Cooper & Kirk vs Consovoy McCarthy vs Clement & Murphy Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have a sense of the differences between these three firms? In terms of the work they do, the kinds of people and credentials they're looking for, the ideological bent they have culturally, the prestige/connections in conservative legal circles, etc?

[Anonymous User]

the kinds of people

Bad ones

credentials they're looking for

Good ones

[Anonymous User]

the ideological bent they have

it is my understanding that they are conservative

[Anonymous User]

the kinds of people

Bad ones

Care to explain?

[RedNewJersey]

Anyone have a sense of the differences between these three firms? In terms of the work they do, the kinds of people and credentials they're looking for, the ideological bent they have culturally, the prestige/connections in conservative legal circles, etc?

Clement & Murphy is the newest, and most distinctive. They do essentially all appellate work. That's incredibly rare. They do mostly normal commercial stuff (Viking River Cruise, NetChoice appeal, representing 3M in connection with their earplugs and bankruptcy appeals), but also some gun and religious liberty stuff (Bruen, Kennedy v. Bremerton, US v. Brown). I have not seen them do any nuclear-level hot-button political stuff (pro-life cases, transgender cases, affirmative action cases, election law cases, etc.).

Consovoy does the hottest of the hot button stuff: affirmative action cases, election law cases, transgender cases, suits over union dues, the recent student loan forgiveness case, cases against Uber for waiving delivery fees for black-owned businesses, etc. They seek out politically toxic cases that no one else will take. They do a lot of appellate and law-heavy stuff, but probably most of their work by hours is in district court. Separately, I think they represent some states and such in opioids cases, and do some crypto work, and probably some other normal stuff.

Cooper & Kirk does election law, and challenges to the government (administrative law, lots of COVID-related stuff) but also some normal business cases. They also do more plaintiff-side stuff now, like mass torts, data breach cases, etc.

They're all up there as far as prestige and credentials. I'd give Consovoy the edge over Cooper, but it varies. Clement & Murphy haven't been around long enough to tell--their attorneys have strong credentials, but it's not clear they'll require that for new hires (it looks like they hired somebody from Georgetown without a clerkship recently, though I assume he's special in some way).

The rep is that Consovoy hires the hardest core conservatives. They have an amazing concentrations of CT clerks. Going there is a statement. Clement & Murphy is the safest if you want to stay above the fray and be acceptable to establishment Republicans. Cooper & Kirk is *probably* in between, but it may depend what you work on (if you have Moore v. Harper on your resume, that will pop).

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have a sense of the differences between these three firms? In terms of the work they do, the kinds of people and credentials they're looking for, the ideological bent they have culturally, the prestige/connections in conservative legal circles, etc?

Clement & Murphy is the newest, and most distinctive. They do essentially all appellate work. That's incredibly rare. They do mostly normal commercial stuff (Viking River Cruise, NetChoice appeal, representing 3M in connection with their earplugs and bankruptcy appeals), but also some gun and religious liberty stuff (Bruen, Kennedy v. Bremerton, US v. Brown). I have not seen them do any nuclear-level hot-button political stuff (pro-life cases, transgender cases, affirmative action cases, election law cases, etc.).

Consovoy does the hottest of the hot button stuff: affirmative action cases, election law cases, transgender cases, suits over union dues, the recent student loan forgiveness case, cases against Uber for waiving delivery fees for black-owned businesses, etc. They seek out politically toxic cases that no one else will take. They do a lot of appellate and law-heavy stuff, but probably most of their work by hours is in district court. Separately, I think they represent some states and such in opioids cases, and do some crypto work, and probably some other normal stuff.

Cooper & Kirk does election law, and challenges to the government (administrative law, lots of COVID-related stuff) but also some normal business cases. They also do more plaintiff-side stuff now, like mass torts, data breach cases, etc.

They're all up there as far as prestige and credentials. I'd give Consovoy the edge over Cooper, but it varies. Clement & Murphy haven't been around long enough to tell--their attorneys have strong credentials, but it's not clear they'll require that for new hires (it looks like they hired somebody from Georgetown without a clerkship recently, though I assume he's special in some way).

