S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.

Best Choice NYC

Sullivan & Cromwell
15
38%
Skadden
9
23%
Cleary / Simpson Thacher / Paul Weiss
15
38%
 
Total votes: 39

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

Postby Old Gregg » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:One of the pervasive issues with this site is the over reliance on Vault and (for law school admission) US News rankings. They both have their place but people need to understand the context in which to apply them. As several have stated in this thread, Vault rankings are really for assessing the strength of NYC corporate practices. For litigation, they are really not that great. For example it's pretty common knowledge that for litigation Paul Weiss isn't just a top 10 firm, it's near the tip top after firms like Williams and Connolly. But for those who are slavish to vault rankings, this might convince you that it is clearly up there with the "V10" firms. If you're going to use Vault as your decision making basis, you might want to use their litigation rankings to do so.

2009 Vault Litigation firm rankings


1. Williams & Connolly LLP 11.78 Washington, DC
2 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 6.96 Chicago, IL
3 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 6.16 New York, NY
4 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 4.55 New York, NY
5 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 4.55 New York, NY
6 WilmerHale 4.28 Washington, DC
7 Davis Polk & Wardwell 3.75 New York, NY
8 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 3.21 Los Angeles, CA
10 Covington & Burling LLP 2.95 Washington, DC
9 Arnold & Porter LLP 2.95 Washington, DC


Those rankings are two years old bro.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:17 pm

I'm curious why Skadden is scoring so poorly here.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:24 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:One of the pervasive issues with this site is the over reliance on Vault and (for law school admission) US News rankings. They both have their place but people need to understand the context in which to apply them. As several have stated in this thread, Vault rankings are really for assessing the strength of NYC corporate practices. For litigation, they are really not that great. For example it's pretty common knowledge that for litigation Paul Weiss isn't just a top 10 firm, it's near the tip top after firms like Williams and Connolly. But for those who are slavish to vault rankings, this might convince you that it is clearly up there with the "V10" firms. If you're going to use Vault as your decision making basis, you might want to use their litigation rankings to do so.

2009 Vault Litigation firm rankings


1. Williams & Connolly LLP 11.78 Washington, DC
2 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 6.96 Chicago, IL
3 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 6.16 New York, NY
4 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 4.55 New York, NY
5 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 4.55 New York, NY
6 WilmerHale 4.28 Washington, DC
7 Davis Polk & Wardwell 3.75 New York, NY
8 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 3.21 Los Angeles, CA
10 Covington & Burling LLP 2.95 Washington, DC
9 Arnold & Porter LLP 2.95 Washington, DC


Those rankings are two years old bro.


Good Lord; if you really think that that's a big issue then you have been on this site too long. Besides (1) I wasn't telling him to use these as his defacto resource, only that if he has to use Vault rankings then to at least use the one's relevant to him and (2) employers don't check the vault rankings yearly and adjust their lateral hires based off of the changes. Just like firms don't do that with US News rankings. People on here are so rankings obsessed it's absurd. There is a general sense of prestige/respect when it comes to this sort of thing that doesn't change much year to year. For example, I don't care what year it is Williams and Conolly is viewed as the ultimate litigation firm in the country. REGARDLESS of what Vault says, and everyone knows that. And Sullivan Cromwell, for example, will never be known as a stronger litigation firm than Paul Weiss. That's just isn't their thing.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:25 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
and will be driven more by practice area focus than anything else.


I think it will be even more driven by what the dude does when he starts working at these firms. At some point, the firm brand name is good enough and where the associate takes it from there matters much more. With OP's choices between S&C, Skadden, and Paul Weiss, he's far beyond that point.


OP here again. The forums here often suggest that there are, in fact, tiers that break up even the upper most firms (e.g. Wachtell --> S&C/Cravath --> V5's --> V10), but even though I'm very interested in maximizing exit-opportunities, maybe I ought to ignore these distinctions. I really appreciate your (and everyone else's) insight.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

Postby Grizz » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:28 pm

So much derp ITT in re Vault

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

Postby Old Gregg » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
and will be driven more by practice area focus than anything else.


I think it will be even more driven by what the dude does when he starts working at these firms. At some point, the firm brand name is good enough and where the associate takes it from there matters much more. With OP's choices between S&C, Skadden, and Paul Weiss, he's far beyond that point.


OP here again. The forums here often suggest that there are, in fact, tiers that break up even the upper most firms (e.g. Wachtell --> S&C/Cravath --> V5's --> V10), but even though I'm very interested in maximizing exit-opportunities, maybe I ought to ignore these distinctions. I really appreciate your (and everyone else's) insight.


The forums here are filled with prestige-obsessed rising 2Ls who think that going to a higher-ranked firm will compensate for their inability to attract members of the opposite sex. No joke. Oh, and they're in for a huge surprise.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:37 pm

Where would Gibson NY fit in this argument in particular? And also, on the whole in the discussion on firms in NYC?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.