What firm is considered the hardest to get into? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

[BrainsyK]

Dovel & Luner, Consovoy McCarthy, Bancroft before it was acquired, and Cooper & Kirk are probably up there.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

For corporate, Wacthell.

For litigation, boutiques.

[2013]

Kellogg for litigation probably.

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell and Kellogg at my answers for corp and lit respectively. Kellogg has a 6-year partner track and pays a $175k clerkship bonus.

[Anonymous User]

Munger DC

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell and Kellogg at my answers for corp and lit respectively. Kellogg has a 6-year partner track and pays a $175k clerkship bonus.

You don’t get class credit for clerkships or prior work at another firm.

[stbyes]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

For corporate, Wacthell.

For litigation, boutiques.

This.

[Anonymous User]

Even within boutiques, Munger DC and Bartlit Beck are in a different category. A COA clerkship with strong grades will give you at least a chance for Kellogg, Susman, Munger LA. Munger DC practically requires a SCOTUS clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

In before someone says Craavaaaaath is competitive for lit, compared to the top litigation practices. LOL

[Joachim2017]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

For corporate, Wacthell.

For litigation, boutiques.

This.

Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.

To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

For corporate, Wacthell.

For litigation, boutiques.

This.

Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.

To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.

If by "elite Biglaw" you are including flagship offices at DC for firms like Gibson, Kirkland, etc (or offices in other markets with similar levels of competitiveness). These are definitely more competitive than Quinn. I would put Quinn at the same level of competitiveness as a typical T30 biglaw shop.

[Anonymous User]

Probably Locke Lord. Can’t be easy to penetrate the security mechanisms of a firm bold enough to call itself the lord of locks

[Anonymous User]

Don't know about y'all, but I go with the Acritas Global Elite Law Firm Index. See https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/press ... index.html The top 5 features creme de la creme powerhouses like Dentons and DLA Piper. I would say Dentons is the one to beat for litigation, but for corporate DLA Piper has the stronger claim.

[NoLongerALurker]

In before someone says Craavaaaaath is competitive for lit, compared to the top litigation practices. LOL

Doesn't even pay market.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

For corporate, Wacthell.

For litigation, boutiques.

This.

Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.

To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.

This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

For corporate, Wacthell.

For litigation, boutiques.

This.

Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.

To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.

This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.

I've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.

[Anonymous User]

This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.

I've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.

This comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.

SG doesn't insist on trial experience, though I'm sure it helps, and they have essentially the same grade requirements as the other lit boutiques, which is to say, very high. If they aren't competing for the same clerks as a KH or Wilkinson or Bartlit, it's less because of requirements and more because all of the firms are located in different parts of the country.

[Anonymous User]

Would it be Wachtell, some appellate firm in DC, an elite IP boutique in San Francisco?

What would you say?

Are there any firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates.

Just curious

For corporate, Wacthell.

For litigation, boutiques.

This.

Obviously the answer for litigation is "boutiques." That's presumably not all that helpful for OP because boutique acceptance rates vary wildly. Compare Susman to Mololamken: BSF will at this point take literally anybody with a pulse; Molo is difficult and selective, but not much more so than elite Big Law. Quinn is somewhere in between.

To answer OP: along the spectrum with Kellogg on one end and BSF on the other, firms that are notorious for turning down highly qualified candidates include Susman and Dovel & Luner on probably a par close to KH, and then you move in the other direction from there.

This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.

I've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.

Candidates do apply to multiple boutiques, but Kellogg Hansen and Susman Godfrey are very different law firms by almost every metric (location, blend of work, trial emphasis, staffing, case selection, partnership model, personalities, etc.). Their associates often have different backgrounds, especially outside New York.

[Anonymous User]

This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.

I've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.

This comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.

SG doesn't insist on trial experience, though I'm sure it helps, and they have essentially the same grade requirements as the other lit boutiques, which is to say, very high. If they aren't competing for the same clerks as a KH or Wilkinson or Bartlit, it's less because of requirements and more because all of the firms are located in different parts of the country.

I'm the poster you're replying to. 87% of Kellogg Hansen's associates are T14 and 100% have COA clerkships. (You're right that most of its non-T14 associates are from UT Austin - not as high a percentage as Susman, but notable all the same.) Kellogg Hansen hasn't hired a SCOTUS clerk since 2013, probably because it refuses to give class-year credit. Its SCOTUS clerks are all partners who have been at the firm since the early days.