The rep is that Consovoy hires the hardest core conservatives. They have an amazing concentrations of CT clerks. Going there is a statement. Clement & Murphy is the safest if you want to stay above the fray and be acceptable to establishment Republicans. Cooper & Kirk is *probably* in between, but it may depend what you work on (if you have Moore v. Harper on your resume, that will pop).

I'm surprised that Consovoy hasn't taken up the Trump cases. His current legal representation is terrible.

[Anonymous User]

the kinds of people

Bad ones

Care to explain?

Paul Clement has represented people that certain others view as undesirables. Most notably, he represented both Dick Heller as well as the NYSRPA in their respective victories in front of the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen. He also is know for representing some other more conservative interests, and was George W. Bush's Solicitor General and Attorney General.

Kirkland & Ellis kicked him out of the firm because of his success in Bruen (despite giving him explicit permission to represent the plaintiff in the case) and as a result he and some other attorneys from K&E founded Clement & Murphy.

I don't know as much about the other firms/attorneys, but based on the other comments on this thread it appears that they generally represent more conservative/republican interests.

I would assume that the previous poster is simply a partisan hack, and hates conservatives/republicans and considers them to be bad people no matter what. You should just ignore them as a troll.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have a sense of the differences between these three firms? In terms of the work they do, the kinds of people and credentials they're looking for, the ideological bent they have culturally, the prestige/connections in conservative legal circles, etc?

Clement & Murphy is the newest, and most distinctive. They do essentially all appellate work. That's incredibly rare. They do mostly normal commercial stuff (Viking River Cruise, NetChoice appeal, representing 3M in connection with their earplugs and bankruptcy appeals), but also some gun and religious liberty stuff (Bruen, Kennedy v. Bremerton, US v. Brown). I have not seen them do any nuclear-level hot-button political stuff (pro-life cases, transgender cases, affirmative action cases, election law cases, etc.).

Consovoy does the hottest of the hot button stuff: affirmative action cases, election law cases, transgender cases, suits over union dues, the recent student loan forgiveness case, cases against Uber for waiving delivery fees for black-owned businesses, etc. They seek out politically toxic cases that no one else will take. They do a lot of appellate and law-heavy stuff, but probably most of their work by hours is in district court. Separately, I think they represent some states and such in opioids cases, and do some crypto work, and probably some other normal stuff.

Cooper & Kirk does election law, and challenges to the government (administrative law, lots of COVID-related stuff) but also some normal business cases. They also do more plaintiff-side stuff now, like mass torts, data breach cases, etc.

They're all up there as far as prestige and credentials. I'd give Consovoy the edge over Cooper, but it varies. Clement & Murphy haven't been around long enough to tell--their attorneys have strong credentials, but it's not clear they'll require that for new hires (it looks like they hired somebody from Georgetown without a clerkship recently, though I assume he's special in some way).

The rep is that Consovoy hires the hardest core conservatives. They have an amazing concentrations of CT clerks. Going there is a statement. Clement & Murphy is the safest if you want to stay above the fray and be acceptable to establishment Republicans. Cooper & Kirk is *probably* in between, but it may depend what you work on (if you have Moore v. Harper on your resume, that will pop).

I'm surprised that Consovoy hasn't taken up the Trump cases. His current legal representation is terrible.

1) there's still some difference between hard-right political positions and utter lunacy, and
2) I don't think firms trust he'll pay them.

[Anonymous User]

the kinds of people

Bad ones

Care to explain?

Paul Clement has represented people that certain others view as undesirables. Most notably, he represented both Dick Heller as well as the NYSRPA in their respective victories in front of the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen. He also is know for representing some other more conservative interests, and was George W. Bush's Solicitor General and Attorney General.

Kirkland & Ellis kicked him out of the firm because of his success in Bruen (despite giving him explicit permission to represent the plaintiff in the case) and as a result he and some other attorneys from K&E founded Clement & Murphy.

