Choosing between QE NY and Williams & Connolly DC Forum

[applebox]

Hi everyone, I’m trying to decide between these two firms. Is there anything that would make W&C or QE the clear choice? I love NYC but I’ve never been to DC, so I can’t judge it. I like both firms’ cultures. I’m undecided on whether I want to go into government work. I love Quinn’s lack of a dress code, but it seems ridiculously silly to make a decision based off of that. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Not an answer to your question, but would you mind sharing how long it took from CB --> offer for Williams & Connolly? Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

W&C and don't look back. If you hate D.C., you can easily get back to NY. QE's NY office is not that strong relatively.

[Anonymous User]

Seconding W&C, much more clout than QE lol. Have also heard QE is cheap and to succeed there you really have to live and breathe litigation. No idea what W&C is like but its reputation is very strong especially for white collar.

DC is an objectively worse city than NYC in almost every dimension if you ask me though. All the boring career-obsessed people of NYC without the taste or edge. And it's almost as expensive as NYC! The average 25 year old who moves to DC for work acts 40 (might be a plus for you, no judgment). Culture, food, and nightlife are all worse, and anyone who tells you otherwise is deluding themselves. BUT the work in DC seems more interesting, and it's not an unliveable city. Just worse than NYC. You'll be spending more time working than living though so...

[Anonymous User]

Might be DC biased but I wouldn't pass on a chance to work at W&C. If you like NY more as a place to live though ultimately it's your life.

[Anonymous User]

DC is an objectively worse city than NYC in almost every dimension if you ask me though. All the boring career-obsessed people of NYC without the taste or edge. And it's almost as expensive as NYC! The average 25 year old who moves to DC for work acts 40 (might be a plus for you, no judgment). Culture, food, and nightlife are all worse, and anyone who tells you otherwise is deluding themselves. BUT the work in DC seems more interesting, and it's not an unliveable city. Just worse than NYC. You'll be spending more time working than living though so...

Strange. Having lived in both cities, literally every single sentence in this paragraph is completely wrong. I would never recommend NYC to anyone who had the choice between NYC and DC.

[Anonymous User]

DC is an objectively worse city than NYC in almost every dimension if you ask me though. All the boring career-obsessed people of NYC without the taste or edge. And it's almost as expensive as NYC! The average 25 year old who moves to DC for work acts 40 (might be a plus for you, no judgment). Culture, food, and nightlife are all worse, and anyone who tells you otherwise is deluding themselves. BUT the work in DC seems more interesting, and it's not an unliveable city. Just worse than NYC. You'll be spending more time working than living though so...

Strange. Having lived in both cities, literally every single sentence in this paragraph is completely wrong. I would never recommend NYC to anyone who had the choice between NYC and DC.

Care to elaborate? Have a hard time seeing DC > NYC for culture, food, and nightlife, or really for anything other than work quality/substance and the cost/ease of living.

[Anonymous User]

Care to elaborate? Have a hard time seeing DC > NYC for culture, food, and nightlife, or really for anything other than work quality/substance and the cost/ease of living.

Well, culture is inherently subjective, so neither of us can really substantiate that aspect of the consideration, but I find NYC people generally to be insufferable corporate drones without real hobbies and therefore extremely boring and generally provincial. Not so DC people in my experience.

DC has plenty of amazing restaurants providing pretty much any conceivable cuisine. I would not say the food scene in better than NYC's, but for most people who are not eating out every day, I would not say that NYC is better, either.

I find that DC has broader appeal to many people: More green spaces, free museums, etc., but also nightlife. Unless someone is interested in clubbing and nothing else, I fail to see how NYC offers better options. NYC does have Broadway, the Met, and classical music, but associates are unlikely to be able to enjoy those regularly anyway. And DC is closer to (IMO) more interesting day trips and such in VA (including historical sites, wineries, etc.).

People have personal preferences that will draw them to one city or the other. But unless you are an immature 20-something who plans to eat out every meal and wants variety and then plans to do nothing but party in the evenings, the claim that NYC is superior to DC in every way "objectively" is completely untenable.

[applebox]

Not an answer to your question, but would you mind sharing how long it took from CB --> offer for Williams & Connolly? Thanks.

