Top Law Schools

Hi all! I'm sitting on some offers I'm really excited about, but was hoping to take advantage of the TLS hivemind to get some thoughts. I have a feeling I know what most people will say, but still interested in hearing other perspectives.

I am broadly interested in general commercial litigation, as well as international arbitration and FCPA work. Also basically anything that involves claims in U.S. courts stemming from overseas activities, etc (what Gibson calls "transnational litigation"). I'm really drawn to the international nature of Cleary's work. But leaving other considerations like cultural differences (if any) aside, would I be stupid to pick Cleary over Gibson and/or Simpson for litigation? I am interested in getting trial experience, but am not sure if I would get more of that at one place rather than another.

Please say why you voted the way you did Thanks so much for your help!

Edit: just added Skadden NY

I don't practice in New York and generally just know that these are good firms, but you should know that FCPA work is not really "litigation" and that a lot of the international-focused work done by big firms ends up being white-collar/investigations work rather than litigation. I think this is an obvious point having been in practice for a few years, but it was not at all obvious to me when I was interviewing or even when I started. Just my two cents.

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all! I'm sitting on some offers I'm really excited about, but was hoping to take advantage of the TLS hivemind to get some thoughts. I have a feeling I know what most people will say, but still interested in hearing other perspectives.

I am broadly interested in general commercial litigation, as well as international arbitration and FCPA work. Also basically anything that involves claims in U.S. courts stemming from overseas activities, etc (what Gibson calls "transnational litigation"). I'm really drawn to the international nature of Cleary's work. But leaving other considerations like cultural differences (if any) aside, would I be stupid to pick Cleary over Gibson and/or Simpson for litigation? I am interested in getting trial experience, but am not sure if I would get more of that at one place rather than another.

Thanks so much for your help!

It would definitely not be stupid to choose Cleary over the other two, esepcially if you want to do international/transnational litigation.

Anonymous User wrote:I don't practice in New York and generally just know that these are good firms, but you should know that FCPA work is not really "litigation" and that a lot of the international-focused work done by big firms ends up being white-collar/investigations work rather than litigation. I think this is an obvious point having been in practice for a few years, but it was not at all obvious to me when I was interviewing or even when I started. Just my two cents.

Thanks, I do understand that. What's great about Gibson I think is that with the free market system I can do FCPA work and also have my hands in commercial lit matters on the side. It seems that Cleary and Simpson are similarly in flexible in not really dictating a formal practice area/subgroup?

If FCPA work in particular is something you're interested in, Gibson is a clear notch above the others. It has one of the preeminent FCPA groups in the country and Joe Warin is a heavyweight partner there. I do a lot of FCPA work at another firm and they're one of a handful of other firms I know by reputation in this area. That said, junior associate FCPA work can be the pits, so unless you have some really good reason to want to do it, I wouldn't make that a huge factor. If you think it'll be sexy world travel, forget it. More like reviewing 100k emails and checking a box every time one of them is in Chinese.

Anonymous User wrote:If FCPA work in particular is something you're interested in, Gibson is a clear notch above the others. It has one of the preeminent FCPA groups in the country and Joe Warin is a heavyweight partner there. I do a lot of FCPA work at another firm and they're one of a handful of other firms I know by reputation in this area. That said, junior associate FCPA work can be the pits, so unless you have some really good reason to want to do it, I wouldn't make that a huge factor. If you think it'll be sexy world travel, forget it. More like reviewing 100k emails and checking a box every time one of them is in Chinese.

OP here--thanks so much for your insight. I know that for FCPA, especially when the client considers the matter to be really high stakes, it may prefer to work directly with only partners and/or ppl with experience in government. It's the subject matter that interests me at the moment, but I hope that if I do do some of that kind of work I'll be good at it and be able to take on more responsibility. We'll see.

Also, any Simpson fans want to weigh in?

How do you feel about the culture and potential fit of these firms? How committed are you to commercial lit versus international arbitration/FCPA?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:If FCPA work in particular is something you're interested in, Gibson is a clear notch above the others. It has one of the preeminent FCPA groups in the country and Joe Warin is a heavyweight partner there. I do a lot of FCPA work at another firm and they're one of a handful of other firms I know by reputation in this area. That said, junior associate FCPA work can be the pits, so unless you have some really good reason to want to do it, I wouldn't make that a huge factor. If you think it'll be sexy world travel, forget it. More like reviewing 100k emails and checking a box every time one of them is in Chinese.

OP here--thanks so much for your insight. I know that for FCPA, especially when the client considers the matter to be really high stakes, it may prefer to work directly with only partners and/or ppl with experience in government. It's the subject matter that interests me at the moment, but I hope that if I do do some of that kind of work I'll be good at it and be able to take on more responsibility. We'll see.