I don't know as much about the other firms/attorneys, but based on the other comments on this thread it appears that they generally represent more conservative/republican interests.

I would assume that the previous poster is simply a partisan hack, and hates conservatives/republicans and considers them to be bad people no matter what. You should just ignore them as a troll.

The closedmindedness of liberal lawyers never ceases to amaze me. I am (and OP seems to be) a conservative, so rubber/glue my friend - the cases you mention reflect well on these firms, whereas you just look like cowardly keyboard warrior. You don't see conservatives slamming DEI initiatives every time someone asks about DPW vs. PW, so why don't you take your hateful troll comments elsewhere and let people with useful information take over.

[Anonymous User]

the kinds of people

Bad ones

Care to explain?

Paul Clement has represented people that certain others view as undesirables. Most notably, he represented both Dick Heller as well as the NYSRPA in their respective victories in front of the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen. He also is know for representing some other more conservative interests, and was George W. Bush's Solicitor General and Attorney General.

Kirkland & Ellis kicked him out of the firm because of his success in Bruen (despite giving him explicit permission to represent the plaintiff in the case) and as a result he and some other attorneys from K&E founded Clement & Murphy.

I don't know as much about the other firms/attorneys, but based on the other comments on this thread it appears that they generally represent more conservative/republican interests.

I would assume that the previous poster is simply a partisan hack, and hates conservatives/republicans and considers them to be bad people no matter what. You should just ignore them as a troll.

The closedmindedness of liberal lawyers never ceases to amaze me. I am (and OP seems to be) a conservative, so rubber/glue my friend - the cases you mention reflect well on these firms, whereas you just look like cowardly keyboard warrior. You don't see conservatives slamming DEI initiatives every time someone asks about DPW vs. PW, so why don't you take your hateful troll comments elsewhere and let people with useful information take over.

Lol not the previous poster but if you think diversity programming is as big a focus at DPW as conservatism is at Consovoy, then the NLGers are right about the intellects of fedsoc diehards

[Anonymous User]

the kinds of people

Bad ones

Care to explain?

Paul Clement has represented people that certain others view as undesirables. Most notably, he represented both Dick Heller as well as the NYSRPA in their respective victories in front of the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen. He also is know for representing some other more conservative interests, and was George W. Bush's Solicitor General and Attorney General.

Kirkland & Ellis kicked him out of the firm because of his success in Bruen (despite giving him explicit permission to represent the plaintiff in the case) and as a result he and some other attorneys from K&E founded Clement & Murphy.

I don't know as much about the other firms/attorneys, but based on the other comments on this thread it appears that they generally represent more conservative/republican interests.

I would assume that the previous poster is simply a partisan hack, and hates conservatives/republicans and considers them to be bad people no matter what. You should just ignore them as a troll.

The closedmindedness of liberal lawyers never ceases to amaze me. I am (and OP seems to be) a conservative, so rubber/glue my friend - the cases you mention reflect well on these firms, whereas you just look like cowardly keyboard warrior. You don't see conservatives slamming DEI initiatives every time someone asks about DPW vs. PW, so why don't you take your hateful troll comments elsewhere and let people with useful information take over.

Lol not the previous poster but if you think diversity programming is as big a focus at DPW as conservatism is at Consovoy, then the NLGers are right about the intellects of fedsoc diehards

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

[Anonymous User]

the kinds of people

Bad ones

Care to explain?

Paul Clement has represented people that certain others view as undesirables. Most notably, he represented both Dick Heller as well as the NYSRPA in their respective victories in front of the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen. He also is know for representing some other more conservative interests, and was George W. Bush's Solicitor General and Attorney General.

Kirkland & Ellis kicked him out of the firm because of his success in Bruen (despite giving him explicit permission to represent the plaintiff in the case) and as a result he and some other attorneys from K&E founded Clement & Murphy.

I don't know as much about the other firms/attorneys, but based on the other comments on this thread it appears that they generally represent more conservative/republican interests.

