Law firms and banks Forum

[bigbirdfly]

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]

Fried Frank has strong ties with Goldman

[guano]

The Bault rankings are a good proxy for this

[goodolgil]

all of them

[Anonymous User]

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]

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]

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]

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]

edited for brevity

[Anonymous User]

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."

[Fujin11]

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]

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.

[EtherOne]

Sherman & Sterling, as well.

[shotsfired12]

They play baseball in puerto rico.

[wons]

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.