SF Litigation Market Forum

[Anonymous User]

Coming from out-of-state and trying to get a better picture of the SF litigation lateral market. Making partner would be cool, but the short-term goal is to get the best trial experience possible to build toward an exit as an AUSA.

What are the differences in experience between an MTO/KVP/Durie-style litigation boutique and a Quinn/Covington/Gibson/Latham/Orrick/Sidley-style national firm, with prominent SF offices? Do these different firm types offer different exit options?

Also, within the SF litigation market is there a clear hierarchy among firms or are they all doing similar work (e.g. IP litigation, with maybe some white-collar work mixed in) or do some firms have different specialties?

Would appreciate any insight on the topic.

[20181989]

Anon, PM me if you want.

[Anonymous User]

What year are you?

If what you're looking for is courtroom experience, you're far more likely to get that at Munger and Keker. But the Munger SF office is very small (and very selective). Munger I'd categorize as more general litigation, which includes trial and appellate work; Keker I'd categorize more as trial lawyers.The trials you'll do at Munger won't just occur in Northern California, whereas at Keker you'll be doing trials in San Jose or San Francisco.

The courtroom experience you'll get at the other firms you list will vary widely by your year and your practice group. Though there are judges now in the Northern District that strongly prefer to see younger attorneys arguing motions (and don't take kindly to firms who don't spread the opportunities) whether that's really moving the needle much I can't say.

Did you clerk? I think I can probably count on one hand the number of people in SF who work at Munger SF and Keker that didn't clerk.

[Anonymous User]

What year are you?

If what you're looking for is courtroom experience, you're far more likely to get that at Munger and Keker. But the Munger SF office is very small (and very selective). Munger I'd categorize as more general litigation, which includes trial and appellate work; Keker I'd categorize more as trial lawyers.The trials you'll do at Munger won't just occur in Northern California, whereas at Keker you'll be doing trials in San Jose or San Francisco.

The courtroom experience you'll get at the other firms you list will vary widely by your year and your practice group. Though there are judges now in the Northern District that strongly prefer to see younger attorneys arguing motions (and don't take kindly to firms who don't spread the opportunities) whether that's really moving the needle much I can't say.

Did you clerk? I think I can probably count on one hand the number of people in SF who work at Munger SF and Keker that didn't clerk.

OP Here: I clerked D.Ct/COA + 1 yr big law. From what I can tell from the associate profiles from my alma mater, my stats would put me in the conversation for Munger and Keker.

[Anonymous User]

As a Bay Area biglaw litigator, I have not seen much movement in my cases personally (whether from my firm or opposing counsel) as to associate in-court opportunities that has resulted from the advocacy of certain N.D. Cal. federal judges, with three exceptions:

- Occasionally an associate will be allowed to argue part or all of a motion to dismiss (usually part, and often not the most compelling part).
- Associates may be allowed to argue some smaller discovery motions (to compel, for a protective order, etc.)
- Associates are allowed to argue some of the pre-trial motions in limine on less central issues.

Most of these things were already happening to some extent, but the judges' preferences do come up in conversations regarding how to staff these types of arguments. If other local folks have seen more movement towards letting associates appear in court on their cases based on the efforts of these judges, I'm really interested to hear it.