Law firms and banks

(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.
bigbirdfly
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:06 pm

Law firms and banks

Postby bigbirdfly » Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:09 am

Which law firms have strong historical and current connections with major investment banks? I know that the quintessential Wall Street firm SullCrom has strong connection with Goldman, JPM, etc. Which other firms?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:59 am

Fried Frank has strong ties with Goldman

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby guano » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:20 am

The Bault rankings are a good proxy for this

goodolgil
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby goodolgil » Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:46 am

all of them

Anonymous User
Posts: 273382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:37 pm

The answers you have received so far suck.

Because of conflicts of interest and varying specialties, all of the banks use a wide variety of firms for legal services.

Having said that, there are identifiable one-on-one institutional client type relationships.

The two I'm most sure of: Goldman is a major institutional client of Sullivan & Cromwell and Morgan Stanley is a major institutional client of Davis Polk.

I feel like I knew BAML but it's escaping me at the moment, but it was another big name. JPM might also be tied to DPW as closely as MS is, I've heard people refer to DPW and 'the Morgans' in the same breath.

The firms with marquee FIG practices (notable DPW and S&C but there are others) all have a deep roster of financial institution clients. I think DPW and S&C did all of the Dodd-Frank 'living will' work for the SIFIs.

Some of the major NYC players, like Skadden, often to more issuer-side capital markets work while firms like DPW and S&C might be more likely to do underwriter-side work.

Pretty sure Cleary has some as well.

Liam
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:34 pm

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby Liam » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:The answers you have received so far suck.

Because of conflicts of interest and varying specialties, all of the banks use a wide variety of firms for legal services.

Having said that, there are identifiable one-on-one institutional client type relationships.

The two I'm most sure of: Goldman is a major institutional client of Sullivan & Cromwell and Morgan Stanley is a major institutional client of Davis Polk.

I feel like I knew BAML but it's escaping me at the moment, but it was another big name. JPM might also be tied to DPW as closely as MS is, I've heard people refer to DPW and 'the Morgans' in the same breath.

The firms with marquee FIG practices (notable DPW and S&C but there are others) all have a deep roster of financial institution clients. I think DPW and S&C did all of the Dodd-Frank 'living will' work for the SIFIs.

Some of the major NYC players, like Skadden, often to more issuer-side capital markets work while firms like DPW and S&C might be more likely to do underwriter-side work.

Pretty sure Cleary has some as well.


I have no insight on DPW's relationship with Morgan Stanley, but I do know they get enough JPMorgan work to have a team of support staffers who deal exclusively with the "JPM Shelf."

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

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby itbdvorm » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:26 pm

goodolgil wrote:all of them


this is actually the right answer (sort of).

the question is what sort of relationship are you talking about?

different firms do different things for different banks. but all of the v10 are going to derive a substantial amount of work from the bulge bracket banks.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:41 pm

Liam wrote:I have no insight on DPW's relationship with Morgan Stanley, but I do know they get enough JPMorgan work to have a team of support staffers who deal exclusively with the "JPM Shelf."


DPW does "shelf" work for JPM, MS, Citi, DB, CS, and others - it's a very narrow field in derivatives that few other law firms are involved in, and one reason they do so much is because of their deep roots with financial institutions otherwise.

hamsamitchguy03
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:30 pm

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby hamsamitchguy03 » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:45 pm

edited for brevity
Last edited by hamsamitchguy03 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:49 pm

Shearman had close ties with ML before they were bought by BoA, not sure who BoA most close with (wachtell?).

Shearman also close with Citi.

But what feels most true is "all the banks use all the firms."

User avatar
Fujin11
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:18 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby Fujin11 » Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:49 pm

At least historically DPW and JP Morgan have a significant relationship, John W. Davis (founding partner of DPW) was J. P. Morgan Jr.'s lawyer during the congressional hearings that led to the securities acts in the 1930's

WhirledWorld
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:04 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby WhirledWorld » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:The answers you have received so far suck.

Because of conflicts of interest and varying specialties, all of the banks use a wide variety of firms for legal services.

Having said that, there are identifiable one-on-one institutional client type relationships.

The two I'm most sure of: Goldman is a major institutional client of Sullivan & Cromwell and Morgan Stanley is a major institutional client of Davis Polk.

I feel like I knew BAML but it's escaping me at the moment, but it was another big name. JPM might also be tied to DPW as closely as MS is, I've heard people refer to DPW and 'the Morgans' in the same breath.

The firms with marquee FIG practices (notable DPW and S&C but there are others) all have a deep roster of financial institution clients. I think DPW and S&C did all of the Dodd-Frank 'living will' work for the SIFIs.

Some of the major NYC players, like Skadden, often to more issuer-side capital markets work while firms like DPW and S&C might be more likely to do underwriter-side work.

Pretty sure Cleary has some as well.


This is the most accurate answer.

GS = Most top firms, S&C with the biggest market share though by no means the only one

JPM = Everyone, I think Cravath has the biggest share?

MS = DPW

ML = Was Shearman & Sterling, but after BoA bought them they lost most of that work.

CS = Pretty sure it's Skadden, since plenty of folks get seconded to CS from there, but I could be wrong.

Not sure about Citi/UBS/DB/Barclays/BoA.

User avatar
EtherOne
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:34 pm

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby EtherOne » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:11 pm

Sherman & Sterling, as well.

SHANbangs
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 am

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby SHANbangs » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:56 pm

For CS, the secondees I met were from Davis Polk, Cravath, S&C, and Debevoise. Also Shearman seems to have a good relationship with them.

wons
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Law firms and banks

Postby wons » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:01 am

Everyone uses everyone - folks spread work around. But these are some of the traditional relationhips, many of which have broken down to greater or lesser degrees:

GS - S&C
JPM - Cravath, STB
MS - DPW
Citi - S&S (mostly broken down)
BofA - STB (and BitD, S&S)
DB - W&C (because ex-Bankers Trust)

These relationships generally are the strongest for traditional securities work and M&A. In newer practice areas, things are more mixed up. For example, for high-yield / lev fin, Latham gets the lions share of GS work, and Cahill gets a ton of work from everybody. For DIP financing, DPW is king. Etc.

EDIT: to add that from the above, you can see why S&S's position has eroded so dramatically over the last 20 years. They lost two huge instituional clients AND their public company M&A practice.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.