thesealocust wrote:Bronte wrote:vamedic03 wrote:I think seriouslyinformative is pretty spot on with his advice about NYC firms. Yes, some of the V5 do some great litigation work but these firms are driven by deal work. Everything is finance driven in NYC.
It's finance-driven, but that doesn't mean there's not high level securities litigation going on, right? I mean Weil has a 420 person litigation department. Sullivan and Cromwell's litigation department makes up more than half the firm. Most NYC firms have litigation departments that are close to the size of their corporate departments, from my research. Are we really gonna say that these departments are just doing the corporate departments' doc review? Isn't it transactional work that's the drone work?
S&C has twice as many corporate partners as lit partners, not sure where you're getting that number from.
Nobody pays for a V5 firm to do 'drone work.' There's a disproportionate share of incredibly high stakes or novel work at all top firms. But if you're comparing litigation practices, there is likely to be a greater variety of matters at firms that don't have institutional financial clients. As for dronning, young transactional lawyers get diligence and young litigators get doc review. It's the nature of the beast.
Yeah I punted that figure, but comparing partner figures over estimates it because litigation departments have higher leverage. S&C has 458 corporate lawyers and 285 litigation lawyers. (Hopefully correct figures this time.) Point being, there litigation department is big.
Edit: But I think we're on the same page. Top NYC firms do finance deals and do finance litigation. It's high level in both cases, but it inevitably involves some grunt work of different types.