Why is there so much hate for Quinn Emanuel? Forum

[Anonymous User]

In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

This thread is wild, just wild. But in any case, of course the majority of AUSAs come from top firms, because that’s where the majority of lawyers are. Those firms are huge. Susman has 62 associates, so of course there are fewer ex-Susman alums floating around.

(This is leaving aside the question of whether partnership prospects and consequently attrition are the same at the top boutiques compared to the biglaw behemoths, in part because I have absolutely no idea, but it’s definitely a factor that could make a difference.)

Also Susman etc don’t have criminal practices… and the white-collar boutiques *are* more heavily represented at USAO SDNY than the biglaw firms per capita. Of course, they do different work, so that’s not just selectivity.

[Anonymous User]

In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

This thread is wild, just wild. But in any case, of course the majority of AUSAs come from top firms, because that’s where the majority of lawyers are. Those firms are huge. Susman has 62 associates, so of course there are fewer ex-Susman alums floating around.

(This is leaving aside the question of whether partnership prospects and consequently attrition are the same at the top boutiques compared to the biglaw behemoths, in part because I have absolutely no idea, but it’s definitely a factor that could make a difference.)

Also Susman etc don’t have criminal practices… and the white-collar boutiques *are* more heavily represented at USAO SDNY than the biglaw firms per capita. Of course, they do different work, so that’s not just selectivity.

Oh, good clarification.

[Anonymous User]

In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

This thread is wild, just wild. But in any case, of course the majority of AUSAs come from top firms, because that’s where the majority of lawyers are. Those firms are huge. Susman has 62 associates, so of course there are fewer ex-Susman alums floating around.

(This is leaving aside the question of whether partnership prospects and consequently attrition are the same at the top boutiques compared to the biglaw behemoths, in part because I have absolutely no idea, but it’s definitely a factor that could make a difference.)

Haha this is TLS at its best. People duking it out --> dumpster fire of a thread --> law students and lawyers coming away with practical, useful, unvarnished insights. Makes me miss the old days. We don't have many threads like this anymore, either here or especially elsewhere. There is something about the traditional forum format that allows for more comprehensive, nuanced discussions.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

[Anonymous User]

In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

This thread is wild, just wild. But in any case, of course the majority of AUSAs come from top firms, because that’s where the majority of lawyers are. Those firms are huge. Susman has 62 associates, so of course there are fewer ex-Susman alums floating around.

(This is leaving aside the question of whether partnership prospects and consequently attrition are the same at the top boutiques compared to the biglaw behemoths, in part because I have absolutely no idea, but it’s definitely a factor that could make a difference.)

Haha this is TLS at its best. People duking it out --> dumpster fire of a thread --> law students and lawyers coming away with practical, useful, unvarnished insights. Makes me miss the old days. We don't have many threads like this anymore, either here or especially elsewhere. There is something about the traditional forum format that allows for more comprehensive, nuanced discussions.

Agree. Reddit threads quickly go off on tangents and die. TLS let’s people hash it out for days or even weeks.

[Anonymous User]

In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

This thread is wild, just wild. But in any case, of course the majority of AUSAs come from top firms, because that’s where the majority of lawyers are. Those firms are huge. Susman has 62 associates, so of course there are fewer ex-Susman alums floating around.

(This is leaving aside the question of whether partnership prospects and consequently attrition are the same at the top boutiques compared to the biglaw behemoths, in part because I have absolutely no idea, but it’s definitely a factor that could make a difference.)

Also Susman etc don’t have criminal practices… and the white-collar boutiques *are* more heavily represented at USAO SDNY than the biglaw firms per capita. Of course, they do different work, so that’s not just selectivity.

This gets at what should be the take away for anyone reading this during pre-OCI:

Different firms have different specialities that lead to different career outcomes so try to know what is emotionally appealing to you before you pick.

Metrics like Vault national or vault boutique, Chambers bands in various practices, AMLAW PPP and RPL, law school GPAs, COA percentages (lol), USAO exits, FTC / SEC exits, lateral options, client prestige, client stability, law firm size, and in-house opportunities, have varying degrees of appeal to different people and both the boutique boosters and Cravath cool-aid drinkers are wrong to think there is just one route for continued gold stars in life.

You can’t have it all, so choose the work (trial, appellate, general commercial, white collar, plaintiff work, securities, antitrust, etc.) that most appeals to you. Welcome to adulthood, where outcomes are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous User]

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

I stopped taking this seriously when you argued that Cravath is worse than Wachtell at litigation. According to several sources, including Chambers, Cravath is much better than Wachtell at litigation. I certainly agree that the firms are peers for corporate law, however.

