Top Law Schools

I am interested in regulatory work and somewhat in litigation. I'd like to work at a firm for no more than 2-3 years before leaving for the federal government (not as a prosecutor), but I could be convinced to stay longer if I'm enjoying it. Both of these firms seem rather similar, so I'm having a hard time parsing the differences from the outside. If anyone has any insight, I'd really appreciate it. The one thing I've gathered so far is that Gibson leans more conservative while Wilmer leans more liberal, but even that seems to have its notable exceptions.

Happy to provide more information if that'd be helpful. I think I'm just your standard clueless 2L who is afraid of making the wrong decision.

Thanks!

Given the interest in regulatory work and desire to go into government, I feel like Wilmer is the clear choice, but I admittedly don't know a ton about Gibson's DC office.

Gibson for lit, Wilmer for reg.

This vote is more lop-sided than I thought it would be. Is it really just a function of the litigation or regulatory emphasis?

Anonymous User wrote:This vote is more lop-sided than I thought it would be. Is it really just a function of the litigation or regulatory emphasis?

Yes. Wilmer's probably the better choice if you want to go into gov't work. The D.C. office seems to be a revolving door.

I did Wilmer callback and loved it, thought every interview went perfectly, and I really liked all the people I met. But alas, rejected... I got another great opportunity but am a little jealy, esp since I won't be able to do all the govt. regulatory work where I am going.

Anyway, dude, Wilmer DC is the former home of BOB F***ING MUELLER and much of his all-star investigative team, and I imagine they might come back once this whole Trump thing wraps up--can you imagine how awesome it would be to learn from those people?? Also, if you go Wilmer, you should seek out Dave Donovan, one of the partners there; he is hilarious and super experienced, seems like he would be great to work with. Best of luck.

This thread is cute

Not a perfectly true statement, but just worth keeping in back of your mind that Wilmer tends to be very liberal and Gibson fairly conservative, as far as DC biglaw goes.

Anonymous User wrote:Not a perfectly true statement, but just worth keeping in back of your mind that Wilmer tends to be very liberal and Gibson fairly conservative, as far as DC biglaw goes.

WH has a small but very active conservative contingent. Ironically, if you want to work on "cool" matters for conservative causes / clients, it's actually not that difficult because most people don't want to. Try working the equivalent matters on the other side of the political spectrum and it's a lot more difficult.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not a perfectly true statement, but just worth keeping in back of your mind that Wilmer tends to be very liberal and Gibson fairly conservative, as far as DC biglaw goes.

WH has a small but very active conservative contingent. Ironically, if you want to work on "cool" matters for conservative causes / clients, it's actually not that difficult because most people don't want to. Try working the equivalent matters on the other side of the political spectrum and it's a lot more difficult.

I work at another "lib" shop, and one of my first assignments was a policy paper for the US Chamber. The "lib/con" split in DC is rarely so stark as to matter. At most, if a firm has an organizational client with a policy bent (say Planned Parenthood), it will be tougher to do matters directly adverse to them for conflicts reasons.