Firms with the most normal or weird people? Another firm culture thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

FYI, I looked back at our updated data w/ c/o 2023 included and this is now wrong. DPW/STB hire around the same (median/low-median as their median hire), Cravath is slightly stronger (median hire is only marginally higher but they have a higher floor and get more students who are noticeably above median). Apologies for accidentally seeming like an anti-STB troll, I was just working off of old data.


Edit: Looking at a few more firms, I think the real explanation for this is that NY is a heavily disfavored market. GDC NY is around the same as CSM/DPW/STB, but GDC DC is insanely difficult to get, for example.

Really interesting because, at least from UVA, NYC CSM/DPW (and maybe STB, not sure) seemed to be harder to get than GDC DC.

GDC NY (at least for corp) is not on that tier.

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

FYI, I looked back at our updated data w/ c/o 2023 included and this is now wrong. DPW/STB hire around the same (median/low-median as their median hire), Cravath is slightly stronger (median hire is only marginally higher but they have a higher floor and get more students who are noticeably above median). Apologies for accidentally seeming like an anti-STB troll, I was just working off of old data.


Edit: Looking at a few more firms, I think the real explanation for this is that NY is a heavily disfavored market. GDC NY is around the same as CSM/DPW/STB, but GDC DC is insanely difficult to get, for example.

Really interesting because, at least from UVA, NYC CSM/DPW (and maybe STB, not sure) seemed to be harder to get than GDC DC.

GDC NY (at least for corp) is not on that tier.

Well, yes, but outside of WLRK corp is almost universally less selective than lit (since lit hiring is more focused on pedigree, for better or worse) and Y/S students are disproportionately more interested in lit than corp. As for UVA, I expect there's more interest in doing NY corp than at Y/S and so that makes CSM/DPW more interesting (and therefore more competitive) bringing them into line with GDC DC.

[Anonymous User]

LOL, this is some high-level dumbassery. The person who posted about STB needing/wanting Y/S grads in order to maintain or enhance reputation or increase rates must be a college or law school student. The reputational bands in which schools exist are broader. The factors by which billing rates can be increased are more subtle and commercial. The real world does not work that way.

Partners at law firms know firsthand that Y/S students (especially Y) are often much worse as day-to-day lawyers than folks from less pie-in-the-sky schools. They're picky, entitled, academicky, and lack strong work ethic. They'll put their noses up at long-haul doc review projects or think they're too good for the low-level stuff that allows firms to bill associates out for long hours. And this isn't unique to Big Law. I know a CA2 judge firsthand who no longer hires from Yale, specifically, because s/he has had multiple experiences with Yale grads who just were not good workers under high-stress, long-hour situations where the work wasn't always intellectually stimulating. That judge now hires predominantly from HLS/CLS/NYU and doesn't bother with Yale.

Also, you're deluding yourself if you think Y/S grads have any additional intellectual firepower that, for the purposes of Big Law, CLS/NYU/UMich grads lack. This isn't rocket science. Even the most complex questions of diversity jx or whatever don't benefit from the associate's having previously studied English poetry as a Rhodes Scholar before enrolling at YLS. The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

Finally, WLRK absolutely has no need to draw from Y/S to command their rates. If you think they do, you don't understand their business model or their work space.

Heard similar sentiments about YS from partners at 5 different firms, perception about YS grads in M&A/PE spaces is hilariously negative. People want HCCN grads who have lay prestige but also won’t be dorks about the day to day practice of law.

Also, isn’t WLRK’s RPL so high in part because they charge based on the “value of service provided”=they’re charging based on results/deal value? Maybe it’s an urban legend but thought that was a significant factor, it’s not their billing rates per se.

Some GCs care about how the firm divides up their internal revenue (looking over tasks/rates charged by position) but others just look at the overall cost of service provided. Regardless of choosing billing rates or deal value, the firms all have one number at the end of the deal and the GCs can compare the cost of potential firms/deals based on that.

