Would I be crazy to go with WilmerHale (NY) over Milbank or Weil for restructuring? Forum

[Anonymous User]

NB: I do not actually have the Wilmer offer yet, so this may be moot, but I feel good about my chances at this point.

UPDATE: got dinged by Wilmer anyways, so this was a pointless exercise

[Anonymous User]

For those picking Milbank - any particular reason?

[jotarokujo]

i don't know why some people aren't voting wilmer. I could be wrong, but Wilmer has the best bankruptcy lit/appellate practice here. their bankruptcy practice is more litigation focused than the other 2 here, which i think is what the OP wants.

[Anonymous User]

i don't know why some people aren't voting wilmer. I could be wrong, but Wilmer has the best bankruptcy lit/appellate practice here. their bankruptcy practice is more litigation focused than the other 2 here, which i think is what the OP wants.

In fairness, people probably aren't reading my admittedly lengthy post and are just reflexively voting for the known "best" RX firms. Case in point: Weil somehow coming in first after I stated outright that I don't want to do debtor work.

I probably shouldn't have done a poll, so that's on me.

[Anonymous User]

In a related vein, does anyone have intel in Gibson Dunn restructuring? There doesn't seem to be a ton of info on it out there.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - can anyone give a rationale on all the Weil picks? If there are reasons for me to go with Weil beyond just "it's one of the two premier debtor shops," I would like to know them.

[jotarokujo]

for specific questions like this, TLS is not going to be accurate a lot of the time. Your knowledge on specific subjects like this is likely more than most peoples' here, and it's probably better to confirm with people who are in bankruptcy lit rather than here.

[The Lsat Airbender]

OP here - can anyone give a rationale on all the Weil picks? If there are reasons for me to go with Weil beyond just "it's one of the two premier debtor shops," I would like to know them.

The poll prompt is "NY Restructuring" so that's what people are responding to.

It sounds like you've already convinced yourself wrt Wilmer and are looking for validation. You clearly did your homework and shouldn't stress too much about what Internet randos think.

Even if you're wrong, it's not like you're going to wake up in a cold sweat 8 years from now thinking "FUCK I tanked my career by taking that Wilmer offer". You could pick among these three firms randomly and your floor is still pretty high.

[Anonymous User]

for specific questions like this, TLS is not going to be accurate a lot of the time. Your knowledge on specific subjects like this is likely more than most peoples' here, and it's probably better to confirm with people who are in bankruptcy lit rather than here.

Understood - and I'm certainly taking advantage of any all resources at my disposal in addition to this. But I am aware that people may only give certain perspectives under the cover of anonymity, so I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. By that same token, I know to take anything I read here with an appropriate grain of salt.

OP here - can anyone give a rationale on all the Weil picks? If there are reasons for me to go with Weil beyond just "it's one of the two premier debtor shops," I would like to know them.

The poll prompt is "NY Restructuring" so that's what people are responding to.

It sounds like you've already convinced yourself wrt Wilmer and are looking for validation. You clearly did your homework and shouldn't stress too much about what Internet randos think.

Even if you're wrong, it's not like you're going to wake up in a cold sweat 8 years from now thinking "FUCK I tanked my career by taking that Wilmer offer". You could pick among these three firms randomly and your floor is still pretty high.

This is exactly right, and I agree that the poll was either a mistake or poorly labeled, because it invites kneejerk responses.

Validation may be the right word - I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything, particularly the type of info that might only be revealed anonymously. I suppose this was supposed to be a sanity check of some kind.

[Anonymous User]

Try posting in the restructuring thread that was floating around in the last week or two. Should still be in the first couple of pages if you dig for it. There were some well-informed RX mid-levels in there.

ETA: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=307760

[Anonymous User]

I voted Weil. I just don't understand OP's goals. You want to do bankruptcy lit (ok) but it sounds like you don't want to do the actual bankruptcy parts. Otherwise, why not go to Weil where you can also do bankruptcy lit (even if its not "expected")? And if you don't want to do the bankruptcy parts, why not just do "regular" litigation?

Appellate/SCOTUS is narrow enough that I wouldn't recommend picking a firm on that without a feeder clerkship. Picking a firm based on their "bankruptcy appellate/SCOTUS practice" seems incredibly narrow. That said, I really have no insight into whether thats really a "bankruptcy" practice at Wilmer, or a SCOTUS practice.

