Top Law Schools

I've talked to at least 4-5 people from each firm and have still been pretty torn about this decision. Would really appreciate any insight!

Considerations: Litigation but no specific area so far. Hoping to lateral to plaintiff-side firms or public interest in the long run. I don't want to work in a sweatshop, but also don't want to be doing doc review every day. Most important factors are (relative) work-life balance and culture, pleasant people, variety of litigation areas, substantive responsibility, pro bono.

Quinn: Chambers puts all 3 in the same band, but it seems like most people still consider Quinn the most prestigious in NY lit. It seems like you'd almost certainly get the most amount of responsibility and grow the fastest as a litigator, and I liked that they had diverse, interesting work by virtue of being lit-only, including plaintiff work (although not the "little guy" type plaintiff work). But they're undeniably pretty sweatshoppy - highest billable requirement, and seems like the ultimate place for type A, aggressive gunners. Pretty much non-existent pro bono. Seems to be relatively non-hierarchical but they kind of throw you in the water with little formal training. The people I've met were meh, but I'd say they seem to be overall nice people, just kind of obnoxious. Administratively disorganized from what I can tell, and few perks/benefits. Biggest turn-off is hours, but obviously a strong firm so I feel like I'm missing out if I turn them down.

Latham: They did an great job marketing, and I bought into the fact that they had a lot of robust associate development programs and training in place. Multiple associates have told me that pro bono is taken seriously and billing a couple hundred hours is not frowned upon - I'm by no means saying Latham is #1 in pro bono but it's clear to me that it provides the most institutional support out of these 3. I like the national/global presence/reputation and relative ease of switching offices, but it sounds like their rep is weak in NY. It sounds like you could get substantive work if you're proactive. Billable hours is between the other two. The people I've met all seem to love Latham and their retention rate is quite high from I can tell, but I honestly didn't click with anyone I met. Again, small sample size and would love to hear any insight on culture. Kind of concerned about the fratty/bro-y rep. Overall seems to be a decent balance but TLS seems to shit on them for the layoffs and some horror stories.

Weil: I liked Weil people the most by far, but the sample size is still really small. They seem to be more chill, on't dedicate their entire lives to being a lawyer and have interests outside of work. No billable requirement and the few associates I've talked to gave me the lowest ranges of hours billed out of the 3 firms for litigation. That being said, it sounds like they have the least amount of control over the type of matter and how much they can be involved. Staffer seems to take on a pretty big role for a longer period of time, and significant associate involvement is rarer. Litigation group is divided into subgroups and there's less variety in types of cases. Despite it being mandatory, they're not as involved in pro bono as Latham. Office seems to be nicest - don't know if that makes a marginal difference in real-life happiness lol.

These places really all have different pros and cons, so it comes down to whether or not I'm downplaying or overemphasizing certain factors (e.g. pro bono or hours in reality aren't that different across these, etc.). I'd appreciate any takes on lay prestige too.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:13 am

I've talked to at least 4-5 people from each firm and have still been pretty torn about this decision. Would really appreciate any insight!

Considerations: Litigation but no specific area so far. Hoping to lateral to plaintiff-side firms or public interest in the long run. I don't want to work in a sweatshop, but also don't want to be doing doc review every day. Most important factors are (relative) work-life balance and culture, pleasant people, variety of litigation areas, substantive responsibility, pro bono.

Quinn: Chambers puts all 3 in the same band, but it seems like most people still consider Quinn the most prestigious in NY lit. It seems like you'd almost certainly get the most amount of responsibility and grow the fastest as a litigator, and I liked that they had diverse, interesting work by virtue of being lit-only, including plaintiff work (although not the "little guy" type plaintiff work). But they're undeniably pretty sweatshoppy - highest billable requirement, and seems like the ultimate place for type A, aggressive gunners. Pretty much non-existent pro bono. Seems to be relatively non-hierarchical but they kind of throw you in the water with little formal training. The people I've met were meh, but I'd say they seem to be overall nice people, just kind of obnoxious. Administratively disorganized from what I can tell, and few perks/benefits. Biggest turn-off is hours, but obviously a strong firm so I feel like I'm missing out if I turn them down.

Latham: They did an great job marketing, and I bought into the fact that they had a lot of robust associate development programs and training in place. Multiple associates have told me that pro bono is taken seriously and billing a couple hundred hours is not frowned upon - I'm by no means saying Latham is #1 in pro bono but it's clear to me that it provides the most institutional support out of these 3. I like the national/global presence/reputation and relative ease of switching offices. It sounds like you could get substantive work if you're proactive. Billable hours is between the other two. The people I've met all seem to love Latham and their retention rate is quite high from I can tell, but I honestly didn't click with anyone I met. Again, small sample size and would love to hear any insight on culture. Kind of concerned about the fratty/bro-y rep. Overall seems to be a decent balance but TLS seems to shit on them for the layoffs and some horror stories.

