DC Market, Kinda Lib Forum

[Anonymous User]

Moderate lib working in gov this summer with general lit interest in DC for next. Would prefer appellate work, and may have an outside shot at the right credentials / clerkships necessary for that, but don't want to be presumptuous and pick only based on that criterion. Pretty flexible on politics though I understand the appeal of being around places that can be more overtly political like Jenner.

Basically trying to parse out the DC landscape with Wilmer, Jenner, GDC / Jones Day (wouldn't have a problem working at these places, even with politics being what they are). Have heard K&E, PW, and Sidley are all good in the area, but don't know how they compare to the set mentioned. Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture. I'd consider W&C if their lit practice isn't purely white-collar and actually has generalist elements.

Also, how does the top of the DC market compare (or not) to an MTO (assume not-DC grades to be safe) / Sus NY? DC is my top market primarily because of the substantive opportunities there, but I have no special reason for preferring moving there over somewhere else with an equal or better substantive experience / fit.

[Anonymous User]

This question is completely premature. Most people who target the DC market do not even have the luxury of making any choices. Are you a 1L? If so, raise this issue when you actually get DC offers. The assumption that you will get even one is already presumptuous.

I know top 3% CCN people with reasonable interview skills who were shut out of DC completely.

[Anonymous User]

like the other person said, targeting dc + possibly appellate + political preference is really counting your chickens before they hatch

dc isn't a given even if you have strong grades unless you have the kinds of credentials that legitimately blow people away. I would cast as wide a net as possible and not quibble over these kinds of details until you have callbacks and/or offers.

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. I understand and agree with the advice on approach, but I would really appreciate an answer to the merits of the question, as it's going to affect where I network, what events I go to, bidding, etc. Totally get that it may not work out such that I have choices, but I don't think this is an absurd question like "Who's the best SCOTUS Justice?" or whatever at this stage.

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. I understand and agree with the advice on approach, but I would really appreciate an answer to the merits of the question, as it's going to affect where I network, what events I go to, bidding, etc. Totally get that it may not work out such that I have choices, but I don't think this is an absurd question like "Who's the best SCOTUS Justice?" or whatever at this stage.

You really do not seem to be getting it. Networking and events do not help you get a DC job, in litigation especially. You may already be shut out if you are a non-diverse candidate. Bidding for DC will not be a problem; you will not have to pick and choose between firms in your bidding process.

The differences between the firms politically is likely negligible. None of the firms you mention will be unwelcome toward liberal people. You should rethink your aversion to Covington. All the firms you mention are good; I would not opt for Sidley unless I placed into its appellate division specifically. You could add A&P and QE.

I am trying to be helpful here, but the level of delusion you seem to be under is pretty deep. FWIW I did not even make it past the screener stage of some of the firms you mentioned despite being literally perfect on paper and interviewing really well and getting a lot of offers (including V5 & tippy-top DC). Why? Firms may only need transactional people for their 10-person class. Firms may only need 3 lit associates and have 3 from their 1L diversity programs. Firms may need someone with expert knowledge in esoteric field X.

As I said, this entire thread is a waste of time because none of the knowledge that comes out of it will be helpful to you in any way. And to people who actually have gone through the DC hiring process, this question is actually probably at least as absurd as "Who is the best SCOTUS Justice?" In fact, reading this is exactly like seeing "I am a 1L--which SCOTUS Justice should I try to clerk for?"

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. I understand and agree with the advice on approach, but I would really appreciate an answer to the merits of the question, as it's going to affect where I network, what events I go to, bidding, etc. Totally get that it may not work out such that I have choices, but I don't think this is an absurd question like "Who's the best SCOTUS Justice?" or whatever at this stage.

I get it, but the best advice is really to just cast as wide a net as reasonably possible. DC is really competitive and attracts the most well-credentialed lit gunners out of all the major markets. you should be going to every event and networking with as many people as you can.

Also, I think politics in practice really doesn't matter unless you are the type that is really really lib or conservative (which you don't seem to be).

[Anonymous User]

you should be going to every event and networking with as many people as you can.

Is there any evidence whatsoever for this? No one I know with DC offers networked at all, and with class sizes being what they are, I would be shocked if networking meant anything given how competitive the market is and how much credentials seem to matter. I know for a fact my firm (Cov/W&C) does not factor networking into hiring at all.

