Wilmer DC vs. W&C Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interested in litigation broadly. I keep hearing W&C is the obvious choice but I think I might be interested in government work one day and Wilmer seems to have unbeatable connections.

[Anonymous User]

I would pick Wilmer in your shoes for the reason you said. It’s also consistent with my experience with certain DOJ offices—Wilmer was #1 feeder.

[Anonymous User]

Don't get me wrong W&C is a great choice and easily a top DC litigation firm, but I often get the impression in online forums and among 1Ls/2Ls that it is vastly overrated. I don't see it really as the obvious top elite DC firm towering above the others in the way I would see a place like Susman for lit in New York or Wachtell for corporate in New York being. This is all to say that I think Wilmer is a good choice for you.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t have much to say about W&C. But as far as Wilmer goes, they do have very solid govt connections. And from personal experience, partners are supportive of upper/midlevels who express an interest in going into govt. Most will try to help you get there and won’t prematurely torpedo your caseload.

[Anonymous User]

I have friends at both firms. Both are great options to have, and you should feel comfortable making the decision based on fit, or other factors beyond "preftige." (A few years ago, I would have advised you to just go entirely based on fit for a summer position, but with the way the plan is affecting clerkship hiring timelines, there's a real chance you'll be at the place you summer for a year or two after law school.)

I think if you're looking for a firm to set you up to go into government and then back to biglaw, Wilmer is probably the better option. (I'm sure you got the pitch during OCI, but W&C will not let you come back to the firm if you leave to go work at DOJ). That's not to say the alumni network isn't great--there were lots of W&C alums at the DOJ branch I spent a summer at--but the institutional support isn't as strong to help you make the jump for a few years.

If I were picking a firm to try and stick around for a while, I would probably go with W&C for the lower leverage ratio (and, I hear, relatively realistic path to partnership, which is the tradeoff for the lower compensation as a senior associate). Even though they're pretty much a mid-sized law firm now, they tend to run their matters more like a boutique with smaller teams, so you'll probably have a bit more interesting/"substantive" work to do as a junior (with the tradeoff that the hours seem to be worse than Wilmer/Covington/etc but better than a place like Kellogg).

[Anonymous User]

I have friends at both firms. Both are great options to have, and you should feel comfortable making the decision based on fit, or other factors beyond "preftige." (A few years ago, I would have advised you to just go entirely based on fit for a summer position, but with the way the plan is affecting clerkship hiring timelines, there's a real chance you'll be at the place you summer for a year or two after law school.)

I think if you're looking for a firm to set you up to go into government and then back to biglaw, Wilmer is probably the better option. (I'm sure you got the pitch during OCI, but W&C will not let you come back to the firm if you leave to go work at DOJ). That's not to say the alumni network isn't great--there were lots of W&C alums at the DOJ branch I spent a summer at--but the institutional support isn't as strong to help you make the jump for a few years.

If I were picking a firm to try and stick around for a while, I would probably go with W&C for the lower leverage ratio (and, I hear, relatively realistic path to partnership, which is the tradeoff for the lower compensation as a senior associate). Even though they're pretty much a mid-sized law firm now, they tend to run their matters more like a boutique with smaller teams, so you'll probably have a bit more interesting/"substantive" work to do as a junior (with the tradeoff that the hours seem to be worse than Wilmer/Covington/etc but better than a place like Kellogg).

Whats the basis for W&C not letting DOJ attorneys come back to the firm? I haven't heard that before.

[Anonymous User]

I have friends at both firms. Both are great options to have, and you should feel comfortable making the decision based on fit, or other factors beyond "preftige." (A few years ago, I would have advised you to just go entirely based on fit for a summer position, but with the way the plan is affecting clerkship hiring timelines, there's a real chance you'll be at the place you summer for a year or two after law school.)

I think if you're looking for a firm to set you up to go into government and then back to biglaw, Wilmer is probably the better option. (I'm sure you got the pitch during OCI, but W&C will not let you come back to the firm if you leave to go work at DOJ). That's not to say the alumni network isn't great--there were lots of W&C alums at the DOJ branch I spent a summer at--but the institutional support isn't as strong to help you make the jump for a few years.