Wachtell is able to do so well in RPL because they scoop up transactions where the clients are willing to pay high overall rates (selling the company M&A) and they do so with low leverage and high hours worked. Many of the referrals they get for selling the company M&A work come from firms that have a conflict. The firms with conflicts prefer Wachtell because Wachtell is not a player in capital markets and won't steal client relationships with banks. Also, Wachtell has half as many associates (compared to partners) as the normal firm, and the yearly hours billed are across the board higher than other firms.

And by extension, it's not even possible to scale the niche business of WLRK to STB proportions, which would be 2x the revenue. Pretty much everything the STB troll said is incorrect, starting with the premise that Yale/Stanford degree = automatically better lawyer, and then everything else following that reflected zero understanding of this business.

Having gone to one of these top schools, my strong impression at the time was that people who worked hard to get good grades went to DPW/CSM/Debevoise or whatever, and the slackerish people who didn't care and had bad grades went to STB. Also have found the STB partners to be generally nastier and more in your face than DPW/CSM/Debevoise partners. I do think if you browse through the STB bios you will generally find the pedigree to be weaker than DPW bios.

And no, Y/S doesn't automatically mean smart/better lawyer or whatever, but people with higher IQs are on average ending up at higher ranked law schools, and everything else being equal are going to be better at doing the intellectual components of the job. Definitely a huge factor in tax, but also meaningful in litigation, and ultimately in corporate as well. There is a reason Supreme Court clerks overwhelmingly come from the top schools, and there is a reason Wachtell's associate class vastly overrepresents the top schools.

[Anonymous User]

The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

If you think that Chicago is somehow a more real world place than Yale, you're out of your mind. Chicago ug is an intellectual nerdfest of people who then go on to grad school because working a normal job is insufficiently stimulating.

[Anonymous User]

The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

If you think that Chicago is somehow a more real world place than Yale, you're out of your mind. Chicago ug is an intellectual nerdfest of people who then go on to grad school because working a normal job is insufficiently stimulating.

This. As someone who did a grad degree/initially was gonna go to academia its kinda funny they're mentioned for real world grind lmaoooo.

[Anonymous User]

Having gone to one of these top schools, my strong impression at the time was that people who worked hard to get good grades went to DPW/CSM/Debevoise or whatever, and the slackerish people who didn't care and had bad grades went to STB. Also have found the STB partners to be generally nastier and more in your face than DPW/CSM/Debevoise partners. I do think if you browse through the STB bios you will generally find the pedigree to be weaker than DPW bios.

as a child, were you molested by someone wearing an STB Patagonia?

data below is from a Columbia EIP spreadsheet from past 5 years that lists offers by honors. numbers are offers given to Stone/Kent scholars vs total offers. Stone/Kent is top 1/3 after 1L. percentage is the % of offerees who are Stone or Kent and excludes transfers. (adjusting done by OCS)

Cleary: 48/65 (80%)
CSM: 24/28 (92%)
Debevoise: 36/60 (64%)
DPW NY: 43/53 (91%)
Gibson NY: 20/28 (71%)
Kirkland NY: 8/19 (53%)
Latham NY: 12/19 (92%)
Milbank NY: 6/16 (38%)
Proskauer NY: 7/11 (70%)
PW NY: 61/74 (92%)
Ropes NY: 11/28 (50%)
Schulte NY: 7/33 (22%)
Shearman & Sterling NY: 4/22 (21%)
Skadden NY: 21/26 (91%)
Sidley NY: 8/25 (35%)
Simpson Thacher NY: 37/46 (86%)
Sullivan & Cromwell NY: 33/35 (100%)
Weil NY: 13/32 (48%)
White & Case NY: 10/27 (43%)
Willkie: 6/27 (25%)
WLRK: 7/7 (100%)

[Anonymous User]

Having gone to one of these top schools, my strong impression at the time was that people who worked hard to get good grades went to DPW/CSM/Debevoise or whatever, and the slackerish people who didn't care and had bad grades went to STB. Also have found the STB partners to be generally nastier and more in your face than DPW/CSM/Debevoise partners. I do think if you browse through the STB bios you will generally find the pedigree to be weaker than DPW bios.