[Anonymous User]

you should be going to every event and networking with as many people as you can.

Is there any evidence whatsoever for this? No one I know with DC offers networked at all, and with class sizes being what they are, I would be shocked if networking meant anything given how competitive the market is and how much credentials seem to matter. I know for a fact my firm (Cov/W&C) does not factor networking into hiring at all.

I'm not in DC, but almost all of my friends that ended up there networked their asses off ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (pre-COVID)

Even assuming every firm doesn't use it as an actual criteria for hiring purposes, more networking = more knowledge and insight into any given firm and its practices, which I think only helps someone like OP when they actually have their screeners and callbacks.

[Anonymous User]

Networking by happenstance and a prior personal connection led to 2 out of my 4 D.C. offers. Given my overall low batting average in D.C., I'm almost certain those connections helped. But I'm not sure "networking like crazy" is a worthwhile strategy, though, given how much of a crapshoot the market is. The Zoom info sessions our career office set up with firms had zero effect on my outcomes.

Echoing everyone else, wait until you get callbacks and then if you have the luxury of choice, decide among the firms on the merits.

[aegor]

Networking by happenstance and a prior personal connection led to 2 out of my 4 D.C. offers.

In other words, the networking envisioned by OP will not be helpful.

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. While I appreciate you DC veterans duking it out to discuss what does and doesn't work in recruitment, would it be possible to channel some of that expertise toward discussing the substantive differences in the landscape of the firms I mentioned?

[aegor]

OP anon. While I appreciate you DC veterans duking it out to discuss what does and doesn't work in recruitment, would it be possible to channel some of that expertise toward discussing the substantive differences in the landscape of the firms I mentioned?

The expertise being provided is the expertise that you need. What substantive differences do you want explained that have not been addressed? Your OP is vague and unhelpful--are you just talking about politics? What the hell is "landscape"? What questions remains after you read through Chambers, Vault, and the firm websites? If you have not done that, then why are you wasting our time asking us to do research for you? It is unlikely here that anyone has worked at all of those firms anyway.

It still is a shame that you are so unwilling to listen to the fundamental "thing" here: Unless you have preferences so extreme that finding a suitable law firm will be difficult in general, there is no reason whatsoever to narrow any list of DC lit firms based on anything until you actually have offers.

Also, what is your class rank and school? If you are below median even at T14 and do not have other hooks, it is a little entitled asking strangers on the internet to "channel their expertise" for the sake of your pipe dream. It would also allow tailored advice on your circumstances.

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. While I appreciate you DC veterans duking it out to discuss what does and doesn't work in recruitment, would it be possible to channel some of that expertise toward discussing the substantive differences in the landscape of the firms I mentioned?

It's hard to give you a substantive answer because you have given so few guidelines about what you are looking for, and from what you have said, our advice likely wouldn't be helpful because I doubt you would understand it. There's plenty of information on this forum giving specifics about each of the firms, including thoughts on the respective cultures, so I'd recommend you start there. Overall though, this is massively putting the cart before the horse.

[Anonymous User]

OP, I don't understand why you are trying to direct the conversation to your question when I do not think your OP actually includes a question about the DC market. What does "parse the DC landscape" mean, especially when the post mentions politics, practice group, "culture," generalist vs. specialized, and more, and then also discounts the importance of any of those criteria. It is essentially "I have good grades and lots of potential interests - tell me about DC." That's not a question that will get you many useful answers. What do you want to know, specifically, about DC firms and practice groups? Many people (me included) will share what we know that could be helpful here.

[Anonymous User]

OP anon. While I appreciate you DC veterans duking it out to discuss what does and doesn't work in recruitment, would it be possible to channel some of that expertise toward discussing the substantive differences in the landscape of the firms I mentioned?

Political differences? They're cosmetic. They boil down to JD getting worse press for the Trump stuff. Every firm you mentioned and every other firm do what is effectively the same thing every single day. If you're going to be a biglaw litigator, and you have progressive values, your job and your life will always be at odds with your values, full stop. You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous User]

Moderate lib working in gov this summer with general lit interest in DC for next. Would prefer appellate work, and may have an outside shot at the right credentials / clerkships necessary for that, but don't want to be presumptuous and pick only based on that criterion. Pretty flexible on politics though I understand the appeal of being around places that can be more overtly political like Jenner.

