Best firms for good culture in DC? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am a clerk looking to potentially switch firms post clerkship. I’m interested in litigation and my main goal is to find a firm with a manageable work-life balance (as much as you can attain that in biglaw) that has a decent remote work policy with nice people. I’ve been searching this forum and trying to do research but it’s hard to get good info. Does anyone have tips on which firms to target and which to avoid? I don’t really care about prestige. From what I can tell it seems like Orrick and O’Melveny might be good options? I’m interested specifically in doing either a mix of appellate and commercial lit or else going into white collar/investigations.

This might be an unpopular observation, but I think you are looking for:

• Manageable work-life balance
• Decent remote work policy, and
• Nice people

You might need to pick two of three. For example, places with a good balance that collect nice people also tend to have management that is stressed about maintaining that culture and think people need to interact in person to do that or they will check out (which they do, but maybe not in the way management thinks). Places who add a very flexible remote work policy are often doing it to compensate for some other issue, like being a sweatshop or having a ton of screamers.

[WCB10323]

Any insight into the culture at Gibson DC?

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

Midlevel at Wilmer, former clerk. I personally despise the culture. Very slow, very little investment in developing associate talent, overly restrictive ethics and publications policies, zero budget for events or team-building, most partners are very checked out, ideological monoculture, new office is way too cramped, way too many staff, everyone is “nice” but incredibly fake and apathetic, and the firm is insanely cheap and strict with lifestyle stuff. The work is generally interesting, but it’s biglaw so not that different from other good DC offices imo. I wish I was at a firm that had a little more energy frankly.

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

Midlevel at Wilmer, former clerk. I personally despise the culture. Very slow, very little investment in developing associate talent, overly restrictive ethics and publications policies, zero budget for events or team-building, most partners are very checked out, ideological monoculture, new office is way too cramped, way too many staff, everyone is “nice” but incredibly fake and apathetic, and the firm is insanely cheap and strict with lifestyle stuff. The work is generally interesting, but it’s biglaw so not that different from other good DC offices imo. I wish I was at a firm that had a little more energy frankly.

I'm at Wilmer, and while I disagree with some of what you're saying (I think the folks here are the opposite of fake/apathetic), a lot of it is a matter of perspective/preference. As the original quoted anon mentioned, Wilmer is not a highly social firm, which I find it refreshing because people pretty much universally recognize that you have a life outside of the firm (though some groups like IP/IP lit are closer knit, relatively speaking). It's sort of white shoe in the sense that your private life is your own - nobody asks about it unless you bring it up. I get how that can feel apathetic, but I take it as more of a respect/boundaries kind of thing. That's not to say I don't have good relationships with fellow associates/partners. I do, but it's because I've defined those relationships on my own terms rather than forming them out of fear for not fitting in. It sounds like you'd like something more, which is fine.

Your criticism re: being cheap is spot on though. I like that the firm is fiscally responsible, but they take it to a new level.

I actually think the firm invests a lot in associate talent. It's about as close to a meritocracy as you can find in biglaw, which means opportunities are there for those who seek them out.

The "overly restrictive ethics and publications policies" strikes me as an odd neg. From the litigation side, the firm is obsessed (in a good way) with credibility. That means we don't play dirty or fast/loose with the facts. Even though it sometimes feels restrictive, I'd much rather be at a firm that takes ethics to heart (I summered at one that didn't and I was miserable even as a summer).

[Anonymous User]

Any insight into Mayer Brown DC?

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

Midlevel at Wilmer, former clerk. I personally despise the culture. Very slow, very little investment in developing associate talent, overly restrictive ethics and publications policies, zero budget for events or team-building, most partners are very checked out, ideological monoculture, new office is way too cramped, way too many staff, everyone is “nice” but incredibly fake and apathetic, and the firm is insanely cheap and strict with lifestyle stuff. The work is generally interesting, but it’s biglaw so not that different from other good DC offices imo. I wish I was at a firm that had a little more energy frankly.

I'm at Wilmer, and while I disagree with some of what you're saying (I think the folks here are the opposite of fake/apathetic), a lot of it is a matter of perspective/preference. As the original quoted anon mentioned, Wilmer is not a highly social firm, which I find it refreshing because people pretty much universally recognize that you have a life outside of the firm (though some groups like IP/IP lit are closer knit, relatively speaking). It's sort of white shoe in the sense that your private life is your own - nobody asks about it unless you bring it up. I get how that can feel apathetic, but I take it as more of a respect/boundaries kind of thing. That's not to say I don't have good relationships with fellow associates/partners. I do, but it's because I've defined those relationships on my own terms rather than forming them out of fear for not fitting in. It sounds like you'd like something more, which is fine.

