Kirkland (DC) vs. Gibson (DC)? Forum

[solarbear1]

Hi all,

I hope this isn't putting the cart before the horse, but I'm leaving OCI with callbacks at Kirkland and Gibson in DC (in addition to some other options in New York).

I applied for litigation (would be interested in securities/international arb work) and am hoping to get the chance to try regulatory practice this summer (which is why I'm heavily leaning towards DC), and was curious about the general reputation / culture of both firms, whether there's a practice area one is significantly more strong in than the other, or if there are any red flags about either firm.

Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous User]

Neither are known for regulatory work, but Gibson is the more “prestigious” name in DC and large enough that you would probably get whatever kind of work you wanted. I’ve heard good things about both places though, so you could probably just decide based on who you liked more.

[Anonymous User]

(Anon because I work at one of those two firms)

I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. I think people work more at Kirkland. But there are pros/cons to both.

I don't think either is really the place to go if you want "regulatory" work -- but it depends what you mean by that.

[solarbear1]

Thank you both! And definitely not banking on an offer at either place -- just wanted to know more so that I can ask smart questions during the callback and figure out if it's the right fit for me.

[Anonymous User]

Unsure if this is helpful or important to you, but from what I understand, Gibson DC has a reputation for being very conservative politically — even moreso than Kirkland. So maybe that sways you one way or the other.

[Anonymous User]

Gibson has slightly more prestige in DC and Kirkland will pay you slightly more money. Neither really do “regulatory” although my hunch is Gibson probably does a bit more of it. Both are pretty humane offices compared to their firms as a whole, as I understand. Both are even right next to Metro stops for the same four lines. It’s hard to go wrong here; try to glean as much info as you can from the CBs and if you get an offer from either, you’re in a great spot and you can’t really make a wrong decision.

[Anonymous User]

In DC, GDC >> K&E

[Anonymous User]

Unsure if this is helpful or important to you, but from what I understand, Gibson DC has a reputation for being very conservative politically — even moreso than Kirkland. So maybe that sways you one way or the other.

Disagree, appellate groups are really what drive the political reputations of DC firms and Kirkland's, which is filled with former Bancroft partners, is at least as conservative as GDC's. At my school everyone who went to GDC was on the ACS board fwiw.

GDC is probably a somewhat better firm overall in DC but I have no idea which is better in OP's areas of interest.

[2013]

Weird that you didn’t get a Covington callback (or maybe you did and you crossed it off since the PPP/RPL is lower). That would be the best for regulatory.

[Anonymous User]

In some ways, Gibson and Kirkland are very alike -
both have "free market" assignment systems
both lean conservative (especially wrt appellate folks)
both do a lot of general commercial litigation/often compete for the same cases
both have lit-heavy DC offices but a more diverse set of practice groups firmwide
etc.

The differences are subtler, but they are very different firms in terms of culture, opportunities, and work expectations.

Idk which is more conservative. Gibson USED to be much more conservative ... but post-Bancroft it's a closer call. Kirkland's recent classes are leaning more and more conservative. But there's a strong group of liberals at the partner and associate level.

[Anonymous User]

In some ways, Gibson and Kirkland are very alike -
both have "free market" assignment systems
both lean conservative (especially wrt appellate folks)
both do a lot of general commercial litigation/often compete for the same cases
both have lit-heavy DC offices but a more diverse set of practice groups firmwide
etc.

The differences are subtler, but they are very different firms in terms of culture, opportunities, and work expectations.

Idk which is more conservative. Gibson USED to be much more conservative ... but post-Bancroft it's a closer call. Kirkland's recent classes are leaning more and more conservative. But there's a strong group of liberals at the partner and associate level.

Sorry to necro this thread--but could someone speak on the bolded?