They extend offers after interviewing everyone from your school. It took about a couple of days after my callback, but the people who interviewed first probably waited much longer.

[Anonymous User]

Hi everyone, I’m trying to decide between these two firms. Is there anything that would make W&C or QE the clear choice? I love NYC but I’ve never been to DC, so I can’t judge it. I like both firms’ cultures. I’m undecided on whether I want to go into government work. I love Quinn’s lack of a dress code, but it seems ridiculously silly to make a decision based off of that. Thanks!

Anonymous because I work at W&C. (I am also biased for the same reason, so take this with a grain of salt.)

I think a massive desire to be in New York or to wear shorts and flip flops to the office would be the only reasons to pick QE over W&C as a summer (assuming that's what you're picking for). Both firms are very strong on litigation, but QE's model seems to be based on, for lack of a better way of describing it, being jerks. They're notorious, for example, for timing the filing of motions so as to ruin opposing counsel's holiday. I'm not saying W&C doesn't annoy the heck out of opponents, but I've never been asked to do anything solely to screw with an opponent.

How the firms deal with money/compensation is another interesting issue, alluded to above. QE is notoriously cheap, as to everything from support staff to reimbursement to travel to crappy office furniture. But it pays above market (I think only slightly at this point but still a consideration). By contrast, W&C is very generous in everything except pay. Associates get free healthcare, free lunch every weekday (when we eventually get back to the office), discretion over dinner/car reimbursements, a ton of support staff, and first class travel for all flights (the firm pays the difference for the clients who won't cover it). However, depending on how high bonuses are in a given year and how recently W&C has raised salaries, W&C falls below market for pay somewhere between 3rd and 5th year, with the gap growing significant the more senior you get. (Summer associate pay is actually above market because W&C pays its first year associates $205k and summer pay is based on that.) So how you value your work environment/compensation may play a role in this decision as well.

[applebox]

Thank you, everyone, for your insight!

[Anonymous User]

W&C without a doubt. It's one of the best of the lit firms, and you can always go from W&C to an NYC lit-focused firm; but you can't really do the reverse. I will also fight anyone who says NYC is a better place to live than D.C.

[Anonymous User]

Hi everyone, I’m trying to decide between these two firms. Is there anything that would make W&C or QE the clear choice? I love NYC but I’ve never been to DC, so I can’t judge it. I like both firms’ cultures. I’m undecided on whether I want to go into government work. I love Quinn’s lack of a dress code, but it seems ridiculously silly to make a decision based off of that. Thanks!

Anonymous because I work at W&C. (I am also biased for the same reason, so take this with a grain of salt.)

I think a massive desire to be in New York or to wear shorts and flip flops to the office would be the only reasons to pick QE over W&C as a summer (assuming that's what you're picking for). Both firms are very strong on litigation, but QE's model seems to be based on, for lack of a better way of describing it, being jerks. They're notorious, for example, for timing the filing of motions so as to ruin opposing counsel's holiday. I'm not saying W&C doesn't annoy the heck out of opponents, but I've never been asked to do anything solely to screw with an opponent.

How the firms deal with money/compensation is another interesting issue, alluded to above. QE is notoriously cheap, as to everything from support staff to reimbursement to travel to crappy office furniture. But it pays above market (I think only slightly at this point but still a consideration). By contrast, W&C is very generous in everything except pay. Associates get free healthcare, free lunch every weekday (when we eventually get back to the office), discretion over dinner/car reimbursements, a ton of support staff, and first class travel for all flights (the firm pays the difference for the clients who won't cover it). However, depending on how high bonuses are in a given year and how recently W&C has raised salaries, W&C falls below market for pay somewhere 3rd and 5th year, with the gap growing significant the more senior you get. (Summer associate pay is actually above market because W&C pays its first year associates $205k and summer pay is based on that.) So how you value your work environment/compensation may play a role in this decision as well.

OP here--I've finally figured out how to use anonymous posting. Thanks very much for your reply! I think reputation and perception are extremely important in the legal field, so I really appreciate your insight on these points.

[wanderinglawyer]

W&C without a doubt. You can always lateral to a place like QE later if your really want to, but it's almost impossible to lateral into W&C. Also, if you think you really like both cultures, think hard about whether you are getting recruiting spin or you actually know what you are getting into. Imo they are completely different places and someone who likes W&C probably wouldn't like QE.