Basically trying to parse out the DC landscape with Wilmer, Jenner, GDC / Jones Day (wouldn't have a problem working at these places, even with politics being what they are). Have heard K&E, PW, and Sidley are all good in the area, but don't know how they compare to the set mentioned. Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture. I'd consider W&C if their lit practice isn't purely white-collar and actually has generalist elements.

Also, how does the top of the DC market compare (or not) to an MTO (assume not-DC grades to be safe) / Sus NY? DC is my top market primarily because of the substantive opportunities there, but I have no special reason for preferring moving there over somewhere else with an equal or better substantive experience / fit.

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

All of the firms you mention have excellent appellate practices. There are a couple of things I'd pay attention to though: 1) how deep the firm's bench is and 2) how much they spread the appellate work around. Some appellate practices are very top heavy and are reliant on one or two big names. Paul Weiss is reliant on Kannon; W&C is reliant on Lisa Blatt; S&C is reliant on Jeff Wall; Jenner is reliant on Adam Unikowsky. There's less work to go around (because there's only one or two partners bringing it in), its riskier (the partner might leave, or you might not vibe with him/her), but potentially more rewarding (if you're one of the partner's go-to associates). By contrast, firms like Kirkland, Gibson, JD, and Wilmer have deeper benches and more appellate work.

You should also pay attention to how much firms are willing to spread the appellate work around. You probably won't be getting appellate work at Wilmer, for example, unless you're a former SCOTUS clerk. Likewise, you won't be getting appellate work at JD unless you're part of their Issues & Appeals group (which is mostly made up of SCOTUS clerks). My sense is that Kirkland and Gibson are better about spreading the work around, I think in part because they are "free-market" firms rather than firms with siloed appellate groups. That's not to say its easy to get appellate work at those firms; you'll still need a court of appeals clerkship and you'll need to do excellent work. You can get a sense of how much firms are willing to spread work around by checking out the names on recently-filed SCOTUS/appellate briefs.

In terms of general lit, I'd say that Kirkland, Paul Weiss, Gibson, and W&C have the best reputations. For some reason I think of Covington as a firm that is known more for their investigations/regulatory work than for litigation. I also get the sense that Wilmer/Jenner/JD are less well-regarded than the firms above for general lit, but that is just my gut. Of course, this is all relatively speaking; all of these firms are excellent. Don't know much about Sidley.

I think all these lit practices are pretty comparable to MTO. Susman is a totally different firm since they do a ton of plaintiff work. Kellogg Hansen is Susman's closest equivalent in DC.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous User]

Moderate lib working in gov this summer with general lit interest in DC for next. Would prefer appellate work, and may have an outside shot at the right credentials / clerkships necessary for that, but don't want to be presumptuous and pick only based on that criterion. Pretty flexible on politics though I understand the appeal of being around places that can be more overtly political like Jenner.

Basically trying to parse out the DC landscape with Wilmer, Jenner, GDC / Jones Day (wouldn't have a problem working at these places, even with politics being what they are). Have heard K&E, PW, and Sidley are all good in the area, but don't know how they compare to the set mentioned. Cov I think I'm out on despite being interested in reg work just because have heard iffy things at best on their culture. I'd consider W&C if their lit practice isn't purely white-collar and actually has generalist elements.

Also, how does the top of the DC market compare (or not) to an MTO (assume not-DC grades to be safe) / Sus NY? DC is my top market primarily because of the substantive opportunities there, but I have no special reason for preferring moving there over somewhere else with an equal or better substantive experience / fit.

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

All of the firms you mention have excellent appellate practices. There are a couple of things I'd pay attention to though: 1) how deep the firm's bench is and 2) how much they spread the appellate work around. Some appellate practices are very top heavy and are reliant on one or two big names. Paul Weiss is reliant on Kannon; W&C is reliant on Lisa Blatt; S&C is reliant on Jeff Wall; Jenner is reliant on Adam Unikowsky. There's less work to go around (because there's only one or two partners bringing it in), its riskier (the partner might leave, or you might not vibe with him/her), but potentially more rewarding (if you're one of the partner's go-to associates). By contrast, firms like Kirkland, Gibson, JD, and Wilmer have deeper benches and more appellate work.

