Covington v Sidley (Both DC) v Smaller Market Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was fortunate enough to land an offer from both firms and I liked the people I met at both. Broadly interested in litigation, but do not have one specific practice area I 100% want to work in right now. Surprisingly have enjoyed researching and writing on narrow issues for papers, so think I would enjoy appellate work but by no means am committed to it.

I am an older student and married, so a little hesitant to go to DC when I know I want to end up in a smaller market long term to raise a family (think Nashville, Tampa, Raleigh). Does it make sense to go to a Covington or Sidley for a few years to get experience, or to just head to the smaller market and know that I likely won't be working on as big of matters that I would see in DC? Of the two DC offers, I am leaning toward Covington, but would love others opinions on that as well. Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

For actually being a litigator, you probably want to work on smaller matters to actually get responsibility build real litigation skills. You are not going to be doing super substantive work on these massive disputes as an associate. You'll have to do pro bono to get stand up experience in court, and probably even to write something substantive like an MTD or motion for SJ.

That being said, the connections and Covington name are likely phenomenal--but that may be less so if you know you want to leave to a smaller market. Do you want to go into government? That could point to DC even if you just want to be an AUSA back home or something.

I wouldn't consider appellate at this stage. Very hard to break into those groups and you'll need a good federal appellate clerkship as well as some luck unless you get SCOTUS--and there's really not that much appellate work at Covington anyhow (can't speak to Sidley). Unfortunately almost everyone wants to do some appellate work, so thinking you're good at researching and writing on narrow issues isn't enough.

[Anonymous User]

The right choice is to work out a split between the DC firm and a firm in your desired market and kick the can down the road. I am in roughly your situation and did that with no regrets.

If you really want appellate, Sidley definitely wins here. But I don't know if focusing on appellate makes sense for the reasons above and also that there are very few appellate specialists in smaller markets and it would be dumb to narrow your skill set unnecessarily when you'll just end up lateraling. (Of course, it doesn't matter if you're going to turn the DC firm down anyway.)

Whether you go to biglaw or not is obviously a personal decision. After my summer at a big DC firm I decided it wasn't for me. I prefer smaller matters, a smaller firm, being home, and more substantive responsibility. For my career in the smaller market I don't see a real benefit beyond prestige (which the summer plus a fed clerkship give me anyway) from being a junior for a bit but leaving before I actually develop any real skills. I'd have to take a class year haircut when lateraling. And the money may or may not actually be better in DC at the junior associate level depending on the salary and cost of living in the smaller market.

[Anonymous User]

I was fortunate enough to land an offer from both firms and I liked the people I met at both. Broadly interested in litigation, but do not have one specific practice area I 100% want to work in right now. Surprisingly have enjoyed researching and writing on narrow issues for papers, so think I would enjoy appellate work but by no means am committed to it.

I am an older student and married, so a little hesitant to go to DC when I know I want to end up in a smaller market long term to raise a family (think Nashville, Tampa, Raleigh). Does it make sense to go to a Covington or Sidley for a few years to get experience, or to just head to the smaller market and know that I likely won't be working on as big of matters that I would see in DC? Of the two DC offers, I am leaning toward Covington, but would love others opinions on that as well. Thanks.

Associate (mostly Appellate) at a peer DC firm. Take Sidley if you're interested in Litigation and not regulatory focused. It has a better culture, they work you less, and are just frankly better at lit (especially appellate where Sidley's practice is one of the best and Covington's is well below average). Covington has a lot of DC-Political prestige, but their actual litigation work is fairly mediocre. It is also a weak institution as a law firm (and not a think-tank): unprofitable, lots of hours, cheap on perks because of the lack of profitability and all of the free-riding ex-gov't folks.

[Anonymous User]

I was fortunate enough to land an offer from both firms and I liked the people I met at both. Broadly interested in litigation, but do not have one specific practice area I 100% want to work in right now. Surprisingly have enjoyed researching and writing on narrow issues for papers, so think I would enjoy appellate work but by no means am committed to it.

I am an older student and married, so a little hesitant to go to DC when I know I want to end up in a smaller market long term to raise a family (think Nashville, Tampa, Raleigh). Does it make sense to go to a Covington or Sidley for a few years to get experience, or to just head to the smaller market and know that I likely won't be working on as big of matters that I would see in DC? Of the two DC offers, I am leaning toward Covington, but would love others opinions on that as well. Thanks.

