Top Law Schools

Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

I don't really think this choice goes beyond whether I want LA or DC - at least for me.

Anonymous User wrote:Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

This is the kind of question one might expect from a student going through OCI after one year of law school, not from a clerk who should have some clue. These are very different firms, as I'm sure you realize. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

Care to tell us why you've narrowed your choice down to these two firms? If you provide some context, perhaps you'll get some productive advice.

So both of the replies are very fair, let me try to clarify my inquiry. Say I have a gut instinct to prefer one firm over the other, does anyone think there is reason to mistrust that instinct / that one firm is objectively superior for career prospects? I guess what's making this hard is HH being so young I am having trouble valuing it in comparison to other firms.

Anonymous User wrote:So both of the replies are very fair, let me try to clarify my inquiry. Say I have a gut instinct to prefer one firm over the other, does anyone think there is reason to mistrust that instinct / that one firm is objectively superior for career prospects? I guess what's making this hard is HH being so young I am having trouble valuing it in comparison to other firms.

What do you want from your career? What area (or areas) of litigation interest you? Where do you want to practice?

Yea this is really hard to answer in the abstract

Half the lawyers I know would prefer one, the other half would prefer the other

I am assuming that you want to go to HH and are wondering if it would be dumb to turn down Wilmer Hale DC.

Anonymous User wrote:Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

Knowing nothing about your career goals, HH for dat cash.

Haven't been to HH's office, but Wilmer DC has a dope waterfall. I think the decision makes itself.

I think if you want a trial focused career HH is the better choice. Seems to have strong ties to CDCA.

Appellate and main DOJ type stuff WH is the choice. Though I suspect you may not get appellate work sans a COA clerkship. Even though Seth Waxman onkymclerked on the district court.

Would you rather be in Los Angeles or DC? Simple as that, really.

RaceJudicata wrote:Would you rather be in Los Angeles or DC? Simple as that, really.

As noted above, it's not that simple. Very very different firms. Need more context from OP on why he narrowed it down to these two.

RaceJudicata wrote:Would you rather be in Los Angeles or DC? Simple as that, really.

What if we removed the geography variable and the choice was HH v GDC LA? Like I said above, I'm just trying to feel out HH generally against bigger, more established firms and the sort of doors they may open. And I realize those "doors" will be different depending on firm clients and practice specialities, etc.

SmokeytheBear wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:Would you rather be in Los Angeles or DC? Simple as that, really.

As noted above, it's not that simple. Very very different firms. Need more context from OP on why he narrowed it down to these two.

As you can probably tell, I don't have a great idea about what I think I'd want to do five years down the road. This makes it such that I can obviously spot the difference between HH and WIlmer, but can't really decide which I have a personal taste for, so am trying to glean if people think one is obviously a better choice than the other (if that makes sense).

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

This is the kind of question one might expect from a student going through OCI after one year of law school, not from a clerk who should have some clue. These are very different firms, as I'm sure you realize. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

Care to tell us why you've narrowed your choice down to these two firms? If you provide some context, perhaps you'll get some productive advice.

As to why these two firms, basically one is convenient to where I clerk and had a friend who encouraged the interview, the other is in the city I thought I'd be targeting for various personal reasons. These ended up being my "best" offers and think that each has very different virtues.

Anonymous User wrote:

SmokeytheBear wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:Would you rather be in Los Angeles or DC? Simple as that, really.

As noted above, it's not that simple. Very very different firms. Need more context from OP on why he narrowed it down to these two.

As you can probably tell, I don't have a great idea about what I think I'd want to do five years down the road. This makes it such that I can obviously spot the difference between HH and WIlmer, but can't really decide which I have a personal taste for, so am trying to glean if people think one is obviously a better choice than the other (if that makes sense).

Then come to LA, because WilmerHale sounds like a cartoon character. And you don't want to work for a cartoon.

If you're uncertain about your future options, pick the one that leaves the most doors open. To that end, WH has national prestige vs. an Irell spin-off. To me, these firms are not even close. I'd pick WH.

If you're only at a firm for a short while though, you'll pick up substantially more cash at HH. To the tune of $50k+/year.

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

This is the kind of question one might expect from a student going through OCI after one year of law school, not from a clerk who should have some clue. These are very different firms, as I'm sure you realize. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

Care to tell us why you've narrowed your choice down to these two firms? If you provide some context, perhaps you'll get some productive advice.

As to why these two firms, basically one is convenient to where I clerk and had a friend who encouraged the interview, the other is in the city I thought I'd be targeting for various personal reasons. These ended up being my "best" offers and think that each has very different virtues.

This is a bizarre thread.