You should also pay attention to how much firms are willing to spread the appellate work around. You probably won't be getting appellate work at Wilmer, for example, unless you're a former SCOTUS clerk. Likewise, you won't be getting appellate work at JD unless you're part of their Issues & Appeals group (which is mostly made up of SCOTUS clerks). My sense is that Kirkland and Gibson are better about spreading the work around, I think in part because they are "free-market" firms rather than firms with siloed appellate groups. That's not to say its easy to get appellate work at those firms; you'll still need a court of appeals clerkship and you'll need to do excellent work. You can get a sense of how much firms are willing to spread work around by checking out the names on recently-filed SCOTUS/appellate briefs.

In terms of general lit, I'd say that Kirkland, Paul Weiss, Gibson, and W&C have the best reputations. For some reason I think of Covington as a firm that is known more for their investigations/regulatory work than for litigation. I also get the sense that Wilmer/Jenner/JD are less well-regarded than the firms above for general lit, but that is just my gut. Of course, this is all relatively speaking; all of these firms are excellent. Don't know much about Sidley.

I think all these lit practices are pretty comparable to MTO. Susman is a totally different firm since they do a ton of plaintiff work. Kellogg Hansen is Susman's closest equivalent in DC.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous User]

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

I think that framework is harmful to OP. No one here seems to be butthurt--the issue is recognizing how competitive the DC market is. Simple saying it is "tough" is an understatement.

How many unhooked (e.g. no personal connections, no diversity factors), lit-focused applicants do you know that have multiple DC offers at the firms discussed in this thread in this past cycle?

[Anonymous User]

OP, ignore the posters who are butthurt about doing poorly in DC. I don't see why they need to bring others down. Good on you for doing your research. The DC market can be tough, but that shouldn't discourage you from learning about the market.

I think that framework is harmful to OP. No one here seems to be butthurt--the issue is recognizing how competitive the DC market is. Simple saying it is "tough" is an understatement.

How many unhooked (e.g. no personal connections, no diversity factors), lit-focused applicants do you know that have multiple DC offers at the firms discussed in this thread in this past cycle?

What's "harmful" about understanding the DC lit market? Why wouldn't you research every market and every firm before OCI? Isn't that the prudent thing to do?

I don't know much about this past cycle; but when I was doing OCI a few years ago, people who were competitive for top appellate clerkships (which OP suggests he/she has a shot at) generally had their pick of DC firms, even if they didn't have connections/weren't diverse.

[aegor]

What's "harmful" about understanding the DC lit market? Why wouldn't you research every market and every firm before OCI? Isn't that the prudent thing to do?

Nothing. But your framing also included the assertion that posters here were "butthurt" instead of acknowledging fully the reality of how unpredictable and competitive DC actually is.

I don't know much about this past cycle; but when I was doing OCI a few years ago, people who were competitive for top appellate clerkships (which OP suggests he/she has a shot at) generally had their pick of DC firms, even if they didn't have connections/weren't diverse.

I know people with top appellate clerkships before OCI in the last two cycles who have either struck out of DC or had one offer from the above firms. I know of no one in the last two years who had two without having connections/being diverse. This is the top 5% at a CCN. DC has gotten extraordinarily gunnery and competitive even in the last few years, especially on the lit side.

And I specifically asked upthread about OP's rank/school exactly so the advice could be productive--learning about MTO or Kellogg or Susman with employment in mind is a useless endeavor for a generic top-quarter T14 grad without LR, for example.

[Anonymous User]

What's "harmful" about understanding the DC lit market? Why wouldn't you research every market and every firm before OCI? Isn't that the prudent thing to do?

Nothing. But your framing also included the assertion that posters here were "butthurt" instead of acknowledging fully the reality of how unpredictable and competitive DC actually is.

I don't know much about this past cycle; but when I was doing OCI a few years ago, people who were competitive for top appellate clerkships (which OP suggests he/she has a shot at) generally had their pick of DC firms, even if they didn't have connections/weren't diverse.

I know people with top appellate clerkships before OCI in the last two cycles who have either struck out of DC or had one offer from the above firms. I know of no one in the last two years who had two without having connections/being diverse. This is the top 5% at a CCN. DC has gotten extraordinarily gunnery and competitive even in the last few years, especially on the lit side.

