Top Law Schools

Searched the forum but didn't find a thread that directly compared these two firms. I know they are probably the best lit shops in their respective markets, but I was curious if there are any noteworthy differences between the two other than city (e.g., QoL, Future Opportunities, Early Experience, etc.) that would make one preferable to the other for an applicant interested in general litigation? And which would you choose (or is it a tossup)?

KBJ2011 wrote:Searched the forum but didn't find a thread that directly compared these two firms. I know they are probably the best lit shops in their respective markets, but I was curious if there are any noteworthy differences between the two other than city (e.g., QoL, Future Opportunities, Early Experience, etc.) that would make one preferable to the other for an applicant interested in general litigation? And which would you choose (or is it a tossup)?

Unless you have offers at both, this is putting the cart way way way before the horse.

Mullens wrote:

KBJ2011 wrote:Searched the forum but didn't find a thread that directly compared these two firms. I know they are probably the best lit shops in their respective markets, but I was curious if there are any noteworthy differences between the two other than city (e.g., QoL, Future Opportunities, Early Experience, etc.) that would make one preferable to the other for an applicant interested in general litigation? And which would you choose (or is it a tossup)?

Unless you have offers at both, this is putting the cart way way way before the horse.

Man you really took the time to type this but not answer the question whatsoever lol But I hear you. Don't worry I have no unrealistic expectations -- just curious about how the two stack up.

KBJ2011 wrote:

Mullens wrote:

KBJ2011 wrote:Searched the forum but didn't find a thread that directly compared these two firms. I know they are probably the best lit shops in their respective markets, but I was curious if there are any noteworthy differences between the two other than city (e.g., QoL, Future Opportunities, Early Experience, etc.) that would make one preferable to the other for an applicant interested in general litigation? And which would you choose (or is it a tossup)?

Unless you have offers at both, this is putting the cart way way way before the horse.

Man you really took the time to type this but not answer the question whatsoever lol But I hear you. Don't worry I have no unrealistic expectations -- just curious about how the two stack up.

doesn't really matter in the long run anyway

KBJ2011 wrote:Searched the forum but didn't find a thread that directly compared these two firms. I know they are probably the best lit shops in their respective markets, but I was curious if there are any noteworthy differences between the two other than city (e.g., QoL, Future Opportunities, Early Experience, etc.) that would make one preferable to the other for an applicant interested in general litigation? And which would you choose (or is it a tossup)?

Are you talking about Munger in DC? If not, you'd be much better served by picking the city you want to live in and going from there.

dtlaatty wrote:

KBJ2011 wrote:Searched the forum but didn't find a thread that directly compared these two firms. I know they are probably the best lit shops in their respective markets, but I was curious if there are any noteworthy differences between the two other than city (e.g., QoL, Future Opportunities, Early Experience, etc.) that would make one preferable to the other for an applicant interested in general litigation? And which would you choose (or is it a tossup)?

Are you talking about Munger in DC? If not, you'd be much better served by picking the city you want to live in and going from there.

I meant Munger's LA office. I have connections to both cities and would be happy to work in either market if I found the right firm.

They may be the two most selective biglaw firms in the country with an argument from Wachtell. They're both really desirable for any litigator and I imagine the biggest difference would be where you'd rather live. I have heard that Williams is more particular about clerking before you start, although for most ppl who have both options that wouldn't end up making much of a difference.

Wow. Sorry for the tangent here, but I just got a COA clerkship for a non-feeder in a non-elite circuit. Here I thought I was doing OK. Then I looked up some of the firm bios of associates at these firms. Looks like Munger D.C. is out post clerkship...

This is the worst kind of prestige whoring. These are peer firms - decide which of two radically different cities/regions you want to live in first, and go from there.

Work/worked at one of these firms and am pretty familiar with the other.

The predominant issue is whether you want to live in DC or LA. As you know if you have ties to both places, it is hard to find two major coastal cities that are as different as these two. I understand that you want to bracket this issue aside, but this inflects the other issues you're looking at.

For QoL, the firms are probably similar. Munger probably has marginally lower average billables and may have a slightly more relaxed culture; this is just a reflection of general differences between the two markets. Moreover, the partners you work for at each will matter more than the firms themselves. Above all, DC and LA are very very different cities, and that will matter more for your QoL than anything else. Do you like driving everywhere? Do you care about having great hiking nearby? Do you care about being a train ride away from NY, etc.? Do you want to live in a huge sprawling city or a small-feeling city?

Early experience is probably pretty similar at both places; again, this will defend on which partners you work for and what cases you get assigned to. Hard to tell ex ante.

Exit opportunities are where the choice of city really matters. Do you want to be an AUSA in CDCal, go in-house at a studio, or get appointed to something in CA government? Go to Munger. Do you want to be an AUSA in DDC or work at the WH Counsel's Office? Go to W&C. Neither is really "better" in the abstract. Relative to other DC firms, W&C is less of a revolving door place for the federal government (once you leave, you generally don't come back), though this is less true than in the past and isn't relevant to the decision between MTO and W&C.

cron1834 wrote:This is the worst kind of prestige whoring. These are peer firms - decide which of two radically different cities/regions you want to live in first, and go from there.