If your goal is if BigFed, just pick Wilmer for its white collar group. Again, why the bankruptcy/appellate/regulatory practice?

TBH, it sounds like OP picked Wilmer (which is fine) and is working backwards to support that decision. To me it reads as a typical 2L who doesn't know what they want (which is also fine). If it were me, I'd just default to Weil. But I agree with Lsat Airbender that theres no obviously wrong choice here, and you'll be more than fine wherever you end up.

[Anonymous User]

I voted Weil. I just don't understand OP's goals. You want to do bankruptcy lit (ok) but it sounds like you don't want to do the actual bankruptcy parts. Otherwise, why not go to Weil where you can also do bankruptcy lit (even if its not "expected")? And if you don't want to do the bankruptcy parts, why not just do "regular" litigation?

Appellate/SCOTUS is narrow enough that I wouldn't recommend picking a firm on that without a feeder clerkship. Picking a firm based on their "bankruptcy appellate/SCOTUS practice" seems incredibly narrow. That said, I really have no insight into whether thats really a "bankruptcy" practice at Wilmer, or a SCOTUS practice.

If your goal is if BigFed, just pick Wilmer for its white collar group. Again, why the bankruptcy/appellate/regulatory practice?

TBH, it sounds like OP picked Wilmer (which is fine) and is working backwards to support that decision. To me it reads as a typical 2L who doesn't know what they want (which is also fine). If it were me, I'd just default to Weil. But I agree with Lsat Airbender that theres no obviously wrong choice here, and you'll be more than fine wherever you end up.

OP here - I'm a current DE/SDNY BK clerk, so that both expands and limits my options in the ways you would imagine. Suffice it to say, I am exclusively considering BK groups at this juncture. Like I said in the OP, I'm not pursuing appellate and I don't have the resume for it regardless. It's just a nice bonus. (As an aside I understand this to be handled within the bankruptcy group - Wilmer has two of the top BK SCOTUS practitioners, and they get involved in cases at the trial level)

I do like BK, and I'm dedicated to joining a BK practice for at least a few years, but I want the capacity to branch out. I would like the option to expand or lateral into other areas of lit, if I want to, and would probably pursue another clerkship to that end.

[Anonymous User]

I voted Weil. I just don't understand OP's goals. You want to do bankruptcy lit (ok) but it sounds like you don't want to do the actual bankruptcy parts. Otherwise, why not go to Weil where you can also do bankruptcy lit (even if its not "expected")? And if you don't want to do the bankruptcy parts, why not just do "regular" litigation?

Appellate/SCOTUS is narrow enough that I wouldn't recommend picking a firm on that without a feeder clerkship. Picking a firm based on their "bankruptcy appellate/SCOTUS practice" seems incredibly narrow. That said, I really have no insight into whether thats really a "bankruptcy" practice at Wilmer, or a SCOTUS practice.

If your goal is if BigFed, just pick Wilmer for its white collar group. Again, why the bankruptcy/appellate/regulatory practice?

TBH, it sounds like OP picked Wilmer (which is fine) and is working backwards to support that decision. To me it reads as a typical 2L who doesn't know what they want (which is also fine). If it were me, I'd just default to Weil. But I agree with Lsat Airbender that theres no obviously wrong choice here, and you'll be more than fine wherever you end up.

OP here - I'm a current DE/SDNY BK clerk, so that both expands and limits my options in the ways you would imagine. Suffice it to say, I am exclusively considering BK groups at this juncture. Like I said in the OP, I'm not pursuing appellate and I don't have the resume for it regardless. It's just a nice bonus. (As an aside I understand this to be handled within the bankruptcy group - Wilmer has two of the top BK SCOTUS practitioners, and they get involved in cases at the trial level)

I do like BK, and I'm dedicated to joining a BK practice for at least a few years, but I want the capacity to branch out. I would like the option to expand or lateral into other areas of lit, if I want to, and would probably pursue another clerkship to that end.

Weil voter. That's fair. You actually give me too much credit; I don't know what BK clerk hiring is like (and it seems that all clerk recruiting is a bit wonky this cycle). The bankruptcy lit goals (as opposed to just bankruptcy or lit) still strike me as odd, but I'm sure you have your reasons. And like I said, I wouldn't lose sleep over your choices here.

