Latham & Watkins v. Gibson Dunn (both New York) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi everyone,

I've narrowed down my offers to Latham and Gibson in New York (initially was also seriously considering an offer at Shearman & Sterling, so please tell me if I'm wrong to exclude that as an option). I'm interested in potentially doing antitrust work, as well as internal investigations/FCPA type stuff, and complex commercial lit. Really I just want to get exposure to a variety of different areas of litigation during my first few years at whatever firm I'm at, especially since I'm a k-jd and haven't had the chance to gain real exposure to these areas. I'm nearly 100 percent sure I don't want to do transactional work. Also, for what it's worth, not really interested in "international law," nor am I really looking to do soft IP-type work, so those factors are irrelevant to me.

As far as exit opportunities go, I'd like to transition to government, though in what capacity I'm not sure yet.

I haven't yet returned to the firms to speak to more people, which I'll try to do in the next week or so, but I've definitely liked everyone I've met at both firms. I don't think I'm better suited working in one type of "culture" over another, so this factor is kind of a wash for me.

Any thoughts? Thanks, TLS!

[Anonymous User]

i'd say go with the firm where you like the people better. my understanding is that the firms otherwise offer essentially the same quality of lit work, and the exit options will be about the same. obviously other TSLers can correct me if i'm wrong.

[Anonymous User]

i got the impression that latham was more corporate-dominated than gibson was. does that have any bearing on the emphasis that the firm places on its lit practice or no?

[Anonymous User]

i don't think so. latham's lit practice is well regarded, and i have friends who do lit there and it seems there's plenty of work to go around. if anyone else with more familiarity with latham's lit group wants to speak to this, though, that might give you some more insight

[lald99]

i got the impression that latham was more corporate-dominated than gibson was. does that have any bearing on the emphasis that the firm places on its lit practice or no?

Relatively, this is definitely true. If you just look at Chambers ratings—which, despite some contrary opinion here, do serve as useful reference points—Gibson NY is Band 1 litigation (general commercial lit), while Latham is Band 3. From first hand knowledge as well, Gibson NY is much more lit-heavy relative to Latham NY, which is not bad in any way.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you, that's actually really helpful to keep in mind. Going off of that point, do you think that affects the availability of lit work for junior associates at the two firms? i.e., would a junior associate at Gibson have more opportunities to assist on different types of cases, by virtue of the fact that the firm itself is more lit-heavy? And do you think this translates into a difference in the quality/accessibility of gov-oriented exit options?

Thanks so much again. I really appreciate the insight.

i got the impression that latham was more corporate-dominated than gibson was. does that have any bearing on the emphasis that the firm places on its lit practice or no?

Relatively, this is definitely true. If you just look at Chambers ratings—which, despite some contrary opinion here, do serve as useful reference points—Gibson NY is Band 1 litigation (general commercial lit), while Latham is Band 3. From first hand knowledge as well, Gibson NY is much more lit-heavy relative to Latham NY, which is not bad in any way.

[Anonymous User]

Hi everyone, I've noticed that there's a fairly even divide between the number of people voting for Latham and Gibson. Would anyone mind offering some additional insight on why one is a better option (even if only by a little) than the other? I've now talked to several additional associates and partners at both firms, and am still having difficulty deciding. I'd really just love a fresh perspective from someone who doesn't have a vested interest in ensuring that I end up at one of those two firms. Hearing from practicing lawyers, 3Ls who have been through a similar process, or really anyone else on TLS who can shed some light would be tremendously helpful!

Thank you!

[itbdvorm]

My two cents (as a corp guy):

While Gibson may be more litigation focused than Latham, I strongly suspect the overall litigation group at Latham is larger (or at least the same size) given Latham's much larger presence in NYC. Gibson's obviously a fantastic firm nationwide, they just don't seem to have much of a NY presence. Latham also very publicly hired Kathy Ruemmler from the White House to (I think) be in NY.

All that said, both great firms. Look to see where you fit the best and clicked the most with the likely supervisors.

Good luck!

[RedGiant]

Hi everyone, I've noticed that there's a fairly even divide between the number of people voting for Latham and Gibson. Would anyone mind offering some additional insight on why one is a better option (even if only by a little) than the other? I've now talked to several additional associates and partners at both firms, and am still having difficulty deciding. I'd really just love a fresh perspective from someone who doesn't have a vested interest in ensuring that I end up at one of those two firms. Hearing from practicing lawyers, 3Ls who have been through a similar process, or really anyone else on TLS who can shed some light would be tremendously helpful!

Thank you!

