Los Angeles Market Associates Taking Questions Forum

[lolwat]

Also they're still a decent sized firm (over 2x Hueston and like 10x Susman). When someone thinks of the best litigation places in LA they're not thinking about Dovel or Susman because the question almost always means "biglaw-sized office" and not "hyper prestigious boutique with <20 attorneys." (Yes, Susman has more outside of LA, but that's not relevant). Hueston is somewhat in the same boat - they're bigger than Dovel, but they're still more comparable to Bird Marella and, formerly, Caldwell Leslie, than they are to a GIbson Dunn. Not that they don't have elite talent, but they're still more on the boutique-y side than the full service side.

As an LA-based litigator, I honestly think some of the distinctions ITT are overblown. I think Munger and maybe Gibson are considered a notch above, but after that, you have a mess of firms like Quinn, Irell, Latham, and O'Melveny - big firms that have been here for a while and are reasonably all-around prestigious. Depending on the type of lit you want different ones will be "best." For entertainment lit it might be O'Melveny CC, for patent, Irell, etc... and yes, boutiques and tiny biglaw offices fit into the equation as well, e.g. Hueston for white collar-ish lit or Sullivan for giant securities / financial work.

Figuring out the sub-specialty of lit you want is going to be pretty determinative of what your rankings look like. If you can't decide or for some reason you just want general commercial, I'd probably advise going to one of the bigger firms (so Latham/Gibson/Quinn/OMM) and just hoping for the best.

Any thoughts on appellate lit, just for fun? Gibson and Munger obviously still being at the top of the pack.

I agree mostly with the above, by the way. My impression here though is that there are some big firms that are healthier than others. Irell is still prestigious in name, but I feel it's gone a little downhill from, let's say 8 years ago. KBK and HH departures weren't just a couple people leaving to do their own thing, they're pretty significant departures in terms of both quality and number of partners/associates and I think even staff. And the fact Irell made an exception to their mandatory retirement age for Morgan Chu, I think, shows how much they rely on him for their patent litigation business. I think they'd survive without him, but they'd take a huge hit, so for somebody looking at whether to join Irell I think that has to be a consideration. Quinn Emanuel, as terrible as their culture and hours are (at least in reputation), seems pretty healthy as a firm here. And LA is where John Quinn is, I think.

Some asides: Susman's LA office has doubled in size from a few years ago, I think. And Caldwell Leslie got absorbed by Boies Schiller, so I'm not sure if we now consider that "biglaw" or if it's still a boutique-y place.

[Anonymous User]

Could you speak to these tiers in LA biglaw in regards to lit? What is the culture like in the lit departments of the major players?

I'll need to let someone else chime in on this. But, from my experience, top tier is going to be Munger, irell, Latham, Quinn, Sidley, GDC. Probably missing a few.

Also depends what kind of lit you want to be doing--IP, appellate, insurance, complex corporate, white collar, labor/employment. Will be vastly different depending on type.

For a young associate I'd put Munger in its own tier at the top (uber elite with unsurpassed opportunities for young attorneys), followed by GDC and Irell, although this could possibly change if you're dead set on one practice area. Quinn also does interesting work, although I've heard not-so-great things about the culture there.

I'm not sure why people keep including Irell in top lit shop lists. Don't get me wrong, its still a great firm, but its not 2015, and prospective summers should probably only consider Irell if they want to do IP lit.

In terms of elite lit shops in LA, I would say Susman/Hueston/Munger/Gibson are in the top tier, maybe also throwing in a couple other LA biglaw firms (e.g., Latham). If you are talking about individual niche areas in litigation, however, the top tiers will shift wildly. (e.g., Gibson is in a league of its own for appellate, etc.)

The fact that Irell was number one on the American Lawyer's A-list last year is probably a big, fairly legitimate reason. I'd certainly take them over Latham.

