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

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
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 11:29 am

One of the earlier anons.

WLRK has less of a variety of strong practice groups, but it is far from a "M&A boutique". From my experience they are at least strong at lit, BK, white collar, REIT work, and other ancillary groups

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
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 1:40 pm

Former WLRK associate here--I do think that WLRK's corporate practices are noticeably less diverse than Cravath's or S&C's. There were certain kinds of work that I rarely or never heard of us doing, particularly banky things like financial regulation or financial instruments. Litigation is a different story of course, and the practice there is not as shareholder-lawsuit-heavy as some people believe.

While I was in law school, Cravath had a hard timing hiring people because it had a reputation as a sweatshop where you would work WLRK hours for half the money. The relatively few classmates of mine who went there seem to corroborate this story; several of them moved to other law firms shortly after graduation. S&C had a more benign reputation as kind of lovable nerds, and I think S&C would be a legitimate choice if you wanted to work with banking clients, which doesn't seem to be OP's goal.

WLRK can definitely be a bit of a pressure cooker--it selects its associates based on intensity and dedication more than other law firms, which engenders the kind of atmosphere where everybody else is billing 2700 hours a year and you feel like you need to keep up. That said, the work is very interesting, the associates are really great, the partners are surprisingly caring, and it was a singular experience that I'm super glad to have had. Most former WLRKers I know say the same.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
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 2:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Former WLRK associate here--I do think that WLRK's corporate practices are noticeably less diverse than Cravath's or S&C's. There were certain kinds of work that I rarely or never heard of us doing, particularly banky things like financial regulation or financial instruments. Litigation is a different story of course, and the practice there is not as shareholder-lawsuit-heavy as some people believe.

While I was in law school, Cravath had a hard timing hiring people because it had a reputation as a sweatshop where you would work WLRK hours for half the money. The relatively few classmates of mine who went there seem to corroborate this story; several of them moved to other law firms shortly after graduation. S&C had a more benign reputation as kind of lovable nerds, and I think S&C would be a legitimate choice if you wanted to work with banking clients, which doesn't seem to be OP's goal.

WLRK can definitely be a bit of a pressure cooker--it selects its associates based on intensity and dedication more than other law firms, which engenders the kind of atmosphere where everybody else is billing 2700 hours a year and you feel like you need to keep up. That said, the work is very interesting, the associates are really great, the partners are surprisingly caring, and it was a singular experience that I'm super glad to have had. Most former WLRKers I know say the same.


Is the bonus still around 100% of base salary?

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
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 2:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Former WLRK associate here--I do think that WLRK's corporate practices are noticeably less diverse than Cravath's or S&C's. There were certain kinds of work that I rarely or never heard of us doing, particularly banky things like financial regulation or financial instruments. Litigation is a different story of course, and the practice there is not as shareholder-lawsuit-heavy as some people believe.

While I was in law school, Cravath had a hard timing hiring people because it had a reputation as a sweatshop where you would work WLRK hours for half the money. The relatively few classmates of mine who went there seem to corroborate this story; several of them moved to other law firms shortly after graduation. S&C had a more benign reputation as kind of lovable nerds, and I think S&C would be a legitimate choice if you wanted to work with banking clients, which doesn't seem to be OP's goal.

WLRK can definitely be a bit of a pressure cooker--it selects its associates based on intensity and dedication more than other law firms, which engenders the kind of atmosphere where everybody else is billing 2700 hours a year and you feel like you need to keep up. That said, the work is very interesting, the associates are really great, the partners are surprisingly caring, and it was a singular experience that I'm super glad to have had. Most former WLRKers I know say the same.


Is the bonus still around 100% of base salary?


I can't get into that unfortunately, associates agree not to discuss compensation and I have no reason to violate that agreement.

User avatar
smokeylarue
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 pm

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

Postby smokeylarue » Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:22 am

You will get in-house down the road from any of these 3 firms, I don't think you need to be worried about that.

At Wachtell you will make several hundreds of thousands dollars more over a few years than any other firm. It seems like a no-brainer to me UNLESS you are already independently wealthy.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:28 am

smokeylarue wrote:You will get in-house down the road from any of these 3 firms, I don't think you need to be worried about that.

At Wachtell you will make several hundreds of thousands dollars more over a few years than any other firm. It seems like a no-brainer to me UNLESS you are already independently wealthy.


Different anon here. The several hundreds of thousands of dollars more story was before 2008...it's still more than at other firms but not that dramatic

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:02 am

Anonymous User wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:You will get in-house down the road from any of these 3 firms, I don't think you need to be worried about that.

