Page 1 of 2
.
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:36 pm
by Anonymous User
Interested in corporate, probably M&A or finance, though I'm flexible. Not looking to be there more than 5y before going to a smaller market.
Like most, I'm looking for best combination of training (OJT>>formal) and QOL. Don't really care about prestige beyond its effects on exit options.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:50 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill?
Interested in corporate, probably M&A or finance, though I'm flexible. Not looking to be there more than 5y before going to a smaller market.
Like most, I'm looking for best combination of training and QOL (for NY). Don't really care about prestige beyond its effects on exit options.
Not Cadwalader. Terrible sweatshop, not much training, though they have a good M&A and general corporate department.
Cahill has great QOL and work, but is quite specialized (basically only high-yield debt offerings on the corporate side).
Fried Frank could be interesting. Decent rep, does some interest corporate work (real estate, particularly real estate restructurings, decent M&A). Has had some shaky financial results lately though.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:59 am
by Anonymous User
I was at FF yesterday and thought everyone I met was very personable. It seemed like, as far as big firms go, an enjoyable place to work.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:05 am
by Anonymous User
I have an offer at FF NYC and just had my callback at Cadwalader NYC yesterday. Even if I were to get an offer at Cadwalader, it probably wouldn't take more than a second to turn it down in favor of FF. I have other offers, so I'm not sure I'll end up at FF and I'm not saying it's the greatest place in the world, but Cadwalader was just...eh. Nice enough people, but just seemed worn down. There's not an ounce of enthusiasm in that place I can detect. I can only assume it's the work life, or maybe the type of people they hire, but in either case I wouldn't want to work there.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:12 am
by Anonymous User
Definitely FF. Diversification, size, work environment. Cadwalader and Cahill are polar opposites. Cadwalader is a sweatshop, Cahill is too laid back (and probably under-appreciates the high-yield debt bubble right now)
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:53 pm
by Anonymous User
OP here - Thank you to everyone for your responses!
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:56 pm
by Anonymous User
Cadwalader has had a bad rep for a while, was coming in last in midlaw satisfaction ranking before the cull. My impression is that the associates are completely miserable, the partners are all laterals (i.e. they don't promote from within), and the firm is still highly leveraged, i.e. as a junior you will never get a chance to work with the partners. Partners don't seem interested in mentoring the associates, they pretty much bleed 'em dry and fire them without a thought.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:00 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn?
Interested in corporate, probably M&A or finance, though I'm flexible. Not looking to be there more than 5y before going to a smaller market.
Like most, I'm looking for best combination of training (OJT>>formal) and QOL. Don't really care about prestige beyond its effects on exit options.
[edited to add Winston]
When was your Winston CB?
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:05 pm
by Anonymous User
.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:08 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn?
Interested in corporate, probably M&A or finance, though I'm flexible. Not looking to be there more than 5y before going to a smaller market.
Like most, I'm looking for best combination of training (OJT>>formal) and QOL. Don't really care about prestige beyond its effects on exit options.
[edited to add Winston]
When was your Winston CB?
A couple of weeks ago.
Congrats. Did you get the call today?
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:08 pm
by Anonymous User
Tough decision because none of those firms are very highly ranked in the AmLaw midlevel satisfaction survey and I know FF, Cadwalader and Winston all did major layoffs. At that point I'd go with whatever firm was strong in more corp practice areas if you don't know where you want to specialize.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:28 pm
by KamaalTheAbstract
Anonymous User wrote:Tough decision because none of those firms are very highly ranked in the AmLaw midlevel satisfaction survey and I know FF, Cadwalader and Winston all did major layoffs. At that point I'd go with whatever firm was strong in more corp practice areas if you don't know where you want to specialize.
What office did you enjoy the most? Where were you most comfortable?
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:58 pm
by Anonymous User
To be fair, Cahill has done "performance" layoffs and stealth layoffs also.
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/01/nationwi ... me-weight/
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:13 pm
by Anonymous User
Again, I can't thank everyone enough for the insights. If nothing else, this helps alleviate the stress of planning what may be the next years of my life within only 28 days.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:26 pm
by Anonymous User
Once you have the offer, you can ask to meet with more people. Tell then you are really interested, but you'd like to meet additional associates/partners in x department / of x minority group / of x sexual orientation etc. before deciding.
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:41 pm
by Anonymous User
I keep reading posts talking about stealth layoffs at Cahill, but in my experience it was an upfront issue. I screened with the hiring partner, and asked how the firm was handling the economy and he was totally upfront that it hit them and that they laid of about 10% across the firm, and that it's difficult, but has to be done. Always remember too that when there are layoffs of around 10% they are letting go of the least productive and least able people. Avoiding being one of those people is up to you. In most other industries, a 10% layoff isn't that unusual of an event. Cahill also recovered nicely.. high yield is way up and the firm had a special bonus this year.
THe firms to watch out for are the ones that had massive layoffs, no offered a large % of SA's, and ones that have re-defferred or let go of deferred associates. Anyway, that' my $160k on the issue...
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:05 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:OP again - just talked to my CSO, and they said almost exactly this about CWT too:
they pretty much bleed 'em dry and fire them without a thought [and have done for at least the last 20 years].
So that one's out.
I only spent about 5 minutes talking to an associate at Cahill, and about 1 hour with each of 2 partners. I was comfortable enough talking to them - they seemed like intense but professional people.
