Cravath vs. WilmerHale (DC) vs. Hogan (DC) vs. Covington (DC) Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have offers at all the above and I am in the midst of deciding. I don't care much about geographic location, but don't plan on being in biglaw forever (possible government/public policy/public interest exit in like 5-6 years).

I want to do litigation work, possibly some regulatory work. Investigations/white collar would be of interest. Advice is appreciated. I want the firm that will give me the greatest flexibility as I seek to exit.

[Anonymous User]

I have offers at all the above and I am in the midst of deciding. I don't care much about geographic location, but don't plan on being in biglaw forever (possible government/public policy/public interest exit in like 5-6 years).

I want to do litigation work, possibly some regulatory work. Investigations/white collar would be of interest. Advice is appreciated. I want the firm that will give me the greatest flexibility as I seek to exit.

I would say Wilmer if you want to try your hand at appellate work and Covington if you wanna do more reg work. Can't go wrong though.

[Anonymous User]

Based on your goals, I'd go Wilmer or Covington. But I guess Cravath's Cravath. Honestly yeah can't go wrong.

Do you mind sharing when you got your Hogan offer?

[Anonymous User]

With the caveat that this is all anecdotal and all in litigation, the people I know at Covington seem to have an exceptionally horrible time in terms of hours and overly demanding partners. Have also gotten that sense the few times I've worked with Covington on something. Friends at Hogan report working hard, but no stories of a toxic environment - plus their deferral stipend was one of the most generous, which is not a bad sign.

[Anonymous User]

This really depends on where you want to live. If NY, obviously Cravath. If DC, I think Wilmer is likely the best bet. The delta in prestige or whatever between Cravath and Wilmer is miniscule (I don't even know which one I would say is more prestigious), so it's geography that should make that call.

[Anonymous User]

With the caveat that this is all anecdotal and all in litigation, the people I know at Covington seem to have an exceptionally horrible time in terms of hours and overly demanding partners. Have also gotten that sense the few times I've worked with Covington on something. Friends at Hogan report working hard, but no stories of a toxic environment - plus their deferral stipend was one of the most generous, which is not a bad sign.

I worked at Covington, and not sure I’d agree with this. It’s a huge firm, and the litigation group is especially big, so there are lots of varied experiences. I also know the McKesson case(s) was (is?) brutal on a lot of people, so I won’t argue it’s a great lifestyle firm, but most people I knew were happy with the firm. I was in one of the regulatory groups and had a mostly great experience.

OP, based on your career goals, I would strongly recommend one of the DC firms. Anyone at all interested in regulatory work and with offers at top DC firms should go for it. Regulatory is a million times better lifestyle than more generalist Biglaw practices and generally sets you up well for the long term.

Covington and Wilmer are essentially indistinguishable on any “objective” measure, so I would just go with one of them based on your gut. I don’t think Hogan paid full Covid bonuses this year, but otherwise they’re sufficiently close to Cov and Wilmer that you could also feel great about choosing them if you got much better vibes.

[Anonymous User]

I would choose either Covington or Wilmer, and Cravath is a random choice here.

[Anonymous User]

You sound like a classic DC biglaw candidate from your interests, no idea why you're considering Cravath. You can't go wrong but I'd also probably go to Wilmer in your shoes. Wilmer and Covington are almost indistinguishable, the former is a lot stronger in appellate though (it's easily a top 5 firm, Covington isn't a major player) which may be a big one depending on your interests.

Re: McKesson, opioids cases sound like an incredibly boring way to grind through years on a single matter to me, would advise avoiding in general.

[Sackboy]

Echoing that I'd probably go with Wilmer here.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but asking about DC litigation/regulatory shops - I don't have an offer from Wilmer, but I am deciding between Covington/Hogan/Akin. Thoughts for those three?

[Anonymous User]

With the caveat that this is all anecdotal and all in litigation, the people I know at Covington seem to have an exceptionally horrible time in terms of hours and overly demanding partners. Have also gotten that sense the few times I've worked with Covington on something. Friends at Hogan report working hard, but no stories of a toxic environment - plus their deferral stipend was one of the most generous, which is not a bad sign.

