MTO (LA) vs. W&C (DC) Forum

[Anonymous User]

For 2L SA. Interested in general lit and appellate. LA vs. DC is a wash; I like both cities equally, though for different reasons. Definitely want to clerk, and thinking about potential government work somewhere down the line (e.g. DOJ, AUSA) and academia very long term.

Other considerations:

• Would love to work at MTO DC, but not confident I'll get SCOTUS, so unsure if going to MTO LA would boost chances at MTO DC. Unsure if going to W&C would materially affect outcome.
• Considering partnership prospects (in the event gov/academia don't work out) but odds seem decent at both places, though MTO may promote faster?
• May move to a different city due to SO's job, so not sure if better to go to a firm with more offices (MTO) or a firm with stronger general prestige (W&C) in the event that I'd need to relocate.
• Would prefer more nerdy/intellectual culture. Met lots of people passionate about the law at both places, but didn't meet enough people to get a concrete sense of the culture at each. (Recent TLS post notwithstanding, I believe culture is a real thing and an important factor for my happiness.)

Let me know if there are other things I should consider. All feedback welcome, thanks for your help.

[Anonymous User]

munger will be more nerdy/cerebral

don't count on MTO DC under any circumstances

partnership prospects are comparable, maybe edge to MTO

both firms are eminently prestigious in the eyes of anyone who matters for your job search

Which do you prefer between DC and CA? And what sort of litigation are you interested in?

[Person1111]

munger will be more nerdy/cerebral

don't count on MTO DC under any circumstances

partnership prospects are comparable, maybe edge to MTO

both firms are eminently prestigious in the eyes of anyone who matters for your job search

Which do you prefer between DC and CA? And what sort of litigation are you interested in?

This. Both firms are exceptionally "prestigious," although that's not a good reason to pick a firm. I've also heard that MTO is not great about intra-firm transfers (and that DC is nearly impossible to land). Your decision should mostly come down to fit and location, with a small edge to W&C if you want to do government-focused or investigations work and a small edge to MTO if you have any interest in the entertainment industry.

[Anonymous User]

Former MTO summer with friends at both firms. If you're truly indifferent between DC and California (query that), then W&C. More than a few Munger partners/associates have left recently. Not aware of similar data at W&C, though likely just my West Coast-based bias.

Partnership prospects roughly equal. "general prestige" (your words) roughly equal. "nerdy/intellectual culture" roughly equal.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

Which do you prefer between DC and CA?

It's a wash for me. I prefer CA for weather, food, and entertainment, but DC for friends (tons of friends in DC, not many in CA) and family (extended family there, and parents likely to move there).

And what sort of litigation are you interested in?

For now, general commercial lit. Maybe IP lit too, only because everyone says patent cases go to trial more frequently. Also very interested in appellate/Supreme Court lit, though I can't tell how much of that I'd be doing at MTO LA (seems like Don Verrilli has his crew in DC) vs. W&C (seems like most of the work comes from Kannon Shanmugam).

I appreciate all the feedback so far!

[Anonymous User]

I summered at one of the two, and know people at the other.

-Don't count on MTO DC (no one can, tiny office and no summers) but if you want MTO DC it'd be a lie to say that having been a summer at MTO is not going to give you a slight edge. But I've heard of people who previously had offers from MTO LA who want MTO SF having to re-interview post-clerkship.
-Partnership prospects are basically the same at both.
-The prestige thing is basically a wash. Anyone who knows how elite MTO/W&C are will know what it means to have worked there. That one has three offices and the other has one is immaterial in that regard.
-For a more nerdy/intellectual culture go to MTO. People there love talking about the law and think it's fun. People at W&C are more intense and, for lack of a better term, realists.

Also, there are plenty of people who've summered at both, or summered at one and worked at the other. There seems to be a lot of overlap among the ultra-elite firms' associates; you should seek out their thoughts on culture.

You didn't mention compensation but that may also be a consideration: MTO gives bonuses + firm gives a 401(k) contribution (very uncommon) whereas W&C pays only a straight salary.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

Which do you prefer between DC and CA?

It's a wash for me. I prefer CA for weather, food, and entertainment, but DC for friends (tons of friends in DC, not many in CA) and family (extended family there, and parents likely to move there).

I practice in DC, so take this with a grain of salt, but my sense is that, if you’d ultimately like to move again, some time spent in DC will make more sense on a resume than some time spent in LA. Not that time spent in LA is a bad thing; it’s just so common for young lawyers to do some time in DC that it might seem less of a gear-switch in the future if you pick a new market.

[Anonymous User]

While both as prestigious as one can get, it seems to me these are, culturally, very different firms. W&C is big on its one office model. There seems to be a larger emphasis on collaboration between attorneys at all levels. Additionally, if you're unsure exactly what you want to do, the fact that Kannon Shanmugam, Bob Barnett, as well as the head of the IP practice all work with 100 yards of each other is immeasurable.

