Gibson vs Irell Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know this has been done but it's been a number of years since the last thread and I need some help deciding. Interested in general lit and liked the people at both.

GDC: safer bet, more diverse practices, but seems like they work a lot
Irell: more responsibility, less hours, but future seems a little uncertain

[Anonymous User]

Been practicing in the LA market for about half a decade - closer to a full if you include summers - and there are very few instances where I'd recommend Irell over Gibson for general lit. Patent lit, maybe. It's also a mistake to assume you're going to be billing fewer hours at Irell, at least if you want to last longer than a year or two.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how much GDC works, but most Irell associates I've talked to insist they really do only ("only") work 2000 hours or so. Maybe that ramps up a bit as a mid-level trying to make partner, but the general rule is low 2000s.

OP, your analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each firm seems accurate to me. Personally I'd lean GDC because of the practice area diversity and the small bump in prestige, and despite the poll results so far I think GDC would be the usual choice, but it's not crazy to opt for Irell instead. Picking a firm is always tough since you have to weigh incommensurable factors, and plus your information almost always comes from people who lack the first-hand experience necessary to directly compare your two options. At the end of the day there's not going to be one right answer, just your best guess. Consult your gut and do your best to figure out what really matters to you. You already have the best arguments for and against each firm; only you can decide how to weigh them.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. Any compelling reasons not to go to Irell other than the IP focus? Is the future of the firm a real issue?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. Any compelling reasons not to go to Irell other than the IP focus? Is the future of the firm a real issue?

Long-winded anon here. No, I don't think there's any other real negative for Irell. I think the firm's future is pretty solid. Morgan Chu's eventual departure will matter, but I was told a few times that the firm's business comes from a pretty large number of partners. Of course that might just be the company line, and I can't confirm anything myself, but everyone I spoke with sounded genuinely confident about the firm's financial footing. And I saw no indications of any kind of belt-tightening – the firm still offers above-market bonuses, a six-figure clerkship bonus, the typical perks, etc. There's a limit to what I know in this area, but personally I wouldn't make this a big part of my decision.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. Any compelling reasons not to go to Irell other than the IP focus? Is the future of the firm a real issue?

Long-winded anon here. No, I don't think there's any other real negative for Irell. I think the firm's future is pretty solid. Morgan Chu's eventual departure will matter, but I was told a few times that the firm's business comes from a pretty large number of partners. Of course that might just be the company line, and I can't confirm anything myself, but everyone I spoke with sounded genuinely confident about the firm's financial footing. And I saw no indications of any kind of belt-tightening – the firm still offers above-market bonuses, a six-figure clerkship bonus, the typical perks, etc. There's a limit to what I know in this area, but personally I wouldn't make this a big part of my decision.

Other LA anon here.

Well, yea, every firm is going to pretend like things are great, the future is solid, every practice group is booming, and there's nothing to worry about. Then there are the concrete things you can point to: the managing partner just left (with a bunch of other partners), the remnants of the securities group departed this week, the entire white collar and entertainment transaction practices left within the past few years (with most of entertainment lit leaving a few years before that), and headcount is down something like 60%+ compared to earlier in the decade. If that doesn't toss up a whole lot of red flags, I'm not sure what will.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. Any compelling reasons not to go to Irell other than the IP focus? Is the future of the firm a real issue?

Long-winded anon here. No, I don't think there's any other real negative for Irell. I think the firm's future is pretty solid. Morgan Chu's eventual departure will matter, but I was told a few times that the firm's business comes from a pretty large number of partners. Of course that might just be the company line, and I can't confirm anything myself, but everyone I spoke with sounded genuinely confident about the firm's financial footing. And I saw no indications of any kind of belt-tightening – the firm still offers above-market bonuses, a six-figure clerkship bonus, the typical perks, etc. There's a limit to what I know in this area, but personally I wouldn't make this a big part of my decision.

Other LA anon here.

Well, yea, every firm is going to pretend like things are great, the future is solid, every practice group is booming, and there's nothing to worry about. Then there are the concrete things you can point to: the managing partner just left (with a bunch of other partners), the remnants of the securities group departed this week, the entire white collar and entertainment transaction practices left within the past few years (with most of entertainment lit leaving a few years before that), and headcount is down something like 60%+ compared to earlier in the decade. If that doesn't toss up a whole lot of red flags, I'm not sure what will.

Back to long-winded anon here. I had not been following the news over the last month so I hadn't heard that seven partners have left in the last four weeks. OP, I do actually find that concerning. The HH split a few years ago was one thing, but if they're going to keep bleeding partners then it doesn't seem like the exodus is a thing of the past. I take back my reassurance.

[KM2016]

Gibson for sure -- this is a no brainer. Irell's managing partner (and some other partners) just jumped ship to Milbank and the firm is basically an IP shop at this point. The headcount has been in steady decline over the past 5-7 years.

Sure, the firm will probably exist going forward, but Gibson is the much safer option.