Also, any Simpson fans want to weigh in?

As another practicing lawyer, I would recommend taking the previous anon's warning seriously. FCPA work as a junior is drudgery.

It's not a matter of being able to take on more responsibility if you're good, or clients being picky in ultra high-stakes work. The nature of FCPA work is uncovering facts, which you can only do by reviewing an ungodly amount of files and documents. Someone will have to do it on your team, and there's no way to avoid that as a junior. Even if you're more senior, part of what you're doing is still just supervising those same brutal investigations. The worst of it is that these investigations can take a very long time.

If this kind of work really is your passion, that's great, there are great lawyers in this field. But don't go in thinking you can avoid the drudgery. We just want you to make an informed decision.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:If FCPA work in particular is something you're interested in, Gibson is a clear notch above the others. It has one of the preeminent FCPA groups in the country and Joe Warin is a heavyweight partner there. I do a lot of FCPA work at another firm and they're one of a handful of other firms I know by reputation in this area. That said, junior associate FCPA work can be the pits, so unless you have some really good reason to want to do it, I wouldn't make that a huge factor. If you think it'll be sexy world travel, forget it. More like reviewing 100k emails and checking a box every time one of them is in Chinese.

OP here--thanks so much for your insight. I know that for FCPA, especially when the client considers the matter to be really high stakes, it may prefer to work directly with only partners and/or ppl with experience in government. It's the subject matter that interests me at the moment, but I hope that if I do do some of that kind of work I'll be good at it and be able to take on more responsibility. We'll see.

Also, any Simpson fans want to weigh in?

As another practicing lawyer, I would recommend taking the previous anon's warning seriously. FCPA work as a junior is drudgery.

It's not a matter of being able to take on more responsibility if you're good, or clients being picky in ultra high-stakes work. The nature of FCPA work is uncovering facts, which you can only do by reviewing an ungodly amount of files and documents. Someone will have to do it on your team, and there's no way to avoid that as a junior. Even if you're more senior, part of what you're doing is still just supervising those same brutal investigations. The worst of it is that these investigations can take a very long time.

If this kind of work really is your passion, that's great, there are great lawyers in this field. But don't go in thinking you can avoid the drudgery. We just want you to make an informed decision.

This is super helpful, thank you!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:If FCPA work in particular is something you're interested in, Gibson is a clear notch above the others. It has one of the preeminent FCPA groups in the country and Joe Warin is a heavyweight partner there. I do a lot of FCPA work at another firm and they're one of a handful of other firms I know by reputation in this area. That said, junior associate FCPA work can be the pits, so unless you have some really good reason to want to do it, I wouldn't make that a huge factor. If you think it'll be sexy world travel, forget it. More like reviewing 100k emails and checking a box every time one of them is in Chinese.

OP here--thanks so much for your insight. I know that for FCPA, especially when the client considers the matter to be really high stakes, it may prefer to work directly with only partners and/or ppl with experience in government. It's the subject matter that interests me at the moment, but I hope that if I do do some of that kind of work I'll be good at it and be able to take on more responsibility. We'll see.

Also, any Simpson fans want to weigh in?

As another practicing lawyer, I would recommend taking the previous anon's warning seriously. FCPA work as a junior is drudgery.

It's not a matter of being able to take on more responsibility if you're good, or clients being picky in ultra high-stakes work. The nature of FCPA work is uncovering facts, which you can only do by reviewing an ungodly amount of files and documents. Someone will have to do it on your team, and there's no way to avoid that as a junior. Even if you're more senior, part of what you're doing is still just supervising those same brutal investigations. The worst of it is that these investigations can take a very long time.

If this kind of work really is your passion, that's great, there are great lawyers in this field. But don't go in thinking you can avoid the drudgery. We just want you to make an informed decision.

Curious: to what extent is white collar defense & govt investigations similar to FCPA work?

Anonymous User wrote:How do you feel about the culture and potential fit of these firms? How committed are you to commercial lit versus international arbitration/FCPA?

In terms of culture, I loved cleary when I visited. I'm planning to do a second look at Gibson and Simpson at least.

As for international arbitration/FCPA vs. commercial litigation, getting trial experience is important for me so I would say commercial lit is more important. I'm interested in international arbitration/FCPA but it's not absolutely crucial that I do it if that makes sense.

OP here. What does it mean for a litigation associate in terms of quality of work/lifestyle/other considerations when a firm (say Gibson/Skadden, etc.) is ranked Band 1 for general commercial lit by Chambers, whereas another firm is ranked lower (say Cleary, at band 3)?

Thanks!