[Anonymous User]

i don't know why some people aren't voting wilmer. I could be wrong, but Wilmer has the best bankruptcy lit/appellate practice here. their bankruptcy practice is more litigation focused than the other 2 here, which i think is what the OP wants.

because "bankruptcy lit" isn't a thing. if you're a litigator at a shop that does big Rx work, you'll do bankruptcy lit -- which is litigating confirmation hearings at the trial-level and litigating makewholes and other niche issues on appeal.

if you want to do appellate lit or jump to reg enforcement, that's a reason to pick WH. if you want to do Rx work, don't pick WH. trying to hedge for "bankruptcy lit" and appellate/SCOTUS" is nonsense.

[Anonymous User]

i don't know why some people aren't voting wilmer. I could be wrong, but Wilmer has the best bankruptcy lit/appellate practice here. their bankruptcy practice is more litigation focused than the other 2 here, which i think is what the OP wants.

because "bankruptcy lit" isn't a thing. if you're a litigator at a shop that does big Rx work, you'll do bankruptcy lit -- which is litigating confirmation hearings at the trial-level and litigating makewholes and other niche issues on appeal.

if you want to do appellate lit or jump to reg enforcement, that's a reason to pick WH. if you want to do Rx work, don't pick WH. trying to hedge for "bankruptcy lit" and appellate/SCOTUS" is nonsense.

Bankruptcy lit absolutely is a thing, what a bizarre assertion. This is how several of the partners at Wilmer refer to themselves and their practice. They have one of the most litigation-heavy RX practices in the field, and much of what they do is what you describe - litigating e.g. makewholes, preference actions, etc. And unlike most other RX groups, I'm told that they do not hand matters off to the litigation group for depos, etc. They are handled by the RX group. Wilmer seems to be unusual in this respect, which is appealing to me.

It sounds like you're just quibbling over the semantics of "bankruptcy litigation," when it's obvious that it's shorthand for contested actions in or related to bankruptcy.

I have no idea where you're getting the notion that I'm "hedging" for appellate. I've literally stated the opposite twice now in this thread, but I'll repeat it again for your sake - I have no intention of pursuing appellate work. It's just a nice bonus that it's relatively common in the Wilmer RX group.

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate at a major creditor-leaning shop. Not at any of listed firms so no real dog in this fight.

I'm aware that folks describe Wilmer as a bk lit shop but they seem pretty low volume. I can't recall seeing them play a major role in any of my cases/deals. As a junior you're better off soaking up as much volume as possible. You'll pick up both litigation and deal experience at Weil and Milbank at a much faster rate. FWIW the few people I know that started in that Wilmer practice eventually lateraled out to Milbank and other bigger players. Only reason IMO to pick Wilmer over the other two is if you're sure that you'd be a better fit with the personalities there

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate at a major creditor-leaning shop. Not at any of listed firms so no real dog in this fight.

I'm aware that folks describe Wilmer as a bk lit shop but they seem pretty low volume. I can't recall seeing them play a major role in any of my cases/deals. As a junior you're better off soaking up as much volume as possible. You'll pick up both litigation and deal experience at Weil and Milbank at a much faster rate. FWIW the few people I know that started in that Wilmer practice eventually lateraled out to Milbank and other bigger players. Only reason IMO to pick Wilmer over the other two is if you're sure that you'd be a better fit with the personalities there

Thanks - any more insight on the laterals' rationales? Also, any insight on a meaningful difference in work-life balance between the two?

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate at a major creditor-leaning shop. Not at any of listed firms so no real dog in this fight.

I'm aware that folks describe Wilmer as a bk lit shop but they seem pretty low volume. I can't recall seeing them play a major role in any of my cases/deals. As a junior you're better off soaking up as much volume as possible. You'll pick up both litigation and deal experience at Weil and Milbank at a much faster rate. FWIW the few people I know that started in that Wilmer practice eventually lateraled out to Milbank and other bigger players. Only reason IMO to pick Wilmer over the other two is if you're sure that you'd be a better fit with the personalities there

Thanks - any more insight on the laterals' rationales? Also, any insight on a meaningful difference in work-life balance between the two?

I am not an experienced Rx person (but have read a lot and spoken to a lot of people about it), so take this with a grain of salt.

If you want to be a litigator who does bankruptcy stuff, you should look at, in addition to Wilmer, Quinn Emanuel and Paul Weiss. Both of those firms have super strong litigation practices and are involved in a lot of high profile bankruptcy lit.