Your criticism re: being cheap is spot on though. I like that the firm is fiscally responsible, but they take it to a new level.

I actually think the firm invests a lot in associate talent. It's about as close to a meritocracy as you can find in biglaw, which means opportunities are there for those who seek them out.

The "overly restrictive ethics and publications policies" strikes me as an odd neg. From the litigation side, the firm is obsessed (in a good way) with credibility. That means we don't play dirty or fast/loose with the facts. Even though it sometimes feels restrictive, I'd much rather be at a firm that takes ethics to heart (I summered at one that didn't and I was miserable even as a summer).

Quoted midlevel anon. Agree it's a matter of perspective and preference. It seems like you are fine with a firm that is incredibly careful, old school, and conservative compared to peer firms. I totally respect that, and if that's what you're looking for, I think Wilmer delivers (and is better in many ways than other firms like Covington which have similar attributes, like good work but old-school, a relatively apathetic gov't vibe, and very cheap). I guess my overarching point is that there are pretty significant downsides for people who may want to be at a firm that has a more social culture, a more business-oriented mindset, a faster pace, and is slightly more innovative. I wasn't looking for a fratty culture, but my friends at other DC firms have a lot more partner engagement, many more events, many more perks, and a lot more of a vibe that they're working at a business where people really try to bring in business, grow practices, etc. Wilmer feels very staid and static in comparison.

I don't really know what you mean when you say they invest a lot in associate talent. We are notoriously slow to bring associates to client meetings, rarely let associates write things on their own (unlike other firms that have blogs that associates can regularly contribute to, etc), they are very restrictive about bringing in or handling your own pro bono, and overly supervise even competent counsel/senior associates on things they can handle by themselves. They are absolutely terrified of letting an associate write something or communicate externally on their own, which makes you feel consistently like a cog who can't develop your own professional identity. For people who have external ambitions (who the firm wants to recruit, since they sell themselves partly on their gov't and other exits) that can feel pretty depressing. This feature is worse from what I can tell than peers like W&C, Cov, Paul, Weiss, etc.

Yes, the work-life is pretty good here. Maybe I'm just too much of a gunner, but it has led me to feel pretty apathetic though. I can't really develop my own identity, I'm not really getting worked, so what is the point? It feels like I'm nearing retirement in my early 30s.

[Anonymous User]

I don't really know what you mean when you say they invest a lot in associate talent. We are notoriously slow to bring associates to client meetings, rarely let associates write things on their own (unlike other firms that have blogs that associates can regularly contribute to, etc), they are very restrictive about bringing in or handling your own pro bono, and overly supervise even competent counsel/senior associates on things they can handle by themselves. They are absolutely terrified of letting an associate write something or communicate externally on their own, which makes you feel consistently like a cog who can't develop your own professional identity. For people who have external ambitions (who the firm wants to recruit, since they sell themselves partly on their gov't and other exits) that can feel pretty depressing. This feature is worse from what I can tell than peers like W&C, Cov, Paul, Weiss, etc.

Yes, the work-life is pretty good here. Maybe I'm just too much of a gunner, but it has led me to feel pretty apathetic though. I can't really develop my own identity, I'm not really getting worked, so what is the point? It feels like I'm nearing retirement in my early 30s.

I was presenting at client meetings for a 9-figure litigation as a first year and lead JMOL for a billion dollar litigation as a fourth year, so I'm not so sure you're right about this. I think in general the masses may be slower than elsewhere (again, we're a meritocracy, not a firm that just hands out everything), but gunners (which you self-identify as) get great opportunities if they work for them and ask. That is, we're not one of those boutiques that gives a bet-the-case depo to a third year, but I don't think we're far from other biglaw litigation as far as the opportunities we offer.

[Anonymous User]

I don't really know what you mean when you say they invest a lot in associate talent. We are notoriously slow to bring associates to client meetings, rarely let associates write things on their own (unlike other firms that have blogs that associates can regularly contribute to, etc), they are very restrictive about bringing in or handling your own pro bono, and overly supervise even competent counsel/senior associates on things they can handle by themselves. They are absolutely terrified of letting an associate write something or communicate externally on their own, which makes you feel consistently like a cog who can't develop your own professional identity. For people who have external ambitions (who the firm wants to recruit, since they sell themselves partly on their gov't and other exits) that can feel pretty depressing. This feature is worse from what I can tell than peers like W&C, Cov, Paul, Weiss, etc.

