MTO v. HH v. Wilkinson - Help? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I used to hate the type of people who would post stuff like this, but I really need help from LA people in choosing which is best if you want to be a capital T trial attorney. I understand MTO wins for name recognition around the country. But are the other two worth the trade in terms of getting more early opportunities? I really really appreciate any tips!

[LBJ's Hair]

the website makes it seem like all the Wilkinson partners are in DC/NY. maybe it's out of date or something but how big is LA office? would be a factor for me, always thought of it as a DC boutique

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I don’t know if Wilkinson has much of an LA presence and it’s also supposed to be a notably shitty place to work. Would avoid. I’d probably choose MTO (better likelihood of a good lifestyle) but both it and HH are phenomenal options. To be a capital T first-chair trial attorney you’ll likely need to go somewhere smaller or do a stint in the public sector at some point regardless of which you choose.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I don’t know if Wilkinson has much of an LA presence and it’s also supposed to be a notably shitty place to work. Would avoid. I’d probably choose MTO (better likelihood of a good lifestyle) but both it and HH are phenomenal options. To be a capital T first-chair trial attorney you’ll likely need to go somewhere smaller or do a stint in the public sector at some point regardless of which you choose.

Not op-would you mind elaborating on the bolded? I'm curious what you've heard.

[tsb402]

I’m also an LA market person curious about this…Would the addition of susman here make a difference for people here or would you weigh HH the same as susman? Would you take the early experience and short partnership track at susman over the better hours and lifestyle at MTO?

[bruinfan10]

I'm not sure how this is even a question. Hueston Hennigan runs circles around MTO re number of trials, and a quick google search turns up a Law360 article (https://www.law360.com/articles/1447537) on the absurdly high number of HH associates who have speaking roles in trials.

As with any firm that isn't a trial boutique, there are many, many partners at MTO (let alone associates) who have never been to trial. An appreciable chunk of HH's attorneys came over from Munger or Irell specifically to get trials and depo experience that those older-line LA boutiques take much longer to provide.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how this is even a question. Hueston Hennigan runs circles around MTO re number of trials, and a quick google search turns up a Law360 article (https://www.law360.com/articles/1447537) on the absurdly high number of HH associates who have speaking roles in trials.

As with any firm that isn't a trial boutique, there are many, many partners at MTO (let alone associates) who have never been to trial. An appreciable chunk of HH's attorneys came over from Munger or Irell specifically to get trials and depo experience that those older-line LA boutiques take much longer to provide.

OP here. Thanks for the response. I 100% know and agree with HH having higher chances of going to trial and getting experience. It also has really high turnover. I guess my question was: worth going to HH for early experience even if it seems like there’s a high chance of burnout? Or is it worth going the “slow and steady wins the race route” and starting at MTO and lateraling to a trial-ier option down the road?

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I don’t know if Wilkinson has much of an LA presence and it’s also supposed to be a notably shitty place to work. Would avoid. I’d probably choose MTO (better likelihood of a good lifestyle) but both it and HH are phenomenal options. To be a capital T first-chair trial attorney you’ll likely need to go somewhere smaller or do a stint in the public sector at some point regardless of which you choose.

Not op-would you mind elaborating on the bolded? I'm curious what you've heard.

No firsthand knowledge, but it’s supposed to have exceptionally long hours and in particular Beth Wilkinson is reputed to be not the easiest person to work for. It also lost two name partners recently, but I don’t have any inside scoop on that.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how this is even a question. Hueston Hennigan runs circles around MTO re number of trials, and a quick google search turns up a Law360 article (https://www.law360.com/articles/1447537) on the absurdly high number of HH associates who have speaking roles in trials.

As with any firm that isn't a trial boutique, there are many, many partners at MTO (let alone associates) who have never been to trial. An appreciable chunk of HH's attorneys came over from Munger or Irell specifically to get trials and depo experience that those older-line LA boutiques take much longer to provide.