If you want to be a bankruptcy lawyer, I would not personally choose Wilmer. I second the comment quoted above -- volume matters. I follow Rx pretty closely and don't see Wilmer on things all that much. You're going to want to be on the most important cases, not on the outside looking in. The fact is that market share in restructuring is mostly consolidated in a handful of firms -- on the debtor side, KE/Weil, on the creditor side, PW, DPW, Akin, Milbank. Of course there are other firms that get involved but those are the major players, so if you really are committed to Rx, I would try to get into one of those firms, and make a choice about where you'll be able to achieve the best mix of lit/Rx work that you want. But if you want to be a litigator (rather than a Rx lawyer), it probably makes less sense to go to Weil Rx, where you will not be a litigator, but rather a bankruptcy lawyer who occasionally does some litigation stuff.

Others with more knowledge, feel free to correct me.

[Anonymous User]

I am not an experienced Rx person (but have read a lot and spoken to a lot of people about it), so take this with a grain of salt.

If you want to be a litigator who does bankruptcy stuff, you should look at, in addition to Wilmer, Quinn Emanuel and Paul Weiss. Both of those firms have super strong litigation practices and are involved in a lot of high profile bankruptcy lit.

If you want to be a bankruptcy lawyer, I would not personally choose Wilmer. I second the comment quoted above -- volume matters. I follow Rx pretty closely and don't see Wilmer on things all that much. You're going to want to be on the most important cases, not on the outside looking in. The fact is that market share in restructuring is mostly consolidated in a handful of firms -- on the debtor side, KE/Weil, on the creditor side, PW, DPW, Akin, Milbank. Of course there are other firms that get involved but those are the major players, so if you really are committed to Rx, I would try to get into one of those firms, and make a choice about where you'll be able to achieve the best mix of lit/Rx work that you want. But if you want to be a litigator (rather than a Rx lawyer), it probably makes less sense to go to Weil Rx, where you will not be a litigator, but rather a bankruptcy lawyer who occasionally does some litigation stuff.

Others with more knowledge, feel free to correct me.

Got it. Would it change your calculus if, say, I wanted to best preserve the possibility of moving into other areas of litigation or investigations? Bigfed (e.g. SEC enforcement or DOJ) is high on my list of long-term destinations.

I'd say that I'm not all-in on RX for the long term. I'm not necessarily against it, either, but at this point I think of myself as a litigator first and foremost with a secondary interest/specialization in bankruptcy (certainly in the near term).

I am aware that this all sounds convoluted and circuitous, but it's just where I'm at right now.

I'm also open to (or even desirous of) clerking again, though I doubt any of these firms offer materially different prospects in that respect.

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate at a major creditor-leaning shop. Not at any of listed firms so no real dog in this fight.

I'm aware that folks describe Wilmer as a bk lit shop but they seem pretty low volume. I can't recall seeing them play a major role in any of my cases/deals. As a junior you're better off soaking up as much volume as possible. You'll pick up both litigation and deal experience at Weil and Milbank at a much faster rate. FWIW the few people I know that started in that Wilmer practice eventually lateraled out to Milbank and other bigger players. Only reason IMO to pick Wilmer over the other two is if you're sure that you'd be a better fit with the personalities there

Thanks - any more insight on the laterals' rationales? Also, any insight on a meaningful difference in work-life balance between the two?

Same senior anon from above (FWIW i'm at PW). Those particular individuals wanted to be partner, which generally requires a growing practice. It's fairly difficult for a standalone litigation practice to land bk engagements that doesn't come over from the deal side of the firm - the main bk counsel doesn't want to lose those hours and frankly many of the top bk shops have strong litigation practices of their own that can handle the work. The few times i see litigation get farmed out is if an independent investigation mandate, the case pivoted in an unexpected way that created an insurmountable conflict for the deal firm, or if it's a relatively discrete issue that would take up a lot of time relative to the actual deal (e.g., lease rejections). The more common situation (but still not the norm) is for the deal firm to team up with a litigation boutique (e.g., Boies, Quinn, Kobre Kim).

I'm sure the work-life balance would be better at Wilmer - but that's precisely because it would be lower volume, which is frankly not in your best interest as a presumably young and developing junior associate without a lot of family obligations.

I am not an experienced Rx person (but have read a lot and spoken to a lot of people about it), so take this with a grain of salt.

