Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:29 pm

Just got an offer from Sullivan and that is the end of my cycle. Now I really need some advice: I am mostly interested in transnational work, especially capital markets and M&A. I understand that both Paul Weiss and Gibson are more known for their litigation work, but I also heard that Paul Weiss's corporate practice is growing. Sullivan does have the best corporate work?? but I've heard bad thing about their culture.

Any input would be appreciated.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:31 pm

Clarify: by Sullivan I meant Sullivan & Cromwell

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:35 pm

Is this a serious question, or are you just humbragging? Sullivan & Cromwell has arguably the best corporate group based on leagues tables over the past ten years. It was ranked #2 in corporate based on a Vault survey of partners back in the mid-2000s, and it almost certainly has surpassed Cravath (#1 back then) since the financial crisis (though the partners survey is no longer being conducted). S&C/Wachtell/Cravath are the best for large public M&A. S&C/Davis Polk are the best for capital market. S&C is the best for securities regulation, hands down. Unless you have strong personal/fit reasons for choosing Paul Weiss/Gibson Dunn, S&C is the way to go for corporate among all firms, not just Paul Weiss/Gibson Dunn.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:48 pm

Don't be silly. Go to S&C. If you really hate it, then you can do 3L OGI or lateral to a different firm. The reverse is less likely to be true. An S&C offer or a few years at S&C will make you among the most attractive candidates at 3L OGI/on the lateral market.

For the record, my friends who are at S&C don't hate it.

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

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Don't be silly. Go to S&C. If you really hate it, then you can do 3L OGI or lateral to a different firm. The reverse is less likely to be true. An S&C offer or a few years at S&C will make you among the most attractive candidates at 3L OGI/on the lateral market.

For the record, my friends who are at S&C don't hate it.


OGI is a UVA-only thing, bro.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8442
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby thesealocust » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:58 pm

S&C has the best corporate practice from amongst that group, and it's not really up for debate. Asking yourself "how much does it matter that I go to the firm with the best corporate practice?" is very fair though, especially because GDC and Paul Weiss are both fine firms.

At the end of the day, you'll be a lawyer at a law firm and then a lawyer at a law firm or someone else. How much happiness the number of zeroes in your deal or the number of times your cases were in the newspaper gives you isn't totally irrelevant and ambition isn't objectively wrong, but it also may not have that much of an impact on your day to day life.

What you've heard about their culture should matter less than the impression you got and what you can dig up with further work. Do second visits, do more research, etc.

royilae
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby royilae » Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:44 pm

this kind of seems like a brag...S&C is obviously the BEST for corporate notwithstanding fit but I have a feeling you knew that

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Is this a serious question, or are you just humbragging? Sullivan & Cromwell has arguably the best corporate group based on leagues tables over the past ten years. It was ranked #2 in corporate based on a Vault survey of partners back in the mid-2000s, and it almost certainly has surpassed Cravath (#1 back then) since the financial crisis (though the partners survey is no longer being conducted). S&C/Wachtell/Cravath are the best for large public M&A. S&C/Davis Polk are the best for capital market. S&C is the best for securities regulation, hands down. Unless you have strong personal/fit reasons for choosing Paul Weiss/Gibson Dunn, S&C is the way to go for corporate among all firms, not just Paul Weiss/Gibson Dunn.


This is really a serious question. I do not have strong personal reasons for choosing PW or Gibson, but I revisited both and really liked them. I will revisit SullCrom soon, but I just am concerned by some bad reviews here at TLS concerning SullCrom. I do like good quality work, but I do value good culture as well.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:04 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Don't be silly. Go to S&C. If you really hate it, then you can do 3L OGI or lateral to a different firm. The reverse is less likely to be true. An S&C offer or a few years at S&C will make you among the most attractive candidates at 3L OGI/on the lateral market.

For the record, my friends who are at S&C don't hate it.


OGI is a UVA-only thing, bro.


Lol mind explaining what OGI is to me? Is it like a 3L OCI?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Is this a serious question, or are you just humbragging? Sullivan & Cromwell has arguably the best corporate group based on leagues tables over the past ten years. It was ranked #2 in corporate based on a Vault survey of partners back in the mid-2000s, and it almost certainly has surpassed Cravath (#1 back then) since the financial crisis (though the partners survey is no longer being conducted). S&C/Wachtell/Cravath are the best for large public M&A. S&C/Davis Polk are the best for capital market. S&C is the best for securities regulation, hands down. Unless you have strong personal/fit reasons for choosing Paul Weiss/Gibson Dunn, S&C is the way to go for corporate among all firms, not just Paul Weiss/Gibson Dunn.


This is really a serious question. I do not have strong personal reasons for choosing PW or Gibson, but I revisited both and really liked them. I will revisit SullCrom soon, but I just am concerned by some bad reviews here at TLS concerning SullCrom. I do like good quality work, but I do value good culture as well.


No culture is intrinsically "good." What you need to do is to find the right fit. People can say that the culture at S&C/Cravath/Skadden are bad all they want, but cultures at those firms might fit you well. Many people hate the cultures at DPW, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, etc.

case
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:47 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby case » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:56 pm

Ok thanks for clarifying that by Sullivan you meant S&C. You have on offer from S&C, you are capable of researching this independently. No one on TLS is going to have particularly useful advice for you.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby laxbrah420 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:03 pm

The hostility on this website towards winners is fucking ridiculous. First, as a reader of this site, and someone who can't get a job at S&C, I still found it interesting to learn that S&C is the best corporate practice (I did not know that before). Second, when making a decision like this, and you can just verify for free what you already know, it's pretty reasonable to do that. Yall should chill the fuck out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:12 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:The hostility on this website towards winners is fucking ridiculous. First, as a reader of this site, and someone who can't get a job at S&C, I still found it interesting to learn that S&C is the best corporate practice (I did not know that before). Second, when making a decision like this, and you can just verify for free what you already know, it's pretty reasonable to do that. Yall should chill the fuck out.


I think what ticked some TLS users about this post is how the OP phrased the question. Absent a description of OP's personality and preferences on culture, asking OP's question on TLS is at most useless for the OP and at worst irritating for non-winners (in your words). If the OP had asked about S&C vs. Cravath or S&C vs. Davis Polk or S&C vs. STB, that wouldn't have seemed like humblebrag, and TLS users would have been more receptive and helpful.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273146
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:The hostility on this website towards winners is fucking ridiculous. First, as a reader of this site, and someone who can't get a job at S&C, I still found it interesting to learn that S&C is the best corporate practice (I did not know that before). Second, when making a decision like this, and you can just verify for free what you already know, it's pretty reasonable to do that. Yall should chill the fuck out.


I think what ticked some TLS users about this post is how the OP phrased the question. Absent a description of OP's personality and preferences on culture, asking OP's question on TLS is at most useless for the OP and at worst irritating for non-winners (in your words). If the OP had asked about S&C vs. Cravath or S&C vs. Davis Polk or S&C vs. STB with out additional information on fit preferences, that wouldn't have seemed like humblebrag, and TLS users would have been more receptive and helpful.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8442
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Sullivan v. Paul Weiss v. Gibson (for NY Corporate)

Postby thesealocust » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:30 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:I still found it interesting to learn that S&C is the best corporate practice (I did not know that before).


Also, just to clarify, it only has "the best corporate practice" so obviously amongst that group of three firms.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.