This is pretty overwrought (not sure it makes much sense to ding MTO for having a healthy corp/regulatory practice, kind of tough to get trial experience there), but if your sole goal is standup trial experience, there's definitely an argument for HH. Hours will be rougher for sure, and it sounds like comp has been less above-market lately than previously, but you're probably more likely to be able to target that particular niche than you would be at MTO (where there's more work in areas that just don't go to trial very often).

Agree that Wilkinson's not in the same league if you're looking at LA. But honestly your best route to trial reps is through the government, so I'd go somewhere you know sends folks to become AUSAs. I know MTO does at a pretty ridiculous clip (counting main justice as well it's 10-12 associates in the last 18 months), but wouldn't be shocked if HH is similar, but it's a smaller place so probably harder to gauge that. Not sure how partnership prospects stack up either- MTO's realistic but not SG-like, but I don't have a good sense of what HH is like, seems like a higher leverage ratio but may still be building out a true partnership structure since they're fairly new.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but facing a similar choice. Can anyone speak to (1) MTO's and HH's average yearly hours (understanding, of course, that there are outliers); (2) MTO's and HH's opportunities for pro bono criminal defense work; and (3) whether associates are thrown into the deep end to the same extent? (i.e., is there more training at one firm).

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but facing a similar choice. Can anyone speak to (1) MTO's and HH's average yearly hours (understanding, of course, that there are outliers); (2) MTO's and HH's opportunities for pro bono criminal defense work; and (3) whether associates are thrown into the deep end to the same extent? (i.e., is there more training at one firm).

My impression is that HH is distinctly higher, but MTO's not a lifestyle firm either. I know MTO is starting up a formal volunteer PD program (like the City Attorney one they currently do) but have definitely seen HH involved in some good stuff too. They both seem lean enough that you'll be thrown into the deep end significantly- I would assume MTO's size gives it a bit more formal infrastructure but the leverage ratio is so low I suspect it's not meaningfully different.

[bruinfan10]

I'm not sure how this is even a question. Hueston Hennigan runs circles around MTO re number of trials, and a quick google search turns up a Law360 article (https://www.law360.com/articles/1447537) on the absurdly high number of HH associates who have speaking roles in trials.

As with any firm that isn't a trial boutique, there are many, many partners at MTO (let alone associates) who have never been to trial. An appreciable chunk of HH's attorneys came over from Munger or Irell specifically to get trials and depo experience that those older-line LA boutiques take much longer to provide.

This is pretty overwrought (not sure it makes much sense to ding MTO for having a healthy corp/regulatory practice, kind of tough to get trial experience there), but if your sole goal is standup trial experience, there's definitely an argument for HH. Hours will be rougher for sure, and it sounds like comp has been less above-market lately than previously, but you're probably more likely to be able to target that particular niche than you would be at MTO (where there's more work in areas that just don't go to trial very often).

Agree that Wilkinson's not in the same league if you're looking at LA. But honestly your best route to trial reps is through the government, so I'd go somewhere you know sends folks to become AUSAs. I know MTO does at a pretty ridiculous clip (counting main justice as well it's 10-12 associates in the last 18 months), but wouldn't be shocked if HH is similar, but it's a smaller place so probably harder to gauge that. Not sure how partnership prospects stack up either- MTO's realistic but not SG-like, but I don't have a good sense of what HH is like, seems like a higher leverage ratio but may still be building out a true partnership structure since they're fairly new.

I'm not sure how you picked up "overwrought" or "dinged" from what I wrote - if you're an MTO lawyer anon, I certainly didn't mean any offense. I have a lot of friends at both firms, and they're both great places to work. But OP asked which shop offers more trials. Empirically speaking, HH takes more cases to trial, and HH gives associates more speaking roles in those trials.