Also they're still a decent sized firm (over 2x Hueston and like 10x Susman). When someone thinks of the best litigation places in LA they're not thinking about Dovel or Susman because the question almost always means "biglaw-sized office" and not "hyper prestigious boutique with <20 attorneys." (Yes, Susman has more outside of LA, but that's not relevant). Hueston is somewhat in the same boat - they're bigger than Dovel, but they're still more comparable to Bird Marella and, formerly, Caldwell Leslie, than they are to a GIbson Dunn. Not that they don't have elite talent, but they're still more on the boutique-y side than the full service side.

As an LA-based litigator, I honestly think some of the distinctions ITT are overblown. I think Munger and maybe Gibson are considered a notch above, but after that, you have a mess of firms like Quinn, Irell, Latham, and O'Melveny - big firms that have been here for a while and are reasonably all-around prestigious. Depending on the type of lit you want different ones will be "best." For entertainment lit it might be O'Melveny CC, for patent, Irell, etc... and yes, boutiques and tiny biglaw offices fit into the equation as well, e.g. Hueston for white collar-ish lit or Sullivan for giant securities / financial work.

Figuring out the sub-specialty of lit you want is going to be pretty determinative of what your rankings look like. If you can't decide or for some reason you just want general commercial, I'd probably advise going to one of the bigger firms (so Latham/Gibson/Quinn/OMM) and just hoping for the best.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. Very informative thread. For someone definitely interested in litigation but unsure of what sub-specialty within litigation, how would you distinguish between OMM, GDC, and Latham in LA? In terms of culture, exit opportunities, exposure to substantive work, and any other considerations relevant to a jr lit associate

[Anonymous User]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

[SmokeytheBear]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

Milbank, Proskauer for sure.

[Anonymous User]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

Milbank, Proskauer for sure.

I think you may have read that wrong since those are firms that are heavily into finance and restructuring. I'm looking for the opposite

[SmokeytheBear]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

Milbank, Proskauer for sure.

I think you may have read that wrong since those are firms that are heavily into finance and restructuring. I'm looking for the opposite

Ah yeah my bad.

Correct that retail structuring will be nuts this year.

So are you saying you're looking to lateral?

I think any office in LA is going to have broader practice than just finance/restructuring. I can think of seven or eight offices off the top of my head that have a bread and butter M&A practice.

My group usually does more healthy capital markets, M&A, and corporate governance work, but we're finding ourselves pulled into more restructuring now than usual. Just gotta follow the cycle.

[Anonymous User]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

Milbank, Proskauer for sure.

I think you may have read that wrong since those are firms that are heavily into finance and restructuring. I'm looking for the opposite

Ah yeah my bad.

Correct that retail structuring will be nuts this year.

So are you saying you're looking to lateral?

I think any office in LA is going to have broader practice than just finance/restructuring. I can think of seven or eight offices off the top of my head that have a bread and butter M&A practice.

My group usually does more healthy capital markets, M&A, and corporate governance work, but we're finding ourselves pulled into more restructuring now than usual. Just gotta follow the cycle.

Yeah, considering lateralling. Do you know if Proskauer has a discrete PE M&A group or are juniors general?

[SmokeytheBear]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

Milbank, Proskauer for sure.

I think you may have read that wrong since those are firms that are heavily into finance and restructuring. I'm looking for the opposite

Ah yeah my bad.

Correct that retail structuring will be nuts this year.

So are you saying you're looking to lateral?

I think any office in LA is going to have broader practice than just finance/restructuring. I can think of seven or eight offices off the top of my head that have a bread and butter M&A practice.

My group usually does more healthy capital markets, M&A, and corporate governance work, but we're finding ourselves pulled into more restructuring now than usual. Just gotta follow the cycle.

Yeah, considering lateralling. Do you know if Proskauer has a discrete PE M&A group or are juniors general?

I don't believe that they do. A discrete PE M&A group is hard to build out, especially in LA (with several firms trying and failing; Goodwin Proctor is currently trying to do it).

What year are you?

