Which DC Firm? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interested in general lit/investigations and maybe some appellate work. Curious which firm people would choose; also curious to hear any insights as to culture/work expectations, etc.

[Anonymous User]

deleted

[Anonymous User]

At Kirkland — you should come to us, Gibson, or maybe Mayer (though candidly I know less about them).

I would cross out Zuckerman unless there is some major lifestyle advantage to going there. Like, can you get paid good money to bill 1600 hours or something? If not, avoid. It’s just not as high quality a firm and you will be limiting both your own learning and likely your exit options also.

I would cross out Quinn because it is a crazy place (I say this even at Kirkland) and, *crucially*, they have bad end-of-year bonus policies. Did you know they have a 2100 hour mandatory minimum requirement for getting a bonus? I have been below that multiple times (and have always gotten piles of money anyway). At Quinn I would have gotten nothing.

[Anonymous User]

At Kirkland — you should come to us, Gibson, or maybe Mayer (though candidly I know less about them).

I would cross out Zuckerman unless there is some major lifestyle advantage to going there. Like, can you get paid good money to bill 1600 hours or something? If not, avoid. It’s just not as high quality a firm and you will be limiting both your own learning and likely your exit options also.

I would cross out Quinn because it is a crazy place (I say this even at Kirkland) and, *crucially*, they have bad end-of-year bonus policies. Did you know they have a 2100 hour mandatory minimum requirement for getting a bonus? I have been below that multiple times (and have always gotten piles of money anyway). At Quinn I would have gotten nothing.

Zuckerman is an exceptional white collar shop, frankly significantly ahead of Kirkland and Mayer in that area, and has a reputation for being a lefty lifestyle place with trial opportunities (can't speak to that personally). I would probably go to Gibson or Zuckerman for a white collar interest, but they're very different firms in structure, footprint, etc. GDC would be the safest choice in that it's top-tier in everything.

[Elston Gunn]

Yeah, have to agree the Kirkland poster’s take on Zuckerman seems incredibly off base. They are Chambers Band 1 for DC white collar, and I always thought of them as one of the truly elite white collar boutiques, especially for individual representations. That said, my recollection is they pay below market and, if so, the pay difference between there and a place like Kirkland could be huge.


Gibson is definitely the fanciest of these firms, and I think QoL is supposedly not tooo bad. However, I do believe Kirkland is going to pay you significantly more, and it’s hard to be confident you’d actually work more. But Kirkland’s culture seems pretty distinctive, so how you feel about that should play a big role.

Unless S&C has grown substantially in DC in the last few years while I wasn’t paying attention, I don’t see why they should be in the running. Don’t see a reason for Mayer either unless something stood out to you. I do agree with the Kirkland poster’s take on Quinn as well. Toxic culture and below market pay. Avoid.

[Anonymous User]

OP here--thanks so much for these responses. Seems like consensus among posters is Gibson or Kirkland. Any thoughts regarding cultural differences between the two would be helpful (along with any other salient points of comparison)? Appreciate it!

[Anonymous User]

OP here--thanks so much for these responses. Seems like consensus among posters is Gibson or Kirkland. Any thoughts regarding cultural differences between the two would be helpful (along with any other salient points of comparison)? Appreciate it!

I’m at one and sought to lateral to the other for a pretty long time before eventually staying put. I do general lit, no white collar. The differences are smaller than most would think, but that’s true of all biglaw. Here are the highlights of what are mostly minor nitpicks:

Kirkland:
+ More money, leaner teams generally (but not close to always), more opportunity for a true go-getter or rock star to play above their pay grade and get early opportunities, better location for commuting and a new office, stick around until you’re a 7th year and you’ll have biglaw “partner” on your resume forever
- Bad place for non go-getters (even really good lawyers who would rather sit back and let the work come to them will do poorly here since the good matters will get scooped up by the associates who are golfing with share partners), intense hours culture even for biglaw, slightly less resume prestige/cache in DC at large.

Gibson:
+ Slightly more prestige, somewhat better work/life balance (but nowhere near a lifestyle firm), better chance to get appellate exposure as a non “appellate” group attorney
- Less money, less likely to get earlier opportunities, thicker case teams (though white collar is likely different here, IDK).

Neutral points - if you think you might go to Chicago eventually, Kirkland carries a much bigger stick there; same for California and Gibson. Both seem pretty chill on WFH moving forward although facially Gibson is chiller there.

[Anonymous User]

Do you already have offers at these firms? If your interested in lit/investigations in DC then why aren't Williams & Connolly, Covington, and Wilmer on the list?