Weil: I liked Weil people the most by far, but the sample size is still really small. They seem to be more chill, on't dedicate their entire lives to being a lawyer and have interests outside of work. No billable requirement and the few associates I've talked to gave me the lowest ranges of hours billed out of the 3 firms for litigation. That being said, it sounds like they have the least amount of control over the type of matter and how much they can be involved. Staffer seems to take on a pretty big role for a longer period of time, and significant associate involvement is rarer. Litigation group is divided into subgroups and there's less variety in types of cases. Despite it being mandatory, they're not as involved in pro bono as Latham. Office seems to be nicest - don't know if that makes a marginal difference in real-life happiness lol.

These places really all have different pros and cons, so it comes down to whether or not I'm downplaying or overemphasizing certain factors (e.g. pro bono or hours in reality aren't that different across these, etc.). I'd appreciate any takes on lay prestige too.

I worked at Latham for five years. I have a ton of great things to say about it and it is definitely true that pro Bono hours are treated as real hours. Not only are 200 hours not frowned upon, as a litigator, 300-400 really aren't that uncommon (I did 200+ every year as a transactional associate, no one ever said anything about it to me and I was generally well regarded (top adjective during every review period, etc.)). I frequently reccomend it heartily to people I know interested in transactional work and view it as a sort of kinder version of Kirkland in a lot of ways.

All that being said, I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone. I have no idea why anyone with the credentials to get a job at Latham becomes a litigator at Latham. Litigation is simply not a huge focus there (compared to their transactional practices) and they don't make many litigation partners/counsels. There are just much better places to be a litigator. Quinn is better on that front. Also, if you have the grades for Quinn and Latham, you are likely better off doing a clerkship which should open up more doors for you.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:54 am

I worked at Latham for five years. I have a ton of great things to say about it and it is definitely true that pro Bono hours are treated as real hours. Not only are 200 hours not frowned upon, as a litigator, 300-400 really aren't that uncommon (I did 200+ every year as a transactional associate, no one ever said anything about it to me and I was generally well regarded (top adjective during every review period, etc.)). I frequently reccomend it heartily to people I know interested in transactional work and view it as a sort of kinder version of Kirkland in a lot of ways.

All that being said, I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone. I have no idea why anyone with the credentials to get a job at Latham becomes a litigator at Latham. Litigation is simply not a huge focus there (compared to their transactional practices) and they don't make many litigation partners/counsels. There are just much better places to be a litigator. Quinn is better on that front. Also, if you have the grades for Quinn and Latham, you are likely better off doing a clerkship which should open up more doors for you.

I'm currently an associate in litigation at Latham. I chose Latham because of all of the points mentioned thus far, plus I was truly undecided as a summer and first year associate (you don't pick practice groups until March of your second year at Latham). I ended up opting into litigation despite trying desperately to like transactional work lol. Anyways, I'm happy in the litigation group at Latham. The work is interesting, the people are fantastic, and even though the hours can be long, I don't feel like I'm experiencing the soul-crushing hours and workload that some of my law school friends are experiencing at other firms. Latham has some fantastic clients, and we go up against Quinn/DPW/Skadden/Cravath quite a bit.

Separately, Latham is known for being VERY transparent with associates. We have regular meetings to discuss matters important to associates, and when bonuses came out this year, we had a meeting to discuss the exact breakdown of bonuses and factors that led to people getting higher or lower bonuses. Quinn is not known for this level of transparency, which I know has been frustrating for some of their associates. Training at Latham (both formal and informal) is pretty robust, and there are plenty of opportunities for junior associates to get substantive work early. I was drafting substantive discovery responses and various motions as a first-year associate. At Quinn, formal training is pretty limited, but their junior associates also get a lot of responsibility and substantive work early. Final point - Latham is VERY vocal about diversity initiatives and promoting/retaining diverse attorneys. There are tons of affinity groups (with billable credit if you lead an affinity group), and Latham gives everyone a limited amount of billable credit for taking the time to engage in various diversity-related initiatives like attending lunch-hour talks. On the other hand, Quinn is one of the only firms left that does basically nothing for diversity. No affinity groups, no programs, no initiatives of any sort. I have heard through the grapevine that diverse attorneys at Quinn struggle a lot.

I also agree with the post above that Latham puts more focus on its transactional practices, and the path to promotion for litigation is pretty bleak. Of the litigation associates I know who have left, they've all had fantastic exit opportunities in the government, with other law firms, and occasionally in-house. I have a COA clerkship lined up in a couple of years and I've already started thinking seriously about whether I'll come back to Latham afterward, solely because I do want to stick it out in private practice as long as I can and I would like to make counsel or partner somewhere, even if it's at a smaller or lower-ranked firm.

I don't think Weil is at the same level as Latham or Quinn, but between Latham and Quinn I don't think you can go wrong.