DC vs NYC litigation? Forum

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

If you're more interested in commercial lit/white collar, is NY better?

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

Is "YSC" a thing now? Just say you go to Chicago.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

If you're more interested in commercial lit/white collar, is NY better?

Probably, yeah.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

Is "YSC" a thing now? Just say you go to Chicago.

Galaxy brain is going to Y/S and using "YSC" to shit on the degree mill in cambridge

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

Is "YSC" a thing now? Just say you go to Chicago.

Galaxy brain is going to Y/S and using "YSC" to shit on the degree mill in cambridge

As a Chi person, I support the dig. As for the topic, I'll be coming off a COA and will face this choice. I too would prefer NY for living, but I don't want to be at a firm where litigation places clear second to corporate (maybe that's an overblown concern?). Seems like it's easier to avoid that in DC.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

Just flagging that if you're "dead set on being an appellate litigator," do not under any circumstances go to Susman. Susman is a trial firm--not an appellate shop. Although it admittedly handles some appeals, those are almost without exception home-grown appeals. And even many of those are farmed out to firms with appellate specialties.

(Anon because i'm a current/former Susman associate).

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

Just flagging that if you're "dead set on being an appellate litigator," do not under any circumstances go to Susman. Susman is a trial firm--not an appellate shop. Although it admittedly handles some appeals, those are almost without exception home-grown appeals. And even many of those are farmed out to firms with appellate specialties.

(Anon because i'm a current/former Susman associate).

This is valuable intel and a bit surprising, given that Susman attracts so many stellar candidates after they wrap up prestigious appellate clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

1) W&C is not a litigation firm; 2) It is not "prestigious" in WH and Cov sense

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

1) W&C is not a litigation firm; 2) It is not "prestigious" in WH and Cov sense

Have you never heard of Williams and Connolly?

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

1) W&C is not a litigation firm; 2) It is not "prestigious" in WH and Cov sense

Have you never heard of Williams and Connolly?

Williams & Connolly definitely does litigation and definitely is prestigious. Did you think the person who wrote “W&C” was referring to White & Case?

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

Just flagging that if you're "dead set on being an appellate litigator," do not under any circumstances go to Susman. Susman is a trial firm--not an appellate shop. Although it admittedly handles some appeals, those are almost without exception home-grown appeals. And even many of those are farmed out to firms with appellate specialties.

(Anon because i'm a current/former Susman associate).

This is valuable intel and a bit surprising, given that Susman attracts so many stellar candidates after they wrap up prestigious appellate clerkships.

Doing an appellate clerkship is a really good way to see lots of ways to fuck up a trial, and therefore be prepared to avoid them.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

If you're more interested in commercial lit/white collar, is NY better?

Probably, yeah.

I think this is true in general, but W&C is probably competitive with the top NY white collar firms (DPW, P,W and to some extent WLRK) for individual representation.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

Just flagging that if you're "dead set on being an appellate litigator," do not under any circumstances go to Susman. Susman is a trial firm--not an appellate shop. Although it admittedly handles some appeals, those are almost without exception home-grown appeals. And even many of those are farmed out to firms with appellate specialties.

(Anon because i'm a current/former Susman associate).

This is valuable intel and a bit surprising, given that Susman attracts so many stellar candidates after they wrap up prestigious appellate clerkships.

People with uber-elite credentials are overrepresented among people who want to be (1) trial lawyers’ trial lawyers and (2) appellate lawyers. The former dream of trial boutiques like Susman and Bartlit, the latter dream of DC appellate practices.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

Is "YSC" a thing now? Just say you go to Chicago.

Galaxy brain is going to Y/S and using "YSC" to shit on the degree mill in cambridge

As a Chi person, I support the dig. As for the topic, I'll be coming off a COA and will face this choice. I too would prefer NY for living, but I don't want to be at a firm where litigation places clear second to corporate (maybe that's an overblown concern?). Seems like it's easier to avoid that in DC.

Then try to go to a boutique in NY, and check out the small white-collar ones if you’re into that work—relatively obscure shops like Krieger Kim hire really good people. Or go to a lit-focused NY office (maybe WilmerHale, off the top of my head?).

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

The top and even midlevel DC firms tend to be significantly more selective than Cravath and the like, not a smidge. And NY does not have a real appellate bar, unlike DC (and TX and CA). There are for sure some top appellate practitioners in NY, but in general, appellate partners and groups are mostly elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

People view DC litigation as more prestigious because there is an idea that NY is dominated by general commercial and other financial litigation whereas the DC firms have dedicated appellate practice groups and more connections to the prestigious federal agencies. People may disagree with this perception, but I also think the prestigious New York biglaw litigation firms (Cravath, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, S&C, etc.) tend to be, on balance, a smidge less selective than the prestigious DC litigation firms (WilmerHale, Covington, W&C). If you're dead set on being an appellate litigator, you're probably better off in DC, unless you can manage to get hired at a NY firm like Susman.

If you're more interested in commercial lit/white collar, is NY better?

DC is really strong in white collar too. In general, if you want to do true white collar *criminal defense*, versus internal investigations, you want to be at a boutique that regularly reps executives, rather than a biglaw firm that only really reps the company.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone is missing a huge reason for being in DC over NYC for appellate clerks, hobnobbing with politicos to get a government position or political appointment down the line.

[jsnow212]

What's your goal? There is no extra "prestige" for DC itself outside of DC and law school. Get over that consideration.

Your focus should be on the place you want to live, weighing the firms you receive offers from, and the type of work/natural path for that work that you want to do.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

Is "YSC" a thing now? Just say you go to Chicago.

As a Y/S alum, I can say we much more welcome this acronym than being lumped together with a degree mill T4 TikTok law school.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

Is "YSC" a thing now? Just say you go to Chicago.

Plus when was YSH a thing? Why don’t the cash cow influencer school students just say they go to HLS and stop mooch off of YS and Harvard College prestige?

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference between them, practically speaking? I have a stronger network in NY, and all else being equal would probably prefer to live in NY, but it seems like everyone at my YSC is much more focused on muh DC preftige. Is there something qualitatively different about DC practice over NY, or is it just about being able to live in DC?

Is "YSC" a thing now? Just say you go to Chicago.

Plus when was YSH a thing? Why don’t the cash cow influencer school students just say they go to HLS and stop mooch off of YS and Harvard College prestige?