If you want to be a litigator who does bankruptcy stuff, you should look at, in addition to Wilmer, Quinn Emanuel and Paul Weiss. Both of those firms have super strong litigation practices and are involved in a lot of high profile bankruptcy lit.

If you want to be a bankruptcy lawyer, I would not personally choose Wilmer. I second the comment quoted above -- volume matters. I follow Rx pretty closely and don't see Wilmer on things all that much. You're going to want to be on the most important cases, not on the outside looking in. The fact is that market share in restructuring is mostly consolidated in a handful of firms -- on the debtor side, KE/Weil, on the creditor side, PW, DPW, Akin, Milbank. Of course there are other firms that get involved but those are the major players, so if you really are committed to Rx, I would try to get into one of those firms, and make a choice about where you'll be able to achieve the best mix of lit/Rx work that you want. But if you want to be a litigator (rather than a Rx lawyer), it probably makes less sense to go to Weil Rx, where you will not be a litigator, but rather a bankruptcy lawyer who occasionally does some litigation stuff.

Others with more knowledge, feel free to correct me.

I agree with this. There are few (if any) litigation practices that can sustain themselves entirely on bankruptcy litigation - there aren't THAT many cases that actually go to trial or require substantive litigation beyond depos/motion practice.

ETA: My sense is that you actually want to be a litigator (and take the exit options that come with it) but either because of your pedigree and/or clerkship you're limited to going through the bk department. If that's indeed the case then go to Wilmer and aim to lateral early before you crystalize as a bk litigator.

[Anonymous User]

ETA: My sense is that you actually want to be a litigator (and take the exit options that come with it) but either because of your pedigree and/or clerkship you're limited to going through the bk department. If that's indeed the case then go to Wilmer and aim to lateral early before you crystalize as a bk litigator.

This is principally correct, though it doesn't capture the whole picture. As I said, I do like bankruptcy and would at least like to have it in my back pocket, so to speak; I'm just not certain that I want to be all-in on it. I want to maximize my options, might be the way to put it

[Anonymous User]

I am not an experienced Rx person (but have read a lot and spoken to a lot of people about it), so take this with a grain of salt.

If you want to be a litigator who does bankruptcy stuff, you should look at, in addition to Wilmer, Quinn Emanuel and Paul Weiss. Both of those firms have super strong litigation practices and are involved in a lot of high profile bankruptcy lit.

If you want to be a bankruptcy lawyer, I would not personally choose Wilmer. I second the comment quoted above -- volume matters. I follow Rx pretty closely and don't see Wilmer on things all that much. You're going to want to be on the most important cases, not on the outside looking in. The fact is that market share in restructuring is mostly consolidated in a handful of firms -- on the debtor side, KE/Weil, on the creditor side, PW, DPW, Akin, Milbank. Of course there are other firms that get involved but those are the major players, so if you really are committed to Rx, I would try to get into one of those firms, and make a choice about where you'll be able to achieve the best mix of lit/Rx work that you want. But if you want to be a litigator (rather than a Rx lawyer), it probably makes less sense to go to Weil Rx, where you will not be a litigator, but rather a bankruptcy lawyer who occasionally does some litigation stuff.

Others with more knowledge, feel free to correct me.

Got it. Would it change your calculus if, say, I wanted to best preserve the possibility of moving into other areas of litigation or investigations? Bigfed (e.g. SEC enforcement or DOJ) is high on my list of long-term destinations.

I'd say that I'm not all-in on RX for the long term. I'm not necessarily against it, either, but at this point I think of myself as a litigator first and foremost with a secondary interest/specialization in bankruptcy (certainly in the near term).

I am aware that this all sounds convoluted and circuitous, but it's just where I'm at right now.

I'm also open to (or even desirous of) clerking again, though I doubt any of these firms offer materially different prospects in that respect.

Answering this from before. You have to understand that Rx and litigation are two different practices. They have some overlap, but they're not the same. Yes, Rx has elements of litigation. You do motions and briefs and stuff, and will research things and write memos. It's not a purely corporate practice, and it's more litigation-y than basically every other transactional practice. But it's still not litigation. Your experience in the lit group at any firm would be very different. In an Rx group, you aren't taking depos, doing doc review, reviewing privilege logs, etc. You often aren't involved in the really big litigation stuff. You go to court, but you're not doing trials, generally speaking. Or if you are, it's only in a support role. A lot of your time is spent negotiating deals, reading debt documents to figure out what a company can or can't do, etc. You don't do that in litigation.