[Anonymous User]

OP here--thanks so much for these responses. Seems like consensus among posters is Gibson or Kirkland. Any thoughts regarding cultural differences between the two would be helpful (along with any other salient points of comparison)? Appreciate it!

I’m at one and sought to lateral to the other for a pretty long time before eventually staying put. I do general lit, no white collar. The differences are smaller than most would think, but that’s true of all biglaw. Here are the highlights of what are mostly minor nitpicks:

Kirkland:
+ More money, leaner teams generally (but not close to always), more opportunity for a true go-getter or rock star to play above their pay grade and get early opportunities, better location for commuting and a new office, stick around until you’re a 7th year and you’ll have biglaw “partner” on your resume forever
- Bad place for non go-getters (even really good lawyers who would rather sit back and let the work come to them will do poorly here since the good matters will get scooped up by the associates who are golfing with share partners), intense hours culture even for biglaw, slightly less resume prestige/cache in DC at large.

Gibson:
+ Slightly more prestige, somewhat better work/life balance (but nowhere near a lifestyle firm), better chance to get appellate exposure as a non “appellate” group attorney
- Less money, less likely to get earlier opportunities, thicker case teams (though white collar is likely different here, IDK).

Neutral points - if you think you might go to Chicago eventually, Kirkland carries a much bigger stick there; same for California and Gibson. Both seem pretty chill on WFH moving forward although facially Gibson is chiller there.

Very helpful; appreciate your perspective.

[Anonymous User]

Do you already have offers at these firms? If your interested in lit/investigations in DC then why aren't Williams & Connolly, Covington, and Wilmer on the list?

OP here. Trying not to out myself too much; those firms are appealing and, as you point out, fit my general criteria, but those firms aren't on the table currently.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Trying not to out myself too much; those firms are appealing and, as you point out, fit my general criteria, but those firms aren't on the table currently.

Why are they not? They should be. I promise you that nothing in this thread so far comes close to "outing" you.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the KE poster -- fair enough on Zuckerman's white collar (I don't do that/can't speak to that), but if OP wants to do general lit or appellate (as OP says, although frankly these are all quite different areas), then what I said is still valid. Their lit and appellate filings are not the same quality as Kirkland/Gibson imho. Granted, every firm has good and bad lawyers (I'm sure there are some good general litigators at Zuckerman), but on average I'd much rather be learning how to write a brief from people here rather than there.

[Elston Gunn]

I honestly didn’t know Zuckerman even did general lit, so yeah fair enough on that point. Always struck me as an ideal landing spot for someone after 3-5 years of Biglaw who wanted to do white collar, rather than a place to necessarily start your career, though I don’t know how appealing BL laterals are to them.

As for the why the OP isn’t considering three of the four top dc lit firms, surely it’s because they didn’t get offers there. The list of firms is otherwise completely random if it isn’t a list of firms the OP either has offers from or is in the running for.

[Anonymous User]

I honestly didn’t know Zuckerman even did general lit, so yeah fair enough on that point. Always struck me as an ideal landing spot for someone after 3-5 years of Biglaw who wanted to do white collar, rather than a place to necessarily start your career, though I don’t know how appealing BL laterals are to them.

As for the why the OP isn’t considering three of the four top dc lit firms, surely it’s because they didn’t get offers there. The list of firms is otherwise completely random if it isn’t a list of firms the OP either has offers from or is in the running for.

They aren’t “DC Firms” (who cares?) but I’d argue Gibson and Kirkland are better spots for most DC lit associates than Wilmer, and better for many - maybe not most, but then again maybe so - than Covington.

[Anonymous User]

They aren’t “DC Firms” (who cares?) but I’d argue Gibson and Kirkland are better spots for most DC lit associates than Wilmer, and better for many - maybe not most, but then again maybe so - than Covington.

You'd argue by saying...?

[Anonymous User]

They aren’t “DC Firms” (who cares?) but I’d argue Gibson and Kirkland are better spots for most DC lit associates than Wilmer, and better for many - maybe not most, but then again maybe so - than Covington.

You'd argue by saying...?

I would argue. I’ve been in DC biglaw lit for a few years now and that’s what I think. Kirkland and Gibson have as many litigators in DC now as Wilmer, give or take. And their lawyers have equal opportunities in DC outside of biglaw. The “DC firm” viewpoint is outdated IMO and no one cares anymore. Kirkland and Gibson are just better litigation firms than the others as well with Fearsome Foursome etc. Kirkland is probably worse because it is psychotic but if you are psychotic as well and wanna make extra money then go there.