This is also the fourth or so time I've seen the no true Scotsman fallacy. It certainly doesn't seem that "anyone with any real knowledge" (such as yourself, of course) recognizes that Cravath is worse than most of the boutiques. Otherwise we would see a marked difference in exit options, which I have shown do not exist. In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

I don't write this to convince you, because your worth comes from feeling like an insider who bucks the consensus on Cravath. That's fine. I write this for students who would otherwise be easily beguiled. I encourage you to look up Munger's ratings on Chambers and compare them to Cravath's, and then tell me honestly which firm is overall better (even without the Vault rankings, which are of course relevant). The truth is that small firms can fill their class with a higher proportion of HYS students, but that doesn't always translate to practice area strength or overall reputation in the field, which of course matter and are where Cravath truly shines.

Lol. This poster reminds me of the "it's just a flesh wound" guy in Monty Python.

The truth is that Michelin three star restaurants can afford to fill their kitchens with the best chefs in the world, but that doesn't always translate to overall market penetration, which of course matter and are where Applebee's truly shines. Applebee's profits obviously dwarf Alinea's, so stop trying to act like some insider trying to "buck the consensus."

True, Cravath literally has like 1/30th or 1/40th the proportion of appellate clerks, but trust me, we're the best. Why are you trying to dispute it? Stop trying to be such "an insider."

Also, this whole argument that "the only reason Cravath doesn't have [even close] to the percentage of appellate clerk associates is because these other firms are much tinier and can be picky" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Susman has 62 (litigation) associates, Williams and Connolly has 178, and by a rough count, Cravath looks like it has a bit over 120. Somehow Susman and Williams and Connolly are packed to the brim with appellate clerks with glittering resumes, while Cravath has like 1 appellate clerk per 30-40 associates. I mean, lol.

Since you started the associate pedigree game, I would bring your attention to the fact that Williams & Connolly also has a lower proportion of HYS attorneys than Cravath, and a much higher percentage of associates from the lower T14, including Georgetown (which I'm sure is significant to you, considering how much TLS denigrates Gtown). Cravath, on the other hand, can proclaim most proudly that over 75% of its associates come from the T6.

Now, I am of course joking. None of that is significant when determining which firm a law student should go to. Under most circumstances, Cravath is a better pick than Dovel & Luner, Kellogg Hansen, and Gupta Wessler for litigation (per Legal 500 and Chambers), unless a student has idiosyncratic interests that align with one of those firms. And I fully concede that boutiques may be much more desirable to many top students with COA clerkships because, while those boutiques may lack Cravath's prestige, national pull, or whatever, they offer niche experiences like trial exposure or the chance to cozy up to a famous litigator.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

This is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen. The Stanford swipe gives it away. But claiming that this angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-pin bullshit is “dangerous” is also pretty obvious. It’s not like working at Cravath is all that stands between a lit associate and failure, mediocrity, and doom. Pretending that the stakes are that significant brands you as a troll or impossibly stupid.

Also how sad is it to consider trial exposure a “niche” experience for a litigator. Tell me you’re a corporate bro without telling me you’re a corporate bro.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

This is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen. The Stanford swipe gives it away. But claiming that this angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-pin bullshit is “dangerous” is also pretty obvious. It’s not like working at Cravath is all that stands between a lit associate and failure, mediocrity, and doom. Pretending that the stakes are that significant brands you as a troll or impossibly stupid.

Also how sad is it to consider trial exposure a “niche” experience for a litigator. Tell me you’re a corporate bro without telling me you’re a corporate bro.

You can say that, but if a law student were to follow previous anons' advice, they'd go to Patterson Belknap over Cravath. Band 3, 4, or 5 in almost everything, but Band 1 in associates with COA clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

This is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen. The Stanford swipe gives it away. But claiming that this angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-pin bullshit is “dangerous” is also pretty obvious. It’s not like working at Cravath is all that stands between a lit associate and failure, mediocrity, and doom. Pretending that the stakes are that significant brands you as a troll or impossibly stupid.

Also how sad is it to consider trial exposure a “niche” experience for a litigator. Tell me you’re a corporate bro without telling me you’re a corporate bro.

You can say that, but if a law student were to follow previous anons' advice, they'd go to Patterson Belknap over Cravath. Band 3, 4, or 5 in almost everything, but Band 1 in associates with COA clerkships.