I would assume that the previous poster is simply a partisan hack, and hates conservatives/republicans and considers them to be bad people no matter what. You should just ignore them as a troll.

The same thing happened at King & Spalding when Paul Clement was defending DOMA. I don't blame the firms for wanting to distance themselves from those representations and I don't blame Paul Clement for wanting to go somewhere that would let him take on cases without fear of offending large corporate clients or left-leaning partners.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have a sense of the differences between these three firms? In terms of the work they do, the kinds of people and credentials they're looking for, the ideological bent they have culturally, the prestige/connections in conservative legal circles, etc?

Clement & Murphy is the newest, and most distinctive. They do essentially all appellate work. That's incredibly rare. They do mostly normal commercial stuff (Viking River Cruise, NetChoice appeal, representing 3M in connection with their earplugs and bankruptcy appeals), but also some gun and religious liberty stuff (Bruen, Kennedy v. Bremerton, US v. Brown). I have not seen them do any nuclear-level hot-button political stuff (pro-life cases, transgender cases, affirmative action cases, election law cases, etc.).

Consovoy does the hottest of the hot button stuff: affirmative action cases, election law cases, transgender cases, suits over union dues, the recent student loan forgiveness case, cases against Uber for waiving delivery fees for black-owned businesses, etc. They seek out politically toxic cases that no one else will take. They do a lot of appellate and law-heavy stuff, but probably most of their work by hours is in district court. Separately, I think they represent some states and such in opioids cases, and do some crypto work, and probably some other normal stuff.

Cooper & Kirk does election law, and challenges to the government (administrative law, lots of COVID-related stuff) but also some normal business cases. They also do more plaintiff-side stuff now, like mass torts, data breach cases, etc.

They're all up there as far as prestige and credentials. I'd give Consovoy the edge over Cooper, but it varies. Clement & Murphy haven't been around long enough to tell--their attorneys have strong credentials, but it's not clear they'll require that for new hires (it looks like they hired somebody from Georgetown without a clerkship recently, though I assume he's special in some way).

The rep is that Consovoy hires the hardest core conservatives. They have an amazing concentrations of CT clerks. Going there is a statement. Clement & Murphy is the safest if you want to stay above the fray and be acceptable to establishment Republicans. Cooper & Kirk is *probably* in between, but it may depend what you work on (if you have Moore v. Harper on your resume, that will pop).

I'm surprised that Consovoy hasn't taken up the Trump cases. His current legal representation is terrible.

Consovoy doesn't do criminal work and doesn't try cases. Some of the lawyers who are representing Trump (like John Lauro) are actually very talented criminal trial lawyers, even though some are legitimately awful.

[Anonymous User]

Lol not the previous poster but if you think diversity programming is as big a focus at DPW as conservatism is at Consovoy, then the NLGers are right about the intellects of fedsoc diehards

That's not my point at all. I merely said this is a thread about comparing conservative firms, so posting about how shitty conservatives are is off topic and pointless. It would be just as pointless to shit on DPW or any other middle of the line firm for diversity initiatives for someone who seems interested in them (or just neutral).

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

Sure, those are fine examples, too. Don't you agree it would be pointless to rail on liberals on a thread asking Gupta Wessler vs. Kaplan Hecker?

Anyway, this couldn't be further from necessary to prove my point, but I'll bite. As a conservative at my V20 I haven't seen a single managing partner email blast (or intra firm news story for that matter) in the last 6 years hyping up a side of a political issue that a traditional republican would support. You're only kidding yourself if you think most big law firms are politically neutral. I suspect many of the things you probably consider "apolitical" couldn't be further from it.

But you know what, that's totally okay. I don't need my employer (or you) to agree with my politics, and I think all my coworkers are fantastic people and high quality lawyers regardless of their political persuasions. I don't feel persecuted (not sure where you got that from?) for being a conservative, even if I disagree with some of my firm's clients/initiatives. But if OP would feel better surrounded by people they agree with, then as you said it's on them to pick from one of these conservative firms just as it's on someone who prefers an even more liberal firm/colleagues to pick something out of mainstream biglaw. Calling those politicized firms out for being too conservative or too liberal to someone clearly interested in them is, as I said, closedminded (and also pointless).