as a child, were you molested by someone wearing an STB Patagonia?

data below is from a Columbia EIP spreadsheet from past 5 years that lists offers by honors. numbers are offers given to Stone/Kent scholars vs total offers. Stone/Kent is top 1/3 after 1L. percentage is the % of offerees who are Stone or Kent and excludes transfers. (adjusting done by OCS)

Cleary: 48/65 (80%)
CSM: 24/28 (92%)
Debevoise: 36/60 (64%)
DPW NY: 43/53 (91%)
Gibson NY: 20/28 (71%)
Kirkland NY: 8/19 (53%)
Latham NY: 12/19 (92%)
Milbank NY: 6/16 (38%)
Proskauer NY: 7/11 (70%)
PW NY: 61/74 (92%)
Ropes NY: 11/28 (50%)
Schulte NY: 7/33 (22%)
Shearman & Sterling NY: 4/22 (21%)
Skadden NY: 21/26 (91%)
Sidley NY: 8/25 (35%)
Simpson Thacher NY: 37/46 (86%)
Sullivan & Cromwell NY: 33/35 (100%)
Weil NY: 13/32 (48%)
White & Case NY: 10/27 (43%)
Willkie: 6/27 (25%)
WLRK: 7/7 (100%)

Lol no. But dealing with enough STB partners has been a somewhat similar experience. You can go read about some of the real winners on the worst partners ever thread.

Your data seems to show a gap between STB and DPW/CSM/S&C etc. But hey, still better than Kirkland.

Run the numbers for Kent only, not Stone, and I would guess that the gap gets bigger.

Again, having worked with people from both STB and people from CSM/DPW, there is definitely a difference, and part of that difference is that STB people tend to be less intellectual and more in your face. Some of that can be chalked up to a personality thing, but at the end of the day if you are a Rhodes Scholar or something like that, I think it is very unlikely you pick STB instead of a better firm. And that filters down too.

[Anonymous User]

Having gone to one of these top schools, my strong impression at the time was that people who worked hard to get good grades went to DPW/CSM/Debevoise or whatever, and the slackerish people who didn't care and had bad grades went to STB. Also have found the STB partners to be generally nastier and more in your face than DPW/CSM/Debevoise partners. I do think if you browse through the STB bios you will generally find the pedigree to be weaker than DPW bios.

as a child, were you molested by someone wearing an STB Patagonia?

data below is from a Columbia EIP spreadsheet from past 5 years that lists offers by honors. numbers are offers given to Stone/Kent scholars vs total offers. Stone/Kent is top 1/3 after 1L. percentage is the % of offerees who are Stone or Kent and excludes transfers. (adjusting done by OCS)

Cleary: 48/65 (80%)
CSM: 24/28 (92%)
Debevoise: 36/60 (64%)
DPW NY: 43/53 (91%)
Gibson NY: 20/28 (71%)
Kirkland NY: 8/19 (53%)
Latham NY: 12/19 (92%)
Milbank NY: 6/16 (38%)
Proskauer NY: 7/11 (70%)
PW NY: 61/74 (92%)
Ropes NY: 11/28 (50%)
Schulte NY: 7/33 (22%)
Shearman & Sterling NY: 4/22 (21%)
Skadden NY: 21/26 (91%)
Sidley NY: 8/25 (35%)
Simpson Thacher NY: 37/46 (86%)
Sullivan & Cromwell NY: 33/35 (100%)
Weil NY: 13/32 (48%)
White & Case NY: 10/27 (43%)
Willkie: 6/27 (25%)
WLRK: 7/7 (100%)

Lol no. But dealing with enough STB partners has been a somewhat similar experience. You can go read about some of the real winners on the worst partners ever thread.

Your data seems to show a gap between STB and DPW/CSM/S&C etc. But hey, still better than Kirkland.