Associate (mostly Appellate) at a peer DC firm. Take Sidley if you're interested in Litigation and not regulatory focused. It has a better culture, they work you less, and are just frankly better at lit (especially appellate where Sidley's practice is one of the best and Covington's is well below average). Covington has a lot of DC-Political prestige, but their actual litigation work is fairly mediocre. It is also a weak institution as a law firm (and not a think-tank): unprofitable, lots of hours, cheap on perks because of the lack of profitability and all of the free-riding ex-gov't folks.

Associate at Covington. This is correct in one broad regard: Sidley's appellate practice is likely stronger than Covington's. So if you're all-in on appellate work, then it's worth it. The rest of it is absolute nonsense, especially if you include white collar work in the broad definition of litigation. These firms are peers for general commercial lit, and Covington wipes the floor with Sidley for white collar.

[parkslope]

If you are older, married and don't want to live in DC, why are you bothering? I would ask people in the smaller markets you want to be in whether it is better to work at a DC firm first or be a junior associate at a local firm. Covington and Sidley have some name recognition in Tampa I'm sure but so does a Tampa-based firm. And probably no more name recognition than like, Latham. And to be frank, generic commercial litigation at Covington or Sidley will not be all that different than commercial litigation at another big firm in DC or another large market.

[Anonymous User]

I am an older student (not married) and I had offers from both Covington and Sidley in D.C. I chose Sidley. Though my area of interest is not litigation, in terms of lifestyle/fit, Sidley was the better choice for me. From what you say, it sounds like it would be the same for you. Sidley came across as being much more family friendly and my experience last summer backed up that impression. It really feels pretty Midwestern in ethos.

[Anonymous User]

If you know you want to be in X City long-term and your choices are to start there (presumably at one of the top firms in that market) or try to make money at Sidley/Covington for a few years all while expecting to move in the back of your mind, I’d start in X City if it’s on the level of a Nashville and has firms of that caliber.

I was in a similar boat, but my X City was a step or two down from a Nashville, so the money and resume line from DC was too much to pass up. I’m now a midlevel at a peer of both the firms you mentioned and still thinking about jumping to X City... but I’ve mentally grown accustomed to the golden handcuffs. If you go this route, others ITT have shared anecdotal experience and I don’t have any there. I think people familiar with DC firms will likely regard Covington better than Sidley if you want the strongest resume. But I also think Covington has a reputation that’s more sweatshoppy than Sidley. And both of those are likely to be pretty minor differences: they’re both excellent firms, and it’s biglaw either way.

[Anonymous User]

I am an older student (not married) and I had offers from both Covington and Sidley in D.C. I chose Sidley. Though my area of interest is not litigation, in terms of lifestyle/fit, Sidley was the better choice for me. From what you say, it sounds like it would be the same for you. Sidley came across as being much more family friendly and my experience last summer backed up that impression. It really feels pretty Midwestern in ethos.

Same Covington anon from before, and I've got to find out what they're spiking the water with at Sidley.

I've found Covington to be extremely family-friendly in ways that actually matter to people who have spouses/kids. When I took parental leave, I was repeatedly encouraged by the partners overseeing my teams to take primary caregiver leave if I wanted that time off. Multiple partners also reached out to discuss the leave process and their own experience with having kids while working here. And when I returned, I was reintegrated into my matters without any hiccups or sense that my taking leave had been an inconvenience. Partners overseeing my matters have checked in to make sure I'm not overloaded as I get back into working remotely with an infant in the house. For parents managing older kids during the pandemic, the firm has been allowing people to go on a reduced schedule without taking a pay cut since Covid hit, which seems pretty family-friendly from my perspective.

I'm sure Sidley's a great firm to work at. I wouldn't claim to know anything about the culture there, since I never worked at Sidley. But you (1) only worked there as a summer and (2) haven't spent any time at Covington. So it seems weird to make snap judgments about culture, especially areas of the firm culture that you wouldn't have had any exposure to, such as how lawyers with children are treated.

Obviously, I'm going to have some bias. And I'm not going to claim that Covington is a perfect workplace and/or that it's the right choice for the OP. I think they'd likely be better served by going to a firm in the market they want to end up in. But there's some ridiculous misinformation going around here, and people shouldn't be making decisions based on that.

[Anonymous User]

It was certainly not my intent to provide "disinformation." I can only speak from the perspective of someone who was in the OP's shoes making the decision. I based my assessment on my (albeit limited) experience. That's all I really had to go on when I was deciding and that's all anyone has to go on. Of course, the OP will need to also take into account what people like you (at both firms) have to say. That's often tricky because of the bias you mentioned. I got a particular sense of the firms I interviewed with and trusted my intuition. That's not a knock on Covington or anyone else. I'm happy that Covington has worked out well for you. There's no doubt it's worked out well for many people. But, I've also spoken with other people who've have had very different experiences.