Wilmer vs. Gibson vs. Mayer Brown (vs. W&C?) for Government/Appellate Forum

[Anonymous User]

So, I'm really fortunate to be in the position of making a tough decision between some good options for next summer. Right now, I'm deciding between Wilmer, Gibson, and Mayer Brown, and I haven't heard back post-callback from Williams & Connolly (but I figured I'd mention it as a possibility). I'm most interested in appellate work, although I think regulatory work (non-industry-specific) seems like it would also be interested, and I'd like to spend time in government as well. The factors that are most important to me are, in no particular order: (1) a firm that has the work that I want to do (and has enough of it for me to feel confident in my ability to get it); (2) how the firm would be perceived by government hiring people (and maybe a little bit by everybody else--I have a tiny bit of prestige whore-ishness in me); and (3) the ability to potentially make some connections that could help boost a SCOTUS clerk application (I know this is a long shot for everybody, but I'm at least a competitive candidate from HYS and have a feeder COA clerkship lined up, so I don't think it's entirely out-of-line to be thinking about it).

Beyond that, the culture/people are obviously important too, but I generally liked pretty much everybody I met at all four firms and that's a pretty individualized thing anyway, so I'm not sure how much help other people might be (but if anybody has thoughts on how the culture/people at the different firms are perceived, I would always appreciate them). Finally, if it matters, I'm definitely left-of-center.

[Anonymous User]

Given your credentials, #1 and #2 doesn't matter because you'll have plenty of options post-clerkship to find the right place work-wise. I think you should spend your summer maximizing SCOTUS connections and figuring out whether you'd actually like appellate work or regulatory work. Thus, I'd look at the firms with the most connections to SCOTUS and a broad enough practice to give you a taste of both appellate and regulatory work.

Since you're looking at the liberal justices, choose Wilmer. Gibson probably has more appellate work, but given your credentials, you'd probably get enough appellate work at Wilmer anyways. If you were conservative and had a conservative feeder - Gibson would be the clear choice. Their roster is full of Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts clerks - but very few if any clerks for the liberal justices. Plus, if you'd have a problem working on cases such as Citizens United and Walmart v. Dukes, you probably don't want to go to Gibson. Plus, my sense is that Gibson doesn't have as strong/broad of a regulatory practice as Wilmer.

I also wouldn't shortchange W&C- unless you know for sure you want to try regulatory. Yes, it doesn't have much of a dedicated appellate practice (outside of Kanon Shamugon)- but they handle their own appeals and don't have a lot of people that actually want to do appellate work (thus you have a better chance of getting appellate work if you want it).

You should also look into Jones Day, which has a rockstar appellate group, clerks from both sides of the aisle, and a broad regulatory practice.

[Anonymous User]

I'm top 1% or so at HYS and have a feeder COA clerkship lined up.

Wow, every law student's dream

[Anonymous User]

First of all, I wouldn’t make the decision primarily on connections for SCOTUS hiring. In all likelihood, the firm you summered at will have a negligible effect on your chances. You can revisit the firm decision while clerking if you don’t like where you summered, but it is to your advantage to get it right the first time.

If you are primarily interested in appellate and regulatory work, going to W&C doesn’t make much sense. As the poster above mentioned, Kannon Shanmugam is their only full-time appellate partner and if you don’t get along with/get to know him, your options for appellate work would be limited. W&C also doesn’t have regulatory practices.

Of the other three firms, I think Wilmer is the best option. Gibson Dunn DC leans fairly conservative, and their big-name appellate partners – Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada, etc. – are going to be better connected with Republican political appointees and conservative justices. Mayer is a decent option, but outside the appellate practice, their DC office is significantly weaker than Wilmer’s. Wilmer has strong regulatory practices across the board – something that none of the other firms you’ve listed can offer – and they send tons of people into government.

[Anonymous User]

OP here-thanks for the replies, everybody! Anybody else have any other thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

Wilmer for your goals and profile.