[Anonymous User]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

Milbank, Proskauer for sure.

I think you may have read that wrong since those are firms that are heavily into finance and restructuring. I'm looking for the opposite

Ah yeah my bad.

Correct that retail structuring will be nuts this year.

So are you saying you're looking to lateral?

I think any office in LA is going to have broader practice than just finance/restructuring. I can think of seven or eight offices off the top of my head that have a bread and butter M&A practice.

My group usually does more healthy capital markets, M&A, and corporate governance work, but we're finding ourselves pulled into more restructuring now than usual. Just gotta follow the cycle.

Yeah, considering lateralling. Do you know if Proskauer has a discrete PE M&A group or are juniors general?

I don't believe that they do. A discrete PE M&A group is hard to build out, especially in LA (with several firms trying and failing; Goodwin Proctor is currently trying to do it).

What year are you?

1st

[SmokeytheBear]

Back to corporate, what firms aren't finance/restructuring heavy? My firm is and I don't think I'm terribly interested in the work that derives from it and maybe should make a move. Especially in light of all these retail restructurings, I'm sure a lot of work will come from those.

Milbank, Proskauer for sure.

I think you may have read that wrong since those are firms that are heavily into finance and restructuring. I'm looking for the opposite

Ah yeah my bad.

Correct that retail structuring will be nuts this year.

So are you saying you're looking to lateral?

I think any office in LA is going to have broader practice than just finance/restructuring. I can think of seven or eight offices off the top of my head that have a bread and butter M&A practice.

My group usually does more healthy capital markets, M&A, and corporate governance work, but we're finding ourselves pulled into more restructuring now than usual. Just gotta follow the cycle.

Yeah, considering lateralling. Do you know if Proskauer has a discrete PE M&A group or are juniors general?

I don't believe that they do. A discrete PE M&A group is hard to build out, especially in LA (with several firms trying and failing; Goodwin Proctor is currently trying to do it).

What year are you?

1st

Yeah you'll need a little while to become marketable. I do know of at least one firm that just hired a first year lateral for their corporate group, but he had top credentials.

The midlevel market right now for laterals is super fire in LA. Just wait it out. The restructurings will also pass.

[Anonymous User]

Also they're still a decent sized firm (over 2x Hueston and like 10x Susman). When someone thinks of the best litigation places in LA they're not thinking about Dovel or Susman because the question almost always means "biglaw-sized office" and not "hyper prestigious boutique with <20 attorneys." (Yes, Susman has more outside of LA, but that's not relevant). Hueston is somewhat in the same boat - they're bigger than Dovel, but they're still more comparable to Bird Marella and, formerly, Caldwell Leslie, than they are to a GIbson Dunn. Not that they don't have elite talent, but they're still more on the boutique-y side than the full service side.

As an LA-based litigator, I honestly think some of the distinctions ITT are overblown. I think Munger and maybe Gibson are considered a notch above, but after that, you have a mess of firms like Quinn, Irell, Latham, and O'Melveny - big firms that have been here for a while and are reasonably all-around prestigious. Depending on the type of lit you want different ones will be "best." For entertainment lit it might be O'Melveny CC, for patent, Irell, etc... and yes, boutiques and tiny biglaw offices fit into the equation as well, e.g. Hueston for white collar-ish lit or Sullivan for giant securities / financial work.

Figuring out the sub-specialty of lit you want is going to be pretty determinative of what your rankings look like. If you can't decide or for some reason you just want general commercial, I'd probably advise going to one of the bigger firms (so Latham/Gibson/Quinn/OMM) and just hoping for the best.

Any thoughts on appellate lit, just for fun? Gibson and Munger obviously still being at the top of the pack.