[Anonymous User]

This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.

I've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.

This comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.

SG doesn't insist on trial experience, though I'm sure it helps, and they have essentially the same grade requirements as the other lit boutiques, which is to say, very high. If they aren't competing for the same clerks as a KH or Wilkinson or Bartlit, it's less because of requirements and more because all of the firms are located in different parts of the country.

I'm the poster you're replying to. 87% of Kellogg Hansen's associates are T14 and 100% have COA clerkships. (You're right that most of its non-T14 associates are from UT Austin - not as high a percentage as Susman, but notable all the same.) Kellogg Hansen hasn't hired a SCOTUS clerk since 2013, probably because it refuses to give class-year credit. Its SCOTUS clerks are all partners who have been at the firm since the early days.

I went to the website and counted quickly. 9/44 (20%) are non-T14, and at least 1 from quickly scanning doesn't have a COA clerkship. At least 3 associates are going to SCOTUS, though I suppose there is no guarantee they would return.

[kjdsalinger]

Jones Day's Issues and Appeals group in DC has to be up there.

[urbancowboy]

Nobody saying Williams & Connolly?

[Anonymous User]

This degree of specificity is misleading because boutiques don't compete for the same applicants. Kellogg Hansen hires the best and brightest COA clerks, usually but not always from T14 schools. It doesn't hire district court clerks, it doesn't compete for SCOTUS clerks, and it basically never hires experienced lawyers. Susman Godfrey hires district court clerks, but it insists on impeccable grades and (usually) trial experience. In addition to the T14, it hires regularly from UT Austin. MoloLamken only hires experienced lawyers (usually 3 years out of school or more) and doesn't require a federal clerkship. Wilkinson Stekloff insists on trial experience and will compromise on the other requirements. Bartlit Beck hires many SCOTUS clerks, doesn't have a formal clerkship requirement, and favors military experience.

I've had a bunch of firsthand and secondhand experience with a lot of these firms and the above seems to try to cut too finely re differences in the candidate pool of some of these firms. Not sure how worth it it'll be to OP, and best course is to contact the firms coming out of your clerkship if you're interested in them, but I don't believe the differences depicted here for, eg, SG and KH really amount to much if anything. Bottom line, I do think firms like KH and SG compete for many of the same applicants.

This comment above the one I'm responding to isn't accurate. For KH alone, they have quite a few non-T-14 attorneys who graduated summa at their law school -- I'd estimate something like 25% of their associates are non-T-14, and they too have quite a few UT Austin associates. They also have no formal circuit court clerkship requirement, though it's probably a de facto requirement for 99% of applicants. KH also has a fair number of SCOTUS clerks.

SG doesn't insist on trial experience, though I'm sure it helps, and they have essentially the same grade requirements as the other lit boutiques, which is to say, very high. If they aren't competing for the same clerks as a KH or Wilkinson or Bartlit, it's less because of requirements and more because all of the firms are located in different parts of the country.

I'm the poster you're replying to. 87% of Kellogg Hansen's associates are T14 and 100% have COA clerkships. (You're right that most of its non-T14 associates are from UT Austin - not as high a percentage as Susman, but notable all the same.) Kellogg Hansen hasn't hired a SCOTUS clerk since 2013, probably because it refuses to give class-year credit. Its SCOTUS clerks are all partners who have been at the firm since the early days.

I went to the website and counted quickly. 9/44 (20%) are non-T14, and at least 1 from quickly scanning doesn't have a COA clerkship. At least 3 associates are going to SCOTUS, though I suppose there is no guarantee they would return.

It appears I missed an associate - she's the only one of the 44 without a COA clerkship. Kellogg Hansen regularly hires SCOTUS-bound associates, usually for 2 year terms. It also feeds associates to SCOTUS. For whatever reason, it won't make the compromises on pay and seniority to hire them back.

[Anonymous User]

Nobody saying Williams & Connolly?

Not saying Williams & Connolly is easy to get into, but given the presence of firms in DC like KH, hard to imagine that WC gets the nod. I admittedly don't know much, but I always thought of WC as like just the poor man's KH.