At Wachtell you will make several hundreds of thousands dollars more over a few years than any other firm. It seems like a no-brainer to me UNLESS you are already independently wealthy.


Different anon here. The several hundreds of thousands of dollars more story was before 2008...it's still more than at other firms but not that dramatic


Source? I've heard bonuses have been back to 100% for the last few years. Even if they were still around 50%, that would get you to hundreds of thousands more in 2/3 years

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:You will get in-house down the road from any of these 3 firms, I don't think you need to be worried about that.

At Wachtell you will make several hundreds of thousands dollars more over a few years than any other firm. It seems like a no-brainer to me UNLESS you are already independently wealthy.


Different anon here. The several hundreds of thousands of dollars more story was before 2008...it's still more than at other firms but not that dramatic


Source? I've heard bonuses have been back to 100% for the last few years. Even if they were still around 50%, that would get you to hundreds of thousands more in 2/3 years


.

notgreat
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:24 pm

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

Postby notgreat » Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:06 pm

Congrats on all these offers, OP. To echo another poster, I would have loved to have these offers as a 2L.

I actually though it might be good to give the perspective of someone that is an outsider to the world of the V3.

First, you really can't go wrong here. I mean you will work a lot at any of these places. But you will work on top notch matters and with some of the best people in the field. I almost feel like we are splitting hairs here.

Two, would going to CSM really give you the kind of broad based experience you need to be an in-house generalist so much so that it is worth giving up the money at WLRK? My understanding, possibly incorrect is that you do three six month rotations before settling into a specific group. If you did, say, one rotation in high yield, one in M&A, and one in some other capital markets practice, would you really be that much more prepared to go in-house than if you had done M&A and shareholder activism at WLRK?

Third, the hours will likely be punishing at all of these places. I know people at CSM and S&C and they work insane hours. Maybe the hours are a little worse at WLRK, but the comp is nearly double.

Fourth, a WLRK alum mentioned above that the associates were close and the partners seemed to care about associates development. I would choose WLRK for that reason alone. I can't speak to what it is like at CSM and S&C in that regard. But I can say that liking the fellow associates and having partners that want you to succeed is real gift in this line of work. Compare that with the compensation and elite M&A practice and I would say go with WLRK.

But, again, I never worked at any of these firms or their peers.

Regardless, congrats on the amazing offers. These are all great firms with some of the best lawyers in the world. You will get a great start to your career at any of them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:16 pm

The amount of pro-cravath trolls in this thread is insane

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:29 pm

Same ex-WLRK anon from above; wanted to mention that in terms of culture, my understanding is that Cravath partners are much more aloof (separate dining room, corner office suites with secretaries that will block associates from just wandering into partner offices) than WLRK partners. The business model is so totally different, with a much higher leverage multiple, that partners don't have the time to invest in associate development, and it's relatively less worthwhile to do so since few associates will make partner. (Not that a huge number of WLRK associates make partner either--maybe 20% of each class--but they generally leave for really cool stuff and the ones who make partner are not always the "superstars".)

If I hadn't received a WLRK offer, I probably would have worked at S&C and would not have accepted my Cravath offer.

cavalier1138
Posts: 4450
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:33 pm

I have never been happier to not be remotely interested in corporate work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:39 pm

v5junior wrote:
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...).

I'm not sure why anyone would use league tables to assess profitability (which seems to be the implication of the discussion of fees). If you want to assess profitability, look at PPP. For PPP, it's WLRK > CSM > S&C.

But profitability shouldn't matter much for the associate who wants to go in-house. The important thing for that associate is the work s/he gets, and it's well known that underwriter work (for bonds) and lead arranger work (for banking) is much better experience than issuer/borrower work. The UWs/lead arrangers draft the principal documents (indenture/credit agreement), whereas the issuer/borrower reviews and provides comments. A strong UW/borrower-side practice is therefore much more desirable from a skill-development perspective. Maybe if you work on an IPO, you'd prefer to represent the issuer so you can exit directly to that company, but given the present-day rarity of IPOs, that seems like a foolish thing to bank on.

It is true that representing UWs/lead arrangers doesn't help as much to establish relationships with issuer/borrower-type companies. But it does help to establish relationships with financial institutions (which, based on my anecdotal knowledge, are among the highest paying companies for in-house lawyers), and you can get a position at an issuer/borrower-type company through other means anyway.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
v5junior wrote:
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...).

I'm not sure why anyone would use league tables to assess profitability (which seems to be the implication of the discussion of fees). If you want to assess profitability, look at PPP. For PPP, it's WLRK > CSM > S&C.