I agree mostly with the above, by the way. My impression here though is that there are some big firms that are healthier than others. Irell is still prestigious in name, but I feel it's gone a little downhill from, let's say 8 years ago. KBK and HH departures weren't just a couple people leaving to do their own thing, they're pretty significant departures in terms of both quality and number of partners/associates and I think even staff. And the fact Irell made an exception to their mandatory retirement age for Morgan Chu, I think, shows how much they rely on him for their patent litigation business. I think they'd survive without him, but they'd take a huge hit, so for somebody looking at whether to join Irell I think that has to be a consideration. Quinn Emanuel, as terrible as their culture and hours are (at least in reputation), seems pretty healthy as a firm here. And LA is where John Quinn is, I think.

Some asides: Susman's LA office has doubled in size from a few years ago, I think. And Caldwell Leslie got absorbed by Boies Schiller, so I'm not sure if we now consider that "biglaw" or if it's still a boutique-y place.

Anon you replied to here.

I don't necessarily disagree. Part of the issue is defining "best." The perspective changes if you're a 1L vs a lateral vs someone just looking for a vault-esque overall set of rankings based on no real formula or perspective.

For appellate lit in general I have no idea. I'm not even sure Gibson and Munger (my two immediate guesses) have full time LA-based appellate associates, or if they do it's only a handful. There are specialty appellate boutiques (e.g. Horvitz & Levy), but I'm not sure how you get in aside from being at the right place at the right time, as is often the case with smaller boutiques. Honestly, if someone is after a full time appellate practice the place to be is DC. That being said, a lot of groups in LA handle their own appeals without farming them out to an appellate group, so if you're in the right practice area you should get some exposure to it naturally. It will just be difficult to be an appeals-only attorney.

[SmokeytheBear]

Also they're still a decent sized firm (over 2x Hueston and like 10x Susman). When someone thinks of the best litigation places in LA they're not thinking about Dovel or Susman because the question almost always means "biglaw-sized office" and not "hyper prestigious boutique with <20 attorneys." (Yes, Susman has more outside of LA, but that's not relevant). Hueston is somewhat in the same boat - they're bigger than Dovel, but they're still more comparable to Bird Marella and, formerly, Caldwell Leslie, than they are to a GIbson Dunn. Not that they don't have elite talent, but they're still more on the boutique-y side than the full service side.

As an LA-based litigator, I honestly think some of the distinctions ITT are overblown. I think Munger and maybe Gibson are considered a notch above, but after that, you have a mess of firms like Quinn, Irell, Latham, and O'Melveny - big firms that have been here for a while and are reasonably all-around prestigious. Depending on the type of lit you want different ones will be "best." For entertainment lit it might be O'Melveny CC, for patent, Irell, etc... and yes, boutiques and tiny biglaw offices fit into the equation as well, e.g. Hueston for white collar-ish lit or Sullivan for giant securities / financial work.

Figuring out the sub-specialty of lit you want is going to be pretty determinative of what your rankings look like. If you can't decide or for some reason you just want general commercial, I'd probably advise going to one of the bigger firms (so Latham/Gibson/Quinn/OMM) and just hoping for the best.

Any thoughts on appellate lit, just for fun? Gibson and Munger obviously still being at the top of the pack.

I agree mostly with the above, by the way. My impression here though is that there are some big firms that are healthier than others. Irell is still prestigious in name, but I feel it's gone a little downhill from, let's say 8 years ago. KBK and HH departures weren't just a couple people leaving to do their own thing, they're pretty significant departures in terms of both quality and number of partners/associates and I think even staff. And the fact Irell made an exception to their mandatory retirement age for Morgan Chu, I think, shows how much they rely on him for their patent litigation business. I think they'd survive without him, but they'd take a huge hit, so for somebody looking at whether to join Irell I think that has to be a consideration. Quinn Emanuel, as terrible as their culture and hours are (at least in reputation), seems pretty healthy as a firm here. And LA is where John Quinn is, I think.

Some asides: Susman's LA office has doubled in size from a few years ago, I think. And Caldwell Leslie got absorbed by Boies Schiller, so I'm not sure if we now consider that "biglaw" or if it's still a boutique-y place.