[Anonymous User]

W&C without a doubt. You can always lateral to a place like QE later if your really want to, but it's almost impossible to lateral into W&C. Also, if you think you really like both cultures, think hard about whether you are getting recruiting spin or you actually know what you are getting into. Imo they are completely different places and someone who likes W&C probably wouldn't like QE.

Hi, this is OP. You make a fantastic point about the recruiting spin. It's hard this year because 2Ls can't visit firms in person. Can you recommend some questions that would help me see past the spin and figure out the actual culture? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

W&C without a doubt. You can always lateral to a place like QE later if your really want to, but it's almost impossible to lateral into W&C. Also, if you think you really like both cultures, think hard about whether you are getting recruiting spin or you actually know what you are getting into. Imo they are completely different places and someone who likes W&C probably wouldn't like QE.

Hi, this is OP. You make a fantastic point about the recruiting spin. It's hard this year because 2Ls can't visit firms in person. Can you recommend some questions that would help me see past the spin and figure out the actual culture? Thanks!

Different person here, but I have heard asking people who have left the firm for whatever reason is a good way to determine culture.

[Wild Card]

Williams & Connolly has the reputation for being an extremely prestigious and selective firm in D.C.

Quinn has a reputation for being a sweatshop.

[Anonymous User]

Please do yourself a favor and go to Connolly. Quinn is a horrid, horrid place. They work you super hard, don’t pay you much or offer good benefits, and most people there are weird or psychotic. They have a horrible reputation in the litigation world too for doing shady things when you’re across the table from them. I know we interviewed a lateral from there and didn’t take the person at least significantly because of concerns that anybody who had worked at Quinn could not be trusted / work in a normal workplace.

Connolly has a great reputation and lots and lots of prestige, so it’s a great place to start for all sorts of exits: lateral hiring at firms, govt, clerkships, etc.

NYC is also net 30k more expensive on rent and taxes alone. I get the desire to be there, but working at Quinn you won’t see much beyond their office and your shoebox 4k studio anyways. DC is a great town: relaxed, can breathe, lots of younger people and a good bar scene, great restaurants, lots of culture, easy to own a car if you want one.

[wanderinglawyer]

W&C without a doubt. You can always lateral to a place like QE later if your really want to, but it's almost impossible to lateral into W&C. Also, if you think you really like both cultures, think hard about whether you are getting recruiting spin or you actually know what you are getting into. Imo they are completely different places and someone who likes W&C probably wouldn't like QE.

Hi, this is OP. You make a fantastic point about the recruiting spin. It's hard this year because 2Ls can't visit firms in person. Can you recommend some questions that would help me see past the spin and figure out the actual culture? Thanks!

Different person here, but I have heard asking people who have left the firm for whatever reason is a good way to determine culture.

Law students often ask what attracted lawyers to the firm. That's the wrong question. A better question is why they stay. Ask them what they would change about the firm or what they find challenging about the firm if they could. Ask them what surprised them about the firm after they joined. I also agree that if you can find people who left, they will probably be more honest. But if you can't find them, ask whether people who leave are leaving for other firms or government. If it's the former, try to follow up on why - maybe it's something bad like a screamer, but maybe it's just something unique about the firm and you just need to decide whether that matters to you. If you can, ask to talk to people who aren't brand new to the firm - the shininess might not have rubbed off yet. Ask different people the same questions to see how consistent the answers are. And pay attention to how they say all of the above. If you don't think they are being genuine or straight with you, don't ignore that feeling.

[Jchance]

Law students often ask what attracted lawyers to the firm. That's the wrong question. A better question is why they stay. Ask them what they would change about the firm or what they find challenging about the firm if they could. Ask them what surprised them about the firm after they joined. I also agree that if you can find people who left, they will probably be more honest. But if you can't find them, ask whether people who leave are leaving for other firms or government. If it's the former, try to follow up on why - maybe it's something bad like a screamer, but maybe it's just something unique about the firm and you just need to decide whether that matters to you. If you can, ask to talk to people who aren't brand new to the firm - the shininess might not have rubbed off yet. Ask different people the same questions to see how consistent the answers are. And pay attention to how they say all of the above. If you don't think they are being genuine or straight with you, don't ignore that feeling.