Run the numbers for Kent only, not Stone, and I would guess that the gap gets bigger.

Again, having worked with people from both STB and people from CSM/DPW, there is definitely a difference, and part of that difference is that STB people tend to be less intellectual and more in your face. Some of that can be chalked up to a personality thing, but at the end of the day if you are a Rhodes Scholar or something like that, I think it is very unlikely you pick STB instead of a better firm. And that filters down too.

And just to further emphasize this, let's compare STB to DPW/CSM in an area where IQ matters - Tax.

Law school for US-based Tax associates who went to US law schools:

DPW: Columbia(2), Harvard(9), NYU(4), Northwestern, UCSD, Michigan, Emory, Brooklyn(2), Fordham(2), Cornell(2), Cardoza, St. John's, Virginia, Yale(2), Stanford.

CSM: Harvard, Yale(3), Columbia(2), Chicago, NYU, Georgetown, Rutgers

STB: Texas, Cornell, Harvard(3), Duke(3), Virginia(3), Columbia, Brooklyn, NYU(4), Fordham, Yale, Chicago, Penn, Stanford

Seems clear that STB is a rung below in recruiting.

[Anonymous User]

Having gone to one of these top schools, my strong impression at the time was that people who worked hard to get good grades went to DPW/CSM/Debevoise or whatever, and the slackerish people who didn't care and had bad grades went to STB. Also have found the STB partners to be generally nastier and more in your face than DPW/CSM/Debevoise partners. I do think if you browse through the STB bios you will generally find the pedigree to be weaker than DPW bios.

as a child, were you molested by someone wearing an STB Patagonia?

data below is from a Columbia EIP spreadsheet from past 5 years that lists offers by honors. numbers are offers given to Stone/Kent scholars vs total offers. Stone/Kent is top 1/3 after 1L. percentage is the % of offerees who are Stone or Kent and excludes transfers. (adjusting done by OCS)

Cleary: 48/65 (80%)
CSM: 24/28 (92%)
Debevoise: 36/60 (64%)
DPW NY: 43/53 (91%)
Gibson NY: 20/28 (71%)
Kirkland NY: 8/19 (53%)
Latham NY: 12/19 (92%)
Milbank NY: 6/16 (38%)
Proskauer NY: 7/11 (70%)
PW NY: 61/74 (92%)
Ropes NY: 11/28 (50%)
Schulte NY: 7/33 (22%)
Shearman & Sterling NY: 4/22 (21%)
Skadden NY: 21/26 (91%)
Sidley NY: 8/25 (35%)
Simpson Thacher NY: 37/46 (86%)
Sullivan & Cromwell NY: 33/35 (100%)
Weil NY: 13/32 (48%)
White & Case NY: 10/27 (43%)
Willkie: 6/27 (25%)
WLRK: 7/7 (100%)

Are you a STB associate? I think the previous anon already made the point that your data includes Stone, but let me also add that there is no rule that prohibits STB from making offers to honors students-- they can aim for the fences, so to speak. The more important question is whether those honors students are actually choosing STB. There was some data in another thread where only 9 out of 63 offerees at HLS ended up going to STB while all the other NY shops (CSM/S&C/DPW) had 25~35% offer acceptance rates if I remember correctly.

[Anonymous User]

And just to further emphasize this, let's compare STB to DPW/CSM in an area where IQ matters - Tax.

Law school for US-based Tax associates who went to US law schools:

DPW: Columbia(2), Harvard(9), NYU(4), Northwestern, UCSD, Michigan, Emory, Brooklyn(2), Fordham(2), Cornell(2), Cardoza, St. John's, Virginia, Yale(2), Stanford.

CSM: Harvard, Yale(3), Columbia(2), Chicago, NYU, Georgetown, Rutgers

STB: Texas, Cornell, Harvard(3), Duke(3), Virginia(3), Columbia, Brooklyn, NYU(4), Fordham, Yale, Chicago, Penn, Stanford

Seems clear that STB is a rung below in recruiting.

using this completely arbitrary metric ("prestigiousness of tax associate law school"), STB comes out ahead of DPW.