Anon you replied to here.

I don't necessarily disagree. Part of the issue is defining "best." The perspective changes if you're a 1L vs a lateral vs someone just looking for a vault-esque overall set of rankings based on no real formula or perspective.

For appellate lit in general I have no idea. I'm not even sure Gibson and Munger (my two immediate guesses) have full time LA-based appellate associates, or if they do it's only a handful. There are specialty appellate boutiques (e.g. Horvitz & Levy), but I'm not sure how you get in aside from being at the right place at the right time, as is often the case with smaller boutiques. Honestly, if someone is after a full time appellate practice the place to be is DC. That being said, a lot of groups in LA handle their own appeals without farming them out to an appellate group, so if you're in the right practice area you should get some exposure to it naturally. It will just be difficult to be an appeals-only attorney.

For example, I know someone at Sidley LA who does appellate.

[Anonymous User]

any particular vault-ranked biglaw firms to avoid in LA?

in terms of financial stability/no-offer rates/etc.

[SmokeytheBear]

any particular vault-ranked biglaw firms to avoid in LA?

in terms of financial stability/no-offer rates/etc.

So far people have said avoid Paul Hastings corporate group.

I've had various partners opine that OMM is having financial issues.

There seems to be chatter that Norton no offers people.

[Anonymous User]

any particular vault-ranked biglaw firms to avoid in LA?

in terms of financial stability/no-offer rates/etc.

So far people have said avoid Paul Hastings corporate group.

I've had various partners opine that OMM is having financial issues.

There seems to be chatter that Norton no offers people.

people also mentioned pillsbury/kirkland/reed smith to avoid for the matter of assholes, but would those still be safe/prudent to work for in the sense of a career choice?

[SmokeytheBear]

any particular vault-ranked biglaw firms to avoid in LA?

in terms of financial stability/no-offer rates/etc.

So far people have said avoid Paul Hastings corporate group.

I've had various partners opine that OMM is having financial issues.

There seems to be chatter that Norton no offers people.

people also mentioned pillsbury/kirkland/reed smith to avoid for the matter of assholes, but would those still be safe/prudent to work for in the sense of a career choice?

Yeah Kirkland for sure (though you're going to work your ass off). Can't speak to Pillsbury or Reed Smith. I seem to recall that people hate Pillsbury's bonus policy and their slow playing $180k.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know about APKS LA? I heard it's much smaller than their SF SV offices though.

[SmokeytheBear]

Anyone know about APKS LA? I heard it's much smaller than their SF SV offices though.

You can find out the size by looking on their website or linked in. What do you want to know about the office?

[Anonymous User]

Know anything about Loeb? They seem to do cool entertainment/IPO/related M&A work but obviously not traditional biglaw. Is it worth leaving as a junior at a V50 firm? Or will that close a bunch of doors for eventual in house exits?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know about APKS LA? I heard it's much smaller than their SF SV offices though.

You can find out the size by looking on their website or linked in. What do you want to know about the office?

Their NALP doesn't list numbers if I recall correctly for some strange reason. But from their website seems around 30-40 attorneys, mostly lit and IP work. Just wondering if their size hits them in the prestige area at all, and if I should avoid them if I'm also interested in trying to do some transactional work. Also if you have insight into if they're having anytroubles like some of the other firms mentioned, that'd be great as well. Thanks for taking time to help out!

[SmokeytheBear]

Anyone know about APKS LA? I heard it's much smaller than their SF SV offices though.

You can find out the size by looking on their website or linked in. What do you want to know about the office?

Their NALP doesn't list numbers if I recall correctly for some strange reason. But from their website seems around 30-40 attorneys, mostly lit and IP work. Just wondering if their size hits them in the prestige area at all, and if I should avoid them if I'm also interested in trying to do some transactional work. Also if you have insight into if they're having anytroubles like some of the other firms mentioned, that'd be great as well. Thanks for taking time to help out!

