Top Law Schools

I am thankful to be deciding between Covington, Gibson Dunn, and Cleary, all in DC. I am waiting on Williams and Connolly. At this point, I'm leaning Gibson Dunn.

My number one priority is to become a great generalist litigator as fast as possible. I really don't want to wait 2-3 years to be doing interesting, complex work. I think I will do much better in a free-market system. I don't have a practice area interest, although I like antitrust, white collar, and especially appellate. But I'm down for complex commercial projects that run the gamut. I worked close to government for a long time before law school, so I think I could develop an interest in regulatory stuff. I don't particularly like securities, insurance, or real estate. Tax, banking, and similar areas give me night terrors.

I am the type of person who likes to pick up a project, learn about it, put it down, and move on to the next thing, so I don't want to become a specialist in one thing (i.e., antitrust, securities, etc.), even after 5+ years. I hate the idea of being an "antitrust lawyer," etc., and being forced into a practice group. The truth is, I need variety, or I'll flame out fast.

I am center-right politically, and politics is important to me. However, I'm open-minded, and some of my best friends (and spouse) are liberal. Nevertheless, given my goals down the road, it probably makes sense to work with people who generally share my political views, so as to facilitate networking opportunities, etc. I would like to work at a firm where I can meet people who could connect me to working for the government down the road. Eventually, depending on the circumstances, I would like to get involved in politics. "Exit options" aren't terrifically important, b/c I have those from my previous career. The caveat is that I have no connections to executive branch stuff (DOJ, fed agencies), so it would be nice to work at a firm that has some of those connections to keep that door open.

Money isn't that important -- I don't have any of it now, but I chose a full ride at a lower t-14 so I wasn't shackled to biglaw. I'm doing biglaw b/c I wanna do biglaw. If the work is interesting enough, I would be interested in partner-track. Nevertheless, the lower the billable requirement, the better. Also, the more pro bono that is encouraged, the better. And the better the bonus structure (i.e., no incentives for billing mindless matters in early December just to hit the bonus number), the better for me.

I'm leaning Gibson Dunn, mostly because of the people. The politics line up, and so does the type-A style of the firm (e.g., free market system). I think Covington gives me more security, b/c they have a stronger practice in general. Their offices are also awesome. But I don't like their assignment/practice area system. I fear that I would be slotted into a practice I don't like, because I don't think I like any practice enough to do only that type of work. I haven't thought much about Cleary, because they are pretty much only known for antitrust, from what I can tell.

Thoughts?

Should have looked at Kirkland

Anonymous User wrote:Should have looked at Kirkland

Why are you anon? How is this helpful? Do you know they didn't look at KE?

KMart wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Should have looked at Kirkland

Why are you anon? How is this helpful? Do you know they didn't look at KE?

I was just reading the description and OP seems like a perfect fit for K&E. Gibson seems like the next logical choice. Good luck!

If you're leaning Gibson, go for Gibson. Covington is obviously great at a lot of things, and Cleary fills its niche as well.

My larger comment would be about your so-called need for variety. Being a lit generalist may give you substantive "variety" in the sense that you could theoretically get lots of different types of cases doing lots of different kinds of substantive law. Realistically, at a large general litigation practice, however, you'll be working on one or two massive litigation matters that sprawl out over several years, and your life will be pure procedural repetition, filing motions and extensions and status updates and all sorts of endless bullshit for large, complex, awful cases that never end. Then when they do end, you'll probably be assigned to another case in the same vague area of the law because that's what your firm is known for.

Contrast this with regulatory or other seemingly niche practices where you focus on one body of law, but on any given day you might be responding to a government enforcement action, commenting on a rulemaking, interacting with an agency, working alongside a team of litigators, helping analyze the regulatory component of a deal, or acting as an advisor and answering specific client questions. Think procedural and factual variety over substantive variety. Just some food for thought.

Anonymous User wrote:Should have looked at Kirkland

I received an offer from Kirkland Chi. I love Chicago, but the fun work is in DC.

Glasseyes wrote:If you're leaning Gibson, go for Gibson. Covington is obviously great at a lot of things, and Cleary fills its niche as well.

My larger comment would be about your so-called need for variety. Being a lit generalist may give you substantive "variety" in the sense that you could theoretically get lots of different types of cases doing lots of different kinds of substantive law. Realistically, at a large general litigation practice, however, you'll be working on one or two massive litigation matters that sprawl out over several years, and your life will be pure procedural repetition, filing motions and extensions and status updates and all sorts of endless bullshit for large, complex, awful cases that never end. Then when they do end, you'll probably be assigned to another case in the same vague area of the law because that's what your firm is known for.

Contrast this with regulatory or other seemingly niche practices where you focus on one body of law, but on any given day you might be responding to a government enforcement action, commenting on a rulemaking, interacting with an agency, working alongside a team of litigators, helping analyze the regulatory component of a deal, or acting as an advisor and answering specific client questions. Think procedural and factual variety over substantive variety. Just some food for thought.

Thanks for the comment on regulatory matters. That is one large draw for me for Covington -- I don't know much about what it's like in the trenches of regulatory practice, but I am definitely interested in learning more.

Is joining Gibson Dunn dumb if I won't be doing much appellate, given my background? I know Covington has a much smaller appellate practice, but it seems that if you want a piece of it, you can get it, however small "it" is.

