WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

(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.

Which firm should I go to?

WLRK
69
84%
CSM
6
7%
S&C
7
9%
 
Total votes: 82

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby jbagelboy » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:28 am

Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Wachtell seems obvious. The other two firms are in a different bucket


But there is literally zero work life balance at Wachtell. There's more of a semblance of work life balance at CSM and S&C


You're only doing it for 2-3 years (and you can retire from biglaw earlier at Wachtell). Anyone going into M&A at these firms has accepted a degree of sadism and a socially noxious approach to work. Any differences are so vastly outstripped by opportunity and compensation. It's not like CSM and S&C come close to being lifestyle firms, and there's no incremental justice here.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:43 am

Original Anon here. Thanks everyone, I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with Wachtell. Everything ITT was super helpful.

Anonymous User wrote:Would you mind commenting on why you found DPW/STB weird?


I just got a weird vibe from the attorneys during CBs/second looks/events. I didn't feel like the conversations were easy, it felt like a struggle. Nothing in particular and they all seemed like nice people, just got a vibe that I wouldn't be very happy there socially.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:24 am

jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Wachtell seems obvious. The other two firms are in a different bucket


But there is literally zero work life balance at Wachtell. There's more of a semblance of work life balance at CSM and S&C


You're only doing it for 2-3 years (and you can retire from biglaw earlier at Wachtell). Anyone going into M&A at these firms has accepted a degree of sadism and a socially noxious approach to work. Any differences are so vastly outstripped by opportunity and compensation. It's not like CSM and S&C come close to being lifestyle firms, and there's no incremental justice here.


By opportunity, do you mean exit options? Are they significantly better at WLRK?

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Wachtell seems obvious. The other two firms are in a different bucket


But there is literally zero work life balance at Wachtell. There's more of a semblance of work life balance at CSM and S&C


You're only doing it for 2-3 years (and you can retire from biglaw earlier at Wachtell). Anyone going into M&A at these firms has accepted a degree of sadism and a socially noxious approach to work. Any differences are so vastly outstripped by opportunity and compensation. It's not like CSM and S&C come close to being lifestyle firms, and there's no incremental justice here.


By opportunity, do you mean exit options? Are they significantly better at WLRK?


I feel like beside the $$$ and prestige, there's really nothing that makes WLRK stand out. People treat it like it's above CSM and S&C, but I'm not sure that's true

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5564
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby rpupkin » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I feel like beside the $$$ and prestige, there's really nothing that makes WLRK stand out. People treat it like it's above CSM and S&C, but I'm not sure that's true

What do you think makes CSM and S&C stand out above any other firm in the V20?

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:50 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I feel like beside the $$$ and prestige, there's really nothing that makes WLRK stand out. People treat it like it's above CSM and S&C, but I'm not sure that's true

What do you think makes CSM and S&C stand out above any other firm in the V20?


I don't think CSM and S&C necessarily stand out above other V20 firms. I just don't think WLRK is as special as people make it out to be.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:12 am

Anonymous User wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I feel like beside the $$$ and prestige, there's really nothing that makes WLRK stand out. People treat it like it's above CSM and S&C, but I'm not sure that's true

What do you think makes CSM and S&C stand out above any other firm in the V20?


I don't think CSM and S&C necessarily stand out above other V20 firms. I just don't think WLRK is as special as people make it out to be.


There are reasons why WLRK is clearly more prestigious and pay more. It is the most selective New York firm and that means it can claim to have the brightest lawyers and clients knoe that. As far as I know WLRK profits per partner are the highest and so it's always performing at the top level and can afford to pay more to associates. Taking into account the bonus WLRK associates make a lot more money than CSM or S&C associates.