On the other hand, MTO is not quite as focused on litigation and that may be useful in the event you want some exposure to other practice areas or maybe want to go in house some day... Not that W&C is lacking in exit options.

Ultimately if SCOTUS is your ambition, not sure there's a better spot than W&C. 45 SCOTUS clerks in 10 years. Crushes any other firm.

Congrats, though-- what a choice!

[Anonymous User]

Can't go wrong here. I'd say the biggest differences, which you'll need to evaluate for yourself, are:

1. Location
2. Practice Area Strengths
3. Pay (MTO > W&C)

[Anonymous User]

Can't go wrong here. I'd say the biggest differences, which you'll need to evaluate for yourself, are:

1. Location
2. Practice Area Strengths
3. Pay (MTO > W&C)

Actually, for summer associates, W&C pays more than MTO

[Anonymous User]

Can't go wrong here. I'd say the biggest differences, which you'll need to evaluate for yourself, are:

1. Location
2. Practice Area Strengths
3. Pay (MTO > W&C)

Actually, for summer associates, W&C pays more than MTO

I'm talking about actual associates. What you make for a 10-week showcase isn't all that relevant.

[Anonymous User]

Can't go wrong here. I'd say the biggest differences, which you'll need to evaluate for yourself, are:

1. Location
2. Practice Area Strengths
3. Pay (MTO > W&C)

Actually, for summer associates, W&C pays more than MTO

this is like the definition of TLS myopia

[Anonymous User]

Can't go wrong here. I'd say the biggest differences, which you'll need to evaluate for yourself, are:

1. Location
2. Practice Area Strengths
3. Pay (MTO > W&C)

Actually, for summer associates, W&C pays more than MTO

I'm talking about actual associates. What you make for a 10-week showcase isn't all that relevant.

Quoted poster. I get your point, but if OP is considering two super elite firms where tons of people clerk and maybe then decide to go do something else (eg govt), it’s not at all obvious to me that he/she will someday be a midlevel at either of these places, so summer pay might actually be more important than midlevel comp, especially if OP is racking up debt. Might seem like a small point and maybe I should have explained this better, but I thought the point deserved clarification.

[Anonymous User]

i don't know well anyone at MTO so i can't rly do the comparison. the W&C ppl mostly aren't very nerdy, they love the trenches of litigation, not appellate, law school nerd type stuff. still, if you want to practice appellate, W&C ain't a bad place to be. there's only two partners (now that the 3rd, AJR, is becoming a fed judge) that rly do appellate, but a decent number of appellate matters. ime some ppl who you wouldn't expect to have the credentials to do a lot of appellate work at other big DC places (non-scotus) were able to do that; check the names on some of the briefs. fed appellate clerkship is required to work on appellate as a full time associate.

compensation should also be on your mind, as a mid-level / senior-level associate at W&C you will be making substantially less than at MTO

[Anonymous User]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

[Anonymous User]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

If you have the credentials to work at either, the fact that you went to one and not the other isn't going to make a difference for your clerkship applications. You're already as competitive as you're going to get. And the reputation of both firms is well-known by judges. Fun fact: Kavanaugh was a summer associate at MTO. Hell, in terms of former SCOTUS clerks I think MTO has more as a percentage of their lawyers than W&C (something like 18 SCOTUS clerks at MTO versus 20 SCOTUS clerks at W&C and W&C is quite a bit bigger).

Tl;dr: pick whichever firm you like best. You're gonna do fine in your clerkship process whether you choose MTO or W&C.

[Anonymous User]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

Where you summer doesn’t matter at all for clerking. Whether you can secure a dc circuit clerkship will be based on your grades, your letters/advocates, and your writing.

[Anonymous User]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

Where you summer doesn’t matter at all for clerking. Whether you can secure a dc circuit clerkship will be based on your grades, your letters/advocates, and your writing.

Working at W&C isn’t a silver bullet for a DC federal clerkship, but the notion that it isn’t a helpful signaling device that makes a difference in certain cases or to certain judges is 100% false.

I expect the same is true with MTO in the Ninth Circuit.

[Anonymous User]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

If you have the credentials to work at either, the fact that you went to one and not the other isn't going to make a difference for your clerkship applications. You're already as competitive as you're going to get. And the reputation of both firms is well-known by judges. Fun fact: Kavanaugh was a summer associate at MTO. Hell, in terms of former SCOTUS clerks I think MTO has more as a percentage of their lawyers than W&C (something like 18 SCOTUS clerks at MTO versus 20 SCOTUS clerks at W&C and W&C is quite a bit bigger).

