Skadden DC v. Cleary DC v. Wilmer DC Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all,

Very lucky to have offers at all these. I recognize these places are very different, but they all have aspects I like (and some I'm wary of).

I am interested in antitrust work (in particular merger review type work), with secondary interests in securities enforcement and government investigations (and potentially financial regulatory). I think I liked the people most at Skadden, but liked them everywhere. I think the Wilmer people might be too "brainy" for my personality, but I think they're also probably on the whole the least "New York" in terms of tough personalities -- something I appreciate. Given the fields I'm interested in, the ability to go to the government is something that I value.

Obviously Cleary is best for antitrust, but that seems like the main reason to go to their DC office. I'm concerned that if I end up disliking antitrust, it may be a tough place to be.

Skadden seems to have a stronger antitrust practice than Wilmer, but I'm not sure how I feel about getting hired into a practice group. Skadden's size seems to me like it's generally better regarded in DC than Cleary. Further, it's my impression that you could switch groups if you really didn't like it. I did like the more gregarious nature of the people.

Wilmer is obviously the strongest in DC as a general matter. They're also probably the best at getting people to government. But, Wilmer is also probably the weakest at antitrust (though the strongest at securities). There is certainly something appealing about being at a top tier firm in DC for exit options, particularly since I have no desire to live in NYC. But, I have also heard that the people who succeed/are generally favored by partners are those with the best pedigrees (fanciest clerkships, etc.) and that likely won't apply to me. Perhaps that's a concern everywhere, but I have only heard it about Wilmer.

TL;DR: would you choose the firm that's strongest in the practice area of interest (antitrust), the firm that is both generally well regarded in DC and strong in the practice area, or the firm that is in the top tier in the market but not as strong in a particular practice area?

[Anonymous User]

Tough call for all the reasons you mentioned, but I would still pick Wilmer here, unless you're not going to be able to stomach making less than you friends at NY-market firms after a few years when the pay structure gets wonky.

Me, I'd take Wilmer anyway. But judging by the tone of your post, you're looking for validation in choosing Skadden and setting aside prestige (kudos to that), and it's a perfectly defensible choice, so you should probably do that and not look back.

[Anonymous User]

3 great choices. Wilmer is, as a whole, regarded as the best out of the three in DC. However, if you're pretty sure you want to do antitrust, and you liked the people the most at Skadden, I would go to Skadden.

[Anonymous User]

I would strongly consider Cleary if you think you want to do antitrust. It's really a great place to be if that is what you want to do. I don't think that the office is that bad if you decide you don't love antitrust (clearly you think you'll like it right now so I doubt you will hate it and they won't force you into it). Also, if you have these three firms as options you will probably not be locked in if you decided you wanted to switch firms as a 3L, post-clerkship, or as a second year. Wilmer is really a great firm with regards to its other practices in DC (not necessarily elsewhere), but it just doesn't stack up against Cleary and Skadden when it comes to antitrust work. If you are an extremely risk averse I would lean toward Skadden.

Anecdotally, I summered at Clear in DC and had several friends at Wilmer in DC. I think my summer experience was nicer (more perks) and generally the work environment was better (from their comments).