They are a prestigious shop, that's for sure, but they aren't one of the big players in LA. Both firms (AP and KS) had sluggish financials generally, but I can't speak to the financials of that office. You shouldn't avoid them if you're interested in transactional, but you need to spend some time on their website looking at the partners in that office to figure out how much, if any, transactional they do in LA.

[SmokeytheBear]

Know anything about Loeb? They seem to do cool entertainment/IPO/related M&A work but obviously not traditional biglaw. Is it worth leaving as a junior at a V50 firm? Or will that close a bunch of doors for eventual in house exits?

Correct, not traditional big law, but a good firm.

My impression from my discussions with people there and around LA is that they do entertainment, but they aren't as big of a player as Latham, OMM, Sheppard Mullin, or even Manatt.

I wouldn't leave your V50 unless you work for someone horrible or are trying to switch groups. PM me if you want to discuss more.

[KM2016]

any particular vault-ranked biglaw firms to avoid in LA?

in terms of financial stability/no-offer rates/etc.

So far people have said avoid Paul Hastings corporate group.

I've had various partners opine that OMM is having financial issues.

There seems to be chatter that Norton no offers people.

people also mentioned pillsbury/kirkland/reed smith to avoid for the matter of assholes, but would those still be safe/prudent to work for in the sense of a career choice?

Yeah Kirkland for sure (though you're going to work your ass off). Can't speak to Pillsbury or Reed Smith. I seem to recall that people hate Pillsbury's bonus policy and their slow playing $180k.

Definitely avoid PH if you can for an abundance of reasons. I have also heard the OMM rumors re their financials, but don't know that it has affected offer rates/job security (yet). Reed Smith has a morale problem, and both of my friends there are actively looking to get out. Smokey is right about Pillsbury; they're cheap. Norton, like Reed Smith and Pillsbury, is kind of TTT.

[Anonymous User]

any particular vault-ranked biglaw firms to avoid in LA?

in terms of financial stability/no-offer rates/etc.

So far people have said avoid Paul Hastings corporate group.

I've had various partners opine that OMM is having financial issues.

There seems to be chatter that Norton no offers people.

people also mentioned pillsbury/kirkland/reed smith to avoid for the matter of assholes, but would those still be safe/prudent to work for in the sense of a career choice?

Yeah Kirkland for sure (though you're going to work your ass off). Can't speak to Pillsbury or Reed Smith. I seem to recall that people hate Pillsbury's bonus policy and their slow playing $180k.

Definitely avoid PH if you can for an abundance of reasons. I have also heard the OMM rumors re their financials, but don't know that it has affected offer rates/job security (yet). Reed Smith has a morale problem, and both of my friends there are actively looking to get out. Smokey is right about Pillsbury; they're cheap. Norton, like Reed Smith and Pillsbury, is kind of TTT.

OMM downtown is healthy to my knowledge. Unaware of other offices. I have friends at PH and they echo that it's not a great atmosphere.

[Anonymous User]

any particular vault-ranked biglaw firms to avoid in LA?

in terms of financial stability/no-offer rates/etc.

So far people have said avoid Paul Hastings corporate group.

I've had various partners opine that OMM is having financial issues.

There seems to be chatter that Norton no offers people.

people also mentioned pillsbury/kirkland/reed smith to avoid for the matter of assholes, but would those still be safe/prudent to work for in the sense of a career choice?

Yeah Kirkland for sure (though you're going to work your ass off). Can't speak to Pillsbury or Reed Smith. I seem to recall that people hate Pillsbury's bonus policy and their slow playing $180k.

Definitely avoid PH if you can for an abundance of reasons. I have also heard the OMM rumors re their financials, but don't know that it has affected offer rates/job security (yet). Reed Smith has a morale problem, and both of my friends there are actively looking to get out. Smokey is right about Pillsbury; they're cheap. Norton, like Reed Smith and Pillsbury, is kind of TTT.

Can you elaborate on the reasons to avoid PH?