Top Law Schools

For those of you who went into an appellate group at a big law firm, what has been your breakdown of work? Are you doing mostly a mix of federal/state appellate court work, dispositive motions practice at the trial level, or what? Are you embedded into trial teams to do motions in limine? How often are you writing briefs? Does your firm push people out after a few years?

Current feeder clerk figuring out what I want to do with my life. Finances require me to go into big law post-clerkship but I want to avoid discovery as much as possible as a litigator.

Person in your situation checking in here. I suspect it varies from group to group, but I am interested in what other people say.

I’m co-staffed to an appellate group and a government group at a DC firm known for its appellate practice (which isn’t that uncommon), and I have a good sense of the workload of my fellow appellate lawyers. On the one hand, folks aren’t only working on dc circuit and scotus merit briefs, and no clerk should go into their job hunt with that expectation. That’s just not how biglaw works even in a premier appellate practice. However, the work is all legally substantive. So, for example, appellate folks might get drawn in to work on gnarly issues in post-trial briefing, requests for interlocutory appeal; or on a motion to dismiss; legal memos for a client analyzing risks in a government investigation, which can involve some fact development; or summarizing how the government’s position in a case that was just granted certiorari might impact motion practice or liability. Appellate folks also do a lot of amicus briefing. And then, of course, there’s briefing and arguing in federal and state courts of appeal and last resort. I wouldn’t say there is a standard for one of these activities predominating over the others; it depends as you become more senior on what kind of practice you are building. I don’t see people in the appellate group doing discovery or managing productions unless there’s an extremely compelling reason for it.

I’m in a litigation group at a DC office with an elite appellate group and the last poster’s take is accurate in my experience. The Appellate people are called upon to do trial-level writing pretty often, but it’s not discovery motion bullshit - it’s motions to dismiss and hairy legal-question stuff. If you are worried about doing document review and deposition prep, I’ve never seen an Appellate associate do any of that at my firm.

This is also more of a gut feeling, but our Appellate group has a bunch of former SCOTUS clerks alongside other people who “only” have COA clerkships, and the SCOTUS people generally seem less likely to swoop onto one of my trial-level teams and do some writing there than the COA people are. I’m not sure if that’s because SCOTUS clerks are able to negotiate that better, or SCOTUS clerks are more likely to be staffed on the “real” appellate work, or something else, but I think it’s the case here.

When trying to get a onto an appellate team at a firm, how much does the ~prestige~ of your clerkship matter? Obviously, SCOTUS clerks have a hand up, but will firms draw finer lines based on the percieved quality and prestige of the CoA judge? Sorry if this is a silly question, I just don't really know too much about this area.

Thoughts on how Chambers' appellate rankings match up to what you've seen in practice?

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/app ... 58:12788:1

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:04 pm

Thoughts on how Chambers' appellate rankings match up to what you've seen in practice?

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/app ... 58:12788:1

Related to this, Wilmer seems to be a place known for appellate work, but it seems like they have very few associates in the group relative to, say, Gibson or Orrick?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:03 pm

When trying to get a onto an appellate team at a firm, how much does the ~prestige~ of your clerkship matter? Obviously, SCOTUS clerks have a hand up, but will firms draw finer lines based on the percieved quality and prestige of the CoA judge? Sorry if this is a silly question, I just don't really know too much about this area.

Depends on the firm. Some firms (like JD, Latham, Hogan, and Wilmer) have defined appellate/SCOTUS practice groups. Partners use the associates in the group and don't generally branch out. To get hired into the group you generally need SCOTUS clerkship or SCOTUS level credentials. There are exceptions, but its rare. Other firms (like Gibson and Kirkland) are more free market. At those firms you'll often see associates with "less prestigious" clerkships working on appellate matter. If they do a good job, they'll get more opportunities. If they don't, partners will ask other associates. Obviously those with SCOTUS or feeder clerkships get more opportunities. But if you have a less fancy clerkship and want appellate opportunities, a free market firm is the way to go.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:04 pm

Thoughts on how Chambers' appellate rankings match up to what you've seen in practice?

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/app ... 58:12788:1

Curious about this as well, especially w/r/t Sidley, as Carter Phillips seems to be retiring-ish?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:04 pm

Thoughts on how Chambers' appellate rankings match up to what you've seen in practice?

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/app ... 58:12788:1

Seems generally accurate. Although I think the rankings take breadth and depth of bench into account more so than clients would. Paul Weiss has a small appellate group, but I'd take Kannon Shanmugam over anyone at Wilmer or JD or Hogan, even if those firms have more appellate partners, if that makes sense.