If I were picking a firm to try and stick around for a while, I would probably go with W&C for the lower leverage ratio (and, I hear, relatively realistic path to partnership, which is the tradeoff for the lower compensation as a senior associate). Even though they're pretty much a mid-sized law firm now, they tend to run their matters more like a boutique with smaller teams, so you'll probably have a bit more interesting/"substantive" work to do as a junior (with the tradeoff that the hours seem to be worse than Wilmer/Covington/etc but better than a place like Kellogg).

Whats the basis for W&C not letting DOJ attorneys come back to the firm? I haven't heard that before.

That traditionally was true of W&C, in the sense that it does not have lateral partners and did not take *anyone* back from *anywhere*. This has been relaxed more recently, and lawyers have returned to the firm from, e.g., DOJ, Google, the CFPB, etc., but as counsels on the partner track. (W&C does not really have counsels otherwise--unlike Wilmer, it does not promote everyone at the 6th or so year to that title.) Some of those counsels have gone on to make partner and others eventually have left. It is true that W&C does not have the robust revolving door of other DC firms and so does not have as much natural support for jumping to government as a place like Wilmer, but it also isn't actively anti-government and will take its former associates back.

(Source: am a former W&C associate currently working in a political role. Was told when leaving that the firm would be happy to have me back, though I don't assume that I could come back as a partner in ten years or anything.)

[Anonymous User]

I have friends at both firms. Both are great options to have, and you should feel comfortable making the decision based on fit, or other factors beyond "preftige." (A few years ago, I would have advised you to just go entirely based on fit for a summer position, but with the way the plan is affecting clerkship hiring timelines, there's a real chance you'll be at the place you summer for a year or two after law school.)

I think if you're looking for a firm to set you up to go into government and then back to biglaw, Wilmer is probably the better option. (I'm sure you got the pitch during OCI, but W&C will not let you come back to the firm if you leave to go work at DOJ). That's not to say the alumni network isn't great--there were lots of W&C alums at the DOJ branch I spent a summer at--but the institutional support isn't as strong to help you make the jump for a few years.

If I were picking a firm to try and stick around for a while, I would probably go with W&C for the lower leverage ratio (and, I hear, relatively realistic path to partnership, which is the tradeoff for the lower compensation as a senior associate). Even though they're pretty much a mid-sized law firm now, they tend to run their matters more like a boutique with smaller teams, so you'll probably have a bit more interesting/"substantive" work to do as a junior (with the tradeoff that the hours seem to be worse than Wilmer/Covington/etc but better than a place like Kellogg).

Whats the basis for W&C not letting DOJ attorneys come back to the firm? I haven't heard that before.

That traditionally was true of W&C, in the sense that it does not have lateral partners and did not take *anyone* back from *anywhere*. This has been relaxed more recently, and lawyers have returned to the firm from, e.g., DOJ, Google, the CFPB, etc., but as counsels on the partner track. (W&C does not really have counsels otherwise--unlike Wilmer, it does not promote everyone at the 6th or so year to that title.) Some of those counsels have gone on to make partner and others eventually have left. It is true that W&C does not have the robust revolving door of other DC firms and so does not have as much natural support for jumping to government as a place like Wilmer, but it also isn't actively anti-government and will take its former associates back.

(Source: am a former W&C associate currently working in a political role. Was told when leaving that the firm would be happy to have me back, though I don't assume that I could come back as a partner in ten years or anything.)

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that insight.

[Anonymous User]

This has been relaxed more recently, and lawyers have returned to the firm from, e.g., DOJ, Google, the CFPB, etc., but as counsels on the partner track. (W&C does not really have counsels otherwise--unlike Wilmer, it does not promote everyone at the 6th or so year to that title.) Some of those counsels have gone on to make partner and others eventually have left.

To be clear, Wilmer's "counsels" are basically just associates past Y7 (not unlike how K&E calls it's 7th years and up partners). "Counsel" is not a long term/permanent non-partner role at Wilmer like it is at other firms. Wilmer uses the title "Special Counsel" for that.

Edit: grammar.