I recall from a b school case study that WLRK has a unique billong system. It charges its clients for quality and complexity of work done. It selects clients and generally deals only with critical matters. Its associates never do routine work.Maybe things have changed since the time of the study. But from my own observation of fellow law school classmates, WLRK does seem to require some miracle (to exaggerate a bit) to get in wheress so many people get offers from firms like CSM and DPW. They just always seem to be in a different league, kind of like how YLS is to other law schools.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:22 am

Not sure where people are getting the notion that WLRK has better exit options than CSM or S&C. Where are WLRK associates going that's so much better than where CSM and S&C associates are going? (From what I hear, it's pretty easy to exit to an investment bank or F100 company coming from CSM. I imagine the same is true of S&C. I even know a guy who exited to a bank and retained the same pay that he had as a CSM associate.)

One other thing for OP to consider is where s/he wants to go in-house. In the NY area, perhaps WLRK is more prestigious. (It is ranked #1 on Vault for New York, after all.) But outside of the NY area, CSM might take the cake. (Note that CSM is #1 on Vault overall.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:29 am

Anonymous User wrote:Not sure where people are getting the notion that WLRK has better exit options than CSM or S&C. Where are WLRK associates going that's so much better than where CSM and S&C associates are going? (From what I hear, it's pretty easy to exit to an investment bank or F100 company coming from CSM. I imagine the same is true of S&C. I even know a guy who exited to a bank and retained the same pay that he had as a CSM associate.)

One other thing for OP to consider is where s/he wants to go in-house. In the NY area, perhaps WLRK is more prestigious. (It is ranked #1 on Vault for New York, after all.) But outside of the NY area, CSM might take the cake. (Note that CSM is #1 on Vault overall.)


Oh this is interesting, I hadn't thought of that. If exit options are the same and CSM has a better brand name nationally, I guess the only reason to choose WLRK is the $$

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:27 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Wachtell seems obvious. The other two firms are in a different bucket


But there is literally zero work life balance at Wachtell. There's more of a semblance of work life balance at CSM and S&C


You're only doing it for 2-3 years (and you can retire from biglaw earlier at Wachtell). Anyone going into M&A at these firms has accepted a degree of sadism and a socially noxious approach to work. Any differences are so vastly outstripped by opportunity and compensation. It's not like CSM and S&C come close to being lifestyle firms, and there's no incremental justice here.


By opportunity, do you mean exit options? Are they significantly better at WLRK?


I feel like beside the $$$ and prestige, there's really nothing that makes WLRK stand out. People treat it like it's above CSM and S&C, but I'm not sure that's true


It's substantially more difficult to get hired at Wachtell than CSM/DPW/STB/S&C, which have largely interchangeable summer class composition year over year. So the caliber of the average associate at Wachtell is higher, the partnership prospects are brighter, the density of highest profile/most interesting work is slightly higher, and yes exits can be faster (not materially different, but faster than at other V5's).

As rpupkin notes, the real fantasy in threads like this (which is obsolete btw, OP reached a decision) is that S&C and Cravath are somehow more comparable to Wachtell than their peers firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
As for the "Wachtell only does X" line, if the guy who told you that is from S&C, they said that at my interview too (although I never got a WLRK offer). That's kind of the go-to anti-Wachtell line for other firms too. But its BS, since the vast majority of transactional fields have their fair share of mind-numbing work in the early years. Maybe BK is the exception, but not always.


Wasn't Sullcrom, but interesting to hear that's the standard line. Thanks again.


Heard this line from a different firm as well. Something along the lines of Wachtell only does X, so if you hate X, you'll be miserable.

Revlon80
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Revlon80 » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:36 pm

I'm an in-house corporate lawyer for a large publicly-traded company (not in NYC). First off, I'm insanely jealous of the opportunity in front of you. I would have given my right arm for those kinds of opportunities. Congrats! I vote for CSM.

