majority of their summers, and the offers are flexible so you can accept after a clerkship, academic fellowship, gov't gig, ect. They would lose nearly the entire summer class if your offer didn't allow for clerking.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by rpupkin » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
What does it even mean for Munger to no offer someone? If a person has a clerkship lined up, can Munger even make an offer in the first place? I know not everyone there clerks, but I was curious
Many reasons:

(1) Like you said, not everyone who works at Munger clerks

(2) Some who clerk don't get their clerkships till after the conclusion of their 2L summer

(3) Some have clerkships that don't start until a year or so after law school, so they work at a firm first

But you're basically right, and you're right because of a change in clerkship hiring. Five or so years ago, the vast majority of students got their clerkships during the Fall of 3L year. That's how the now defunct "plan" worked. So even at a place like Munger, all but a small handful of summers would not have clerkships by the end of their summer associate stints, when offers were made.

It's very different now, with most "student" clerkship hiring happening during 2L instead of 3L.

WheninLaw

Silver
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by WheninLaw » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What does it even mean for Munger to no offer someone? If a person has a clerkship lined up, can Munger even make an offer in the first place? I know not everyone there clerks, but I was curious
Don't really understand your question. Why couldn't they? Tons of people that clerk accept their offer, since they want the Bar stipend and generally plan to return.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: LA Litigation: Munger v. Irell v. Gibson Dunn

Post by rpupkin » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:39 pm

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What does it even mean for Munger to no offer someone? If a person has a clerkship lined up, can Munger even make an offer in the first place? I know not everyone there clerks, but I was curious
Don't really understand your question. Why couldn't they? Tons of people that clerk accept their offer, since they want the Bar stipend and generally plan to return.
For what it's worth, many (most?) federal judges will not permit a clerk to carry an outstanding law firm offer into a clerkship. You basically have to turn the firm down (and refuse/reimburse bar expenses) before starting your clerkship. It's court- and judge-dependent, though.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”