Yes, the work-life is pretty good here. Maybe I'm just too much of a gunner, but it has led me to feel pretty apathetic though. I can't really develop my own identity, I'm not really getting worked, so what is the point? It feels like I'm nearing retirement in my early 30s.

I was presenting at client meetings for a 9-figure litigation as a first year and lead JMOL for a billion dollar litigation as a fourth year, so I'm not so sure you're right about this. I think in general the masses may be slower than elsewhere (again, we're a meritocracy, not a firm that just hands out everything), but gunners (which you self-identify as) get great opportunities if they work for them and ask. That is, we're not one of those boutiques that gives a bet-the-case depo to a third year, but I don't think we're far from other biglaw litigation as far as the opportunities we offer.

Sorry, but what does being a "meritocracy" mean? Because you feel like you've gotten good opportunities, you've started going around beating your chest saying that's because the firm is a meritocracy and you've proven yourself, or something like that? Sure, everyone can point to a couple of good opportunites they've gotten to work on interesting matters. The debate is about personal brand and client development opportunities, not chances to work on some motion or what not. At every good DC firm with good cases, associates will get to work on substantive work. But for those of us that care about building our career, not simply jerking off about the size of the litigation we're working as a cog on, beginning to feel like you can handle client interactions, go on pitches, develop relationships with clients, build a brand and expertise, have publications, and make connections is pretty critical.

[Anonymous User]

I don't really know what you mean when you say they invest a lot in associate talent. We are notoriously slow to bring associates to client meetings, rarely let associates write things on their own (unlike other firms that have blogs that associates can regularly contribute to, etc), they are very restrictive about bringing in or handling your own pro bono, and overly supervise even competent counsel/senior associates on things they can handle by themselves. They are absolutely terrified of letting an associate write something or communicate externally on their own, which makes you feel consistently like a cog who can't develop your own professional identity. For people who have external ambitions (who the firm wants to recruit, since they sell themselves partly on their gov't and other exits) that can feel pretty depressing. This feature is worse from what I can tell than peers like W&C, Cov, Paul, Weiss, etc.

Yes, the work-life is pretty good here. Maybe I'm just too much of a gunner, but it has led me to feel pretty apathetic though. I can't really develop my own identity, I'm not really getting worked, so what is the point? It feels like I'm nearing retirement in my early 30s.

I was presenting at client meetings for a 9-figure litigation as a first year and lead JMOL for a billion dollar litigation as a fourth year, so I'm not so sure you're right about this. I think in general the masses may be slower than elsewhere (again, we're a meritocracy, not a firm that just hands out everything), but gunners (which you self-identify as) get great opportunities if they work for them and ask. That is, we're not one of those boutiques that gives a bet-the-case depo to a third year, but I don't think we're far from other biglaw litigation as far as the opportunities we offer.

Sorry, but what does being a "meritocracy" mean? Because you feel like you've gotten good opportunities, you've started going around beating your chest saying that's because the firm is a meritocracy and you've proven yourself, or something like that? Sure, everyone can point to a couple of good opportunites they've gotten to work on interesting matters. The debate is about personal brand and client development opportunities, not chances to work on some motion or what not. At every good DC firm with good cases, associates will get to work on substantive work. But for those of us that care about building our career, not simply jerking off about the size of the litigation we're working as a cog on, beginning to feel like you can handle client interactions, go on pitches, develop relationships with clients, build a brand and expertise, have publications, and make connections is pretty critical.

Sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse...

[Anonymous User]

I don't really know what you mean when you say they invest a lot in associate talent. We are notoriously slow to bring associates to client meetings, rarely let associates write things on their own (unlike other firms that have blogs that associates can regularly contribute to, etc), they are very restrictive about bringing in or handling your own pro bono, and overly supervise even competent counsel/senior associates on things they can handle by themselves. They are absolutely terrified of letting an associate write something or communicate externally on their own, which makes you feel consistently like a cog who can't develop your own professional identity. For people who have external ambitions (who the firm wants to recruit, since they sell themselves partly on their gov't and other exits) that can feel pretty depressing. This feature is worse from what I can tell than peers like W&C, Cov, Paul, Weiss, etc.

