Top Law Schools

liked the people at both. location is pretty much identical. i def dont want to do capital markets - i understand this is dpw's strong point. while i dont mind working heavily with PE (for simpson) im afraid of what limiting exit options this might have (if any). leaning to restructuring at this point - or something in corporate for sure. biggest concern is probably exit options as i think culture at both places is great. any thoughts?

A) I am not aware of any difference in exit options.
B) It is possible there is a small difference.
C) Anyone on TLS claiming to have objective knowledge of such a difference is lying.
D) You should assume they are effectively equal in that regard.

Anonymous User wrote:liked the people at both. location is pretty much identical. i def dont want to do capital markets - i understand this is dpw's strong point. while i dont mind working heavily with PE (for simpson) im afraid of what limiting exit options this might have (if any). leaning to restructuring at this point - or something in corporate for sure. biggest concern is probably exit options as i think culture at both places is great. any thoughts?

Well, DPW is heavily cap markets, so that's a factor in favor of Simpson.

With limited exit options for PE, I think it depends what you do. If you end up doing PE fund formation, your options are largely limited to exiting to a PE firm, which is a pretty good option, but somewhat narrow. PE M&A, however, is functionally equivalent in terms of experience and skill set to public company M&A, so that should give you a similarly broad set of options (M&A arguably gives you the broadest exit options).

In terms of restructuring, DPW has a slightly "better" group, but STB's isn't shabby. They are both quite small, and both do almost exclusively creditor-side work. If you're really into restructuring, you may want to also consider the big debtor-side firms like Kirkland, Weil, etc.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:liked the people at both. location is pretty much identical. i def dont want to do capital markets - i understand this is dpw's strong point. while i dont mind working heavily with PE (for simpson) im afraid of what limiting exit options this might have (if any). leaning to restructuring at this point - or something in corporate for sure. biggest concern is probably exit options as i think culture at both places is great. any thoughts?

Well, DPW is heavily cap markets, so that's a factor in favor of Simpson.

With limited exit options for PE, I think it depends what you do. If you end up doing PE fund formation, your options are largely limited to exiting to a PE firm, which is a pretty good option, but somewhat narrow. PE M&A, however, is functionally equivalent in terms of experience and skill set to public company M&A, so that should give you a similarly broad set of options (M&A arguably gives you the broadest exit options).

In terms of restructuring, DPW has a slightly "better" group, but STB's isn't shabby. They are both quite small, and both do almost exclusively creditor-side work. If you're really into restructuring, you may want to also consider the big debtor-side firms like Kirkland, Weil, etc.

is there a huge difference between debtor side work and creditor side? i understand what each is, but am curious about type of work, exit options, stress, etc? are they pretty similar or is one considered "higher level" than the other

Anonymous User wrote:
is there a huge difference between debtor side work and creditor side? i understand what each is, but am curious about type of work, exit options, stress, etc? are they pretty similar or is one considered "higher level" than the other

In terms of subject matter, it's all the same knowledge base, but debtor-side representations are quite different from creditor-side representations.

If you're representing the debtor, you're effectively running/driving the bankruptcy. Debtor's counsel deals with all creditors and other external stakeholders, files the plan, and makes most of the substantive motions. Creditors are largely limited to objecting to the plan and negotiating for a better one. Because of this, debtor side representations tend to be larger/more involved - more attorneys, more time spent on the case, etc. You will also deal with a much wider variety of issues related to the bankruptcy (all of them), whereas creditors' lawyers only deal with issues raised by their creditor's stake.

I don't know about the actual difference in exit options, but I imagine that creditor-side lawyers tend to go in house at banks or large funds that invest in distressed companies, whereas debtor-side lawyers tend to become bankers, restructuring officers, etc. Both I imagine can lateral to other firms. Again I'm guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if debtor-side lawyers have broader options, since they theoretically know "everything" and can narrow their specialization, rather than being specialized from the start.

OP, congrats on your success thus far. It sounds like youve got a handle on the key distinctions between dpw and simpson, and im sure you'll choose between them wisely.

Would you mind finding the dpw callback email, logging back into the callback website, clicking on the "Application" tab, and quickly posting what your "Applicant Status" says? Im currently waiting on an offer (hopefully) from DPW, and would be curious if your status says something like "Offer extended" as opposed to "Applicant Self-Schedule," which is what mine says.

Thanks!

It's really hard to think of two more indistinguishable firms. Davis Polk will save you 1 minute each day because it's closer to GCT.

What was the Simpson CB like?

Hey guys, this might sound silly, but can anyone comment on the following situation?

Got a CB with Simpson pretty soon here, but problem is I'm really just interested in litigation. I have offers from GREAT litigation firms in California, but Simpson is the only NY firm I have a CB from so far. Is it foolish to even go to the CB there, because their litigation group isn't as prestigious as the Cali offers I have, just because I'm kinda considering maybe checking out NYC? Career suicide? Thoughts?

Anonymous User wrote:Hey guys, this might sound silly, but can anyone comment on the following situation?

Got a CB with Simpson pretty soon here, but problem is I'm really just interested in litigation. I have offers from GREAT litigation firms in California, but Simpson is the only NY firm I have a CB from so far. Is it foolish to even go to the CB there, because their litigation group isn't as prestigious as the Cali offers I have, just because I'm kinda considering maybe checking out NYC? Career suicide? Thoughts?

It can't hurt to go on the CB, but I would think you'd be happier and better off in California. Plus, litigation is not really location-specific. If you feel, five years from now, that you'd really like to lateral to New York, and you're at a very prestigious California firm, you can make it happen then. 

Anonymous User wrote:It's really hard to think of two more indistinguishable firms. Davis Polk will save you 1 minute each day because it's closer to GCT.

yes exactly, and if it's raining/snowing outside, you can make it from the subway to the dpw office without ever being exposed to the sky!

I have CBs with simpson and dpw in palo alto. Anyone know what the difference would be between the two in palo alto as opposed to the firms generally?

Anonymous User wrote:What was the Simpson CB like?

Bump...

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What was the Simpson CB like?

Bump...

pretty typical. you meet 5 pple 30 min each. at the end you meet with the recruiter. the fifth interviewer is a younger associate who takes you for coffee in the dining hall. interviews were very conversational. talked about my background and any other tangential topics that came up.