The FF people were pretty great, but for some reason I'm suspicious. Like how those high school teachers that always seemed cool in the first week of class turned out to be the mean ones, and vice versa.
I honestly can't think of my comfort level at W&S. It was a (really, really) gorgeous office, and the people were nice enough, but nobody wowed me and nobody freaked me out.
I guess right now it's coming down to a decision between FF and Cahill.
As far as layoffs go, they're not really a deciding factor. I tend to think the first rounds can actually be a good thing if they're getting rid of known dead weight. At this point I'm more suspicious if a firm didn't lay anyone off yet.
I guess I'm leaning more toward FF just because of breadth and depth of practice. But if Cahill has a significantly better QOL...
Again, I can't thank everyone enough for the insights. If nothing else, this helps alleviate the stress of planning what may be the next 7 years of my life within only 28 days.
That sounds great. You mind telling W&S that so they can give me an offer?
Re: Fried Frank v Cadwalader v Cahill v Winston & Strawn
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:31 pm
by Anonymous User
FWIW, I was in the FF v. Cahill situation myself, and I went with Cahill. I knew some former Cahill attorneys who all left the law practice entirely, and they still had nothing but love for the firm (which is rare). They talked to me honestly about the ups (no face time, no BS culture) and the downs (sometimes the hours will make you cry, no cafeteria in the bldg), but they said it was a great culture - which I got from the CB. Good luck and let us know what you decide!
Re: Fried Frank v Cahill
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:21 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, I was in the FF v. Cahill situation myself, and I went with Cahill. I knew some former Cahill attorneys who all left the law practice entirely, and they still had nothing but love for the firm (which is rare). They talked to me honestly about the ups (no face time, no BS culture) and the downs (sometimes the hours will make you cry, no cafeteria in the bldg), but they said it was a great culture - which I got from the CB. Good luck and let us know what you decide!
OP here - Thank you for the insight. If you don't mind giving at least a general answer - why did those former Cahill attorneys leave, and what kind of work did they exit into?
As between Cahill and FF - Just based on the people I've met and talked to so far, I think I could be (relatively) happy trying to churn out preposterous hours at either one for 5-6 years after school. They both do interesting work and seem to have good people.
At this point it's all down to exit options into in-house positions. Any idea as to whether one is better than the other in this regard? It's been virtually impossible to find anything covering this on the interwebs.
P.S.- For those who were asking, I've declined my other offers. Good luck!
Re: Fried Frank v Cahill
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:30 pm
by Anonymous User
If are into the type of work that Cahill primarily does, then no other firm really does it any better. I vote Cahill over Fried Frank.
Re: Fried Frank v Cahill
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:49 pm
by Anonymous User
I know nothing about FF, but I would prefer that you accept your offer with FF, if you catch my drift
Re: Fried Frank v Cahill
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:01 pm
by Anonymous User
Have friends that work at both and I definitely get the sense that FF is the better place to be. QoL is going to be similar (don't let Cahill fool you) and FF is better respected and has more diverse practice options.
Re: Fried Frank v Cahill
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:08 pm
by Anonymous User
Also check out the other post I made in the Cahill v. Dechert v. Dewey v. Milbank v. White & Case thread on how their capital markets work might be drying up soon.
Re: Fried Frank v Cahill
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:40 am
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, I was in the FF v. Cahill situation myself, and I went with Cahill. I knew some former Cahill attorneys who all left the law practice entirely, and they still had nothing but love for the firm (which is rare). They talked to me honestly about the ups (no face time, no BS culture) and the downs (sometimes the hours will make you cry, no cafeteria in the bldg), but they said it was a great culture - which I got from the CB. Good luck and let us know what you decide!
OP here - Thank you for the insight. If you don't mind giving at least a general answer - why did those former Cahill attorneys leave, and what kind of work did they exit into?
As between Cahill and FF - Just based on the people I've met and talked to so far, I think I could be (relatively) happy trying to churn out preposterous hours at either one for 5-6 years after school. They both do interesting work and seem to have good people.
At this point it's all down to exit options into in-house positions. Any idea as to whether one is better than the other in this regard? It's been virtually impossible to find anything covering this on the interwebs.
P.S.- For those who were asking, I've declined my other offers. Good luck!
I don't want to give specifics just because I might out myself - but they left the law practice altogether. All of them were women, all hated biglaw (but still loved the firm), and all wanted a more balanced lifestyle. Most of them went the businessy route, while some went into public relations and entertainment broadcasting. All big lifestyle changes.
Re: Fried Frank v Cahill
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:45 am
by Anonymous User
Another thing - I am not so sure that big law exit options are as dramatically different as people on these boards make them out to be. Maybe for the top 5 firms, it makes a difference - but working in big law gives you instant street cred (if I may use that term) just by virtue of having the big firm training behind you. Exit options are what you make of them - if you're the type of corporate lawyer who can get client contact early on and make connections (and who is good at client relations and is well liked as an associate by clients), then those in-house gigs will be easier to get. I don't know much about FF, but this is from Cahill's website about Cahill alums:
Former Cahill associates can be found as partners in other prominent law firms in the United States and Europe, investment bankers, senior executives of public companies, general counsels at Fortune 500 corporations, professors at national law schools, state and federal trial and appellate judges, United States Attorneys and public interest advocates. Others hold or have held senior policy and line positions in business and in all branches of government.
Hope this helps.