Yes, the work-life is pretty good here. Maybe I'm just too much of a gunner, but it has led me to feel pretty apathetic though. I can't really develop my own identity, I'm not really getting worked, so what is the point? It feels like I'm nearing retirement in my early 30s.

I was presenting at client meetings for a 9-figure litigation as a first year and lead JMOL for a billion dollar litigation as a fourth year, so I'm not so sure you're right about this. I think in general the masses may be slower than elsewhere (again, we're a meritocracy, not a firm that just hands out everything), but gunners (which you self-identify as) get great opportunities if they work for them and ask. That is, we're not one of those boutiques that gives a bet-the-case depo to a third year, but I don't think we're far from other biglaw litigation as far as the opportunities we offer.

Sorry, but what does being a "meritocracy" mean? Because you feel like you've gotten good opportunities, you've started going around beating your chest saying that's because the firm is a meritocracy and you've proven yourself, or something like that? Sure, everyone can point to a couple of good opportunites they've gotten to work on interesting matters. The debate is about personal brand and client development opportunities, not chances to work on some motion or what not. At every good DC firm with good cases, associates will get to work on substantive work. But for those of us that care about building our career, not simply jerking off about the size of the litigation we're working as a cog on, beginning to feel like you can handle client interactions, go on pitches, develop relationships with clients, build a brand and expertise, have publications, and make connections is pretty critical.

Sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse...

Lol, sounds like you don’t know what the cart is and are fine just being the horse. The substantive work is good, sure. That’s frankly a given at all of the elite DC firms. The relevant debate was about culture and developing lawyers as business people and individuals, not just motions output. The firm does not care about that compared to peers, and you’ve pretty much admitted as much.

[speckler]

This is a stretch, but if either of the Wilmer anons above would be willing to chat, would you please message me? I’m clerking next year and interested in Wilmer DC. Summered elsewhere. Would greatly appreciate unvarnished thoughts.

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

Midlevel at Wilmer, former clerk. I personally despise the culture. Very slow, very little investment in developing associate talent, overly restrictive ethics and publications policies, zero budget for events or team-building, most partners are very checked out, ideological monoculture, new office is way too cramped, way too many staff, everyone is “nice” but incredibly fake and apathetic, and the firm is insanely cheap and strict with lifestyle stuff. The work is generally interesting, but it’s biglaw so not that different from other good DC offices imo. I wish I was at a firm that had a little more energy frankly.

I'm at Wilmer, and while I disagree with some of what you're saying (I think the folks here are the opposite of fake/apathetic), a lot of it is a matter of perspective/preference. As the original quoted anon mentioned, Wilmer is not a highly social firm, which I find it refreshing because people pretty much universally recognize that you have a life outside of the firm (though some groups like IP/IP lit are closer knit, relatively speaking). It's sort of white shoe in the sense that your private life is your own - nobody asks about it unless you bring it up. I get how that can feel apathetic, but I take it as more of a respect/boundaries kind of thing. That's not to say I don't have good relationships with fellow associates/partners. I do, but it's because I've defined those relationships on my own terms rather than forming them out of fear for not fitting in. It sounds like you'd like something more, which is fine.

Your criticism re: being cheap is spot on though. I like that the firm is fiscally responsible, but they take it to a new level.

I actually think the firm invests a lot in associate talent. It's about as close to a meritocracy as you can find in biglaw, which means opportunities are there for those who seek them out.

The "overly restrictive ethics and publications policies" strikes me as an odd neg. From the litigation side, the firm is obsessed (in a good way) with credibility. That means we don't play dirty or fast/loose with the facts. Even though it sometimes feels restrictive, I'd much rather be at a firm that takes ethics to heart (I summered at one that didn't and I was miserable even as a summer).

Quoted midlevel anon. Agree it's a matter of perspective and preference. It seems like you are fine with a firm that is incredibly careful, old school, and conservative compared to peer firms. I totally respect that, and if that's what you're looking for, I think Wilmer delivers (and is better in many ways than other firms like Covington which have similar attributes, like good work but old-school, a relatively apathetic gov't vibe, and very cheap). I guess my overarching point is that there are pretty significant downsides for people who may want to be at a firm that has a more social culture, a more business-oriented mindset, a faster pace, and is slightly more innovative. I wasn't looking for a fratty culture, but my friends at other DC firms have a lot more partner engagement, many more events, many more perks, and a lot more of a vibe that they're working at a business where people really try to bring in business, grow practices, etc. Wilmer feels very staid and static in comparison.