Also, keep in mind that you may be more likely to get opportunities in some of these smaller practice groups. For example, you're more likely to get paid argument opportunities as an associate at Paul Weiss or MoFo than, say, a Kirkland or Wilmer. Some of that is partners more willing to go to bat for associates to get those opportunities. But some of it is the way the group is structured. For example, some firms are more willing to let partners cut fees to get cases (especially SCOTUS cases). Other firms won't do that.

Aside from Gibson, what are places where it would be fine to be West Coast-based? Not sure my partner wants to live in DC.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:37 pm

Aside from Gibson, what are places where it would be fine to be West Coast-based? Not sure my partner wants to live in DC.

Would be tricky since pretty much every major player has people in DC, then NY, and then way down the list <anywhere else>, but Orrick has a good appellate group and has people doing it from their HQ in SF.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:37 pm

Aside from Gibson, what are places where it would be fine to be West Coast-based? Not sure my partner wants to live in DC.

Somewhere with a defined appellate group. Jones Day has a strong cohort in San Diego and LA.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:03 pm

When trying to get a onto an appellate team at a firm, how much does the ~prestige~ of your clerkship matter? Obviously, SCOTUS clerks have a hand up, but will firms draw finer lines based on the percieved quality and prestige of the CoA judge? Sorry if this is a silly question, I just don't really know too much about this area.

Depends on the firm. Some firms (like JD, Latham, Hogan, and Wilmer) have defined appellate/SCOTUS practice groups. Partners use the associates in the group and don't generally branch out. To get hired into the group you generally need SCOTUS clerkship or SCOTUS level credentials. There are exceptions, but its rare. Other firms (like Gibson and Kirkland) are more free market. At those firms you'll often see associates with "less prestigious" clerkships working on appellate matter. If they do a good job, they'll get more opportunities. If they don't, partners will ask other associates. Obviously those with SCOTUS or feeder clerkships get more opportunities. But if you have a less fancy clerkship and want appellate opportunities, a free market firm is the way to go.

Latham has COA clerks in appellate, but they're generally fancy (i.e. semi-feeder-plus) COA clerks.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 2:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:37 pm

Aside from Gibson, what are places where it would be fine to be West Coast-based? Not sure my partner wants to live in DC.

Somewhere with a defined appellate group. Jones Day has a strong cohort in San Diego and LA.

Yeah I know JD and Cooley have appellate people in San Diego. Kathleen Sullivan also works out of LA for Quinn, and Ted Boutros for Gibson, but idk how their LA presences are overall. MTO obviously has a big CA-based appeals group, as that was their entire appeals practice until relatively recently. CA also has appeals boutiques, though they're probably below market.

In general, it's worth noting that partnership prospects in appellate are bad, but it's a good way to spend a few years then bounce, at the risk of not getting transferable trial court skills beyond dispositive motion practice

Disclaimer: not a Californian, but have worked in biglaw appeals

Mayer Brown appellate has a few very high quality people in New York but it’s a tight knit group.

Orrick does have LA people doing serious appellate but again, you can count them on one hand.

Wilmer appellate is in Boston, NY, and DC, and it’s a very strong group. Gibson is also split between DC and CA.

Watch for King and Spalding. They aren’t screwing around in any space, in any location.

Most of the serious appellate work is in DC. But it’s an open question how much being “in” any given city matters anymore. If you’re compelling, I bet you could interview at the DC office of a firm and spend almost all your time in LA or SF or DC. Appellate seems like one of the least likely groups to require FaceTime in any near future, especially if you have young kids.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:47 pm

In general, it's worth noting that partnership prospects in appellate are bad, but it's a good way to spend a few years then bounce, at the risk of not getting transferable trial court skills beyond dispositive motion practice

I think this is why many pick JD appellate over other firms; they are essentially guaranteed to make partner there.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:04 pm

Thoughts on how Chambers' appellate rankings match up to what you've seen in practice?

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/app ... 58:12788:1

Curious about this as well, especially w/r/t Sidley, as Carter Phillips seems to be retiring-ish?

Also wondering...

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 18, 2022 6:30 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:47 pm

In general, it's worth noting that partnership prospects in appellate are bad, but it's a good way to spend a few years then bounce, at the risk of not getting transferable trial court skills beyond dispositive motion practice

I think this is why many pick JD appellate over other firms; they are essentially guaranteed to make partner there.

Do people generally get pushed out if they don’t make partner?

Perhaps related or perhaps unrelated, does anyone know what the deal is with Orrick senior appellate associates on leave to racial-justice organizations? Trying to get a sense of what the career path at Orrick is and what it means to be on leave to a non-profit.