Skadden v. Latham

(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.

Skadden v. Latham

Skadden
21
75%
Latham
7
25%
 
Total votes: 28

Anonymous User
Posts: 273432
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Skadden v. Latham

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:52 am

Both NY offices, want corporate law. I liked everyone i met with at Latham, so having a hard time deciding now. Help please!
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GeePee
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby GeePee » Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:58 am

Skadden is huge, but it has a great transactional practice and is involved on a lot of interesting and complex work. Latham has a very particular office culture that I would shy away from unless you are totally sure it will be a good fit. Both have the "sweatshop" reputation on the corporate side at times, so that's basically a wash.

FWIW, I voted Skadden because Latham's in-your-face, blunt culture doesn't do it for me. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I have close friends who were Latham'ed and that definitely still taints my view of the firm.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby vamedic03 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:04 am

One of them refrained from Lathaming their associates.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273432
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:05 am

my understanding is that you'll get better early experience at Skadden (plus I accepted an offer with them at a different office, so maybe I am biased!)

itbdvorm
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:09 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby itbdvorm » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:my understanding is that you'll get better early experience at Skadden (plus I accepted an offer with them at a different office, so maybe I am biased!)


FWIW, the two people I know who seem to have had the best experiences as associates were both at Latham NY (rising stars in project finance and M&A respectively). Not saying it's the "right" choice, just saying if you liked the people there more it's probably not the wrong one.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273432
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:02 pm

any other input? what is the future of latham?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273432
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:any other input? what is the future of latham?


Look at Latham's leverage ratio over the past decade. After the 2000 recession, they were ~3. Before the 2008 collapse, they were ~5. After the mass Lathamings, they were ~3. Now they're rapidly ratcheting back up. This summer they took 47 summers for an office that has 338 attorneys. Skadden took 39 for an office with 813 attorneys.

Latham's business model is to bulk up when there is work and purge when there isn't. They won't get top people this way, as anyone with other V10 offers will take those instead, but there are plenty of people deciding between V25s who will choose them for the name/quality of work.

As someone with a good V10 offer, you should not take Latham.

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

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:26 am

This summer they took 47 summers for an office that has 338 attorneys. Skadden took 39 for an office with 813 attorneys.


The latter is not indicative of Skadden trying to de-leverage. It's just that Skadden has such little work, so don't start leaping praise on them...

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby quakeroats » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:12 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
This summer they took 47 summers for an office that has 338 attorneys. Skadden took 39 for an office with 813 attorneys.


The latter is not indicative of Skadden trying to de-leverage. It's just that Skadden has such little work, so don't start leaping praise on them...


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1419553

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

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:14 am

quakeroats wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
This summer they took 47 summers for an office that has 338 attorneys. Skadden took 39 for an office with 813 attorneys.


The latter is not indicative of Skadden trying to de-leverage. It's just that Skadden has such little work, so don't start leaping praise on them...


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1419553


Eh

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby quakeroats » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:25 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
quakeroats wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
This summer they took 47 summers for an office that has 338 attorneys. Skadden took 39 for an office with 813 attorneys.


The latter is not indicative of Skadden trying to de-leverage. It's just that Skadden has such little work, so don't start leaping praise on them...


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1419553


Eh


I'm not trying to be mean. Better you learn now than when it counts.

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

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:30 am

quakeroats wrote:
I'm not trying to be mean. Better you learn now than when it counts.


When I'm about to put "heaping praise" in my next memorandum, I will thank god for your existence.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby rayiner » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:44 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
This summer they took 47 summers for an office that has 338 attorneys. Skadden took 39 for an office with 813 attorneys.


The latter is not indicative of Skadden trying to de-leverage. It's just that Skadden has such little work, so don't start leaping praise on them...


Skadden is maintaining their leverage. They didn't deleverage during the bust like Latham. In fact their leverage went up a bit because of low attrition.

User avatar
Nicholasnickynic
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Nicholasnickynic » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:48 am

vamedic03 wrote:One of them refrained from Lathaming their associates.



Which one???

itbdvorm
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:09 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby itbdvorm » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:11 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
This summer they took 47 summers for an office that has 338 attorneys. Skadden took 39 for an office with 813 attorneys.


The latter is not indicative of Skadden trying to de-leverage. It's just that Skadden has such little work, so don't start leaping praise on them...


Further note - this may in part be due to the 105 summers from 2009 who finally started this year. That's a pretty big overhang.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273432
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Latham

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:33 pm

One of them refrained from Lathaming their associates.


This. I'm biased, though. I'm going to Skadden :)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.