DPW: 74% T14
CSM: 90% T14
STB: 86% T14

seek help, STBYes. not affiliated with the firm, but this bizarre campaign needs to end lol

[Anonymous User]

And just to further emphasize this, let's compare STB to DPW/CSM in an area where IQ matters - Tax.

Law school for US-based Tax associates who went to US law schools:

DPW: Columbia(2), Harvard(9), NYU(4), Northwestern, UCSD, Michigan, Emory, Brooklyn(2), Fordham(2), Cornell(2), Cardoza, St. John's, Virginia, Yale(2), Stanford.

CSM: Harvard, Yale(3), Columbia(2), Chicago, NYU, Georgetown, Rutgers

STB: Texas, Cornell, Harvard(3), Duke(3), Virginia(3), Columbia, Brooklyn, NYU(4), Fordham, Yale, Chicago, Penn, Stanford

Seems clear that STB is a rung below in recruiting.

using this completely arbitrary metric ("prestigiousness of tax associate law school"), STB comes out ahead of DPW.

DPW: 74% T14
CSM: 90% T14
STB: 86% T14

seek help, STBYes. not affiliated with the firm, but this bizarre campaign needs to end lol

Lolz...the relevant metric isn't T14, try proportion of H/Y/S:

DPW: 12/31 (39%)
CSM: 4/10 (40%)
STB: 5/22 (23%).

But hey, still better than Kirkland!

[Anonymous User]

Run the numbers for Kent only, not Stone, and I would guess that the gap gets bigger.

Again, having worked with people from both STB and people from CSM/DPW, there is definitely a difference, and part of that difference is that STB people tend to be less intellectual and more in your face. Some of that can be chalked up to a personality thing, but at the end of the day if you are a Rhodes Scholar or something like that, I think it is very unlikely you pick STB instead of a better firm. And that filters down too.

They can't run the numbers for Kent only because that data doesn't exist and there are about 20 1L Kent students. And you would see weird things happen because plenty of Kents already have jobs and don't bid many firms, some might be PI focused and not participating, or they bid only DC.

[becodalapa]

Can you guys tell us which firms you all work at so we can finally have the definitive answer to "firms with the most weird people"?

[Anonymous User]

Ultimately most everyone at a top law firm is going to be pretty damn weird. This is not where cool, multidimensional people spend their time. It pays well and is sometimes interested, though.

[Anonymous User]

Can you guys tell us which firms you all work at so we can finally have the definitive answer to "firms with the most weird people"?

Most TLSers are thinking about the same subject except ppl are saying the quiet part out loud here

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Ultimately most everyone at a top law firm is going to be pretty damn weird. This is not where cool, multidimensional people spend their time. It pays well and is sometimes interested, though.

Best post. This guy gets reality.

[Anonymous User]

varies within firms/groups as well, of course. the tax/iq guy is only furthering the “tax people are weird” stereotype.

[Anonymous User]

To those of you arguing over V10 prestige, I just want to say thank you for creating all the spare time I can spend with your wives.

-Lowly V100 peasant.

[The Lsat Airbender]

The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

If you think that Chicago is somehow a more real world place than Yale, you're out of your mind. Chicago ug is an intellectual nerdfest of people who then go on to grad school because working a normal job is insufficiently stimulating.

Agree that the above-quoted is a bit precious but I'm pretty sure they meant "guy with a poli-sci degree [from Ohio State or whatever] from Chicago [Law]", not Chicago undergrad

[Anonymous User]

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

The STB partners make the same money as the WLRK partners. You're talking about two different ways to skin a cat: leverage (STB) and top-of-the-market pricing (WLRK).

