Irell v. MTO v. Latham v. Gibson (all LA) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate to have offers from all the above, and now trying to narrow down my options. Have been talking to people at all the firms trying to get a sense of culture, and feeling like I fit in better with a nerdier, somewhat social group. Fairly sure I want to do litigation, but would also like to try out some corporate work this summer. Thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

Irell- aren't they pretty patent-focused at this point? Is that an issue for you?

MTO- nerdier's certainly fine and I know for a fact they let you to blend lit/transactional work over the summer.

Latham- definitely the strongest transactional practices in this field, but I think they expect you to pick a practice area more quickly.

Gibson- know less about them but definitely lit>transactional there.

Are you not leaning any particular way after your post-offer discussions?

[Anonymous User]

Amazing options! Do you mind sharing what your MTO CB-->offer timeline looked like? (needless to say, I would recommend MTO for lit).

[Anonymous User]

Since you're undecided on lit or corp, I'd go GDC because it has very solid for both. Maybe see if you can split with MTO (or split Latham with MTO)?

[Anonymous User]

Since you're undecided on lit or corp, I'd go GDC because it has very solid for both. Maybe see if you can split with MTO (or split Latham with MTO)?

None of these firms will let you split your summer with a peer firm in the same market. (I know because I have asked.) MTO in particular does not do split summers anymore after a debacle ~5-6 years ago. The possible exception is if you did a 1L summer somewhere and are just going for a touchback.

[Anonymous User]

There has been some news going around that Irell is having major financial issues.

[Anonymous User]

There has been some news going around that Irell is having major financial issues.

Source? There was a law.com article about a “new direction” but afaik, Irell is still pulling in a lot of money through their patent practice and recently paid their associates above market bonuses. https://abovethelaw.com/2020/12/irell-2020-bonuses/amp/

[Anonymous User]

There has been some news going around that Irell is having major financial issues.

Source? There was a law.com article about a “new direction” but afaik, Irell is still pulling in a lot of money through their patent practice and recently paid their associates above market bonuses. https://abovethelaw.com/2020/12/irell-2020-bonuses/amp/

I don't know about its financial stability, but from what I've read it's essentially lost all of its non-patent practice to Hueston Hennigan, Milbank, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate to have offers from all the above, and now trying to narrow down my options. Have been talking to people at all the firms trying to get a sense of culture, and feeling like I fit in better with a nerdier, somewhat social group. Fairly sure I want to do litigation, but would also like to try out some corporate work this summer. Thoughts?

That's a bit of a quixotic combo, sort of like oil and water.

That said, given your choices and your preferences, go with MTO.

[Anonymous User]

If you're a PoC/LGBT/diversity is really important to you, I strongly recommend you don't choose Gibson in LA

[Anonymous User]

If you're a PoC/LGBT/diversity is really important to you, I strongly recommend you don't choose Gibson in LA

I'm not OP but deciding between similar choices, could you elaborate on this?

[Anonymous User]

Can I ask what the timeline was from GDC callback --> offer ?

[Anonymous User]

Here is my take (as a partner at another LA firm):

MTO - I think this is going to be your best bet. It has the biggest cachet in LA, does great work, and is relatively humane as big firms go. Its culture is unique - many like it, some really dislike it.

Gibson - Also a good choice. It is more of a "big firm" than MTO, which is both good and bad. You will probably get less substantive experience and have far worse partnership prospects than you will have at MTO. The culture is quite buttoned-up and conservative, particularly vis-a-vis other LA firms. It's fine, not great, but fine on diversity (far better than, say, Jones Day).

Latham - I would not pick it - not because it is not a great firm (it is!), but because there's no real metric on which it is better than Gibson or MTO given your interests.

Irell - I think it is a very good firm and will come out of its reorientation stronger. It tried to pitch itself as a full-service firm for a while, which did not work very well, so it has made a concerted effort to shed practices in which it is not a leader (transactional, general business litigation) and focus on the practices where it shines (high-end patent litigation). And unless you are 1000% sure you want to have a trial-focused patent litigation practice, I think it's probably not the best option.

[Anonymous User]

Here is my take (as a partner at another LA firm):

MTO - I think this is going to be your best bet. It has the biggest cachet in LA, does great work, and is relatively humane as big firms go. Its culture is unique - many like it, some really dislike it.

Gibson - Also a good choice. It is more of a "big firm" than MTO, which is both good and bad. You will probably get less substantive experience and have far worse partnership prospects than you will have at MTO. The culture is quite buttoned-up and conservative, particularly vis-a-vis other LA firms. It's fine, not great, but fine on diversity (far better than, say, Jones Day).

Latham - I would not pick it - not because it is not a great firm (it is!), but because there's no real metric on which it is better than Gibson or MTO given your interests.

Irell - I think it is a very good firm and will come out of its reorientation stronger. It tried to pitch itself as a full-service firm for a while, which did not work very well, so it has made a concerted effort to shed practices in which it is not a leader (transactional, general business litigation) and focus on the practices where it shines (high-end patent litigation). And unless you are 1000% sure you want to have a trial-focused patent litigation practice, I think it's probably not the best option.

Agree with all of this as a midlevel at another LA firm. I do know of friends who have gotten absolutely crushed on hours at MTO, but I can say the same for every firm on this list and there's always going to be some luck of the draw aspect to that (do you get pulled into a trial team, which partners you work for, how good are you at saying no, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

Have been practicing in LA for a while now and spent 5+ years in biglaw. If their is a specific practice you want, go with the firm strongest in that practice. If you want overall name brand strong in both lit and corp and are undecided, go Gibson. If you are really favoring lit, go Munger. Unless you are a 100% wannabe patent litigator with the relevant credentials, do not consider Irell. I do not know why Latham would win out over Gibson in your scenario but possibly in some practice areas it would.

[Anonymous User]

Here is my take (as a partner at another LA firm):

MTO - I think this is going to be your best bet. It has the biggest cachet in LA, does great work, and is relatively humane as big firms go. Its culture is unique - many like it, some really dislike it.

Gibson - Also a good choice. It is more of a "big firm" than MTO, which is both good and bad. You will probably get less substantive experience and have far worse partnership prospects than you will have at MTO. The culture is quite buttoned-up and conservative, particularly vis-a-vis other LA firms. It's fine, not great, but fine on diversity (far better than, say, Jones Day).

Latham - I would not pick it - not because it is not a great firm (it is!), but because there's no real metric on which it is better than Gibson or MTO given your interests.

Irell - I think it is a very good firm and will come out of its reorientation stronger. It tried to pitch itself as a full-service firm for a while, which did not work very well, so it has made a concerted effort to shed practices in which it is not a leader (transactional, general business litigation) and focus on the practices where it shines (high-end patent litigation). And unless you are 1000% sure you want to have a trial-focused patent litigation practice, I think it's probably not the best option.

As a senior associate at one of these firms — I agree with this completely.

[s'all good, man]

Here is my take (as a partner at another LA firm):

MTO - I think this is going to be your best bet. It has the biggest cachet in LA, does great work, and is relatively humane as big firms go. Its culture is unique - many like it, some really dislike it.

Could you please say a little bit more about the unique culture? Curious about this.