But profitability shouldn't matter much for the associate who wants to go in-house. The important thing for that associate is the work s/he gets, and it's well known that underwriter work (for bonds) and lead arranger work (for banking) is much better experience than issuer/borrower work. The UWs/lead arrangers draft the principal documents (indenture/credit agreement), whereas the issuer/borrower reviews and provides comments. A strong UW/borrower-side practice is therefore much more desirable from a skill-development perspective. Maybe if you work on an IPO, you'd prefer to represent the issuer so you can exit directly to that company, but given the present-day rarity of IPOs, that seems like a foolish thing to bank on.

It is true that representing UWs/lead arrangers doesn't help as much to establish relationships with issuer/borrower-type companies. But it does help to establish relationships with financial institutions (which, based on my anecdotal knowledge, are among the highest paying companies for in-house lawyers), and you can get a position at an issuer/borrower-type company through other means anyway.


So much wrong here but let's start with the obvious -- S&C PPP was reported at ~300k higher than Cravath last year in AmLaw. Query whether that matters (esp given that I don't think either firm reports actual numbers to AMLaw) at all but that you have bad facts is a good indication of the substance of the rest of the post. Disclosure - I'm at S&C - but facts don't lie.

As for my opinion, repping borrowers/companies is so much better than underwriters/banks. Fees are higher. You have more varied clients. You have much less diligence and paper pushing. Yes, lender counsel will serve up first draft of credit/underwriting agreement (usually a bank form that they have done poor job updating), but as borrowers counsel you have to understand every word in there as well as anyone else. And it's your job to issue spot the agreement based on the borrower's actual commercial needs, which to me is a much more interesting task. In complex/novel deals (and project finance, restructurings, etc), borrowers will also propose deal structure and term sheet in advance of bank counsel even being mandated (borrowers often get to choose bank counsel for our lenders). All of which to say is the substantive work is better on borrowed side.

As for exit options, you get to know clients who you might work for (leaving big law to go to bank is insane, imho, but if that's what you want to do then ok) and be aN AGC/GC rather than a corporate counsel supporting the banks DCM/levfin desk. And working with clients (often dealing with their business guys and not legal, which they may or not have in house) who go to market once a year is so much better from the perspective of being an adviser than dealing with some bank counsel.

If you want to do cap markets or credit, S&C is clear choice over Cravath or WLRK on substance of practice. I would probably go to WLRK for the $$$ but thats a separate point.

Happy to say more in PM.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

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

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:13 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:I have never been happier to not be remotely interested in corporate work.


Something we can finally agree on.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
v5junior wrote:
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...).

I'm not sure why anyone would use league tables to assess profitability (which seems to be the implication of the discussion of fees). If you want to assess profitability, look at PPP. For PPP, it's WLRK > CSM > S&C.

But profitability shouldn't matter much for the associate who wants to go in-house. The important thing for that associate is the work s/he gets, and it's well known that underwriter work (for bonds) and lead arranger work (for banking) is much better experience than issuer/borrower work. The UWs/lead arrangers draft the principal documents (indenture/credit agreement), whereas the issuer/borrower reviews and provides comments. A strong UW/borrower-side practice is therefore much more desirable from a skill-development perspective. Maybe if you work on an IPO, you'd prefer to represent the issuer so you can exit directly to that company, but given the present-day rarity of IPOs, that seems like a foolish thing to bank on.

It is true that representing UWs/lead arrangers doesn't help as much to establish relationships with issuer/borrower-type companies. But it does help to establish relationships with financial institutions (which, based on my anecdotal knowledge, are among the highest paying companies for in-house lawyers), and you can get a position at an issuer/borrower-type company through other means anyway.


So much wrong here but let's start with the obvious -- S&C PPP was reported at ~300k higher than Cravath last year in AmLaw. Query whether that matters (esp given that I don't think either firm reports actual numbers to AMLaw) at all but that you have bad facts is a good indication of the substance of the rest of the post. Disclosure - I'm at S&C - but facts don't lie.

As for my opinion, repping borrowers/companies is so much better than underwriters/banks. Fees are higher. You have more varied clients. You have much less diligence and paper pushing. Yes, lender counsel will serve up first draft of credit/underwriting agreement (usually a bank form that they have done poor job updating), but as borrowers counsel you have to understand every word in there as well as anyone else. And it's your job to issue spot the agreement based on the borrower's actual commercial needs, which to me is a much more interesting task. In complex/novel deals (and project finance, restructurings, etc), borrowers will also propose deal structure and term sheet in advance of bank counsel even being mandated (borrowers often get to choose bank counsel for our lenders). All of which to say is the substantive work is better on borrowed side.