Tl;dr: pick whichever firm you like best. You're gonna do fine in your clerkship process whether you choose MTO or W&C.

Fun fact: kavanaugh was also a W&C summer

[Anonymous User]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

If you have the credentials to work at either, the fact that you went to one and not the other isn't going to make a difference for your clerkship applications. You're already as competitive as you're going to get. And the reputation of both firms is well-known by judges. Fun fact: Kavanaugh was a summer associate at MTO. Hell, in terms of former SCOTUS clerks I think MTO has more as a percentage of their lawyers than W&C (something like 18 SCOTUS clerks at MTO versus 20 SCOTUS clerks at W&C and W&C is quite a bit bigger).

Tl;dr: pick whichever firm you like best. You're gonna do fine in your clerkship process whether you choose MTO or W&C.

Fun fact: kavanaugh was also a W&C summer

OP of quoted.

I know he was, and that was *precisely* my point: DC Circuit judges know the two firms’ reputations well and there is overlap among the uber elite firms’ summer associates/associates.

[theneuro]

Related to this thread, if one wants to clerk on the DC Circuit, would W&C carry more weight among DC Circuit judges than elite boutiques outside of DC, like MTO LA?

Where you summer doesn’t matter at all for clerking. Whether you can secure a dc circuit clerkship will be based on your grades, your letters/advocates, and your writing.

Of course it matters. Everything in the legal field is a vetting process and that's how prestige derives its power. We count on institutions to screen people for us and then we believe them once they do. That's why someone at HYS is presumed smart until proven stupid. That someone is able to work at MTO/W&C means they've been successfully vetted for many of the same criteria judges use for extending interviews.

[Anonymous User]

Hell, in terms of former SCOTUS clerks I think MTO has more as a percentage of their lawyers than W&C (something like 18 SCOTUS clerks at MTO versus 20 SCOTUS clerks at W&C and W&C is quite a bit bigger).

But it seems like more W&C summers go on to clerk for SCOTUS than MTO summers. Moreover, the MTO SCOTUS numbers seem skewed by the DC office, which seems to almost exclusively hire former SCOTUS clerks (many of which didn't summer at MTO), as opposed to the LA office, which does not.

Working at W&C isn’t a silver bullet for a DC federal clerkship, but the notion that it isn’t a helpful signaling device that makes a difference in certain cases or to certain judges is 100% false.

I expect the same is true with MTO in the Ninth Circuit.

Not that this strikes me as wrong or anything, but I'm wondering if you have any support for this. Or can you elaborate on what you mean when you say W&C makes a difference "in certain cases or to certain judges"?

[theneuro]

Hell, in terms of former SCOTUS clerks I think MTO has more as a percentage of their lawyers than W&C (something like 18 SCOTUS clerks at MTO versus 20 SCOTUS clerks at W&C and W&C is quite a bit bigger).

But it seems like more W&C summers go on to clerk for SCOTUS than MTO summers. Moreover, the MTO SCOTUS numbers seem skewed by the DC office, which seems to almost exclusively hire former SCOTUS clerks (many of which didn't summer at MTO), as opposed to the LA office, which does not.

Working at W&C isn’t a silver bullet for a DC federal clerkship, but the notion that it isn’t a helpful signaling device that makes a difference in certain cases or to certain judges is 100% false.

I expect the same is true with MTO in the Ninth Circuit.

Not that this strikes me as wrong or anything, but I'm wondering if you have any support for this. Or can you elaborate on what you mean when you say W&C makes a difference "in certain cases or to certain judges"?

Perhaps presently it's skewed by DC, but even before the DC office existed MTO consistently had a ton of SCOTUS clerks (like two dozen a few years ago if I recall correctly). So the SCOTUS clerk numbers are not on the basis of the DC office like you imply.

Who knows about the number of former summers/associates who go on to get SCOTUS clerkships. But there are a few current SCOTUS clerks who are former MTO associates/summers, and there are at least two in the next term.

[theneuro]

Hell, in terms of former SCOTUS clerks I think MTO has more as a percentage of their lawyers than W&C (something like 18 SCOTUS clerks at MTO versus 20 SCOTUS clerks at W&C and W&C is quite a bit bigger).

But it seems like more W&C summers go on to clerk for SCOTUS than MTO summers. Moreover, the MTO SCOTUS numbers seem skewed by the DC office, which seems to almost exclusively hire former SCOTUS clerks (many of which didn't summer at MTO), as opposed to the LA office, which does not.

Probably true about W&C summers who go on to clerk on the Court, but W&C also has a much larger summer class.

[Anonymous User]

W&C. I really like interacting with the people there. I understand my personal opinion maybe very biased and unrepresentative. MTO is obviously a great firm too. I think you should talk to more attorneys at the office to decide which one you like better.