Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

(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.

Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Poll ended at Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:12 pm

DP
14
40%
PW
11
31%
Skadden
10
29%
 
Total votes: 35

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:07 pm

I'm CCN/URM/New York native. I can go back and visit each pretty easily, but I don't think I need to. All three had nice, energetic people. Now I'm interested in firm characteristics other than "feel."

I think I'm leaning PW, but I'm not leaning very hard. I'm interested in litigation, and want options other than just finance projects.

What do you think?

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby imchuckbass58 » Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:21 pm

Things to consider:

-PW and Skadden both have huge litigation departments. Davis Polk's is respectably sized and equally well respected, but not as massive. This can cut either way - bigger departments may have more going on, but it might be easier to get lost/harder to form relationships.

-All three are strong in white collar. PW probably has a bit more of a skew towards securities litigation than the other two (they are primary litigation counsel for several banks).

-Leverage. PW is high, not sure about DPW and Skadden, but you can find this easily on NALP.

-Work assignment process - not sure how these three firms function (could turn out they're all the same), but consider whether you're prefer free market, rotational, or being assigned to a group of partners).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:24 pm

Interested in this, as well. My sense is that DP will have significantly fewer options in terms of types of litigation.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:07 pm

Any specific reasons for DP?

azntwice
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:46 pm

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby azntwice » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:08 pm

This really depends on what kind of work you want to do. Paul Weiss is very litigation heavy, while I got the sense that Davis Polk is much more corporate/transactional. Don't know much about Skadden though. Also I've been told that DPW is much more white-shoe/conservative in terms of culture.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:31 pm

OP here. I'm def pursuing litigation. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I don't want to be stuck doing only finance related litigation, though.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:11 pm

If you don't want finance related litigation, get out of NYC. You're going to get a ton of that work at any of these firms.

Davis Polk's litigation department is smaller than the other two's, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have fewer opportunities there. It's substantially less leveraged than Paul Weiss's, (6:1 versus 7:1), but significantly more leveraged than Skadden's (4.5:1).

The litigation department at Davis Polk is in no way secondary to its corporate department. It has its own clients and does its own work. Indeed, the litigation and corporate sides of the firm don't even really interact that much.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:29 pm

OP here. Thanks for your comments. They are helpful.

I would be happy to do a majority finance related work, I just want to do SOME other stuff. PW has strong IP, entertainment, media, labor, general commercial, etc. practices, as well as white collar, anti trust, M&A, etc. practices. DP seems to be almost totally the latter group. Am I wrong?

User avatar
smokyroom26
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:56 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby smokyroom26 » Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:If you don't want finance related litigation, get out of NYC. You're going to get a ton of that work at any of these firms.

Davis Polk's litigation department is smaller than the other two's, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have fewer opportunities there. It's substantially less leveraged than Paul Weiss's, (6:1 versus 7:1), but significantly more leveraged than Skadden's (4.5:1).

The litigation department at Davis Polk is in no way secondary to its corporate department. It has its own clients and does its own work. Indeed, the litigation and corporate sides of the firm don't even really interact that much.


Could you please explain what the bolded means? (Haven't seen this elsewhere & not sure what you are referring to. Partner/associate ratio?)

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Helmholtz » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:00 am

smokyroom26 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:If you don't want finance related litigation, get out of NYC. You're going to get a ton of that work at any of these firms.

Davis Polk's litigation department is smaller than the other two's, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have fewer opportunities there. It's substantially less leveraged than Paul Weiss's, (6:1 versus 7:1), but significantly more leveraged than Skadden's (4.5:1).

The litigation department at Davis Polk is in no way secondary to its corporate department. It has its own clients and does its own work. Indeed, the litigation and corporate sides of the firm don't even really interact that much.


Could you please explain what the bolded means? (Haven't seen this elsewhere & not sure what you are referring to. Partner/associate ratio?)


Yes, that's what he is referring to.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:06 am

It was pointed out previously that PW's actual leverage numbers on NALP are probably skewed by their inordinate number of staff attorneys. Realistically it's probably something more like ~ 5 associates per partner. FWIW.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:52 pm

I'm curious about this poll, minus Skadden. I'm also just interested in Lit and have people pushing me toward PW. Why is DP winning here?

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

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby quakeroats » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm curious about this poll, minus Skadden. I'm also just interested in Lit and have people pushing me toward PW. Why is DP winning here?


DPW is .944 prestige points better. I think that says it all.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v Paul Weiss v Skadden

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:36 pm

Bump




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.