Unless you're Brad Brian, I wouldn't really count on getting much trial experience at MTO, but the good news is that definitely will not impede your partnership prospects there. That is not a criticism, it's just a factual answer to OP's question. (If OP had asked which firm has a corporate department that does some fun work for Berkshire, I would have given a different answer, not 100% sure why you wanted to highlight that in your response about which firm gives more trial opportunities =)

[tsb402]

Not OP, but facing a similar choice. Can anyone speak to (1) MTO's and HH's average yearly hours (understanding, of course, that there are outliers); (2) MTO's and HH's opportunities for pro bono criminal defense work; and (3) whether associates are thrown into the deep end to the same extent? (i.e., is there more training at one firm).

My impression is that HH is distinctly higher, but MTO's not a lifestyle firm either. I know MTO is starting up a formal volunteer PD program (like the City Attorney one they currently do) but have definitely seen HH involved in some good stuff too. They both seem lean enough that you'll be thrown into the deep end significantly- I would assume MTO's size gives it a bit more formal infrastructure but the leverage ratio is so low I suspect it's not meaningfully different.

Thanks for sharing this. I never knew about the MTO city attorney program. Do you (or anyone else) have any insight on that program and/or the (apparently soon to come) PD one? For example, is it a 2-4 month placement program or an arrangement for referring pro bono cases to associates while they’re at the firm?

[bruinfan10]

Not OP, but facing a similar choice. Can anyone speak to (1) MTO's and HH's average yearly hours (understanding, of course, that there are outliers); (2) MTO's and HH's opportunities for pro bono criminal defense work; and (3) whether associates are thrown into the deep end to the same extent? (i.e., is there more training at one firm).

My impression is that HH is distinctly higher, but MTO's not a lifestyle firm either. I know MTO is starting up a formal volunteer PD program (like the City Attorney one they currently do) but have definitely seen HH involved in some good stuff too. They both seem lean enough that you'll be thrown into the deep end significantly- I would assume MTO's size gives it a bit more formal infrastructure but the leverage ratio is so low I suspect it's not meaningfully different.

Thanks for sharing this. I never knew about the MTO city attorney program. Do you (or anyone else) have any insight on that program and/or the (apparently soon to come) PD one? For example, is it a 2-4 month placement program or an arrangement for referring pro bono cases to associates while they’re at the firm?

Roughly a three-month placement with the division of the LA City Attorney's Office that handles DUI cases. You usually will get 3-6 jury trials during that time. HH has a similar program with the LA City Attorney but not exclusively for DUI cases.

Regarding quality of life, neither firm is a lifestyle firm. HH likely sees somewhat higher hours in the aggregate, but I have friends at MTO who got staffed on the wrong case with the wrong partner and got absolutely ground into the dirt and left. Luck of the draw. You will almost certainly be better compensated at Hueston, but your chances of slightly lower hours at MTO are maybe a little better.

[2013]

I’m also an LA market person curious about this…Would the addition of susman here make a difference for people here or would you weigh HH the same as susman? Would you take the early experience and short partnership track at susman over the better hours and lifestyle at MTO?

Based on pay alone, Susman is on a completely different level. Susman and Kellogg are on a separate tier above all of the other boutiques.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but facing a similar choice. Can anyone speak to (1) MTO's and HH's average yearly hours (understanding, of course, that there are outliers); (2) MTO's and HH's opportunities for pro bono criminal defense work; and (3) whether associates are thrown into the deep end to the same extent? (i.e., is there more training at one firm).

My impression is that HH is distinctly higher, but MTO's not a lifestyle firm either. I know MTO is starting up a formal volunteer PD program (like the City Attorney one they currently do) but have definitely seen HH involved in some good stuff too. They both seem lean enough that you'll be thrown into the deep end significantly- I would assume MTO's size gives it a bit more formal infrastructure but the leverage ratio is so low I suspect it's not meaningfully different.

Thanks for sharing this. I never knew about the MTO city attorney program. Do you (or anyone else) have any insight on that program and/or the (apparently soon to come) PD one? For example, is it a 2-4 month placement program or an arrangement for referring pro bono cases to associates while they’re at the firm?