[RedNewJersey]

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

PW/DPW are only "apolitical" relative to the politics in the areas where they have offices (i.e., big cities). Compared to the country at large, they are extremely Democrat-heavy. PW is widely known for its progressive pro bono work (DPW, less so). The donation figures tell the story--at PW, 85% of the donations went to Democrats. At DPW, 80%. They're no Perkins Coie (98.9%), but "apolitical"? No way.

[Anonymous User]

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

PW/DPW are only "apolitical" relative to the politics in the areas where they have offices (i.e., big cities). Compared to the country at large, they are extremely Democrat-heavy. PW is widely known for its progressive pro bono work (DPW, less so). The donation figures tell the story--at PW, 85% of the donations went to Democrats. At DPW, 80%. They're no Perkins Coie (98.9%), but "apolitical"? No way.

Right. And again, you don't see conservatives posting about this every time a 2L asks for a comparison. But a post about conservative firms draws ire (e.g., calling the people at these firms "the bad ones" based solely on their (relatively mainstream conservative) stance/representation on political issues)? So much for a persecution "complex."

There was study in the Harvard Business review in 2020 or so showing that conservatives in general could give a rats ass about the political leanings of the businesses they patronize, but liberals on the other hand actively avoid conservative businesses. This thread is sort of proving that point.

[Anonymous User]

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

PW/DPW are only "apolitical" relative to the politics in the areas where they have offices (i.e., big cities). Compared to the country at large, they are extremely Democrat-heavy. PW is widely known for its progressive pro bono work (DPW, less so). The donation figures tell the story--at PW, 85% of the donations went to Democrats. At DPW, 80%. They're no Perkins Coie (98.9%), but "apolitical"? No way.

I didn’t say the firms were apolitical. I said there were apolitical types at the firms. There’s plenty of people who aren’t very interested in political issues. (And most people certainly aren’t donating to campaigns!) Also, the actual work (excluding pro bono) is more aligned with traditional Republican values, which may be more or less salient depending on practice area.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah there is no sense in which PW is apolitical. It's as liberal/left-leaning as Big Law can get, pretty much.

[Anonymous User]

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

PW/DPW are only "apolitical" relative to the politics in the areas where they have offices (i.e., big cities). Compared to the country at large, they are extremely Democrat-heavy. PW is widely known for its progressive pro bono work (DPW, less so). The donation figures tell the story--at PW, 85% of the donations went to Democrats. At DPW, 80%. They're no Perkins Coie (98.9%), but "apolitical"? No way.

I didn’t say the firms were apolitical. I said there were apolitical types at the firms. There’s plenty of people who aren’t very interested in political issues. (And most people certainly aren’t donating to campaigns!) Also, the actual work (excluding pro bono) is more aligned with traditional Republican values, which may be more or less salient depending on practice area.

So I see you've dropped your "conservative persecution complex" claim. Nobody is saying they can't fit in at these firms - that's your gloss/bias showing through. Just because OP wants to work at a conservative firm doesn't mean OP can't work at PW/DPW. They just don't want to.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're trying to do by constructing some sort of political balance at a couple V10 firms. If you define generally defending big businesses as a conservative value then yes, that work leans right. But I think we both agree most people at these firms lean left, and that most of the pro bono work and internal policies/values do as well. I'm pretty sure my firm wouldn't have sent around an email blast consoling folks who believe abortion to be literal baby murder had Dobbs gone the other way.

So all you're really doing is showing that my point works in both directions - this dispute really only matters because everybody has to compromise some political values to work at a law firm. Shocker. If whataboutism makes you feel better, so be it - liberals have to compromise too. So really we agree that biglaw's work/social initiatives are baked into the cake and irrelevant to any given 2L applying to both firms. That's why I don't bring up DEI and you don't bring up the soul-sucking pro-corporate work. If, on the other hand, some 2L doesn't want to make this sort of a compromise, then there are plenty of left and right leaning firms out there (and their left/right leaning values are also baked into the cake). It's a free market (yay), and that's both why these firms exist and what this thread is about.