Oh for fuck’s sake.

[Anonymous User]

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

I stopped taking this seriously when you argued that Cravath is worse than Wachtell at litigation. According to several sources, including Chambers, Cravath is much better than Wachtell at litigation. I certainly agree that the firms are peers for corporate law, however.

This is also the fourth or so time I've seen the no true Scotsman fallacy. It certainly doesn't seem that "anyone with any real knowledge" (such as yourself, of course) recognizes that Cravath is worse than most of the boutiques. Otherwise we would see a marked difference in exit options, which I have shown do not exist. In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

I don't write this to convince you, because your worth comes from feeling like an insider who bucks the consensus on Cravath. That's fine. I write this for students who would otherwise be easily beguiled. I encourage you to look up Munger's ratings on Chambers and compare them to Cravath's, and then tell me honestly which firm is overall better (even without the Vault rankings, which are of course relevant). The truth is that small firms can fill their class with a higher proportion of HYS students, but that doesn't always translate to practice area strength or overall reputation in the field, which of course matter and are where Cravath truly shines.

Lol. This poster reminds me of the "it's just a flesh wound" guy in Monty Python.

The truth is that Michelin three star restaurants can afford to fill their kitchens with the best chefs in the world, but that doesn't always translate to overall market penetration, which of course matter and are where Applebee's truly shines. Applebee's profits obviously dwarf Alinea's, so stop trying to act like some insider trying to "buck the consensus."

True, Cravath literally has like 1/30th or 1/40th the proportion of appellate clerks, but trust me, we're the best. Why are you trying to dispute it? Stop trying to be such "an insider."

Also, this whole argument that "the only reason Cravath doesn't have [even close] to the percentage of appellate clerk associates is because these other firms are much tinier and can be picky" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Susman has 62 (litigation) associates, Williams and Connolly has 178, and by a rough count, Cravath looks like it has a bit over 120. Somehow Susman and Williams and Connolly are packed to the brim with appellate clerks with glittering resumes, while Cravath has like 1 appellate clerk per 30-40 associates. I mean, lol.

Since you started the associate pedigree game, I would bring your attention to the fact that Williams & Connolly also has a lower proportion of HYS attorneys than Cravath, and a much higher percentage of associates from the lower T14, including Georgetown (which I'm sure is significant to you, considering how much TLS denigrates Gtown). Cravath, on the other hand, can proclaim most proudly that over 75% of its associates come from the T6.

Now, I am of course joking. None of that is significant when determining which firm a law student should go to. Under most circumstances, Cravath is a better pick than Dovel & Luner, Kellogg Hansen, and Gupta Wessler for litigation (per Legal 500 and Chambers), unless a student has idiosyncratic interests that align with one of those firms. And I fully concede that boutiques may be much more desirable to many top students with COA clerkships because, while those boutiques may lack Cravath's prestige, national pull, or whatever, they offer niche experiences like trial exposure or the chance to cozy up to a famous litigator.

The boutiques do offer the “niche experience” of learning how to be a real lawyer. I agree that cravath can’t match that.

[Antetrust]

Other than the poster from Quinn offering real insights, this post has devolved into the worst self-masturbatory pissing contest I have ever seen. You should all be proud.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is filthy and glorious. Love it.

[Anonymous User]

It’s almost as if they’ve found something more important than clerkships…

Ah, so now you are suggesting that the future Cravath associates were more desirable to law firms for some other reason. What might that be? At this point, you're just making it up as you go. Lame. I hate prestige-chasing/posturing in our profession as anyone else, but at least the high-end clerkship crowd has some substance behind their elitism. Cravathers are basically $50K millionaires who can't stop reminding everyone they see that they drive a BMW 3-series.

Sums it up. Most lawyers are like this, but you see this vibe more often with the Cravath crowd.

[Anonymous User]

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

I stopped taking this seriously when you argued that Cravath is worse than Wachtell at litigation. According to several sources, including Chambers, Cravath is much better than Wachtell at litigation. I certainly agree that the firms are peers for corporate law, however.

This is also the fourth or so time I've seen the no true Scotsman fallacy. It certainly doesn't seem that "anyone with any real knowledge" (such as yourself, of course) recognizes that Cravath is worse than most of the boutiques. Otherwise we would see a marked difference in exit options, which I have shown do not exist. In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

I don't write this to convince you, because your worth comes from feeling like an insider who bucks the consensus on Cravath. That's fine. I write this for students who would otherwise be easily beguiled. I encourage you to look up Munger's ratings on Chambers and compare them to Cravath's, and then tell me honestly which firm is overall better (even without the Vault rankings, which are of course relevant). The truth is that small firms can fill their class with a higher proportion of HYS students, but that doesn't always translate to practice area strength or overall reputation in the field, which of course matter and are where Cravath truly shines.