Roughly a three-month placement with the division of the LA City Attorney's Office that handles DUI cases. You usually will get 3-6 jury trials during that time. HH has a similar program with the LA City Attorney but not exclusively for DUI cases.

Regarding quality of life, neither firm is a lifestyle firm. HH likely sees somewhat higher hours in the aggregate, but I have friends at MTO who got staffed on the wrong case with the wrong partner and got absolutely ground into the dirt and left. Luck of the draw. You will almost certainly be better compensated at Hueston, but your chances of slightly lower hours at MTO are maybe a little better.

Thanks. Just to follow up with two more specific questions.

(1) Which of HH/MTO is more family friendly? (I'm thinking overall hours, flexibility with work from home, facetime requirements, oversight, control over schedule, frequency of late night "turn to this ASAP" emails). I've worked at a firm and understand that a lot of this is inevitable; I'm just trying to see if there are any differences in the norms and practices at HH/MTO.

(2) Are there material differences in exit opportunities to the USAO (not limited to CD Cal)? I'm wondering if one firm has a better "pipeline." It seems to me like the tradeoff there is established, national branding (MTO) for higher chances at trial experience (HH). If you work for a former AUSA who goes to bat for you at their former office, then obviously you have a much better shot. Absent that happening, are there any differences in my prospects?

I have young kids and overall hours/family friendliness are without a doubt my number one priority. A close second would be optimizing my chances at going to a USAO down the road.

[LBJ's Hair]

fwiw, "family-friendliness" and "trial boutique" generally do not go together.

totally reasonable to want that, but if my priority was to see my wife and kids I would be focused on traditional BigLaw firms with bigger teams that would be happy with me doing decent work and hitting my 2,000 hours

[Anonymous User]

fwiw, "family-friendliness" and "trial boutique" generally do not go together.

totally reasonable to want that, but if my priority was to see my wife and kids I would be focused on traditional BigLaw firms with bigger teams that would be happy with me doing decent work and hitting my 2,000 hours

Thanks. We have some help with the kids, so HH/MTO are on the table.

Right now I'm just trying to figure out which is the lesser of two evils.

[2013]

fwiw, "family-friendliness" and "trial boutique" generally do not go together.

totally reasonable to want that, but if my priority was to see my wife and kids I would be focused on traditional BigLaw firms with bigger teams that would be happy with me doing decent work and hitting my 2,000 hours

Thanks. We have some help with the kids, so HH/MTO are on the table.

Right now I'm just trying to figure out which is the lesser of two evils.

I think people on here have said numerous times which is the lesser of two evils for hours, but you keep asking like the answer will change. If you want to go to HH, just go to HH. They’re both terrific firms.

[bruinfan10]

fwiw, "family-friendliness" and "trial boutique" generally do not go together.

totally reasonable to want that, but if my priority was to see my wife and kids I would be focused on traditional BigLaw firms with bigger teams that would be happy with me doing decent work and hitting my 2,000 hours

Thanks. We have some help with the kids, so HH/MTO are on the table.

Right now I'm just trying to figure out which is the lesser of two evils.

I think people on here have said numerous times which is the lesser of two evils for hours, but you keep asking like the answer will change. If you want to go to HH, just go to HH. They’re both terrific firms.

Dude, if you want to go to trial and actually get on a trial team (AND get a speaking role, as you've indicated you want), your hours are going to insane, full stop. It would be weird if you weren't billing between 200-300 hours for the months you're in trial, and the months directly preceding trial where you're filing MSJs, Dauberts, putting together MILs, exhibit lists, all that good stuff, are also absolutely killer because, you know .... it's trial. MTO gives you a pretty low chance of ever seeing a trial (it's much closer to a regular biglaw firm than HH or Susman), either as a junior associate or as a junior partner, so better hours in that sense, I guess? But do you see how your question just doesn't make sense? There is no "humane" trial - they're all-consuming.