So if you want to be a litigator and one day go to BigFed or an Article III clerkship, that's going to be hard to do as an Rx lawyer. Not impossible maybe, but hard. Because it's just not the skills/resume for it. If you're a litigator (not an Rx lawyer) who does a lot of bankruptcy litigation, that's a different story. Then you're still first and foremost a litigator, you've just worked on a lot of bankruptcy cases, which is fine. So that's an easy story if you think DOJ/SEC/clerkship is what you ultimately want. But on the flip side, in that capacity you're not learning all of the non-litigation aspects of Rx, i.e. negotiating plans and restructuring support agreements, learning how to read debt docs and analyze covenants, and so on.

I am sure bankruptcy litigation is an interesting practice. But just be aware that if you're a litigator who does bankruptcy, you're not an Rx lawyer per se, and if you are an Rx lawyer, i.e., in the Rx group of a Weil or a KE or a PW or a DPW or wherever, you're not spending most of your time on litigation stuff, and going to BigFed or even an Art. III clerkship would be a very tough sell, in my opinion.

[Anonymous User]

Answering this from before. You have to understand that Rx and litigation are two different practices. They have some overlap, but they're not the same. Yes, Rx has elements of litigation. You do motions and briefs and stuff, and will research things and write memos. It's not a purely corporate practice, and it's more litigation-y than basically every other transactional practice. But it's still not litigation. Your experience in the lit group at any firm would be very different. In an Rx group, you aren't taking depos, doing doc review, reviewing privilege logs, etc. You often aren't involved in the really big litigation stuff. You go to court, but you're not doing trials, generally speaking. Or if you are, it's only in a support role. A lot of your time is spent negotiating deals, reading debt documents to figure out what a company can or can't do, etc. You don't do that in litigation.

So if you want to be a litigator and one day go to BigFed or an Article III clerkship, that's going to be hard to do as an Rx lawyer. Not impossible maybe, but hard. Because it's just not the skills/resume for it. If you're a litigator (not an Rx lawyer) who does a lot of bankruptcy litigation, that's a different story. Then you're still first and foremost a litigator, you've just worked on a lot of bankruptcy cases, which is fine. So that's an easy story if you think DOJ/SEC/clerkship is what you ultimately want. But on the flip side, in that capacity you're not learning all of the non-litigation aspects of Rx, i.e. negotiating plans and restructuring support agreements, learning how to read debt docs and analyze covenants, and so on.

I am sure bankruptcy litigation is an interesting practice. But just be aware that if you're a litigator who does bankruptcy, you're not an Rx lawyer per se, and if you are an Rx lawyer, i.e., in the Rx group of a Weil or a KE or a PW or a DPW or wherever, you're not spending most of your time on litigation stuff, and going to BigFed or even an Art. III clerkship would be a very tough sell, in my opinion.

I'm aware of all this, which is why I'm uniquely interested in Wilmer. I feel like you're hung up on describing the basics of what the typical RX practice does, which I already understand, but I'm specifically looking for comparisons to Wilmer. Their RX group is, as it was described to me, as litigious a practice as it gets, and associates in the group are expected to handle the lit tasks that other firms would normally spin off to their lit group. I know that it's unusual, but it's unusual in a way that interests me.

Now, how that shakes out in practice, I can't be sure, but that is what was represented to me, and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

The question I posed from the start was if, given my interests, Wilmer's practice specifically would suit me better than a more typical marquee RX practice like Milbank. Getting reliable info on a smaller, seemingly unique group like Wilmer RX can be difficult, which is why I'm fishing here. Describing to me again for the umpteenth time what DPW et al do is not helpful in this respect.

I apologize for being snippy, particularly as I'm seeking free advice, but it's become apparent that a lot of these answers are coming from people who have not actually read my posts and are just eager to "correct" misconceptions that I do not actually have.