Lol. This poster reminds me of the "it's just a flesh wound" guy in Monty Python.

Ha! 100%. This bro has really chosen to die on the hill of vault & chambers rankings, like a layperson who has never practiced law. Also love that he (let’s be real, we know this is a dude) has no issue with me accusing Cravath of being literally “evil” and making associates bill 3000/year - but when I challenge his preftige he has an aneurism.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

This is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen. The Stanford swipe gives it away. But claiming that this angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-pin bullshit is “dangerous” is also pretty obvious. It’s not like working at Cravath is all that stands between a lit associate and failure, mediocrity, and doom. Pretending that the stakes are that significant brands you as a troll or impossibly stupid.

Also how sad is it to consider trial exposure a “niche” experience for a litigator. Tell me you’re a corporate bro without telling me you’re a corporate bro.

You can say that, but if a law student were to follow previous anons' advice, they'd go to Patterson Belknap over Cravath. Band 3, 4, or 5 in almost everything, but Band 1 in associates with COA clerkships.

…yes, Patterson Belknap is a better firm for most litigation associates than Cravath. The talent gap is a symptom of the underlying reasons why—leverage and quality of work for associates, lifestyle, partnership prospects. Post-clerkship candidates are much more sophisticated about firms than 1Ls at OCI and the talent flows to places that offer the best experience.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Eh a little dramatic (you can always switch firms after your clerkship), but I don't disagree. It's true that different firms lend themselves to pretty different long term trajectories. Susman associates get really big bonuses, and I've heard if you're willing to stick it through, you are more likely than not to make partner.

With all that said, even the top-tier firms are all very different with different advantages and drawbacks, so people should do their research. Yeah Susman is great and is getting a lot of free press in this thread, but based on my anecdotal experience most Susman associates end up quitting before they make partner because the work culture is so intense. It also seems to be hyper fratty, so definitely not for everyone. And even if you make partner, it's pure eat-what-you-kill and every partner starts at $0 at the start of the year. So it's a rough way to live, even if you make it.

Kellogg is great, too, but doesn't have close to the partnership prospects of Susman. People don't stick around for long, but it's regarded as one of the best resume lines you can snag before moving on to other things. $175K clerkship bonus is good too, obviously. Nerdier, closed-door vibe, AFAIK. Very different from Susman.

Then you can also hedge, by going to places like Williams & Connolly, or standout biglaw offices that have highly concentrated lit talent. These places won't give you the same partnership prospects on paper, but life will be more sustainable and you still get that great resume line. And if you're willing to work the *average* Susman hours at one of these places, you'll automatically be in like the top decile of billables for associates and be a stand-out. So maybe you'll end up with pretty solid partnership prospects after all if you decide to go full throttle after joining the firm (in relative terms, obviously). But you'll have a choice. If you decide to take it a little easier at the firm, you can still stick around without billing insane hours.

All this is to say, even among the *many* lit firms and offices that are better than Cravath, people should still do their research. If your grades match what Cravath is looking for, I'd also look at similar firms in NYC (like Paul Weiss so on). You get basically the same firm and exit options, without the weird baggage that you see reflected in this thread.

So yeah, lol at this thread, but I think it's unearthing some useful information for folks who are assessing their options.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

This is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen. The Stanford swipe gives it away. But claiming that this angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-pin bullshit is “dangerous” is also pretty obvious. It’s not like working at Cravath is all that stands between a lit associate and failure, mediocrity, and doom. Pretending that the stakes are that significant brands you as a troll or impossibly stupid.

Also how sad is it to consider trial exposure a “niche” experience for a litigator. Tell me you’re a corporate bro without telling me you’re a corporate bro.

You can say that, but if a law student were to follow previous anons' advice, they'd go to Patterson Belknap over Cravath. Band 3, 4, or 5 in almost everything, but Band 1 in associates with COA clerkships.

…yes, Patterson Belknap is a better firm for most litigation associates than Cravath. The talent gap is a symptom of the underlying reasons why—leverage and quality of work for associates, lifestyle, partnership prospects. Post-clerkship candidates are much more sophisticated about firms than 1Ls at OCI and the talent flows to places that offer the best experience.