Since you're apparently set on going in-house as the end goal, what are your particular goals (if you know them)? Do you want to stay in NYC? Particular industry? Overall, I think you are better off with a broader practice experience in more corporate subpractices than becoming a really top notch M&A lawyer. The exception to that is probably if you want to go to a private equity firm or only seek a position very tailored to M&A work on an exclusive basis, i.e. a small company that has plans to grow via acquisition very quickly. Very few public companies have that type of specialized position. In-house work is more generalist by nature. In my 3 years, I've drafted SEC filings, drafted an Insider Trading Policy, handle corporate subsidiary management, worked on several high dollar acquisitions, & reviewed countless NDAs, and other "mundane" contracts. You need to develop a comfort with picking up things outside of your comfort zone & cross-training in diverse areas is only a benefit in that regard. Even if you do find a more specialized M&A position, you'll have outside counsel that will handle a large share of the heavy lifting (i.e. turning drafts, etc.).

Wachtell has represented our company on several transactions, & while the associates we worked with were incredibly knowledgeable about, say, indemnity obligations under an acquisition agreement, they were a bit lost if they were asked anything even slightly outside their lane. The other key to success in-house is learning how the company & the industry the company is in actually works, and here again I think WLRK is at a disadvantage. They are like a SWAT team that you call in for a very particular task, & they do their work & are done. You are much more likely to develop the client relationships & industry knowledge by being at a place that provides more ongoing, routine, corporate advice to clients over & over. One intriguing advantage WLRK has developed that I haven't seen mentioned that would be a possible tug for me is their shareholder activism practice. Shareholder activism is only just beginning & WLRK is really at the forefront of that work, & it is work that cuts across the spectrum of corporate practice, from securities & SEC work to M&A. Hope this is helpful.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:29 pm

Revlon80 wrote:I'm an in-house corporate lawyer for a large publicly-traded company (not in NYC). First off, I'm insanely jealous of the opportunity in front of you. I would have given my right arm for those kinds of opportunities. Congrats! I vote for CSM.

Since you're apparently set on going in-house as the end goal, what are your particular goals (if you know them)? Do you want to stay in NYC? Particular industry? Overall, I think you are better off with a broader practice experience in more corporate subpractices than becoming a really top notch M&A lawyer. The exception to that is probably if you want to go to a private equity firm or only seek a position very tailored to M&A work on an exclusive basis, i.e. a small company that has plans to grow via acquisition very quickly. Very few public companies have that type of specialized position. In-house work is more generalist by nature. In my 3 years, I've drafted SEC filings, drafted an Insider Trading Policy, handle corporate subsidiary management, worked on several high dollar acquisitions, & reviewed countless NDAs, and other "mundane" contracts. You need to develop a comfort with picking up things outside of your comfort zone & cross-training in diverse areas is only a benefit in that regard. Even if you do find a more specialized M&A position, you'll have outside counsel that will handle a large share of the heavy lifting (i.e. turning drafts, etc.).

Wachtell has represented our company on several transactions, & while the associates we worked with were incredibly knowledgeable about, say, indemnity obligations under an acquisition agreement, they were a bit lost if they were asked anything even slightly outside their lane. The other key to success in-house is learning how the company & the industry the company is in actually works, and here again I think WLRK is at a disadvantage. They are like a SWAT team that you call in for a very particular task, & they do their work & are done. You are much more likely to develop the client relationships & industry knowledge by being at a place that provides more ongoing, routine, corporate advice to clients over & over. One intriguing advantage WLRK has developed that I haven't seen mentioned that would be a possible tug for me is their shareholder activism practice. Shareholder activism is only just beginning & WLRK is really at the forefront of that work, & it is work that cuts across the spectrum of corporate practice, from securities & SEC work to M&A. Hope this is helpful.


This is so interesting and useful, thanks so much for your perspective.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Revlon80 wrote:I'm an in-house corporate lawyer for a large publicly-traded company (not in NYC). First off, I'm insanely jealous of the opportunity in front of you. I would have given my right arm for those kinds of opportunities. Congrats! I vote for CSM.

