Top Law Schools

Rising 2L at CCN with good but not amazing grades & appellate clerkship lined up. I'm choosing b/t Wachtell & Gibson Dunn (LA) for litigation. Much prefer LA geography. NY sucks.

I enjoyed both firm visits, but Gibson probably would win out solely on gut feeling. I'm worried that GDC won't give me the substantive XP I'm looking for, especially early in my career. But I also know WLRK's reputation as a sweatshop and am concerned that their litigation shop (while excellent by all accounts) is not going to be much, if any better than GDC in terms of exits (outside NY) & prestige (again, outside NY).

Curious to hear your thoughts.

I work in LA and would go to Gibson in your shoes. The extra $ from WLRK is tempting, but Gibson has a phenomenal reputation in LA and is very good place to start. If you are concerned about getting good experience early, you can always try to switch to MTO or one of LA's many good boutiques after your clerkship.

I'd say go with Gibson, unless you have ~300k debt like that other poster who recently made a Wachtell v. other firm choice.

Nothing to contribute but when was your Gibson CB and offer?

I get the feeling that Wachtell is an East Coast phenomenon, and out on the West Coast, folks won't be so impressed by it.

What I mean is, I have worked across from Wachtell and have many friends working there, so I know it's a first-class firm. However, when a Californian tells me he works at Keker Van Nest, I know I'm supposed to be impressed, but frankly I'm not, because I have no idea how selective it is or what it's good at.

My only objection is that you're turning down a job that pays twice as much.

I would check out the other Wachtell vs Covington thread. As I said there, I’m not sure I personally could physically do Wachtell hours for multiple years, but it’s a really personal decision, mostly about how much you like money.

Anonymous User wrote:Nothing to contribute but when was your Gibson CB and offer?

OP here — Interviewed Friday, offer Saturday.

Wild Card wrote:I get the feeling that Wachtell is an East Coast phenomenon, and out on the West Coast, folks won't be so impressed by it.

What I mean is, I have worked across from Wachtell and have many friends working there, so I know it's a first-class firm. However, when a Californian tells me he works at Keker Van Nest, I know I'm supposed to be impressed, but frankly I'm not, because I have no idea how selective it is or what it's good at.

My only objection is that you're turning down a job that pays twice as much.

How much more do people actually make at WLRK? I've heard a pretty significant range, anywhere from 0.4x to 2x salary or more (!!). Do you have any specific knowledge (anecdotal is ok) on that front?

If you hate NY don't work in NY - I've yet to meet someone from undergrad or law school who went to NY for a job knowing they hated the city and didn't regret the decision. (Including people who didn't really have alternative employment options.) The difference in money at Wachtell is never gonna be enough to compensate for that, especially if you don't have the time to get out of the city.


Also, I've heard positive things about Gibson's LA office in terms of culture.

Anonymous User wrote:
How much more do people actually make at WLRK? I've heard a pretty significant range, anywhere from 0.4x to 2x salary or more (!!). Do you have any specific knowledge (anecdotal is ok) on that front?

Anon for obvious reasons. I don't know who told you it's 0.4x of salary, but that's way off, at any level within the firm. Historically it's around 1x your base salary. It dipped to around "only" ~.80x a few years back, but that was out of the norm.

The funny thing is associates are told by the firm not to tell others what it is, and obviously they're pretty good about that, but there's enough people on both sides of the wanting-to-tell and wanting-to-know that it's not really a secret anymore. And not telling anyone is sort of like the "where do you go to school?" "Oh, I go to school a little outside Boston" type thing.

Edited to correct typo.

Wait, are you saying the *bonus* is 2X base? So a first year is making $560k all in? Goddamn. I thought the bonus was usually 1x base.

Elston Gunn wrote:Wait, are you saying the *bonus* is 2X base? So a first year is making $560k all in? Goddamn. I thought the bonus was usually 1x base.

Sorry that was a (particularly egregious, I realize) typo! 1x.

Wild Card wrote:I get the feeling that Wachtell is an East Coast phenomenon, and out on the West Coast, folks won't be so impressed by it.

I don't agree with this. I work in LA and am on my firm's recruiting committee. When we get a resume with Wachtell on it, it stands out.

Yeah wtf everybody knows them here in CA. It’s one of those firms that’s just above the others. Cravath would impress people but not a wow like the big dub.

sidesalad wrote:

Wild Card wrote:I get the feeling that Wachtell is an East Coast phenomenon, and out on the West Coast, folks won't be so impressed by it.

I don't agree with this. I work in LA and am on my firm's recruiting committee. When we get a resume with Wachtell on it, it stands out.

Sorry to side track but would that be the same for Cravath, or not so much?

These Wachtell threads are ridiculous in my opinion. You take the money and run. You have no idea how long you'll last in Biglaw. If you can make it even 3 years at Wachtell, you have the top firm on your resume to lateral anywhere AND you have HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars more in your pocket. Take the money and run, worry about the rest later.

smokeylarue wrote:If you can make it even 3 years at Wachtell.