This 100%. People aren't talking about clerkships just to be obnoxious or pretentious (yeah, sure there's a lot of obnoxious clerks out there, but different discussion and let's face it, all lawyers are like that). There's a reason why the law grads with the most options end up at certain places, and law students and potential laterals would be well-advised to investigate those reasons.

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

This is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen. The Stanford swipe gives it away. But claiming that this angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-pin bullshit is “dangerous” is also pretty obvious. It’s not like working at Cravath is all that stands between a lit associate and failure, mediocrity, and doom. Pretending that the stakes are that significant brands you as a troll or impossibly stupid.

Also how sad is it to consider trial exposure a “niche” experience for a litigator. Tell me you’re a corporate bro without telling me you’re a corporate bro.

You can say that, but if a law student were to follow previous anons' advice, they'd go to Patterson Belknap over Cravath. Band 3, 4, or 5 in almost everything, but Band 1 in associates with COA clerkships.

…yes, Patterson Belknap is a better firm for most litigation associates than Cravath. The talent gap is a symptom of the underlying reasons why—leverage and quality of work for associates, lifestyle, partnership prospects. Post-clerkship candidates are much more sophisticated about firms than 1Ls at OCI and the talent flows to places that offer the best experience.

This 100%. People aren't talking about clerkships just to be obnoxious or pretentious (yeah, sure there's a lot of obnoxious clerks out there, but different discussion and let's face it, all lawyers are like that). There's a reason why the law grads with the most options end up at certain places, and law students and potential laterals would be well-advised to investigate those reasons.

I would just refer you to my previous post where I was responding to the same point but made about Williams & Connolly. Over 75% of CSM associates come from the T6 and most have some combination of latin honors, clerkship, or law review. It's silly to argue that Patterson Belknap associates had options students going to most prestigious firm in the country didn't have. Plus, Selendy Gay recruits heavily from Cravath, and very few associates are leaving to go there. The truth is that small firms have the potential to fill up their ranks with a tiny number of COA clerks. And I don't doubt that many COA clerks, who are typically more academic and prefer a small environment, will choose boutiques. But very many do not, and very many of those go to Cravath. To the law students reading this, I encourage you to weigh the costs and benefits of choosing between a firm like Cravath/Wachtell and boutiques. Will you get more trial experience at a boutique? Yes. But when Cravath lawyers leave the firm and go to other firms, they are known for lawyering circles around others who didn't start at Cravath. That's the power of the rotation system and the sheer diversity of high-level work you get at Cravath. Keep in mind, associates are working on litigation related to antitrust, M&A, IP, and more; Cravath is well regarded in each of these areas, and so can offer training smaller boutiques cannot.

Again, many of you assess firm quality very oddly, especially considering we already can directly measure firm quality (but perhaps that leads to the outcome posters here do not like).

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.

Posts like these are so dangerous and really concern me. Advancing blatantly wrong views as if they were fact will lead many to forgo otherwise better long-term options.

Some on this thread have uncritically accepted that percentage of associates with COA clerkships is the best measure of firm quality. I have to wonder if there is some reverse engineering going on here. There is no reason for using this metric, especially considering that we have far better measures of quality (reputation scores, practice group ratings, mentoring, the rotation system, substantive experience, etc.).

Someone on here even argued that Cravath having more former associates in elite positions doesn't demonstrate the quality of its exit options. These arguments are reminiscent of the SLS copes regarding Stanford's poor East Coast placement. Ultimately, whether law students choose to accept these arguments is up to them, but it's important that we stop for a minute and ask whether we're knocking Cravath because of an emotional reaction we have toward their associates, or because we actually believe Cravath is a worse firm based on measurable standards. If we're honest, it's the former.

This is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen. The Stanford swipe gives it away. But claiming that this angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-pin bullshit is “dangerous” is also pretty obvious. It’s not like working at Cravath is all that stands between a lit associate and failure, mediocrity, and doom. Pretending that the stakes are that significant brands you as a troll or impossibly stupid.

Also how sad is it to consider trial exposure a “niche” experience for a litigator. Tell me you’re a corporate bro without telling me you’re a corporate bro.

You can say that, but if a law student were to follow previous anons' advice, they'd go to Patterson Belknap over Cravath. Band 3, 4, or 5 in almost everything, but Band 1 in associates with COA clerkships.

