MTO v. HH v. Wilkinson - Help? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’ve lost track of the anons, but while it’s true that trials, biglaw, and reasonable hours don’t go together, it’s worth remembering that most trial lawyers are not in biglaw, and do not work on all-consuming, no-expenses-spared, nine-figure matters. If you prioritize hours and trial reps over amount in controversy, certain parts of government, individual-defense-oriented white-collar shops, etc. probably meet your needs better than either HH or MTO, but those jobs can also be very hard to get.

[Anonymous User]

A couple more comments re the HH/MTO distinctions (to the extent they exist):

1. I've had really good experiences with folks I've worked with at MTO- I'm sure there are some assholes but I haven't worked with them yet. Sounds like from sources in this thread HH is even better on this front- I'm impressed that when they started the firm they focused on gathering partners who were nice people, that's some real foresight from a boutique!

2. My experience at MTO has been pretty similar to the impression I got interviewing, and I'd describe it as not antisocial but also not overly social. I think some of the focus on getting back to a hybrid model really is about fostering a stronger social connection- I feel close to the folks I work with on matters but it's definitely harder to make organic connections otherwise in a WFH environment.

3. I don't think I realized that HH had a 4:1 leverage ratio (going off NALP which may be outdated). From looking at the past couple of years they've announced 1 partner a year, which even size-adjusted (they've got 40-50 associates, MTO's got ~100) seems significantly lower, although MTO can be very lumpy on a YoY basis (8 partners this year, 2 the year before). I also see a fair number of Counsel and since that's a nebulous category I'm not sure whether that is a stopping place on the path to partner at HH or somewhere that folks stay permanently if they don't want to give them equity.

4. From a quick look at benefits- looks like HH has the same 401k match and better health insurance benefits, but they only do 18 weeks of parental leave for the primary caregiver (MTO does both), which strikes me as a big deal if you're starting a family as an associate. But HH's overall comp seems to be higher on average.

[Anonymous User]

I have experience with both firms. If you want trial work, go to Hueston, knowing that you will work like a dog and might burn out in a couple years. The people at HH are great, both associates and partners. Munger has more prickly, difficult personalities and tends to be more status-conscious. A bunch of my friends at Munger have gone over to HH for cultural reasons over the past five years. It’s very interesting ecosystem.

In terms of lifestyle, as others have indicated, my sense is that HH will be worse. There’s less institutional support and overall less sensitivity to hours. People get lost on a bad case and drown, and there are certain partners (e.g. Moez) who command outsized influence - and if you’re not close with them, it can feel like you’re in the cold. Like other demanding work environments, people that truly thrive are willing to work bone dry. That’s tough in the pandemic. I wouldn’t go there with a young child unless you are comfortable with the personal sacrifices that entails. Munger, for its cultural failings, might be a place where you can last longer. The partnership track is also better defined and there’s slightly more institutional support (but not a ton).

Bottom line, with all of those caveats, for 2-3 years of top trial exposure before going AUSA, Hueston is the best move. You’re at the very top of the LA market either way.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everyone! I'm the poster with young kids wanting to go to the USAO down the road.

If I decide to prioritize hours over trial work/added substantive experience and forego HH/MTO, which of Gibson/Latham/OMM--on balance--would best set me up for (1) fewest hours and (2) the USAO? I have interviews or offers at all five of these firms, so this is very much a live decision for me.

The posts about foregoing biglaw altogether are well taken but are not helpful or relevant to me. My significant other and I have already decided, for financial reasons, that I will be going into biglaw for several years. The only question at this time is which firm I'll end up at.

[jbagelboy]

Of the larger, more conventional firms, I’d go with Gibson.

[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.

Wilkinson doesn't have an LA office anymore, but fwiw (in case others are looking for Wilkinson intel), this doesn't reflect my experience. The hours can be intense, but I don't think they are worse than other trial boutiques like HH--that's just what you sign up for with trial work. I like my colleagues a lot, and the cases are usually interesting and high profile. No firm is perfect, but Wilkinson associates who leave typically go to prestigious government jobs rather than jumping to other firms, which says a lot.

[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.

Wilkinson doesn't have an LA office anymore, but fwiw (in case others are looking for Wilkinson intel), this doesn't reflect my experience. The hours can be intense, but I don't think they are worse than other trial boutiques like HH--that's just what you sign up for with trial work. I like my colleagues a lot, and the cases are usually interesting and high profile. No firm is perfect, but Wilkinson associates who leave typically go to prestigious government jobs rather than jumping to other firms, which says a lot.

Mind sharing what the hours are like?