[Anonymous User]

They aren’t “DC Firms” (who cares?) but I’d argue Gibson and Kirkland are better spots for most DC lit associates than Wilmer, and better for many - maybe not most, but then again maybe so - than Covington.

You'd argue by saying...?

I would argue. I’ve been in DC biglaw lit for a few years now and that’s what I think. Kirkland and Gibson have as many litigators in DC now as Wilmer, give or take. And their lawyers have equal opportunities in DC outside of biglaw. The “DC firm” viewpoint is outdated IMO and no one cares anymore. Kirkland and Gibson are just better litigation firms than the others as well with Fearsome Foursome etc. Kirkland is probably worse because it is psychotic but if you are psychotic as well and wanna make extra money then go there.

OP here. FYI, I'm not the quoted anon to whom you responded. But I do (truly) appreciate the dialogue.

[Anonymous User]

They aren’t “DC Firms” (who cares?) but I’d argue Gibson and Kirkland are better spots for most DC lit associates than Wilmer, and better for many - maybe not most, but then again maybe so - than Covington.

You'd argue by saying...?

I would argue. I’ve been in DC biglaw lit for a few years now and that’s what I think. Kirkland and Gibson have as many litigators in DC now as Wilmer, give or take. And their lawyers have equal opportunities in DC outside of biglaw. The “DC firm” viewpoint is outdated IMO and no one cares anymore. Kirkland and Gibson are just better litigation firms than the others as well with Fearsome Foursome etc. Kirkland is probably worse because it is psychotic but if you are psychotic as well and wanna make extra money then go there.

OP here. FYI, I'm not the quoted anon to whom you responded. But I do (truly) appreciate the dialogue.

Glad you're enjoying the "dialogue" - I wouldn't call it that. I asked this anon for the "why" and I don't see anything helpful in there besides more unfounded/unexplained opinion. If we're going by headcount then we'd be talking about JD, and obviously, we are not.

Not arguing with the premise, I just want to know why.

[Elston Gunn]

FWIW my implied fourth top big lit firm in DC was Gibson—I don’t care about the “DC firm” thing either, expect to the extent you’re looking to do DC centric work that Cov/Wilmer/Hogan somewhat dominate.

I don’t think most DC lawyers see Kirkland as quite on par with those four, but also who cares. As you say, if you’re psychotic enough to fit in at Kirkland, the lots of extra money that you’ll make relative to the slightly fancier firms is likely well worth it.

My impression (though could definitely be wrong) is also that Kirkland does more generalist lit, and less of the regulatory or other DC specific stuff that attracts most people to DC in the first place. But if you just want to be in the area, yeah extra money sounds great. None of Cov, Wilmer, W&C or Gibson are likely to ever give you a dime more than market (and I think W&C is still below market? not sure if they changed things recently).

[Anonymous User]

FWIW my implied fourth top big lit firm in DC was Gibson—I don’t care about the “DC firm” thing either, expect to the extent you’re looking to do DC centric work that Cov/Wilmer/Hogan somewhat dominate.

I don’t think most DC lawyers see Kirkland as quite on par with those four, but also who cares. As you say, if you’re psychotic enough to fit in at Kirkland, the lots of extra money that you’ll make relative to the slightly fancier firms is likely well worth it.

My impression (though could definitely be wrong) is also that Kirkland does more generalist lit, and less of the regulatory or other DC specific stuff that attracts most people to DC in the first place. But if you just want to be in the area, yeah extra money sounds great. None of Cov, Wilmer, W&C or Gibson are likely to ever give you a dime more than market (and I think W&C is still below market? not sure if they changed things recently).

Wilmer gives above market bonuses for high billers, though the hours cutoffs are oppressively high (I think they're at like 2200, 2500, 2700, 2900). Also provides mega backdoor Roth access if you're into that kind of thing.

Otherwise agree that Wilmer is intent on matching comp, not leading it.

[Anonymous User]

They aren’t “DC Firms” (who cares?) but I’d argue Gibson and Kirkland are better spots for most DC lit associates than Wilmer, and better for many - maybe not most, but then again maybe so - than Covington.

You'd argue by saying...?

I would argue. I’ve been in DC biglaw lit for a few years now and that’s what I think. Kirkland and Gibson have as many litigators in DC now as Wilmer, give or take. And their lawyers have equal opportunities in DC outside of biglaw. The “DC firm” viewpoint is outdated IMO and no one cares anymore. Kirkland and Gibson are just better litigation firms than the others as well with Fearsome Foursome etc. Kirkland is probably worse because it is psychotic but if you are psychotic as well and wanna make extra money then go there.

I think comparisons with Covington at least are difficult because it breaks out its litigation into practice areas more than many other firms.