…yes, Patterson Belknap is a better firm for most litigation associates than Cravath. The talent gap is a symptom of the underlying reasons why—leverage and quality of work for associates, lifestyle, partnership prospects. Post-clerkship candidates are much more sophisticated about firms than 1Ls at OCI and the talent flows to places that offer the best experience.

This 100%. People aren't talking about clerkships just to be obnoxious or pretentious (yeah, sure there's a lot of obnoxious clerks out there, but different discussion and let's face it, all lawyers are like that). There's a reason why the law grads with the most options end up at certain places, and law students and potential laterals would be well-advised to investigate those reasons.

I would just refer you to my previous post where I was responding to the same point but made about Williams & Connolly. Over 75% of CSM associates come from the T6 and most have some combination of latin honors, clerkship, or law review. It's silly to argue that Patterson Belknap associates had options students going to most prestigious firm in the country didn't have. Plus, Selendy Gay recruits heavily from Cravath, and very few associates are leaving to go there. The truth is that small firms have the potential to fill up their ranks with a tiny number of COA clerks. And I don't doubt that many COA clerks, who are typically more academic and prefer a small environment, will choose boutiques. But very many do not, and very many of those go to Cravath. To the law students reading this, I encourage you to weigh the costs and benefits of choosing between a firm like Cravath/Wachtell and boutiques. Will you get more trial experience at a boutique? Yes. But when Cravath lawyers leave the firm and go to other firms, they are known for lawyering circles around others who didn't start at Cravath. That's the power of the rotation system and the sheer diversity of high-level work you get at Cravath. Keep in mind, associates are working on litigation related to antitrust, M&A, IP, and more; Cravath is well regarded in each of these areas, and so can offer training smaller boutiques cannot.

Again, many of you assess firm quality very oddly, especially considering we already can directly measure firm quality (but perhaps that leads to the outcome posters here do not like).

Please just stop.

[Anonymous User]

Not the Cravath poster above but it’s not like the boutique arguments are any better: “the ‘people that matter’ say X boutique is better so therefore it is” and endless arguments with no supporting evidence that are, like, just your opinion man.

Corporate prestige pissing contests are more substantive because you can point to hard number like PPP or RPL.

[Anonymous User]

Not the Cravath poster above but it’s not like the boutique arguments are any better: “the ‘people that matter’ say X boutique is better so therefore it is” and endless arguments with no supporting evidence that are, like, just your opinion man.

All these arguments are, like, just your opinion man, because all these options are prestigious and the "best" firm depends on what you want to do and who you talk to. There are all kinds of differences in practice area, organization, opportunities for substantive work, hours required, exit options, even pay (I say "even" because lockstep in biglaw is a thing but you have the outliers, as well as different bonus policies), etc etc. The weird obsession with pinning down some kind of EXACT ranking of based on something as subjective and as contingent on personal goals/preferences as prestige is one of the worst things about the legal profession.

Like I'm glad Cravath bro knows exactly what he values and that he's found the perfect firm that aligns with his personal goals/values. He just needs to stop insisting that everyone who doesn't value these things exactly as he does is not only wrong, but somehow doing the entire legal profession a disservice because law students might (GASP) think for themselves.

[CondescendingLiberal]

It's moments like these that I'm glad I went to Yale so I can feel superior to all of you no matter what

[Anonymous User]

Not the Cravath poster above but it’s not like the boutique arguments are any better: “the ‘people that matter’ say X boutique is better so therefore it is” and endless arguments with no supporting evidence that are, like, just your opinion man.

Corporate prestige pissing contests are more substantive because you can point to hard number like PPP or RPL.

yes, glad you mentioned that. To the Cravath poster: Cravath was ranked 13 in PPP last year and had lower PPP than King & Spalding and Paul Hastings...let that sink in lol. It is literally indistinguishable from its peers these days---and actually doing noticeably worse financially.

[Anonymous User]

Not the Cravath poster above but it’s not like the boutique arguments are any better: “the ‘people that matter’ say X boutique is better so therefore it is” and endless arguments with no supporting evidence that are, like, just your opinion man.

Corporate prestige pissing contests are more substantive because you can point to hard number like PPP or RPL.

yes, glad you mentioned that. To the Cravath poster: Cravath was ranked 13 in PPP last year and had lower PPP than King & Spalding and Paul Hastings...let that sink in lol. It is literally indistinguishable from its peers these days---and actually doing noticeably worse financially.

Not the Cravath poster but PPP is a terrible metric. Very easy to manipulate and tells you literally nothing about firm quality. There are innumerable superior firms that make much less money than K&S lol