Davis Polk v. Debevoise

(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. Debevoise

Davis Polk
15
65%
Debevoise
8
35%
 
Total votes: 23

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:52 pm

Really thrilled to have great options. My situations are:

1. transaction work for sure, no litigation
2. want to switch to investment banking or private equity in the future (or go for a MBA)
3. or, want to go in-house for hospitality or entertainment/media or fashion industry
4. making partner is not my career goal
5. want some international work, especially Asia
6. want to make myself very marketable when seeking future employment in Asia (law firm or finance or in-house)

Please explain your rationale for voting, thanks!

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

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:54 pm

Debevoise.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:54 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Debevoise.


why?

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

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:58 pm

I take that back.

Debevoise is superior for PE work. DPW slightly superior for public M&A.

DPW superior for asia stuff.

Depends on how you balance your prefs.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Really thrilled to have great options. My situations are:

1. transaction work for sure, no litigation
2. want to switch to investment banking or private equity in the future (or go for a MBA)
3. or, want to go in-house for hospitality or entertainment/media or fashion industry
4. making partner is not my career goal
5. want some international work, especially Asia
6. want to make myself very marketable when seeking future employment in Asia (law firm or finance or in-house)

Please explain your rationale for voting, thanks!


I voted for DPW. I think it's a (perhaps marginally) stronger, more prestigious firm with stronger ties to banks (#2) than Debevoise, although Debevoise is better for PE. I have no idea how #3 should play into this decision. #4 is good because it's almost certainly not going to happen at either. In my mind, DPW is a clear winner for Asia goals (#5 and #6). More established in the area and does bigger deals.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:03 pm

OP here.

my feeling is that Davis Polk, most people get out after a couple of years. It seems that more people stay at Debevoise. Is my impression correct?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:OP here.

my feeling is that Davis Polk, most people get out after a couple of years. It seems that more people stay at Debevoise. Is my impression correct?


I spent my summer at DPW and I know quite a few people at Debevoise. My guess is that the rates at which attorneys at both firms leave is practically identical. I'm not sure why it would be any different.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:36 pm

1) On a whole, DPW has the more prestigious reputation for transactional work generally
2) Debevoise kills it on the PE fund formation side, like one of the top 2-3 firms, and is very good at PE transactions as well. I really get the sense that it is not a focus at DPW.
3) no clue
4) equal chances - After talking with associates at both, didn't really get different opinions about this one, although it seems like people expect to stay longer at Debevoise
5) Both firms have good Asian offices. Both firms have 2-3yr overseas rotations available, although DPW's rotation program seems more formal, while Debevoise's is more situation dependent.
6) Speak Chinese, go to either of these firms.
*This is like the 10th thread I've seen lately comparing these two firms, which I'm not saying to be rude in any way. I just mean that these firms are really similar in terms of strengths and culture, and I think that a certain type of candidate, like me, is drawn to both and the firms like the same kind of candidate. A couple of things I considered:
1) DPW is SO involved in the financial industry, so consider if you like that. Also, they're the top at capital markets work, and I saw a random (unsubstantiated) rumor around one of these boards saying some M&A associates were pulled over to cap. markets. (Great, now I'm perpetuating TLS rumors. Sorry.) But, the possibility of that situation might be enough to push you one way or the other.
2) Someone mentioned it above, but Debevoise is probably stronger at private M&A than DPW, and probably has a more diversified M&A practice than DPW in general, although they certainly have their sector strengths as well. Either way, both are National Elite Band 2 on Chambers, which is really the most useful data you have, if you're playing "Who's the best?"
3) DPW probably has a little bit stronger name and prestige recognition, both on TLS and geographically. However, it is silly to think that will affect your exit options. While DPW might get a bump in some ethereal concept of "global prestige", either way you'll be working for equally-sophisticated clients who won't care at all about that. At that point, what will matter is how good you are at what you do and the relationships you've built with clients and partners.
Bottom line/TLS adage: Go where you "fit" best, or alternatively, go where you feel like you could be the most successful individually.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote: I saw a random (unsubstantiated) rumor around one of these boards saying some M&A associates were pulled over to cap. markets.


As far as I know, this isn't true. However, there do exist more people that want to get into the M&A group than the group can actually support. Cap markets can pretty much always use people. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people who expressed a preference for M&A over cap markets, but ended up with cap markets as an early rotation instead of M&A. That being said, if you really want M&A and know that, it's essentially a 100 percent chance that you could get assigned to that group (although you may end up doing a rotation in one or two other groups before you get there). But as far as I know, nobody assigned to the M&A group was moved to the cap markets group.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8441
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby thesealocust » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:51 pm

Based on what you wrote about your preferences and how comparable the firms are, it'd be silly to do anything but follow your gut.

If you're still torn, just go to DPW. It has a bigger vault number. Or a lower one. More prestige points in every paycheck. Part of a balanced prestige breakfast. It's the Tiffany's of prestige. You can marry a United States senator and appear on say yes to the dress. Or something.

Etc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:06 am

If you deal with your pe client a lot. And you have quant background. Can do excel work. Whats the likelihood for you to move to a pe fund? Not for the legal role but for the general partner track

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Davis Polk v. Debevoise

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:02 pm

It's not going to happen. Breaking into PE on the business side requires a very specific track. People that think they can shimmy their way in via law are incredibly mistaken and borderline delusional.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.