Top Law Schools

I'm somewhat middle range at a T14 but happy that I'm choosing between Vedder, McDermott, Schiff, Foley, mcguirewoods. I'd appreciate any input. Interested in general business litigation with maybe an interest in white collar or product liability. Thinking about crossing mcguirewoods and Vedder off but I like the other three for the mix of respected litigation work and lifestyle to the extent that exists in big law. If possible, I'd also like to keep the option of working for the government at some point if I drift that way after a few years.

Chicago litigation associate at one of the bigger firms:

For Lit, definitely cross off Vedder and MW. Neither are particularly good, relative to other big firms, for Lit in Chicago. Have also heard not so great things about the partners at Vedder.

If it were me, i'd be choosing between Schiff and McDermott. Although I don't know much about Foley's Chicago office. My perception is they are the big player in Milwaukee, but somewhat less established in Chicago.

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago litigation associate at one of the bigger firms:

For Lit, definitely cross off Vedder and MW. Neither are particularly good, relative to other big firms, for Lit in Chicago. Have also heard not so great things about the partners at Vedder.

If it were me, i'd be choosing between Schiff and McDermott. Although I don't know much about Foley's Chicago office. My perception is they are the big player in Milwaukee, but somewhat less established in Chicago.

Also a Chicago lit associate at one of the bigger firms and I was going to say the exact same thing.

Do not do Vedder for lit. Even mcguirewoods is probably not a good choice for lit.

Agreed with the above posters remarks with respect to Vedder and MW. I have not followed the Schiff/Riley Safer split as closely as I should, but I believe their litigation practice generally, and their white collar practice specifically, has been significantly weakened. I would look into that more if I were you, OP, or just go with McDermott.

OP Here. Thank you for the input. Is there a sense that McDermott is far ahead of Schiff in terms of reputation?

Anonymous User wrote:OP Here. Thank you for the input. Is there a sense that McDermott is far ahead of Schiff in terms of reputation?

It depends what you mean by reputation, if by overall prestige/name recognition, probably yes.

I didn’t know about the recent partner split the other poster mentioned above, that would be something to look into if you’re interested in Schiff. But, McDermott is probabaly the best option for general commercial lit of these.

McDermott for lit for sure

Personally I would go with McDermott. But just remember that you can only have 5 offers at a time under NALP, so if you get another offer keep that in mind. And once you rule one out, let the firm know so that your classmates can have a shot.

Chicago associate. It’s an open secret that McDermott has the most toxic culture in the city. But it’s the best on the city as far as prestige and reputation go so do what you gotta do I guess.

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago associate. It’s an open secret that McDermott has the most toxic culture in the city. But it’s the best on the city as far as prestige and reputation go so do what you gotta do I guess.

I thought McDermott had a good culture?

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago associate. It’s an open secret that McDermott has the most toxic culture in the city. But it’s the best on the city as far as prestige and reputation go so do what you gotta do I guess.

OP here: I had never heard that before. Everyone I've met with seemed to enjoy being there and several told me they stayed even though they had opportunities to go elsewhere. Can anyone else confirm this?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago associate. It’s an open secret that McDermott has the most toxic culture in the city. But it’s the best on the city as far as prestige and reputation go so do what you gotta do I guess.

OP here: I had never heard that before. Everyone I've met with seemed to enjoy being there and several told me they stayed even though they had opportunities to go elsewhere. Can anyone else confirm this?

I've never heard anything to that effect either, OP. As far as Chi big law goes, I have always heard that McDermott was one of the more humane firms in the city. Also "best in the city as far as prestige and reputation go?" Idk where that is coming from. McDermott is a great firm, but I don't think its prestige matches up to K&E, Skadden, Sidley, and the other usual suspects. Not that that's terribly important, but still.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago associate. It’s an open secret that McDermott has the most toxic culture in the city. But it’s the best on the city as far as prestige and reputation go so do what you gotta do I guess.

OP here: I had never heard that before. Everyone I've met with seemed to enjoy being there and several told me they stayed even though they had opportunities to go elsewhere. Can anyone else confirm this?

I have heard only positive things about McDermott but I only know two associates there. You can ask an associate out for coffee to get a better vibe of the firm. Good luck making a decision!

OP- how did you end up making your decision?

Anonymous User wrote:OP- how did you end up making your decision?

Bumping this. Have friends deciding amongst the same firms plus a few others. How did you narrow them down?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP- how did you end up making your decision?

Bumping this. Have friends deciding amongst the same firms plus a few others. How did you narrow them down?

Not OP but on a waitlist for one of these firms. Do you know when your friend's offers expire? Thanks, it will help ease some anxiety

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP- how did you end up making your decision?

Bumping this. Have friends deciding amongst the same firms plus a few others. How did you narrow them down?

Not OP but on a waitlist for one of these firms. Do you know when your friend's offers expire? Thanks, it will help ease some anxiety

He has offers from all of these except MW and Vedder, plus Mayer. Had them for about 2 weeks?

OP Here - I ultimately went with Foley. I crossed off Vedder and MW mostly for culture things that I think some of the earlier posters alluded to. I didn't click as well with them. I couldn't shake a weird kinda bro-y vibe from MW even though they worked to cover it and Vedder didn't seem to have the kind of lit work that some of the other places did. I eliminated Schiff for some similar reasons though I didn't feel them as strongly as I did with Vedder and MW. I was pretty confident I'd be happy at Schiff but I just didn't click with the people as much and it seemed like a place where there wasn't as much inter-firm collegiality as at McDermott or Foley (as corny as that sounds). The ultimate decision between Foley and McDermott was hard. McDermott was ranked better which would be good if I wanted to use the firms as a springboard, but I felt like Foley would be a better place to build a career and that I wouldn't be sacrificing too much name recognition by making that decision. I guess in summary it was mostly based on fit, which I know doesn't help all that much. If I had been deciding between something like Mayer or Winston and Foley, I probably would have gone with Mayer or Winston just for the opportunities that would have brought. But I didn't think that the name recognition held as much sway for this decision as it otherwise might have.

Anonymous User wrote:OP Here - I ultimately went with Foley. I crossed off Vedder and MW mostly for culture things that I think some of the earlier posters alluded to. I didn't click as well with them. I couldn't shake a weird kinda bro-y vibe from MW even though they worked to cover it and Vedder didn't seem to have the kind of lit work that some of the other places did. I eliminated Schiff for some similar reasons though I didn't feel them as strongly as I did with Vedder and MW. I was pretty confident I'd be happy at Schiff but I just didn't click with the people as much and it seemed like a place where there wasn't as much inter-firm collegiality as at McDermott or Foley (as corny as that sounds). The ultimate decision between Foley and McDermott was hard. McDermott was ranked better which would be good if I wanted to use the firms as a springboard, but I felt like Foley would be a better place to build a career and that I wouldn't be sacrificing too much name recognition by making that decision. I guess in summary it was mostly based on fit, which I know doesn't help all that much. If I had been deciding between something like Mayer or Winston and Foley, I probably would have gone with Mayer or Winston just for the opportunities that would have brought. But I didn't think that the name recognition held as much sway for this decision as it otherwise might have.

When did you accept your offer?