So I don't understand why you keep coming back to shades of gray on DPW/PW when what we're really talking about here is whether it's closedminded to suggest that all people at conservative firms are bad by virtue of their politics/clients. And again, that's just as silly as me suggesting that PW is filled with bad apples for pushing left-leaning pro bono cases or you pointing out that they are equally as evil for their pro-capitalist corporate work.

Can we just agree on that and move on?

[Anonymous User]

Yeah there is no sense in which PW is apolitical. It's as liberal/left-leaning as Big Law can get, pretty much.

[Dr Tobias Funke]

Lol not the previous poster but if you think diversity programming is as big a focus at DPW as conservatism is at Consovoy, then the NLGers are right about the intellects of fedsoc diehards

That's not my point at all. I merely said this is a thread about comparing conservative firms, so posting about how shitty conservatives are is off topic and pointless. It would be just as pointless to shit on DPW or any other middle of the line firm for diversity initiatives for someone who seems interested in them (or just neutral).

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

Sure, those are fine examples, too. Don't you agree it would be pointless to rail on liberals on a thread asking Gupta Wessler vs. Kaplan Hecker?

lol how would you rail on liberals? The goddamn liberals at this firm want women to have control over their own bodies! These libtards want to raise taxes on the wealthy! These terrible people want healthcare for everyone!

[Anonymous User]

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

PW/DPW are only "apolitical" relative to the politics in the areas where they have offices (i.e., big cities). Compared to the country at large, they are extremely Democrat-heavy. PW is widely known for its progressive pro bono work (DPW, less so). The donation figures tell the story--at PW, 85% of the donations went to Democrats. At DPW, 80%. They're no Perkins Coie (98.9%), but "apolitical"? No way.

I didn’t say the firms were apolitical. I said there were apolitical types at the firms. There’s plenty of people who aren’t very interested in political issues. (And most people certainly aren’t donating to campaigns!) Also, the actual work (excluding pro bono) is more aligned with traditional Republican values, which may be more or less salient depending on practice area.

So I see you've dropped your "conservative persecution complex" claim. Nobody is saying they can't fit in at these firms - that's your gloss/bias showing through. Just because OP wants to work at a conservative firm doesn't mean OP can't work at PW/DPW. They just don't want to.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're trying to do by constructing some sort of political balance at a couple V10 firms. If you define generally defending big businesses as a conservative value then yes, that work leans right. But I think we both agree most people at these firms lean left, and that most of the pro bono work and internal policies/values do as well. I'm pretty sure my firm wouldn't have sent around an email blast consoling folks who believe abortion to be literal baby murder had Dobbs gone the other way.

So all you're really doing is showing that my point works in both directions - this dispute really only matters because everybody has to compromise some political values to work at a law firm. Shocker. If whataboutism makes you feel better, so be it - liberals have to compromise too. So really we agree that biglaw's work/social initiatives are baked into the cake and irrelevant to any given 2L applying to both firms. That's why I don't bring up DEI and you don't bring up the soul-sucking pro-corporate work. If, on the other hand, some 2L doesn't want to make this sort of a compromise, then there are plenty of left and right leaning firms out there (and their left/right leaning values are also baked into the cake). It's a free market (yay), and that's both why these firms exist and what this thread is about.

So I don't understand why you keep coming back to shades of gray on DPW/PW when what we're really talking about here is whether it's closedminded to suggest that all people at conservative firms are bad by virtue of their politics/clients. And again, that's just as silly as me suggesting that PW is filled with bad apples for pushing left-leaning pro bono cases or you pointing out that they are equally as evil for their pro-capitalist corporate work.

Can we just agree on that and move on?