In terms of exit options, the CD Cal USAO is full to bursting with MTO and HH alums right now. I honestly couldn't tell you which shop gives you more of an edge. Both MTO and HH have tons of former AUSA partners and both firms would open plenty of doors for you.

[Anonymous User]

fwiw, "family-friendliness" and "trial boutique" generally do not go together.

totally reasonable to want that, but if my priority was to see my wife and kids I would be focused on traditional BigLaw firms with bigger teams that would be happy with me doing decent work and hitting my 2,000 hours

Thanks. We have some help with the kids, so HH/MTO are on the table.

Right now I'm just trying to figure out which is the lesser of two evils.

I think people on here have said numerous times which is the lesser of two evils for hours, but you keep asking like the answer will change. If you want to go to HH, just go to HH. They’re both terrific firms.

Dude, if you want to go to trial and actually get on a trial team (AND get a speaking role, as you've indicated you want), your hours are going to insane, full stop. It would be weird if you weren't billing between 200-300 hours for the months you're in trial, and the months directly preceding trial where you're filing MSJs, Dauberts, putting together MILs, exhibit lists, all that good stuff, are also absolutely killer because, you know .... it's trial. MTO gives you a pretty low chance of ever seeing a trial (it's much closer to a regular biglaw firm than HH or Susman), either as a junior associate or as a junior partner, so better hours in that sense, I guess? But do you see how your question just doesn't make sense? There is no "humane" trial - they're all-consuming.

In terms of exit options, the CD Cal USAO is full to bursting with MTO and HH alums right now. I honestly couldn't tell you which shop gives you more of an edge. Both MTO and HH have tons of former AUSA partners and both firms would open plenty of doors for you.

You guys are mistaken. I'm not the OP (I asked the second set of questions). I don't have a strong interest in trial beyond the comparative advantage that it'll give me in applying to the USAO as a 5th-8th year associate.

But that all makes sense. I'll likely go with MTO or one of Gibson/Latham/OMM. I assume you all would take the position that MTO is a no brainer over Gibson/Latham/OMM for USAO.

[tsb402]

No idea why people on here get so heated about and read way too much into good faith questions. I think anon asked a reasonable question about “family friendly-ness” in a way that was more specific than just “where am I likely to be able to bill slightly less.”

Anecdotally, the hours are slightly more reasonable at MTO as everyone has said, but (during non-trial months) at HH you are likely to have more flexibility to cram in those crazy hours on your own schedule with fewer surprises. These’s less structure and formal policy at HH. WFH is likely to stay in place to some extent there whereas MTO has indicated wanting to go back in the long run. For me, I would lean MTO because I know myself and personally the difference between ~2200 and ~2600 shows in my physical and mental health. For others, specifically people who have kids, working more hours but having more control/flexibility might be more valuable because it allows them to build in time for kids

I summered at another MTO office. Currently clerking and weighing offers from both these places and other boutiques in LA. My info is based on friends who work at these places and by no means perfect but I think we’d have a more reasonable discussion if everyone didn’t take the question in bad faith

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure how this is even a question. Hueston Hennigan runs circles around MTO re number of trials, and a quick google search turns up a Law360 article (https://www.law360.com/articles/1447537) on the absurdly high number of HH associates who have speaking roles in trials.

As with any firm that isn't a trial boutique, there are many, many partners at MTO (let alone associates) who have never been to trial. An appreciable chunk of HH's attorneys came over from Munger or Irell specifically to get trials and depo experience that those older-line LA boutiques take much longer to provide.

This is pretty overwrought (not sure it makes much sense to ding MTO for having a healthy corp/regulatory practice, kind of tough to get trial experience there), but if your sole goal is standup trial experience, there's definitely an argument for HH. Hours will be rougher for sure, and it sounds like comp has been less above-market lately than previously, but you're probably more likely to be able to target that particular niche than you would be at MTO (where there's more work in areas that just don't go to trial very often).