Seems like a huge if, given the expectations at a firm like Wachtell.

dabigchina wrote:

smokeylarue wrote:If you can make it even 3 years at Wachtell.

Seems like a huge if, given the expectations at a firm like Wachtell.

Yep. Plus, OP very clearly noted that they hate NY. Biglaw is rough enough with the typical hours in a place you like, let alone with Wachtell hours and in a place you think sucks.

64Fl wrote:

dabigchina wrote:

smokeylarue wrote:If you can make it even 3 years at Wachtell.

Seems like a huge if, given the expectations at a firm like Wachtell.

Yep. Plus, OP very clearly noted that they hate NY. Biglaw is rough enough with the typical hours in a place you like, let alone with Wachtell hours and in a place you think sucks.

OPs life is not going to be appreciably better at Gibson, let’s be real. Odds are he/she will hate the job no matter what firm. I would say just suck it up and live in NYC a few more years. It’s just an insane decision to not take wachtell unless you are independently wealthy already and don’t care about a few hundred thousand bucks

smokeylarue wrote:

64Fl wrote:
Yep. Plus, OP very clearly noted that they hate NY. Biglaw is rough enough with the typical hours in a place you like, let alone with Wachtell hours and in a place you think sucks.

OPs life is not going to be appreciably better at Gibson, let’s be real. Odds are he/she will hate the job no matter what firm. I would say just suck it up and live in NYC a few more years. It’s just an insane decision to not take wachtell unless you are independently wealthy already and don’t care about a few hundred thousand bucks

How do you know? Obviously, location doesn't (seem to) matter at all for you, but not everyone is a mercenary. If OP really dislikes NY, then just being in NY could be miserable, let alone working a ton of hours there. Say OP works 10% less at GDC, that could also be a very important distinction between "this year sucked" and "I want to leave the law." If all things were equal, turning down buckets of cash at Wachtell would be indefensible. But, if all things were equal, OP wouldn't have needed this thread.

smokeylarue wrote:

64Fl wrote:

dabigchina wrote:

smokeylarue wrote:If you can make it even 3 years at Wachtell.

Seems like a huge if, given the expectations at a firm like Wachtell.

Yep. Plus, OP very clearly noted that they hate NY. Biglaw is rough enough with the typical hours in a place you like, let alone with Wachtell hours and in a place you think sucks.

OPs life is not going to be appreciably better at Gibson, let’s be real. Odds are he/she will hate the job no matter what firm. I would say just suck it up and live in NYC a few more years. It’s just an insane decision to not take wachtell unless you are independently wealthy already and don’t care about a few hundred thousand bucks

I'm not sure when people started believing that the hours at Wachtell and [Insert Literally Any Other Big Firm] are comparable, but that's not true.

I went to career services earlier this week to ask about how exit opportunities vary between the firms I have offers from, and they recommended that I talk to some legal recruiters who have volunteered to counsel students at my school. I don't know if your school has any recruiters who have volunteered to talk to students, but if that's an option, they would probably be more helpful than the people on this forum. In particular, if you can talk to a recruiter who knows the California legal market, they could tell you how much of a difference Wachtell would make on your resume for their clients.

GDC is a great firm, WLRK is on another level. If this were MTO vs. WLRK it would be a much closer call, but between WLRK being an actually prestigious lawfirm and between the pretty crazy amount of money, I'd suggest WLRK. It really comes down to (a) partnership prospects and depth of substantive work (point for WLRK) vs. (b) having a life outside of work (point for GDC).

dyemond wrote:GDC is a great firm, WLRK is on another level. If this were MTO vs. WLRK it would be a much closer call, but between WLRK being an actually prestigious lawfirm and between the pretty crazy amount of money, I'd suggest WLRK. It really comes down to (a) partnership prospects and depth of substantive work (point for WLRK) vs. (b) having a life outside of work (point for GDC).

This post totally ignores geography and firm culture, two factors that I think are just as important as any of the ones you mentioned.

Imagine if OP had said he hated LA, asked people to advise between Cravath and Munger, and said he really got a better vibe at Cravath but was worried about not getting as much substantive experience as he would get at Munger. I think a lot of people would advise him to pick Cravath. That is virtually the same situation OP is in here. The extra $ at WLRK is a factor but (a) you will work for that $ and (b) it's silly to say that money necessarily trumps geography, culture, and long-term sustainability.

"However, when a Californian tells me he works at Keker Van Nest, I know I'm supposed to be impressed, but frankly I'm not, because I have no idea how selective it is or what it's good at."

OMG. Run, don't walk, from Keker Van Nest. They are so in love with themselves and really all they do is put 10x the lawyers on something then say how great they are. My last firm had equal success and used half the billers to get the same job done. The partners there are a nightmare. If a motion is due on Monday, they start writing it on Monday. So at 10 pm you are sitting around waiting for them to approve a final version, the secetary is having heart failure, and malpractice is iminent. This is how they operate, every single filing is like this. It is a single office slop shop. Do not work there.