I am not responding to every incorrect assumption leaping off from previous statements, including the incorrect assumptions that I (the person that wrote the above quoted comment) was the original “bad people” poster (or defending that person) or that I was referring to pro-capitalist corporate work instead of actually controversial litigation work. Using DPW as the liberal comparison vs Consovoy is representative of the cluelessness of Charlie Kirk fedsoc types, many of whom also the ones who want to work at a Consovoy or Cooper & Kirk. These are students who struggle to fit in among others, who range from liberal to apolitical to (less often) conservative, in a normal corporate environment. See, for example, the Kirkland guy who just filed that complaint worshipping Richard Epstein—also happens to be demonstrative of an extreme form of a conservative persecution complex. Happy to leave it here. I do not write five paragraph TLS posts.

[Anonymous User]

Lol not the previous poster but if you think diversity programming is as big a focus at DPW as conservatism is at Consovoy, then the NLGers are right about the intellects of fedsoc diehards

That's not my point at all. I merely said this is a thread about comparing conservative firms, so posting about how shitty conservatives are is off topic and pointless. It would be just as pointless to shit on DPW or any other middle of the line firm for diversity initiatives for someone who seems interested in them (or just neutral).

So clueless to use PW/DPW for this example and not a Gupta Wessler or a Kaplan Hecker. Conservative persecution complex is real. If you’re too conservative to fit in with apolitical types as you defend corporate interests at a traditional big law firm then that’s on you

Sure, those are fine examples, too. Don't you agree it would be pointless to rail on liberals on a thread asking Gupta Wessler vs. Kaplan Hecker?

lol how would you rail on liberals? The goddamn liberals at this firm want women to have control over their own bodies! These libtards want to raise taxes on the wealthy! These terrible people want healthcare for everyone!

I completely agree with you politically, but this is a dumb comment to make in a thread for people who are looking for/giving advice on politically conservative firms, who will happily tell you the reasons they have for railing on liberals, if they want to derail the thread further.

[Anonymous User]

There’s a good David Lat writeup on Cooper & Kirk, which I think is probably the most selective of these firms besides tiny Clement & Murphy. I think Consovoy probably does the least general commercial work of them. Consovoy and Lehotsky are remote-first firms.

[Anonymous User]

I am not responding to every incorrect assumption leaping off from previous statements, including the incorrect assumptions that I (the person that wrote the above quoted comment) was the original “bad people” poster (or defending that person) or that I was referring to pro-capitalist corporate work instead of actually controversial litigation work. Using DPW as the liberal comparison vs Consovoy is representative of the cluelessness of Charlie Kirk fedsoc types, many of whom also the ones who want to work at a Consovoy or Cooper & Kirk. These are students who struggle to fit in among others, who range from liberal to apolitical to (less often) conservative, in a normal corporate environment. See, for example, the Kirkland guy who just filed that complaint worshipping Richard Epstein—also happens to be demonstrative of an extreme form of a conservative persecution complex. Happy to leave it here. I do not write five paragraph TLS posts.

Digging in, nice. So you think the best way to distinguish yourself from the previous poster who made sweeping generalizations about the character of people they never met based purely on their politics is to do... exactly that based on a single person/your unstated anecdotal experiences and refuse to participate in an actual point-by-point discussion? I'm sorry my friend, but your ad hominin attacks only reflect poorly on you. I hope you feel good about fighting the good fight, or whatever you think this is. I'd rather work with the fed soc types you seem to despise - at least they try to use logic.

You continue to miss that I'm not using DPW as a liberal comparison to Consovoy. I'm saying they promote lots of traditionally liberal things (which you don't address, much less deny) and yet nobody goes around shitting on them for it in front of 2Ls looking to go there. I know that logic seems lost on you, but I promise if you take a deep breath and think really hard you can probably understand it doesn't have to be a perfect parallel to make the point. Then we don't have to keep talking past each other.

Also it's pretty comical that you seem concerned with using DPW as a stand in for more liberal firms, yet you use a KE associate to prove your point about not KE. Same logical flaw, pal. I'm sure someone else can point to all the others in your post.