Since you're apparently set on going in-house as the end goal, what are your particular goals (if you know them)? Do you want to stay in NYC? Particular industry? Overall, I think you are better off with a broader practice experience in more corporate subpractices than becoming a really top notch M&A lawyer. The exception to that is probably if you want to go to a private equity firm or only seek a position very tailored to M&A work on an exclusive basis, i.e. a small company that has plans to grow via acquisition very quickly. Very few public companies have that type of specialized position. In-house work is more generalist by nature. In my 3 years, I've drafted SEC filings, drafted an Insider Trading Policy, handle corporate subsidiary management, worked on several high dollar acquisitions, & reviewed countless NDAs, and other "mundane" contracts. You need to develop a comfort with picking up things outside of your comfort zone & cross-training in diverse areas is only a benefit in that regard. Even if you do find a more specialized M&A position, you'll have outside counsel that will handle a large share of the heavy lifting (i.e. turning drafts, etc.).

Wachtell has represented our company on several transactions, & while the associates we worked with were incredibly knowledgeable about, say, indemnity obligations under an acquisition agreement, they were a bit lost if they were asked anything even slightly outside their lane. The other key to success in-house is learning how the company & the industry the company is in actually works, and here again I think WLRK is at a disadvantage. They are like a SWAT team that you call in for a very particular task, & they do their work & are done. You are much more likely to develop the client relationships & industry knowledge by being at a place that provides more ongoing, routine, corporate advice to clients over & over. One intriguing advantage WLRK has developed that I haven't seen mentioned that would be a possible tug for me is their shareholder activism practice. Shareholder activism is only just beginning & WLRK is really at the forefront of that work, & it is work that cuts across the spectrum of corporate practice, from securities & SEC work to M&A. Hope this is helpful.


This is so interesting and useful, thanks so much for your perspective.


Yes, this is really great. More things to consider now. Thanks!

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:15 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Wachtell seems obvious. The other two firms are in a different bucket


But there is literally zero work life balance at Wachtell. There's more of a semblance of work life balance at CSM and S&C


You're only doing it for 2-3 years (and you can retire from biglaw earlier at Wachtell). Anyone going into M&A at these firms has accepted a degree of sadism and a socially noxious approach to work. Any differences are so vastly outstripped by opportunity and compensation. It's not like CSM and S&C come close to being lifestyle firms, and there's no incremental justice here.


By opportunity, do you mean exit options? Are they significantly better at WLRK?


I feel like beside the $$$ and prestige, there's really nothing that makes WLRK stand out. People treat it like it's above CSM and S&C, but I'm not sure that's true


It's substantially more difficult to get hired at Wachtell than CSM/DPW/STB/S&C, which have largely interchangeable summer class composition year over year. So the caliber of the average associate at Wachtell is higher, the partnership prospects are brighter, the density of highest profile/most interesting work is slightly higher, and yes exits can be faster (not materially different, but faster than at other V5's).

As rpupkin notes, the real fantasy in threads like this (which is obsolete btw, OP reached a decision) is that S&C and Cravath are somehow more comparable to Wachtell than their peers firms.

Well, it's also substantially more difficult to get hired at Susman Godfrey than it is to get hired at CSM/DPW/STB/S&C. That doesn't mean that Susman is the better firm for someone who wants to go in-house. (Hint: It's not.)

The whole point is that Wachtell is basically an M&A boutique. Yes, they're very selective, they're excellent at what they do, and they pay very well. But in terms of skills developed, a would-be in-house lawyer would be better served by going to CSM (and probably S&C). The money might make WLRK worth it anyway, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's any other reason for a future in-house lawyer to prefer WLRK.

BTW, not sure that CSM/DPW/STB/S&C have largely interchangeable summer class composition anymore. Looking at my T6 school's OCI stats, that appears to be true before CSM took the #1 Vault spot, but yields for this past year were substantially higher at CSM than DPW, STB, and S&C. (In fact, CSM yields were even higher than WLRK yields, though the small sample size for WLRK makes this a noisy estimate.) Perhaps this was just a fluke, but maybe not.

v5junior
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:31 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby v5junior » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:06 pm

Has anyone looked at CSMs numbers on loan/bond league tables? They're closer to Wachtell in terms of being an M&A boutique than they are to S&C being a full service firm.