+1. TCR--Wisdom in the first few sentences.

I'd take W&C, like everyone else here.

[rc8]

Why is there so much hype about W and C? I get their "prestigious," but the fact that they severely underpay must be a huge downside. I can't imagine working as hard as Biglaw bug getting severely underpaid market. Why doesn't W and C just pay market? What's so hard about that? Especially at the senior associate levels, W and C seems to be making potentially 100k less than their peers at other V20 firms.

[Anonymous User]

Why is there so much hype about W and C? I get their "prestigious," but the fact that they severely underpay must be a huge downside. I can't imagine working as hard as Biglaw bug getting severely underpaid market. Why doesn't W and C just pay market? What's so hard about that? Especially at the senior associate levels, W and C seems to be making potentially 100k less than their peers at other V20 firms.

W&C associate here again. To be clear, the gap never gets to 100k. W&C pays under market but not that severely.

In addition to the non-salary compensation points I made above (free healthcare, free lunch, good support staff, first class travel), the bargain as I've always understood it is that you're making less compared to your peers at the senior levels but have a far greater chance at partnership. (As a random example, Paul Weiss just elected 7 new partners while W&C, a firm around 1/3 the size, elected 6.)

It's also just true that W&C is a less profitable firm overall than many others because it has low leverage (around 1:1) and practically only does litigation--to my mind this makes it a far better place to be a litigator than generic NY/DC biglaw firm. As compared to lit boutiques, the decision can and definitely should be tougher, but W&C actually has pretty humane hours compared to many of those places. (No bonuses means truly no hours requirement. I usually aim for around 200 a month but think nothing of the 170-ish months. Of course, I've been to trial several times, which also gave me a massive number of hours.)

To this last point, W&C actually does provide associates the opportunity to get to trial (and other substantive experience). Not everyone, not every year but there are a lot of trials going on in a typical year, so there's a pretty good chance of getting to one.

My concern as an associate is that the firm might feel pressure to become more profitable/pay market salaries, which would require changing something fundamental about the structure of the place--either as far as leverage, cutting costs in other areas, or taking on bigger and bigger cases that provide less substantive associate experience (we've got a few of those already).

All that to say, W&C is definitely not the best choice for maximizing salary, but may be the best choice if you have different priorities.

ETA: Actually, one last thing that drew me and that I know draws others to the firm is the opportunity to do criminal work. There are a lot of partners who do criminal defense work (most but not entirely white collar). There are real opportunities for associates to get involved with these cases. If you like criminal law, W&C should definitely be on your radar. If you want to be an AUSA, that experience can be very valuable when applying.

[wanderinglawyer]

Why is there so much hype about W and C? I get their "prestigious," but the fact that they severely underpay must be a huge downside. I can't imagine working as hard as Biglaw bug getting severely underpaid market. Why doesn't W and C just pay market? What's so hard about that? Especially at the senior associate levels, W and C seems to be making potentially 100k less than their peers at other V20 firms.

All that to say, W&C is definitely not the best choice for maximizing salary, but may be the best choice if you have different priorities.

This. If what you want is to make as much money as possible and are willing to be ground into dust to do it, then QE is a better option than W&C (though there are places that pay higher than QE if you are willing to work that hard, see Wilkinson Stekloff nee Walsh Eskovitz). There are very real differences between QE and W&C that you should consider from money to the benefits that W&C anon is describing. If you don't yet know what those are or haven't thought about what they mean to you, you should do so before making this decision. Like I indicated above, the kind of person who seems drawn to W&C just doesn't seem like the kind of person who is also drawn to QE...

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the W&C >> Quinn people, but I also don't buy the W&C apologism. Susman and Keker and Kellogg and MTO have the same leverage ratio but they manage to pay at or above market. W&C is just cheap and I would take any of the other top lit firms over them without a seconds hesitation.

[clerk2020]

I agree with the W&C >> Quinn people, but I also don't buy the W&C apologism. Susman and Keker and Kellogg and MTO have the same leverage ratio but they manage to pay at or above market. W&C is just cheap and I would take any of the other top lit firms over them without a seconds hesitation.

This seems like the right take to me.