I don't really know what you mean when you say they invest a lot in associate talent. We are notoriously slow to bring associates to client meetings, rarely let associates write things on their own (unlike other firms that have blogs that associates can regularly contribute to, etc), they are very restrictive about bringing in or handling your own pro bono, and overly supervise even competent counsel/senior associates on things they can handle by themselves. They are absolutely terrified of letting an associate write something or communicate externally on their own, which makes you feel consistently like a cog who can't develop your own professional identity. For people who have external ambitions (who the firm wants to recruit, since they sell themselves partly on their gov't and other exits) that can feel pretty depressing. This feature is worse from what I can tell than peers like W&C, Cov, Paul, Weiss, etc.

Yes, the work-life is pretty good here. Maybe I'm just too much of a gunner, but it has led me to feel pretty apathetic though. I can't really develop my own identity, I'm not really getting worked, so what is the point? It feels like I'm nearing retirement in my early 30s.

Original OP who introduced Wilmer in the thread. I'll grant you that the firm is traditional, and I can't deny that it was cheap and the lack of events (especially as the pandemic waned) was disappointing. But some of the substantive criticisms of the quality of work fall off the mark. For example, the idea that associates can't "write things on their own" is completely contrary to my experience. When I was a senior associate in appellate/GRL, almost my entire job was writing; and I'm not sure what you mean by "on their own," but my name was on briefs (or memos to client). If you mean that I did not author briefs entirely by myself without counsel, partner, or client feedback, of course not. Welcome to high-profile advocacy for paying clients at a large firm. If you're focused on non-litigation writing, I wrote client alerts and was given outside publication opportunities, and it seems like others on my teams did as well. I wasn't writing short stories for literary magazines, but I also don't have the talent for it.

Nor did I feel like I was being overhandled. Wilmer is not a litigation boutique; as another posted observed, they maintain their hierarchies and aren't throwing third-years into speaking roles at major trials. But I had significant autonomy as a 4th-6th year senior associate on my cases. As for client contact, that varied by partner and client, but my sense was that reluctance to include associates in certain client meetings was client-driven. I had plenty of direct contact with clients when the client was comfortable with it.

Wilmer is not a perfect firm, but I maintain as I said in the OP that it has a good culture for someone with a life outside work, who doesn't need her or his colleagues to be best friends, and who wants a high quality professional environment and opportunities without the all-consuming biglaw bullshit.

[RedNewJersey]

way too many staff

I'm puzzled and amused by this complaint. Too many secretaries, making the partners soft? The paralegals were too available for your taste? The janitors were always cleaning and then recleaning your office? IT fixed your problem too promptly, as if they had nothing better to do?

I could see a top-tier partner being annoyed about paying for too many staff rather than boosting PPP, but why is it a downside for anyone else?

[Anonymous User]

way too many staff

I'm puzzled and amused by this complaint. Too many secretaries, making the partners soft? The paralegals were too available for your taste? The janitors were always cleaning and then recleaning your office? IT fixed your problem too promptly, as if they had nothing better to do?

I could see a top-tier partner being annoyed about paying for too many staff rather than boosting PPP, but why is it a downside for anyone else?

Funny because Wilmer actually has a dearth of paralegals and pooled secretaries for under partners, as part of the aforementioned “cheap” nature of the firm. The complaint could refer to the practice management and support staff, who have what I’ve noticed might be more say than at some other firms where the lawyers treat them as back office.

[Anonymous User]

way too many staff

I'm puzzled and amused by this complaint. Too many secretaries, making the partners soft? The paralegals were too available for your taste? The janitors were always cleaning and then recleaning your office? IT fixed your problem too promptly, as if they had nothing better to do?

I could see a top-tier partner being annoyed about paying for too many staff rather than boosting PPP, but why is it a downside for anyone else?

Funny because Wilmer actually has a dearth of paralegals and pooled secretaries for under partners, as part of the aforementioned “cheap” nature of the firm. The complaint could refer to the practice management and support staff, who have what I’ve noticed might be more say than at some other firms where the lawyers treat them as back office.

We also have a bunch of project assistants, etc. who do the work literally nobody wants to do. I'm all for that, and some are better than our first years.

[Anonymous User]

What is the tea on Covington's D.C. office?

[Anonymous User]

Don't avoid Kirkland DC. I have many friends and mentors there (both first-year associates and partners) that are wonderful and really enjoy the firm. Kirkland also has a great remote policy and offers nice amenities and free lunch/breakfast if you choose to come in the office.

I would recommend avoiding Jones Day, Latham, Faegre Drinker, and Goodwin.