Regardless, kind of weird metric to be looking at. It's not like representing Goldman in connection with a term loan is going to provide you with materially better insight into how to draft an insider trading compliance memo.

SLS_AMG
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby SLS_AMG » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Wachtell seems obvious. The other two firms are in a different bucket


But there is literally zero work life balance at Wachtell. There's more of a semblance of work life balance at CSM and S&C


You're only doing it for 2-3 years (and you can retire from biglaw earlier at Wachtell). Anyone going into M&A at these firms has accepted a degree of sadism and a socially noxious approach to work. Any differences are so vastly outstripped by opportunity and compensation. It's not like CSM and S&C come close to being lifestyle firms, and there's no incremental justice here.


By opportunity, do you mean exit options? Are they significantly better at WLRK?


I feel like beside the $$$ and prestige, there's really nothing that makes WLRK stand out. People treat it like it's above CSM and S&C, but I'm not sure that's true


It's substantially more difficult to get hired at Wachtell than CSM/DPW/STB/S&C, which have largely interchangeable summer class composition year over year. So the caliber of the average associate at Wachtell is higher, the partnership prospects are brighter, the density of highest profile/most interesting work is slightly higher, and yes exits can be faster (not materially different, but faster than at other V5's).

As rpupkin notes, the real fantasy in threads like this (which is obsolete btw, OP reached a decision) is that S&C and Cravath are somehow more comparable to Wachtell than their peers firms.

Well, it's also substantially more difficult to get hired at Susman Godfrey than it is to get hired at CSM/DPW/STB/S&C. That doesn't mean that Susman is the better firm for someone who wants to go in-house. (Hint: It's not.)

The whole point is that Wachtell is basically an M&A boutique. Yes, they're very selective, they're excellent at what they do, and they pay very well. But in terms of skills developed, a would-be in-house lawyer would be better served by going to CSM (and probably S&C). The money might make WLRK worth it anyway, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's any other reason for a future in-house lawyer to prefer WLRK.

BTW, not sure that CSM/DPW/STB/S&C have largely interchangeable summer class composition anymore. Looking at my T6 school's OCI stats, that appears to be true before CSM took the #1 Vault spot, but yields for this past year were substantially higher at CSM than DPW, STB, and S&C. (In fact, CSM yields were even higher than WLRK yields, though the small sample size for WLRK makes this a noisy estimate.) Perhaps this was just a fluke, but maybe not.


That's better.

lol at the jealous CSM summers in this thread trying to convince themselves and others that there are lots of good reasons to choose CSM over WLRK. They would've jumped at the chance to work at Wachtell.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
lol at the jealous CSM summers in this thread trying to convince themselves and others that there are lots of good reasons to choose CSM over WLRK. They would've jumped at the chance to work at Wachtell.


Lots of people have chosen CSM over Wachtell. Some summers did both and ended up accepting a full time offer from CSM.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:25 pm

v5junior wrote:Has anyone looked at CSMs numbers on loan/bond league tables? They're closer to Wachtell in terms of being an M&A boutique than they are to S&C being a full service firm.

I have, and I've found CSM to be pretty high in the tables. This is particularly significant since CSM, with just over 500 attorneys, is much smaller than other non-WLRK V5 firms (DPW > 900; Skadden > 1700; S&C > 700), and a plurality of its corporate attorneys do M&A.

Syndicated lending (look at lenders, where att'y fees are bigger):

http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... 202016.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf

Capital markets (look at US managers, where again att'y fees are bigger):

http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf

No doubt that M&A is CSM's biggest practice (isn't that true for all V5 firms, with the exception of DPW?), but it gets very good securities and banking deals as well. CSM is probably the most "well-rounded" V5 firm (though S&C is also pretty well rounded).

v5junior
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:31 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby v5junior » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:14 am

Anonymous User wrote:
v5junior wrote:Has anyone looked at CSMs numbers on loan/bond league tables? They're closer to Wachtell in terms of being an M&A boutique than they are to S&C being a full service firm.