As I literally said in the OP: "I gather that at most large RX groups, when things escalate into full-blown litigation it's usually handed off to the lit group with the RX group quarterbacking"

I thought it was clear that I am not some hapless neophyte who needs to be gently described the difference between restructuring and litigation, and seeing this same basic info regurgitated is frustrating. /rant

[Anonymous User]

Answering this from before. You have to understand that Rx and litigation are two different practices. They have some overlap, but they're not the same. Yes, Rx has elements of litigation. You do motions and briefs and stuff, and will research things and write memos. It's not a purely corporate practice, and it's more litigation-y than basically every other transactional practice. But it's still not litigation. Your experience in the lit group at any firm would be very different. In an Rx group, you aren't taking depos, doing doc review, reviewing privilege logs, etc. You often aren't involved in the really big litigation stuff. You go to court, but you're not doing trials, generally speaking. Or if you are, it's only in a support role. A lot of your time is spent negotiating deals, reading debt documents to figure out what a company can or can't do, etc. You don't do that in litigation.

So if you want to be a litigator and one day go to BigFed or an Article III clerkship, that's going to be hard to do as an Rx lawyer. Not impossible maybe, but hard. Because it's just not the skills/resume for it. If you're a litigator (not an Rx lawyer) who does a lot of bankruptcy litigation, that's a different story. Then you're still first and foremost a litigator, you've just worked on a lot of bankruptcy cases, which is fine. So that's an easy story if you think DOJ/SEC/clerkship is what you ultimately want. But on the flip side, in that capacity you're not learning all of the non-litigation aspects of Rx, i.e. negotiating plans and restructuring support agreements, learning how to read debt docs and analyze covenants, and so on.

I am sure bankruptcy litigation is an interesting practice. But just be aware that if you're a litigator who does bankruptcy, you're not an Rx lawyer per se, and if you are an Rx lawyer, i.e., in the Rx group of a Weil or a KE or a PW or a DPW or wherever, you're not spending most of your time on litigation stuff, and going to BigFed or even an Art. III clerkship would be a very tough sell, in my opinion.

I'm aware of all this, which is why I'm uniquely interested in Wilmer. I feel like you're hung up on describing the basics of what the typical RX practice does, which I already understand, but I'm specifically looking for comparisons to Wilmer. Their RX group is, as it was described to me, as litigious a practice as it gets, and associates in the group are expected to handle the lit tasks that other firms would normally spin off to their lit group. I know that it's unusual, but it's unusual in a way that interests me.

Now, how that shakes out in practice, I can't be sure, but that is what was represented to me, and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

The question I posed from the start was if, given my interests, Wilmer's practice specifically would suit me better than a more typical marquee RX practice like Milbank. Getting reliable info on a smaller, seemingly unique group like Wilmer RX can be difficult, which is why I'm fishing here. Describing to me again for the umpteenth time what DPW et al do is not helpful in this respect.

I apologize for being snippy, particularly as I'm seeking free advice, but it's become apparent that a lot of these answers are coming from people who have not actually read my posts and are just eager to "correct" misconceptions that I do not actually have.

As I literally said in the OP: "I gather that at most large RX groups, when things escalate into full-blown litigation it's usually handed off to the lit group with the RX group quarterbacking"

I thought it was clear that I am not some hapless neophyte who needs to be gently described the difference between restructuring and litigation, and seeing this same basic info regurgitated is frustrating. /rant

Ok bro. I read your posts. You literally asked whether my answer might change if you're really interested in going to the DOJ or SEC. You're still asking whether you should go to Wilmer vs. "a marquee Rx practice like Milbank" if that is your goal. These questions do not betray a strong grasp of the difference between being in an Rx practice vs. being a litigator.

Sorry that I made a good faith effort to communicate those differences to you. I will dutifully refrain from taking the time to answer your questions in the future.

[Anonymous User]

Ok bro. I read your posts. You literally asked whether my answer might change if you're really interested in going to the DOJ or SEC. You're still asking whether you should go to Wilmer vs. "a marquee Rx practice like Milbank" if that is your goal. These questions do not betray a strong grasp of the difference between being in an Rx practice vs. being a litigator.

Sorry that I made a good faith effort to communicate those differences to you. I will dutifully refrain from taking the time to answer your questions in the future.

You are completely misstating my question. What I've been asking, from the start, is if there could be some lit- or regulatory option value to joining Wilmer that would make it a better choice for me, or if I'd be better off just joining a well known RX practice like Milbank and focusing on RX. At no point did I suggest that it's SEC or DOJ or bust; I think I've been quite clear that I'm flexible about my future.

You apparently have no actual familiarity with Wilmer's RX group, which seems like a rather obvious prerequisite to adding value here, considering the essential question is "tell me about Wilmer's RX group."