Cravath and S&C and Simpson and Paul Weiss and Debevoise are peer firms, but people don't flip a coin by that reasoning to decide where they should summer.

lawlorbust wrote:

cron1834 wrote:This is the worst kind of prestige whoring. These are peer firms - decide which of two radically different cities/regions you want to live in first, and go from there.

Cravath and S&C and Simpson and Paul Weiss and Debevoise are peer firms, but people don't flip a coin by that reasoning to decide where they should summer.

Cravath, S&C, Simpson, Paul Weiss, and Debevoise are not all in different cities. Well, they could be if you decided to apply to different offices for each one. But the point was that the decision here is LA or DC, not Munger or Williams & Connolly.

It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

Anonymous User wrote:Work/worked at one of these firms and am pretty familiar with the other.

The predominant issue is whether you want to live in DC or LA. As you know if you have ties to both places, it is hard to find two major coastal cities that are as different as these two. I understand that you want to bracket this issue aside, but this inflects the other issues you're looking at.

For QoL, the firms are probably similar. Munger probably has marginally lower average billables and may have a slightly more relaxed culture; this is just a reflection of general differences between the two markets. Moreover, the partners you work for at each will matter more than the firms themselves. Above all, DC and LA are very very different cities, and that will matter more for your QoL than anything else. Do you like driving everywhere? Do you care about having great hiking nearby? Do you care about being a train ride away from NY, etc.? Do you want to live in a huge sprawling city or a small-feeling city?

Early experience is probably pretty similar at both places; again, this will defend on which partners you work for and what cases you get assigned to. Hard to tell ex ante.

Exit opportunities are where the choice of city really matters. Do you want to be an AUSA in CDCal, go in-house at a studio, or get appointed to something in CA government? Go to Munger. Do you want to be an AUSA in DDC or work at the WH Counsel's Office? Go to W&C. Neither is really "better" in the abstract. Relative to other DC firms, W&C is less of a revolving door place for the federal government (once you leave, you generally don't come back), though this is less true than in the past and isn't relevant to the decision between MTO and W&C.

Thanks. I do understand the (often considerable) differences between the cities, and feel like I have enough understanding of those differences to weigh them without much outside help. I was just unsure if there were any qualities that speak solely to the firms themselves that were worth considering. Preciate your insight.

SmokeytheBear wrote:It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

I did, actually. I didn't find a thread that compared these two -- care to provide a link to one that does? If not, please get lost.

KBJ2011 wrote:

SmokeytheBear wrote:It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

I did, actually. I didn't find a thread that compared these two -- care to provide a link to one that does? If not, please get lost.

The only people who could really give you the information you seek are those who've worked at both places. Although it's not unheard of for some students to split their 2L summers at both firms, you're unlikely to encounter on TLS a user who has worked at both places. This is primarily due to the fact that these firms are located in cities that are very, very different, and "location" is usually one of the (if not "the") biggest factor one takes into account when choosing a place to work.

As a rising 2L, you should first try to receive an offer from both places. Once you have both offers in hand, you should ask to split. If you receive an offer at both places and for some reason cannot split the summer, tell both firms you're trying to do decide which one to go to. You'll likely be placed in contact with someone who has worked at both places (at least as a summer associate). At the very least, you'll receive more nuanced answers than you'll find from this board.

If you're an incoming judicial clerk, you shouldn't worry about this now. A year is a long time, and you may find a reason to gravitate to one location over the other.

You're obviously not a clerk, because Fall hiring at both of those firms is likely over.

Anonymous User wrote:

KBJ2011 wrote:

SmokeytheBear wrote:It's amazing to me that people might be smart enough to work at one of these firms but not competent enough to use the forum search button.

I did, actually. I didn't find a thread that compared these two -- care to provide a link to one that does? If not, please get lost.

The only people who could really give you the information you seek are those who've worked at both places. Although it's not unheard of for some students to split their 2L summers at both firms, you're unlikely to encounter on TLS a user who has worked at both places. This is primarily due to the fact that these firms are located in cities that are very, very different, and "location" is usually one of the (if not "the") biggest factor one takes into account when choosing a place to work.

As a rising 2L, you should first try to receive an offer from both places. Once you have both offers in hand, you should ask to split. If you receive an offer at both places and for some reason cannot split the summer, tell both firms you're trying to do decide which one to go to. You'll likely be placed in contact with someone who has worked at both places (at least as a summer associate). At the very least, you'll receive more nuanced answers than you'll find from this board.

If you're an incoming judicial clerk, you shouldn't worry about this now. A year is a long time, and you may find a reason to gravitate to one location over the other.

You're obviously not a clerk, because Fall hiring at both of those firms is likely over.