Imagine that someone posted: "I can't decide whether to attend Stanford Business School or Yale Law School. Tell me which is objectively better." And then, after folks asked for context, the OP replied with vague superficialities about convenience and geographic preference.

I came to this thread with the honest intention of offering helpful advice—I have friends at both offices—but I give up. Good luck, OP.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

This is the kind of question one might expect from a student going through OCI after one year of law school, not from a clerk who should have some clue. These are very different firms, as I'm sure you realize. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

Care to tell us why you've narrowed your choice down to these two firms? If you provide some context, perhaps you'll get some productive advice.

As to why these two firms, basically one is convenient to where I clerk and had a friend who encouraged the interview, the other is in the city I thought I'd be targeting for various personal reasons. These ended up being my "best" offers and think that each has very different virtues.

This is a bizarre thread.

Imagine that someone posted: "I can't decide whether to attend Stanford Business School or Yale Law School. Tell me which is objectively better." And then, after folks asked for context, the OP replied with vague superficialities about convenience and geographic preference.

I came to this thread with the honest intention of offering helpful advice—I have friends at both offices—but I give up. Good luck, OP.

Harsh but fair. OP, we can't give any meaningful advice without any info on your career goals, what you look for in a firm, etc. Just flip a coin, I guess.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

This is the kind of question one might expect from a student going through OCI after one year of law school, not from a clerk who should have some clue. These are very different firms, as I'm sure you realize. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

Care to tell us why you've narrowed your choice down to these two firms? If you provide some context, perhaps you'll get some productive advice.

As to why these two firms, basically one is convenient to where I clerk and had a friend who encouraged the interview, the other is in the city I thought I'd be targeting for various personal reasons. These ended up being my "best" offers and think that each has very different virtues.

This is a bizarre thread.

Imagine that someone posted: "I can't decide whether to attend Stanford Business School or Yale Law School. Tell me which is objectively better." And then, after folks asked for context, the OP replied with vague superficialities about convenience and geographic preference.

I came to this thread with the honest intention of offering helpful advice—I have friends at both offices—but I give up. Good luck, OP.

I'd definitely go to B-school, way more fun!

clerk1251 wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Finishing up a District Court clerkship now, have these two options. Obviously personal preferences will make an immense difference and almost certainly be the dispositive factor, but I'm curious how other people would think through the choice.

This is the kind of question one might expect from a student going through OCI after one year of law school, not from a clerk who should have some clue. These are very different firms, as I'm sure you realize. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

Care to tell us why you've narrowed your choice down to these two firms? If you provide some context, perhaps you'll get some productive advice.

As to why these two firms, basically one is convenient to where I clerk and had a friend who encouraged the interview, the other is in the city I thought I'd be targeting for various personal reasons. These ended up being my "best" offers and think that each has very different virtues.

This is a bizarre thread.

Imagine that someone posted: "I can't decide whether to attend Stanford Business School or Yale Law School. Tell me which is objectively better." And then, after folks asked for context, the OP replied with vague superficialities about convenience and geographic preference.

I came to this thread with the honest intention of offering helpful advice—I have friends at both offices—but I give up. Good luck, OP.

I'd definitely go to B-school, way more fun!

And then in two years law firm partners will work for you!!

SmokeytheBear wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

SmokeytheBear wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:Would you rather be in Los Angeles or DC? Simple as that, really.

As noted above, it's not that simple. Very very different firms. Need more context from OP on why he narrowed it down to these two.

As you can probably tell, I don't have a great idea about what I think I'd want to do five years down the road. This makes it such that I can obviously spot the difference between HH and WIlmer, but can't really decide which I have a personal taste for, so am trying to glean if people think one is obviously a better choice than the other (if that makes sense).

Then come to LA, because WilmerHale sounds like a cartoon character. And you don't want to work for a cartoon.

I dunno, Hueston Hennigan also sounds like an old-timey novel villain of the railroad tycoon variety. Is that a better outcome than cartoon character? You be the judge, OP.

Echoing the sentiments of this being a strange thread. I realize that saying more about some things might run the risk of outing, but you're probably past that point in just saying you have an HH offer -- I can't imagine they have more than a handful currently outstanding currently as the clerkship hiring season began a while ago.

There are definitely worse ways to decide, though, than following the money, especially coming off a clerkship. But I really can't fathom not knowing what you want to do as a lawyer to the degree where picking between these two firms wouldn't be fairly obvious? Like, at OCI, sure, but coming off a clerkship? They do pretty different stuff and are about as far separated geographically as can be.

SmokeytheBear wrote:
Then come to LA, because WilmerHale sounds like a cartoon character. And you don't want to work for a cartoon.

Username checks out

Go to Stanford Business School OP