Current Covington litigation/investigations associate here, and I echo the prior response: This doesn't seem right at all. Some cases are definitely more hours-intensive than others, but even the most demanding partners I work for don't match this description.

And OP, in case it hasn't been said enough, both Covington and Wilmer seem best for your goals. I don't think you could go wrong with either.

[Elston Gunn]

Not OP, but asking about DC litigation/regulatory shops - I don't have an offer from Wilmer, but I am deciding between Covington/Hogan/Akin. Thoughts for those three?

Without knowing anything else, Covington seems a pretty easy choice. If you have a strong reason to prefer Hogan, that would be a totally defensible choice too. Akin is a relatively distant third in my mind.

[Anonymous User]

For your specific goals, it's the DC market and a toss up between Covington and Wilmer. But based on your litigation interest I think that puts the thumb on the scale for Wilmer. Hogan is a great firm but there's a little bit of that je ne sais quoi, especially in DC, about the other two that may open an extra door or two for you when you look to exit. Congratulations on your options!

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but asking about DC litigation/regulatory shops - I don't have an offer from Wilmer, but I am deciding between Covington/Hogan/Akin. Thoughts for those three?

Take the offer from Covington and run; don't even think about looking back. Covington in DC is max street cred with the most/best exit options. Fwiw, anecdotal but I worked with a former Covington associate on the Hill. Great guy. We spoke a lot about his time there and he said more often than not he truly enjoyed it and would go back later if he wanted to get back into biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

With the caveat that this is all anecdotal and all in litigation, the people I know at Covington seem to have an exceptionally horrible time in terms of hours and overly demanding partners. Have also gotten that sense the few times I've worked with Covington on something. Friends at Hogan report working hard, but no stories of a toxic environment - plus their deferral stipend was one of the most generous, which is not a bad sign.

Current Covington litigation/investigations associate here, and I echo the prior response: This doesn't seem right at all. Some cases are definitely more hours-intensive than others, but even the most demanding partners I work for don't match this description.

And OP, in case it hasn't been said enough, both Covington and Wilmer seem best for your goals. I don't think you could go wrong with either.

Another current Covington lit associate here. I also voice my support for Covington and refute the description of Covington culture being overly demanding... I work long hours sometimes but it’s never without a good reason and it’s SO emotionally healthy here.

[Anonymous User]

I’m the original former Covington anon, so maybe I’m biased, but I find the several mentions of Wilmer’s appellate group kind of weird. OP didn’t mention a particular interest in appellate. Both Cov and Wilmer have a ton of practices, and if you dive into the nitty gritty of individual groups, there are plenty of differences you could identify. For a 2L with pretty generic goals, these differences wash out such that it doesn’t really matter. I don’t see any reason why appellate — a group usually only filled by people who *really* are motivated to be in it — should have any special importance.

[Anonymous User]

Mind sharing what day of week you got Wilmer offer/how long after CB? From one fellow 2L to another. Congratulations, amazing options.

[Anonymous User]

Also wondering this about Hogan if you don't mind sharing!

[Anonymous User]

I would say don't really consider appellate in this decision-making since it's probably quite hard to break into without a SCOTUS clerkship (or at least a feeder), and likely impossible without a COA. And if you get those clerkships you will have a reset and get to choose again anyways. That being said, Wilmer and Hogan have better appellate than Cov.

You should pick a geography and not be agnostic about it; it's important. Think long and hard about whether you'd be happier in DC or NYC. DC is probably better for government based on the nature of the work and who you'd work with--just look at the partner bios at Wilmer and Cov and you'll see the type of connections you can make.

After geography, I'd choose mainly based on the people. Then, to the extent you know what you want to do, I'd lean Cov for regulatory work, push between and WH and cov for white collar (maybe lean wilmer for SEC work and Cov for FCPA?), and honestly unsure about general commercial lit (tbh probably a push between the three and you'd ultimately rather be at a boutique). What you want to do may completely change though so don't put too much stock in that.

Lastly, try to clerk since it'll give you a second chance to choose if you fuck up, and also probably will help with the gov job search.