This is almost exactly backwards from what I've heard. Kirkland DC is known as a sweat shop. Latham DC has one of the best cultures, and Jones Day DC has a reputation as a low-intensity option for people willing to take a pay haircut at the mid/senior levels.

Seconded. The person who’s trying to steer you to Kirkland DC is not a reliable person.

Latham DC and Jones Day DC are just as much sweatshops as Kirkland DC. This is a classic example of Kirkland getting more hate than it deserves. In terms of tangible benefits, it is true that Kirkland still maintains a very flexible remote policy, and that the free lunch/breakfast that firms such as LATHAM decided to cut this year are still being offered at Kirkland. Everybody talks about Latham's "great culture" but cannot elaborate on what exactly this means in a meaningful manner that distinguishes it from other firms. Jones Day's black-box pay also sucks. If you have done a SCOTUS clerkship or if the firm thinks you have a chance of doing one (i.e. COA already locked down), it may be a better option than Kirkland and Latham because of the large clerkship bonus.

Well, this aged poorly

[Anonymous User]

What is the tea on Covington's D.C. office?

Collegial and humane, intellectual/nerdy, more introverted (polite and friendly but without pressure/expectation that your friends are your colleagues). Obviously this is broad strokes.

[Anonymous User]

I am a clerk looking to potentially switch firms post clerkship. I’m interested in litigation and my main goal is to find a firm with a manageable work-life balance (as much as you can attain that in biglaw) that has a decent remote work policy with nice people. I’ve been searching this forum and trying to do research but it’s hard to get good info. Does anyone have tips on which firms to target and which to avoid? I don’t really care about prestige. From what I can tell it seems like Orrick and O’Melveny might be good options? I’m interested specifically in doing either a mix of appellate and commercial lit or else going into white collar/investigations.

I was actually shocked by the collegiality at Gibson D.C. -- not in a weird vault/chambers kind of way, but just that people are actually so very nice from HR to the partners I've been working with, including the group head. Really recommend if you're looking in D.C. -- a hidden gem. Interview is a total gauntlet though.

[Anonymous User]

I am a clerk looking to potentially switch firms post clerkship. I’m interested in litigation and my main goal is to find a firm with a manageable work-life balance (as much as you can attain that in biglaw) that has a decent remote work policy with nice people. I’ve been searching this forum and trying to do research but it’s hard to get good info. Does anyone have tips on which firms to target and which to avoid? I don’t really care about prestige. From what I can tell it seems like Orrick and O’Melveny might be good options? I’m interested specifically in doing either a mix of appellate and commercial lit or else going into white collar/investigations.

I was actually shocked by the collegiality at Gibson D.C. -- not in a weird vault/chambers kind of way, but just that people are actually so very nice from HR to the partners I've been working with, including the group head. Really recommend if you're looking in D.C. -- a hidden gem. Interview is a total gauntlet though.

I spent two years there before getting a job in government and had an overall very good experience at Gibson DC. I worked less than lots of my other friends at DC firms, had very interesting work, and liked most of the people I worked with. I got recruiter emails almost every day but never once thought seriously about leaving Gibson for another biglaw firm.

[Anonymous User]

Is the Kellogg culture as bad as everyone says?

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

Wait a second - which firm is the so-called models and bottles shop? I don’t believe such a thing exists.

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

Wait a second - which firm is the so-called models and bottles shop? I don’t believe such a thing exists.

That's a NY thing, but DC isn't a city the hardest partiers in law school will self-select to.

[Anonymous User]

If you can land a job there, Wilmer has a compelling combination of positive culture (for large firms) and excellent work. As with anything, this can be group dependent, and I can only speak to the litigation/controversy and regulatory side. Wilmer is not a firm for cultivating a high-intensity social environment; it’s not a daily-happy-hour-with-colleagues, models & bottles shop, but most folks are respectful of a balance of personal life and professional, fairly laid back on remote work (although I can’t speak to the environment at the new offices), and genuinely collegial. If you have small kids, that’s all you can really ask.

Wait a second - which firm is the so-called models and bottles shop? I don’t believe such a thing exists.

That's a NY thing, but DC isn't a city the hardest partiers in law school will self-select to.

Yeah agreed. Skadden DC is very much still Skadden but they're probably the one exception. Even my summer associate events (not @ Skadden) were about as PG and family-friendly as it gets. The party scene here isn't that great anyway, the whole vibe of DC feels pretty staid.