Covington DC v. Quinn DC Forum

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate enough to have offers from both. Interested in lit but also potentially regulatory work. Planning to clerk after law school.

I am leaning Covington at the moment. I enjoyed the people at both--Covington seemed a bit more reserved; Quinn more outgoing (fine with both). I liked that Covington had a bit more regulatory/government-related work (although Quinn seemed to have a decent amount of government lit), and it seems like it may have a bit more cachet.

Aside from mere cultural fit, what are the reasons to pick one over the other?

[polareagle]

Fortunate enough to have offers from both. Interested in lit but also potentially regulatory work. Planning to clerk after law school.

I am leaning Covington at the moment. I enjoyed the people at both--Covington seemed a bit more reserved; Quinn more outgoing (fine with both). I liked that Covington had a bit more regulatory/government-related work (although Quinn seemed to have a decent amount), and it seems like it may have a bit more cachet.

Aside from mere cultural fit, what are the reasons to pick one over the other?

Honestly, as an outsider to both, it's hard for me to think of two more different firms than Quinn and Covington. Covington is definitely more reserved, respectful, and tradition-bound. Quinn is much more brash and hard-charging. You've kind of hand-waived culture, but my sense is that their culture is dramatically different and that somebody who truly enjoys one wouldn't enjoy the other nearly as much.

But you've asked for non-cultural reasons to choose one over the other. If you want to do regulatory work, you have to choose Covington. Quinn may do some government-facing litigation, but it doesn't do any regulatory work to speak of (at least, not to my knowledge). By contrast, if you want to get to trial/think of yourself as a trial lawyer, Quinn offers a much better chance of that.

But truly, I think you need to think about fit more. Hogan vs. Covington or Boies vs. Quinn seem like much closer decisions. Covington vs. Quinn feels like a really stark difference.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the response!

1) I did not mean to handwaive culture. Rather, I have a decent amount of professional experience and have operated in both reserved/formal and brash/informal environments and have enjoyed both. Also, I am not sure what I will be doing after my clerkship, so I do not necessarily want to pick a firm based purely on culture now when my professional future is so uncertain.

2) In terms of perception/reputation and exit options, is one of them noticeably superior? Like will Covington lock me out of trial lit (or Quinn lock me in)? I like litigation, but I like the motion stages as much as the actual trials, so maybe that affects the analysis.

[polareagle]

Thanks for the response!

1) I did not mean to handwaive culture. Rather, I have a decent amount of professional experience and have operated in both reserved/formal and brash/informal environments and have enjoyed both. Also, I am not sure what I will be doing after my clerkship, so I do not necessarily want to pick a firm based purely on culture now when my professional future is so uncertain.

2) In terms of perception/reputation and exit options, is one of them noticeably superior? Like will Covington lock me out of trial lit (or Quinn lock me in)? I like litigation, but I like the motion stages as much as the actual trials, so maybe that affects the analysis.

1. Fair enough.

2. They're both perceived as strong, prestigious firms. Which one is superior to a given person probably tells you more about that person and their priorities than about the firms themselves. (To be clear, I wouldn't say this about every DC firm. They really are both strong.) I think it's unlikely you'll get to trial as a Covington associate, at least more than, say, once or twice. You are definitely more likely to get to trial at Quinn, but you'd still be lucky to get one every year or two. So going to Covington might lock you out of being a "trial lawyer" (unless you exit to, e.g., a USAO), but by no means will Quinn necessarily make you one or lock you into it. (Trials are so rare for biglaw associates these days that one can only dream of being locked in as a trial lawyer.) I think you'll get chances to work on dispositive motions in the lit practices at both places.

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate enough to have offers from both. Interested in lit but also potentially regulatory work. Planning to clerk after law school.

I am leaning Covington at the moment. I enjoyed the people at both--Covington seemed a bit more reserved; Quinn more outgoing (fine with both). I liked that Covington had a bit more regulatory/government-related work (although Quinn seemed to have a decent amount of government lit), and it seems like it may have a bit more cachet.

Aside from mere cultural fit, what are the reasons to pick one over the other?

I would think critically about culture and lifestyle.

Quinn is a truly toxic place from what I know (best friend from law school worked there). People doing unethical and illegal things, firm is incredibly cheap on associates, is a complete sweatshop, not much support so you do lots of meaningless bullshit you don’t do at bigger firms.

Covington is a much nicer and more humane place, and generally has much more connectivity and a far better reputation in DC (where Quinn is known as shady af). It is, however, is somewhat overrated as a real litigation shop though. So unless you’re into white collar or regulatory, Covington’s trial lit team will be somewhat middle of the pack and they have basically no appellate work. Unless you really want to do a ton of trial specific active lit work though, Covington should be a no brainer to me.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks so far--bumping in case anyone has any other thoughts.