Thanks these are valid points -- to reiterate, I have connections to both markets (i.e., have lived & have family/friends in both) so while I get what you're saying, I actually would be happy to work in either city for different reasons. Some posters have already given useful info so I don't think my sense that some TLSers could have insight was wrong. I do admit, I didn't expect the question to provoke some users like it evidently has, but in hindsight that was predictable lol

.

Its a tough choice; most SAs at each firm are faced with both options. I work at one of them and we are constantly interviewing candidates who are debating between the two (both for SA and post-clerkship). The cultures are a little different. There's really no way to tell which one is "better," and anyone arguing that way is just partisan (or knows nothing).

bruinfan10 wrote:I'm a little shocked by how unhelpful people are being. If you feel like you could work in either city, it's completely reasonable to ask if folks could compare what it's like to work at either firm. if you're serious about a career in biglaw, the firms are different enough that I would absolutely move to one or the other great city in question depending on which firm is a better fir for me. suggesting otherwise is sperglordy even by TLS standards. if you don't want to engage with OP, leave the thread duders. JFC.

OP, I looked at both these firms. They may be "peers" in that they're both at the top of the vault selectivity lists, they're both pretty small, etc, but I got VERY different vibes. I believe that hours expectations may be substantially different, work cultures, etc. I've heard from a number of folks that W&C likes ex-military folks and has a very intensive vibe. I would say the opposite is likely true of mto, by reputation---mto has more of a nerdy/bookish vibe by reputation than anything else. look at the chambers bands for each firm; i believe they practice in different areas. i doubt W&C does entertainment like MTO does, I doubt MTO does the type of DC-specific white-collary stuff that W&C does.

by all means, apply to both places. get a sense for the different types of lawyers working at each firm in the interviews.

I think the biggest problem is that you, along with the other poster (who qualified every sentence with how each firm was "probably" like) aren't speaking from personal knowledge, which is much, much, much less helpful than the post that came after yours:

Anonymous User wrote:Its a tough choice; most SAs at each firm are faced with both options. I work at one of them and we are constantly interviewing candidates who are debating between the two (both for SA and post-clerkship). The cultures are a little different. There's really no way to tell which one is "better," and anyone arguing that way is just partisan (or knows nothing).

bruinfan10 wrote:I'm a little shocked by how unhelpful people are being. If you feel like you could work in either city, it's completely reasonable to ask if folks could compare what it's like to work at either firm. if you're serious about a career in biglaw, the firms are different enough that I would absolutely move to one or the other great city in question depending on which firm is a better fir for me. suggesting otherwise is sperglordy even by TLS standards. if you don't want to engage with OP, leave the thread duders. JFC.

OP, I looked at both these firms. They may be "peers" in that they're both at the top of the vault selectivity lists, they're both pretty small, etc, but I got VERY different vibes. I believe that hours expectations may be substantially different, work cultures, etc. I've heard from a number of folks that W&C likes ex-military folks and has a very intensive vibe. I would say the opposite is likely true of mto, by reputation---mto has more of a nerdy/bookish vibe by reputation than anything else. look at the chambers bands for each firm; i believe they practice in different areas. i doubt W&C does entertainment like MTO does, I doubt MTO does the type of DC-specific white-collary stuff that W&C does.

by all means, apply to both places. get a sense for the different types of lawyers working at each firm in the interviews.

MTO is not laid back. People are intense, the hours for juniors are crazy due to no leverage, and there's little room for mistakes or errors. Parners are quick to judge and offer no training so you will receive unparalleled substantive opportunities with a very steep learning curve and little support. The firm is very flexible from a lifestyle perspective; you could basically work from home or on the road and be in the office twice a week. But that's not the same thing as chill.

.

bruinfan10 wrote: ugh. i'm not giving more details because i don't feel like disclosing where i work on this board. but you have no idea what my personal knowledge is, other than the fact that i told you i "looked" at both firms, likely implying that I have the feeder-clerky type credentials required to be in a position to choose between mto and w&c. Would you care to contribute anything substantive from your personal experience?

You seem easily frustrated. I don't know why you would even feel the need to disclose any more details about where you work; it suffices to say you that you have never worked at either firm (much less both of them), and are thus in no real position to comment about the cultural differences between the two.

I don't think "looking" at both firms (or even summering at one) would qualify anyone to speak about which firm is "better" at something, aside from looking at the Chambers guide.

With respect to your last ask, unfortunately I did not summer at both firms, and I'm not currently working at either firm. So no--I don't have any personal experiences to contribute aside from letting the OP know that there will definitely be people off of this site (as the previous anon has mentioned) who can help OP if and when OP attains both offers.

.

runinthefront wrote: You seem easily frustrated. I don't know why you would even feel the need to disclose any more details about where you work; it suffices to say you that you have never worked at either firm (much less both of them), and are thus in no real position to comment about the cultural differences between the two.

So one must have worked at two firms for an extended period of time before one is in a position to compare the firms? What if I worked at MTO and my wife worked at W&C? Am I allowed to comment?

Also, I thought that 1:49 p.m. anon's post was good.