Agree that Wilkinson's not in the same league if you're looking at LA. But honestly your best route to trial reps is through the government, so I'd go somewhere you know sends folks to become AUSAs. I know MTO does at a pretty ridiculous clip (counting main justice as well it's 10-12 associates in the last 18 months), but wouldn't be shocked if HH is similar, but it's a smaller place so probably harder to gauge that. Not sure how partnership prospects stack up either- MTO's realistic but not SG-like, but I don't have a good sense of what HH is like, seems like a higher leverage ratio but may still be building out a true partnership structure since they're fairly new.

I'm not sure how you picked up "overwrought" or "dinged" from what I wrote - if you're an MTO lawyer anon, I certainly didn't mean any offense. I have a lot of friends at both firms, and they're both great places to work. But OP asked which shop offers more trials. Empirically speaking, HH takes more cases to trial, and HH gives associates more speaking roles in those trials.

Unless you're Brad Brian, I wouldn't really count on getting much trial experience at MTO, but the good news is that definitely will not impede your partnership prospects there. That is not a criticism, it's just a factual answer to OP's question. (If OP had asked which firm has a corporate department that does some fun work for Berkshire, I would have given a different answer, not 100% sure why you wanted to highlight that in your response about which firm gives more trial opportunities =)

No offense taken! I do think your assertion that many, many partners at MTO haven't ever been to trial is a little overwrought once you filter out the folks for whom that isn't really a goal. There are definitely some, but it's a relatively small minority. But I definitely agree that plenty of associates don't go to trial and it's potentially the luck of the draw more so than HH. And you can definitely bill crazy hours with the wrong matter.

Only detail I'd add on City Attorney program is that it's focused on 3rd-6th years generally, not something you can immediately jump into your first year at the firm. And it sounds like it's not possible to make a meaningful distinction between USAO odds at both places, which isn't surprising to me.

@TSB402- there are like 2 (3?) folks asking questions in here. Nobody's accusing anyone of bad faith, it's just hard to keep all the different priorities straight. Family-friendly is pretty obviously not compatible with a focus on trial work.

Subject to other folks thoughts, I think HH has an advantage in getting associates trial opportunities, and MTO has lower hours on average. If forever remote work is a big part of your version of family-friendly it sounds like that's an HH-plus.

Anyone know if HH has firm-subsidized on-site daycare and good parental leave? Assume it's likely but don't know for sure. MTO does 18 weeks for either parent.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I appreciate everyone's insight. One more question: What's the culture like? Are people at HH and/or MTO friends with their colleagues? I understand there are bound to be difficult people no matter where you go, but I'd like to know whether either of these firms are places where people mostly enjoy working together and have made a few work friends. I'm not looking for the most social firm ever, but having previously worked at a and hated a super anti-social firm, it's a soft factor for me. Thanks again!

[bruinfan10]

OP here. I appreciate everyone's insight. One more question: What's the culture like? Are people at HH and/or MTO friends with their colleagues? I understand there are bound to be difficult people no matter where you go, but I'd like to know whether either of these firms are places where people mostly enjoy working together and have made a few work friends. I'm not looking for the most social firm ever, but having previously worked at a and hated a super anti-social firm, it's a soft factor for me. Thanks again!

Associates. My take is that the associates at both places are world-class colleagues. Just wonderful. Everybody clerked, so think back to your co-clerks. Whip-smart, collegial for the most part, a pleasure to work with.

Partners. The partners at HH are a very small group, right? They're the folks who Hueston and Hennigan hand-picked to come over from Irell (plus a few internal promotions and tiny number of laterals), so you can imagine that they weeded out any screamers and folks who drove away associates. I believe most people who work at HH would tell you the partners are absolutely phenomenal attorneys, good folks, and you'll learn a tremendous amount from working for them. MTO also has some of the best partners you could ever hope to work for. But there are many, many more partners there, and they certainly aren't a set hand picked by Charlie Munger. Draw from that what conclusions you will.