And I specifically asked upthread about OP's rank/school exactly so the advice could be productive--learning about MTO or Kellogg or Susman with employment in mind is a useless endeavor for a generic top-quarter T14 grad without LR, for example.

I mean, you do sound a bit butthurt FWIW. Frankly, I'm surprised that top 5% at CCN + top appellate clerkship didn't get you multiple DC lit offers. At my firm (one of the above) you'd be an auto offer unless you dropped the ball during the interview. At least at H/S a few years ago it was pretty easy to get multiple offers as long as you didn't get straight Ps. Those that had top appellate clerkships got offers at virtually every firm they interviewed with.

Anyways, I know quite a bit about the DC lit market so I'm happy to answer other questions anyone might have.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a litigator at a DC firm that’s been mentioned ITT and it’s nowhere near as difficult to crack as the guy saying “top 5 at a T6 for multiple offers” is saying. I’d say broadly if you are top 1/3rd at any T14 you’ll be taken seriously, more so if you have an A3 clerkship lined up by the time of OCI. And then it’s just fit and interview (and, I will concede to that guy’s point, also diversity which is playing a larger role in offer decisions). We also hire from GW though that’s probably more top 15-20% to be taken seriously.

For the record I was about top 25% at a bottom half T14, K-JD, probably average interview skills, straight white man, and I got 3 offers from DC firms that I considered to be very good - though only one of which that has been mentioned ITT (which I accepted). This was just a couple of years ago. One anecdote for you.

[aegor]

I mean, you do sound a bit butthurt FWIW. Frankly, I'm surprised that top 5% at CCN + top appellate clerkship didn't get you multiple DC lit offers.

Sorry, I have been unclear--none of this reflects my own experience. I am simply relaying the experience of my DC-focused friends.

At my firm (one of the above) you'd be an auto offer unless you dropped the ball during the interview. At least at H/S a few years ago it was pretty easy to get multiple offers as long as you didn't get straight Ps.

Maybe HYS is different, then. But I assure you that no DC firm hired more than one person out of like 6-7 with those stats this past cycle, and it definitely was not because anyone dropped the ball during the interview. This is at a T6.

Those that had top appellate clerkships got offers at virtually every firm they interviewed with.

This is no longer accurate. It just isn't. I know people with DC District/Circuit court clerkships who got zero or one DC offer from above firms.

[aegor]

I’m a litigator at a DC firm that’s been mentioned ITT and it’s nowhere near as difficult to crack as the guy saying “top 5 at a T6 for multiple offers” is saying. I’d say broadly if you are top 1/3rd at any T14 you’ll be taken seriously, more so if you have an A3 clerkship lined up by the time of OCI. And then it’s just fit and interview (and, I will concede to that guy’s point, also diversity which is playing a larger role in offer decisions). We also hire from GW though that’s probably more top 15-20% to be taken seriously.

For the record I was about top 25% at a bottom half T14, K-JD, probably average interview skills, straight white man, and I got 3 offers from DC firms that I considered to be very good - though only one of which that has been mentioned ITT (which I accepted). This was just a couple of years ago. One anecdote for you.

Bolded the buried ledes here.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a litigator at a DC firm that’s been mentioned ITT and it’s nowhere near as difficult to crack as the guy saying “top 5 at a T6 for multiple offers” is saying. I’d say broadly if you are top 1/3rd at any T14 you’ll be taken seriously, more so if you have an A3 clerkship lined up by the time of OCI. And then it’s just fit and interview (and, I will concede to that guy’s point, also diversity which is playing a larger role in offer decisions). We also hire from GW though that’s probably more top 15-20% to be taken seriously.

For the record I was about top 25% at a bottom half T14, K-JD, probably average interview skills, straight white man, and I got 3 offers from DC firms that I considered to be very good - though only one of which that has been mentioned ITT (which I accepted). This was just a couple of years ago. One anecdote for you.

Bolded the buried ledes here.

Nah, you’re just wrong about how hard it is. It’s much, much more difficult than NY as we all know, but it’s nowhere near the high-wire act that’s been presented by some folks here.

I also don’t know how much different diversity is now vs. when I got my offers - I suspect that it is different now, but I don’t know for sure. It certainly played a role during my cycle as well.