Covington DC v. Williams & Connolly Forum

[Anonymous User]

Lucky enough to be deciding between these two. Differences AFAIK:

Practice area/focus: W&C is all lit, all the time. Covington I'd see some regulatory.
Size: W&C is much smaller. Theoretically easier to make partner, but who knows. I worry about the size (and intensity) meaning more pressure and more hours.
Money: I know it's a difference. I am not particularly money-motivated, so this will not be the deciding factor for me.
Exit/return opportunities: It seems if I turn W&C down now or leave a few years in, it's much harder to come back. Covington seems more revolving door with DC gov. W&C slightly more prestigious, but both top DC firms.

I really liked the Covington people I talked to, but in a big office they could have picked their best 5. I also liked the W&C people, but definitely got a more intense vibe from them in the interview.

Anything missing? Anyone have opinions? Please help me

[Anonymous User]

Lucky enough to be deciding between these two (weirdly my only two offers). Differences AFAIK:

Practice area/focus: W&C is all lit, all the time. Covington I'd see some regulatory.
Size: W&C is much smaller. Theoretically easier to make partner, but who knows. I worry about the size (and intensity) meaning more pressure and more hours.
Money: I know it's a difference. I am not particularly money-motivated, so this will not be the deciding factor for me.
Exit/return opportunities: It seems if I turn W&C down now or leave a few years in, it's much harder to come back. Covington seems more revolving door with DC gov. W&C slightly more prestigious, but both top DC firms.

I really liked the Covington people I talked to, but in a big office they could have picked their best 5. I also liked the W&C people, but definitely got a more intense vibe from them in the interview.

Anything missing? Anyone have opinions? Please help me

I would do W&C because I think junior lawyers get more substantive and sophisticated work sooner. Both are very prestigious but W&C has a slight edge.

[Anonymous User]

W&C is smaller, sure, but they're still pretty big (for DC) no? 350+ right? Not qualified to add anything more but I don't think size should be a significant factor here (note: at least not in the way you were framing it; the smaller size can certainly be a benefit as others have noted)

[Anonymous User]

Congrats on the options. I vote W&C if you want to be a litigator. Cov lit seems like a sweatshop. From my understanding, to the extent you work your ass off at W&C, at least it'll be because you're going to trial or getting otherwise very substantive experience--I summered at Cov and it seems pretty meh in terms of substance for lit associates, and it's probably easy to get lost in a sea of faces there too if you're in a huge practice group like lit. Cov is certainly a great option for DC, but I think W&C is the no-brainer between the two. Especially since you will certainly be able to lateral "down" (or go somewhere else post-clerkship). The one thing Cov has going for it is that I think there is an edge for government placement, if your goal is to work for DOJ or bigfed down the road. An insane number of cov associates go the federal government. Maybe that's just a perceived edge because the office is so damn big, however.

[Anonymous User]

If you actually want to be a law firm partner (which you probably shouldn't), W&C's advantage is much more than theoretical. Covington promotes about twice as many people to partner but is about three times W&C's size. In addition, Covington brings in (some) lateral partner candidates in the later years. At W&C, virtually every partner started off as a junior associate.

If you want to do notice and comment style regulatory work, you should absolutely go to Covington. W&C associates will generally get more and better substantive litigation work as junior associates. (Though, if as a junior associate you get put on the opioids litigation at either firm, lateral away the moment you're able.)

I've interacted with plenty of lawyers from both, and I don't think W&C lawyers are particularly intense. (But I also don't think Covington lawyers are noticeably socially awkward, which is somewhat their reputation.) I think at both you'd work with good colleagues who were generally good people to work with.

The regulatory vs. lit point would be dispositive. If it isn't and you plan to be at a firm for a short period or to make the partner run, go W&C. If you're looking to stay around till midlevel (but not partner), maybe go Covington because leaner staffing at W&C means that midlevels work harder.

[Anonymous User]

Congrats on the options. I vote W&C if you want to be a litigator. Cov lit seems like a sweatshop. From my understanding, to the extent you work your ass off at W&C, at least it'll be because you're going to trial or getting otherwise very substantive experience--I summered at Cov and it seems pretty meh in terms of substance for lit associates, and it's probably easy to get lost in a sea of faces there too if you're in a huge practice group like lit. Cov is certainly a great option for DC, but I think W&C is the no-brainer between the two. Especially since you will certainly be able to lateral "down" (or go somewhere else post-clerkship). The one thing Cov has going for it is that I think there is an edge for government placement, if your goal is to work for DOJ or bigfed down the road. An insane number of cov associates go the federal government. Maybe that's just a perceived edge because the office is so damn big, however.

FWIW I haven't heard the same.

[Anonymous User]

Congrats on the options. I vote W&C if you want to be a litigator. Cov lit seems like a sweatshop. From my understanding, to the extent you work your ass off at W&C, at least it'll be because you're going to trial or getting otherwise very substantive experience--I summered at Cov and it seems pretty meh in terms of substance for lit associates, and it's probably easy to get lost in a sea of faces there too if you're in a huge practice group like lit. Cov is certainly a great option for DC, but I think W&C is the no-brainer between the two. Especially since you will certainly be able to lateral "down" (or go somewhere else post-clerkship). The one thing Cov has going for it is that I think there is an edge for government placement, if your goal is to work for DOJ or bigfed down the road. An insane number of cov associates go the federal government. Maybe that's just a perceived edge because the office is so damn big, however.

FWIW I haven't heard the same.

Quoted anon. I recall seeing a bunch of threads on here about this topic. And while there, I got the sense it was pretty damn busy. Not that any biglaw firm is chill.

[Anonymous User]

If you actually want to be a law firm partner (which you probably shouldn't), W&C's advantage is much more than theoretical. Covington promotes about twice as many people to partner but is about three times W&C's size. In addition, Covington brings in (some) lateral partner candidates in the later years. At W&C, virtually every partner started off as a junior associate.

If you want to do notice and comment style regulatory work, you should absolutely go to Covington. W&C associates will generally get more and better substantive litigation work as junior associates. (Though, if as a junior associate you get put on the opioids litigation at either firm, lateral away the moment you're able.)

I've interacted with plenty of lawyers from both, and I don't think W&C lawyers are particularly intense. (But I also don't think Covington lawyers are noticeably socially awkward, which is somewhat their reputation.) I think at both you'd work with good colleagues who were generally good people to work with.

The regulatory vs. lit point would be dispositive. If it isn't and you plan to be at a firm for a short period or to make the partner run, go W&C. If you're looking to stay around till midlevel (but not partner), maybe go Covington because leaner staffing at W&C means that midlevels work harder.

OP. Thanks, this is helpful and captures the big central issue for me. No real desire to make partner, but I think there's an element of now or never with W&C because it's so difficult to lateral in. FWIW I said theoretical because, if I *theoretically* wanted to make partner, it would be easier, but not sure how big a consideration, if at all, that should be.

Also potentially relevant is the network at W&C for clerking postgrad has got to be excellent. Cov will have some clerks, but I can't imagine it's at the near-100% rate W&C has.

I am about 80% sure I want to litigate. The 20% interest in regulatory work is what's holding me back here.

[Anonymous User]

Something important to note is that W&C has paid associates below market — unclear if this is still the case