Well, for one, Latham recently (2009) Lathamized their first years in NY (big time), so I would definitely pick GD. Latham NY has a lot of corporate, but overall, Latham has a great Lit practice, particularly with antitrust and FCPA stuff, but...a lot of it isg in DC. So I would find out how much they staff across offices and what types of Lit you'd be exposed to at each place. This is really what post-offer lunches are for. Drill down into staffing, exposure, which partners take juniors under their wings, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Thank you to the above commenters for the great insight. It's given me a great deal to think about. Just in regards to the previous commenter's point re: the 2009 layoffs at Latham...I've seen people refer to that issue time and time again on TLS whenever someone is choosing between Latham and another firm of more or less the same caliber. Definitely not arguing with anyone raising that concern, as I think it's perfectly legitimate to think about, I'm genuinely simply wondering why people still think it's relevant more than four years later. Didn't Latham get enough horrible PR at the time that they wouldn't dare think of pulling another stunt like that? Or are the concerns on TLS not so much about the layoffs specifically, but that this reflects a broader issue w/r/t how they continue to treat their junior associates? If so, I'd love to hear a bit more about that, as it's definitely not something anyone at the firm would ever openly discuss (or at least I assume that's the case).

Thank you again!

[Anonymous User]

Just as an aside, there's a real difference between the type of litigation work each firm does. Latham is a huge corporate firm, so like some of the elite (Band 1 or by reputation) NY litigation firms whose bread and butter is corporate (think S&C, Simpson, maybe even Skadden, Cravath) the work will be tangential to a lot of their corporate clients. As an example, Goldman is one of S&C's biggest clients, so a good chunk of litigation there is from them—more generally, their litigation revolves around financial institutions because this is, of course, New York City. Latham will be similar. Gibson, as a national firm who didn't rise up the ranks of NY Lit until recently, has a much bigger variety of lit work. I know associates who have worked on IP Lit, RICO cases, and white collar investigations in the same year. People in the NY office also often work with LA/DC which broadens the caseload. Now I'm not saying Latham cannot provide you with a nice variety, as well—I've heard first hand from lit associates there who have done very interesting work—but it's definitely more revolved around financial institutions.

[Anonymous User]

That's extremely helpful, and exactly the type of info I was looking for. What I care about more than anything is working at a firm where (at some point) I'll be able to do substantive work (i.e., not wasting away doing doc review after doc review), and getting to explore a variety of lit matters.

Can anyone else who either works at GDC's NY office or knows people there speak to the relative strength of its lit practice (as compared to Latham's), and perhaps more specifically w/r/t its commercial lit, white collar, and securities work? I've spent a lot of time looking at Chambers, etc., but still can't get a good feel for how the two firms compare in this regard. Hearing more along the lines of what the previous anon wrote would be super valuable.

Also, exit options understandably matter a lot to me. As mentioned, I would love to transition to a gov position, like AUSA, although I realize those are nearly impossible to get. Does one firm offer better options for lit people, even if only marginally?

Lastly, culture isn't really a thing for me, since I really liked the people at both and have pretty much always gotten along with people I work with, but if anyone thinks there's any particularly notable culture-related differences (I often hear the word "fratty" being associated with Latham, but beyond that haven't gotten a good sense of either firm's "culture," to the extent that there is one), please let me know. Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

Bump...if anyone has any further insight i'd greatly appreciate it. If I want to take a second look at any of these firms I'll have to fly back to NY, so I'm just looking for any insight at this point that might allow me to head into my potential second looks more informed about anything I mentioned in my post. As mentioned, I really value the input that TLSers give, since it's not like it's in your interest that I end up at firm X over firm Y (unlike those at the firms at which I've received offers), so your advice, I imagine, would be more neutral and therefore obviously more helpful

Thanks so much again

[jbagelboy]

I think Gibson all the way. It's a true premier firm for litigation. For transactional I'd be more torn. But end of the day, gun to head, Gibson Dunn dude. Do it.

[Anonymous User]

I think Gibson all the way. It's a true premier firm for litigation. For transactional I'd be more torn. But end of the day, gun to head, Gibson Dunn dude. Do it.

jbagelboy, thank you! I'm a lurker, and know that you're extremely knowledgable on all things law school and legal employment, so your advice is super helpful. My only question is, is what you're saying applicable to the NY office specifically? GDC's roots are in cali, and I know the DC office is pretty elite because of its appellate practice, etc., so I wasn't sure if the quality of the firm's lit practice applies to the NY office as well. Just concerned about working for a firm in NY whose work flow and such is esssentially dictated by another office. Could you briefly speak to that, based on what you know?

Thank you again!

[Got30]

I think Gibson all the way. It's a true premier firm for litigation. For transactional I'd be more torn. But end of the day, gun to head, Gibson Dunn dude. Do it.

Can you speak more to the transactional side?