Bump -- any voters have perspective?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Should have looked at Kirkland

I received an offer from Kirkland Chi. I love Chicago, but the fun work is in DC.

There are lots of contradictions in your posts. The "fun" generalist litigation work is not in DC. The type of litigation work that flows through DC is not general, but highly specialized. It sounds like your political ambitions are what is really driving your interest in DC and that's fine, but it should also drive your firm choice (not an untethered interest in variety).

Do some serious investigation into which partners at your potential firms have done serious political work (there are not that many). You will need to become acquainted with those people, because the vast majority of the work that you do at a DC biglaw firm will not set you up for a political career.

These are firms with very different cultures and practice area focuses (with more difference between Cov and GDC from Cleary than from each other). Based on your description though, especially about your politics, I don't see how Gibson Dunn isn't the clear answer here.

I'd go Gibson. Best appellate practice, wide range of litigation strengths, work assignment system that favors your style, and politically influential in DC. Covington has a slightly more regulatory and white collar focus, while Cleary's DC office is heavily dominated by antitrust.

30 votes and 5 comments -- anyone else mind sharing your thoughts? Thanks

The people voting for Gibson actually read your original post. The people voting for Covington like the perceived prestige of Vault's DC list. The people voting for Cleary either think you're looking at NY offices or have raging antitrust boners.

Anonymous User wrote:My number one priority is to become a great generalist litigator as fast as possible. I really don't want to wait 2-3 years to be doing interesting, complex work.

As you seem to recognize, W&C--which you're waiting on--would align best with your number one priority. Frankly, your goal should be to clerk and then to work at a litigation boutique. The structure of any big law firm is incompatible with what you want.

If you want to make partner at any of these firms, you are going to have a substantially lower chance if you do not specialize. From what I've seen, people have 1 or 2 specialties. However, you could conceivably have a focus and do one-off cases in other areas of the law.

Also, at any of these firms, there are going to be people that align with you politically. You probably won't spend much time talking politics and, even if you do, it will be with a small handful of people. So I wouldn't place lots of weight on finding the most people who are politically like-minded. People at Gibson, Covington and W&C (IDK about Cleary), there are going to be people with connections in government.

Also, I agree with rpupkin that your goal of doing "complex legal work" at 2-3 years is not compatible with how things operate at these firms. At any of these firms, there is a risk that you get on some giant case with a ton of associates and are stuck doing unglamorous work for an extended period of time.

Gibson Dunn seems to make the most sense. Maybe try to work for conservative leaning partners and hope that whenever the next Republican administration comes in some of those partners end up there and swoop you up with them. FWIW, I attended a Gibson DC cocktail reception and the attorneys were freely joking about politics despite the recruiting person's half-serious admonitions not to around the students.

My understanding of W&C is that few leave for government in comparison to other DC firms, but I could be and probably am totally wrong about this. Even I'm not, part of it might be because they're likelier to be genuinely satisfied with their job, which isn't so bad either.

run26.2 wrote:If you want to make partner at any of these firms, you are going to have a substantially lower chance if you do not specialize. From what I've seen, people have 1 or 2 specialties. However, you could conceivably have a focus and do one-off cases in other areas of the law.

Also, at any of these firms, there are going to be people that align with you politically. You probably won't spend much time talking politics and, even if you do, it will be with a small handful of people. So I wouldn't place lots of weight on finding the most people who are politically like-minded. People at Gibson, Covington and W&C (IDK about Cleary), there are going to be people with connections in government.

Also, I agree with rpupkin that your goal of doing "complex legal work" at 2-3 years is not compatible with how things operate at these firms. At any of these firms, there is a risk that you get on some giant case with a ton of associates and are stuck doing unglamorous work for an extended period of time.

Anon here. Thanks!

I heard of a guy who went to Cleary and didn't like it. Although he did well at Georgetown, worked as an associate at Gibson Dunn (Orange County) and had a federal district court clerkship, he couldn't get any work. He lateraled into Gibson Dunn and likes it a lot.

I dont' think Covington is a good fit for you. Covington wants you to specialize as early in your career as possible. You have to have developed a focus to get a favorable five-year review. Also, it is a HUGE office and a lot of people don't know each other. I would like that personally, because it would fit my introverted personality. But you seem like an extrovert, and I don't think you would have the same networking opportunities that you would have at Gibson.

Bumping for one last hurrah -- New info: have Wilmerhale offer, and was dinged by WC

I think you'd fit in well at Gibson Dunn.

Re Wilmer: I think Wilmer probably has better connections/revolving door to FedGov and maybe also more of a commitment to pro bono, since that's listed as a factor for you. But Gibson is just as good for litigation generally, their way of assigning new associates is fairly similar, and the politics line up better. Not that there isn't a conservative contingent at Wilmer, it's just tiny and the firm overall has a very liberal vibe.

If I were you, I'd still pick Gibson.

Anonymous User wrote:
If I were you, I'd still pick Gibson.

Cool, thanks!

Does Gibson DC still have a reputation as a sweatshop? I remember that was the word among associates during the summer 2013, but granted, that was a while ago.

jimmythecatdied6 wrote:Does Gibson DC still have a reputation as a sweatshop? I remember that was the word among associates during the summer 2013, but granted, that was a while ago.

You'll work a ton of hours at any of these offices if your group is busy.