I have, and I've found CSM to be pretty high in the tables. This is particularly significant since CSM, with just over 500 attorneys, is much smaller than other non-WLRK V5 firms (DPW > 900; Skadden > 1700; S&C > 700), and a plurality of its corporate attorneys do M&A.

Syndicated lending (look at lenders, where att'y fees are bigger):

http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... 202016.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf

Capital markets (look at US managers, where again att'y fees are bigger):

http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf

No doubt that M&A is CSM's biggest practice (isn't that true for all V5 firms, with the exception of DPW?), but it gets very good securities and banking deals as well. CSM is probably the most "well-rounded" V5 firm (though S&C is also pretty well rounded).


Well I don't know where to start. Lot of misinformation here.

I don't know who told you that attorneys fees are bigger on manager deals in capital markets, but that's absolutely false. Not even close--on a per deal basis, all the money is on the issuer side of deals. Which is why CSM's absolute irrelevance on the issuer side of capital markets deals is indicative of their clearly second-rate cap markets group. I have not done any straight banking work, so I'm not going to comment there, but given the degree of this trolling, hard to believe much of what you have to say.

Look, CSM is a great firm, particularly for M&A (probably the best firm for M&A). But you can't sit here with a straight face and tell people that a group that's sole capital markets business involves underwriter representation (and a large percentage of investment grade work, which is actually among the *least* profitable securities work) is somehow more well rounded than S&C/Skadden. Not to mention it's almost literally non-existent other corporate practice groups (bankruptcy, bank regulatory, real estate, fund formation...).
Last edited by v5junior on Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby runinthefront » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:18 am

SLS_AMG wrote:
lol at the jealous CSM summers in this thread trying to convince themselves and others that there are lots of good reasons to choose CSM over WLRK.

v5junior
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:31 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby v5junior » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:35 am

Anonymous User wrote:
v5junior wrote:Has anyone looked at CSMs numbers on loan/bond league tables? They're closer to Wachtell in terms of being an M&A boutique than they are to S&C being a full service firm.

I have, and I've found CSM to be pretty high in the tables. This is particularly significant since CSM, with just over 500 attorneys, is much smaller than other non-WLRK V5 firms (DPW > 900; Skadden > 1700; S&C > 700), and a plurality of its corporate attorneys do M&A.

Syndicated lending (look at lenders, where att'y fees are bigger):

http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... 202016.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf

Capital markets (look at US managers, where again att'y fees are bigger):

http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf
http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf

No doubt that M&A is CSM's biggest practice (isn't that true for all V5 firms, with the exception of DPW?), but it gets very good securities and banking deals as well. CSM is probably the most "well-rounded" V5 firm (though S&C is also pretty well rounded).


One other noteworthy point which I forgot to mention after this overwhelming misdirection: isn't the whole point of this thread in house exit options? Putting profitability aside, who do you think is more marketable to a strategic company looking to hire an in house lawyer? The one who's spent his career representing financial institutions, or the one who's spent his career representing strategic companies (or both--as most non-CSM V5 firms do)?

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:16 am

Back to the actual topic of this post - if you want to be a well-rounded corporate lawyer, does it make more sense to go to S&C over WLRK?

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5564
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby rpupkin » Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:Back to the actual topic of this post - if you want to be a well-rounded corporate lawyer, does it make more sense to go to S&C over WLRK?

Does an applicant who chooses to attend a lower-ranked school over YLS end up with a more well-rounded legal education? Probably. But the applicant was still wrong to turn down YLS.

Look, I'm not a corporate guy. I have no reason to question anything in Revlon80's interesting post. All I can tell you is that WLRK associates make a lot more money than S&C and CSM associates, and that--at least based on my anecdotal observation--WLRK associates seem to have no problem exiting to wherever they want to exit to.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: WLRK v. S&C v. CSM for in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:41 am

WLRK is not an M&A boutique. Its not even close. It has just as many litigators as corporate lawyers. It is a full service firm. They do very well with their M&A practice, but the firm is more than just deal work.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.