LA - Latham v. Gibson v. Munger for corporate. Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interested in corporate/real estate/tax with a potential exit into business. Assume splits are impossible. Having substantive work and early responsibility would be great. I love the idea of Munger democracy and smaller size, but fear the narrower exit options. Latham's reputation in corporate work is very appealing, but I don't want to be a little cog in a giant machine. Please share your thoughts on this choice. Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous User]

Latham gives you best exit options

[Anonymous User]

Agree with above. Latham is best for corporate

[cookiejar1]

You can't go wrong with either GDC/Latham. I would go for whichever office you liked best (e.g., do you like white marble everywhere) / people you liked more.

You will definitely get a more bespoke experience at Munger but their corporate group is meager and possibly on its last legs. I wouldn't personally do it unless you see yourself really - and I mean Kirkland Houston associate really - enjoying the MTO kool aid. There's always something about Munger . . .

[Anonymous User]

You can't go wrong with either GDC/Latham. I would go for whichever office you liked best (e.g., do you like white marble everywhere) / people you liked more.

You will definitely get a more bespoke experience at Munger but their corporate group is meager and possibly on its last legs. I wouldn't personally do it unless you see yourself really - and I mean Kirkland Houston associate really - enjoying the MTO kool aid. There's always something about Munger . . .

OP here, would you mind elaborating? Why might it be on its last leg? I thought they had quite a few large deals recently. Is the choice really a no-brainer?

[cookiejar1]

I'll take back what I said about it being on its last legs. I don't know that to be 100% true, I'm just repeating what others have said in passing.

This is what I've heard from others who may or may not have been biased when giving me their opinion re: MTO's corporate practice: MTO's corporate practice largely relies on work supplied to them by Berkshire Hathaway. BRK's relationship with MTO goes way back, obviously, because of Charles Munger but there appears to be a somewhat vocal opinion that that relationship may be severely weakened when Charles Munger departs. If BRK starts shopping for other law firms, then MTO's corporate practice will be . . . quite different. Such is the reasoning.

I can't really comment on whether that's actually true so feel free to be pretty skeptical here. What I can say for sure is that Latham / GDC's corporate practices are much, much stronger across the board. MTO's draw isn't the work that they do - it's their unique culture and early substantive experience.

For what it's worth I think the no-brainer choice here is one of Latham / GDC for corporate work. But kool aid is a powerful thing and it's important to work with people who'll make your life bearable. The personalities at Latham and GDC are already pretty distinct between the two firms but when you take either firm and compare them to MTO you'll get a whole world of differences. Surely both MTO and Latham took you to the same steakhouse across the street for your CB. One lunch probably talked about pulling shots at Blue Cow's happy hour, the other about whether Piketty requires that certain law & econ rationales be updated. I can totally see someone choosing MTO's "weaker" corporate practice purely for culture - the firm is just that different.

[Anonymous User]

I'll take back what I said about it being on its last legs. I don't know that to be 100% true, I'm just repeating what others have said in passing.

This is what I've heard from others who may or may not have been biased when giving me their opinion re: MTO's corporate practice: MTO's corporate practice largely relies on work supplied to them by Berkshire Hathaway. BRK's relationship with MTO goes way back, obviously, because of Charles Munger but there appears to be a somewhat vocal opinion that that relationship may be severely weakened when Charles Munger departs. If BRK starts shopping for other law firms, then MTO's corporate practice will be . . . quite different. Such is the reasoning.

I can't really comment on whether that's actually true so feel free to be pretty skeptical here. What I can say for sure is that Latham / GDC's corporate practices are much, much stronger across the board. MTO's draw isn't the work that they do - it's their unique culture and early substantive experience.

For what it's worth I think the no-brainer choice here is one of Latham / GDC for corporate work. But kool aid is a powerful thing and it's important to work with people who'll make your life bearable. The personalities at Latham and GDC are already pretty distinct between the two firms but when you take either firm and compare them to MTO you'll get a whole world of differences. Surely both MTO and Latham took you to the same steakhouse across the street for your CB. One lunch probably talked about pulling shots at Blue Cow's happy hour, the other about whether Piketty requires that certain law & econ rationales be updated. I can totally see someone choosing MTO's "weaker" corporate practice purely for culture - the firm is just that different.

OP here, thanks a lot for the detailed response! This makes a lot of sense. One more question: any thoughts on GDC v. Latham? Aside from the cultural differences, are they practically identical in LA?

[rpupkin]

Latham gives you best exit options

Care to back that up, Anon? I don't know anything about the corporate practices of Latham and Gibson. But I do know that when someone asserts that a firm has "better exit options"—and when that person provides no explanation—the person usually has no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous User]

I see Latham involved in more high profile transactions than GDC. I think the most in LA would agree they are best for Corporate work.

[jbagelboy]

Latham gives you best exit options

Care to back that up, Anon? I don't know anything about the corporate practices of Latham and Gibson. But I do know that when someone asserts that a firm has "better exit options"—and when that person provides no explanation—the person usually has no idea what they're talking about.

My friends at Gibson and Munger had a miserable time trying to secure corporate projects during their summers, often had to write research memos instead, and couldn't be guaranteed spots in corporate groups when they started full time. Gibson and Munger also both have reputations as eminent litigation practices, whereas Latham is better known for its finance groups, as supported by headcount, chambers, ect. So I would probably agree that Latham is the best option for someone 100% committed to transactional practice, but I won't claim absolute knowledge.

[itbdvorm]

Latham gives you best exit options

Care to back that up, Anon? I don't know anything about the corporate practices of Latham and Gibson. But I do know that when someone asserts that a firm has "better exit options"—and when that person provides no explanation—the person usually has no idea what they're talking about.

My friends at Gibson and Munger had a miserable time trying to secure corporate projects during their summers, often had to write research memos instead, and couldn't be guaranteed spots in corporate groups when they started full time. Gibson and Munger also both have reputations as eminent litigation practices, whereas Latham is better known for its finance groups, as supported by headcount, chambers, ect. So I would probably agree that Latham is the best option for someone 100% committed to transactional practice, but I won't claim absolute knowledge.

This is Latham easily - not a close call. Munger's corporate practice is frankly just really weird - big deals for Berkshire Hathaway and then odds and ends. Been opposite them a few times and, while they are of course very smart, the points they are making are all over the place (I usually spend lots of time discussing things that shouldn't matter that they are somehow worried about, and huge issues go unnoticed).

Gibson historically had an excellent practice, but I get the sense they have fallen off a bit. I don't think I've ever actually been across from them.