As for exit options, you get to know clients who you might work for (leaving big law to go to bank is insane, imho, but if that's what you want to do then ok) and be aN AGC/GC rather than a corporate counsel supporting the banks DCM/levfin desk. And working with clients (often dealing with their business guys and not legal, which they may or not have in house) who go to market once a year is so much better from the perspective of being an adviser than dealing with some bank counsel.

If you want to do cap markets or credit, S&C is clear choice over Cravath or WLRK on substance of practice. I would probably go to WLRK for the $$$ but thats a separate point.

Happy to say more in PM.

Unless I'm missing something, CSM's PPP was $4.197 million, and S&C's PPP was $4.05 million:

• Cravath, Swaine & Moore: . . . profits per partner at the single-tier firm shot up by 18 percent to $4.197 million . . .
• Sullivan & Cromwell: . . . PPP increased by 4.7 percent to $4.05 million.


Source: http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/ ... ts-revenue

But these are probably close enough (and they change year to year anyway) so that it shouldn't play into anyone's analysis.

As for repping borrowers/issuers versus lead banks/underwriters, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for exiting, a couple points. First, not sure why it's insane to exit to a bank. My understanding is that these guys work reasonable hours (I've heard 9-6ish) and tend to get paid better than counsel at non-financial firms. Maybe you find financial-institutions work less interesting, which is a perfectly legitimate opinion, but others might not. Second, it's still easy to exit to a non-financial firm from CSM—for one, you can do it without having ever worked with that company (CSM is pretty well known, you know...), and second, you can develop relationships through your M&A rotation since CSM represents numerous repeat strategic acquirers.

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 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:59 pm

Why is this topic still being argued over? And why is there so much anon abuse in this thread?

Unless OP is independently loaded, the answer is WLRK and it's not close.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:You will get in-house down the road from any of these 3 firms, I don't think you need to be worried about that.

At Wachtell you will make several hundreds of thousands dollars more over a few years than any other firm. It seems like a no-brainer to me UNLESS you are already independently wealthy.


Different anon here. The several hundreds of thousands of dollars more story was before 2008...it's still more than at other firms but not that dramatic


Source? I've heard bonuses have been back to 100% for the last few years. Even if they were still around 50%, that would get you to hundreds of thousands more in 2/3 years


I don't mean to necro this thread, but I think people, especially those who are considering Wachtell for the money, should be better informed. I have it from pretty solid sources that Wachtell bonuses are more like around 50% (of course, that depends on seniority).

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:You will get in-house down the road from any of these 3 firms, I don't think you need to be worried about that.

At Wachtell you will make several hundreds of thousands dollars more over a few years than any other firm. It seems like a no-brainer to me UNLESS you are already independently wealthy.


Different anon here. The several hundreds of thousands of dollars more story was before 2008...it's still more than at other firms but not that dramatic


Source? I've heard bonuses have been back to 100% for the last few years. Even if they were still around 50%, that would get you to hundreds of thousands more in 2/3 years


I don't mean to necro this thread, but I think people, especially those who are considering Wachtell for the money, should be better informed. I have it from pretty solid sources that Wachtell bonuses are more like around 50% (of course, that depends on seniority).


You do know that there are current and former WLRK associates on this board, right? As a recent WLRK associate, I can tell you that your "pretty solid sources" are simply wrong.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:44 pm

Wachtell by a mile for the money (also heard from close friend that bonus was ~50%), unless your family's rich. S&C over Cravath (no difference in prestige, since both are on the tier right below Wachtell with Davis Polk, but S&C's free market assignment system offers much more flexibility).

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Wachtell by a mile for the money (also heard from close friend that bonus was ~50%), unless your family's rich. S&C over Cravath (no difference in prestige, since both are on the tier right below Wachtell with Davis Polk, but S&C's free market assignment system offers much more flexibility).


Also what I heard from multiple people. I would still choose Wachtell with 50% bonus no questions asked (plus the work is interesting and the name recognition goes far), but people shouldn't go in expecting 100% or something close to 100%.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:43 am

its definitely 100%.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301247
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

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

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:45 am

Wachtell's PPP is over $6 million. Of course it's 100%

User avatar
Sacred Cow
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:53 pm

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

Postby Sacred Cow » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Wachtell's PPP is over $6 million. Of course it's 100%


Tell that to Quinn Emanuel

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

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

Postby Rahviveh » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:28 pm

Bizzare thread. Almost cartoonish that someone would be willing to make half as much just so they can do more DIVERSE corporate bitchwork.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.