Recruiting is important, and STB gets that. Their partners are not idiots. But offering every warm body at Yale and Stanford isn't going to allow them to bill at Wachtell rates. Two different firms with two different ways of doing things. Biglaw partners just don't think about prestige and entry-level recruiting in the way that you're thinking about it. After years of experience, they do not believe that offering every warm body at Stanford and Yale equates to "top talent" in any meaningful sense.

How about you look up the ppp for 2022 and then come back. Also don't forget the fact that STB introduced this non-equity partner thing.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

The STB partners make the same money as the WLRK partners. You're talking about two different ways to skin a cat: leverage (STB) and top-of-the-market pricing (WLRK).

Recruiting is important, and STB gets that. Their partners are not idiots. But offering every warm body at Yale and Stanford isn't going to allow them to bill at Wachtell rates. Two different firms with two different ways of doing things. Biglaw partners just don't think about prestige and entry-level recruiting in the way that you're thinking about it. After years of experience, they do not believe that offering every warm body at Stanford and Yale equates to "top talent" in any meaningful sense.

How about you look up the ppp for 2022 and then come back. Also don't forget the fact that STB introduced this non-equity partner thing.

Non-equity partners are clearly partners in name only. As for actual partner comp, why don’t you tell us about it?

As I recall, the YLS/SLS boosters in this thread understood nada about Wachtell’s business model, nada about biglaw’s business model, and probably nada about the real (non-academic) world in general.

[Anonymous User]

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

The STB partners make the same money as the WLRK partners. You're talking about two different ways to skin a cat: leverage (STB) and top-of-the-market pricing (WLRK).

Recruiting is important, and STB gets that. Their partners are not idiots. But offering every warm body at Yale and Stanford isn't going to allow them to bill at Wachtell rates. Two different firms with two different ways of doing things. Biglaw partners just don't think about prestige and entry-level recruiting in the way that you're thinking about it. After years of experience, they do not believe that offering every warm body at Stanford and Yale equates to "top talent" in any meaningful sense.

How about you look up the ppp for 2022 and then come back. Also don't forget the fact that STB introduced this non-equity partner thing.

Non-equity partners are clearly partners in name only. As for actual partner comp, why don’t you tell us about it?

As I recall, the YLS/SLS boosters in this thread understood nada about Wachtell’s business model, nada about biglaw’s business model, and probably nada about the real (non-academic) world in general.

Do I need to provide a link to Law.com?

[temp69420]

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

The STB partners make the same money as the WLRK partners. You're talking about two different ways to skin a cat: leverage (STB) and top-of-the-market pricing (WLRK).

Recruiting is important, and STB gets that. Their partners are not idiots. But offering every warm body at Yale and Stanford isn't going to allow them to bill at Wachtell rates. Two different firms with two different ways of doing things. Biglaw partners just don't think about prestige and entry-level recruiting in the way that you're thinking about it. After years of experience, they do not believe that offering every warm body at Stanford and Yale equates to "top talent" in any meaningful sense.

How about you look up the ppp for 2022 and then come back. Also don't forget the fact that STB introduced this non-equity partner thing.

Non-equity partners are clearly partners in name only. As for actual partner comp, why don’t you tell us about it?

As I recall, the YLS/SLS boosters in this thread understood nada about Wachtell’s business model, nada about biglaw’s business model, and probably nada about the real (non-academic) world in general.

Do I need to provide a link to Law.com?

You're wasting your time with RIL. Just block him and forget about it.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

The STB partners make the same money as the WLRK partners. You're talking about two different ways to skin a cat: leverage (STB) and top-of-the-market pricing (WLRK).

Recruiting is important, and STB gets that. Their partners are not idiots. But offering every warm body at Yale and Stanford isn't going to allow them to bill at Wachtell rates. Two different firms with two different ways of doing things. Biglaw partners just don't think about prestige and entry-level recruiting in the way that you're thinking about it. After years of experience, they do not believe that offering every warm body at Stanford and Yale equates to "top talent" in any meaningful sense.

How about you look up the ppp for 2022 and then come back. Also don't forget the fact that STB introduced this non-equity partner thing.

Non-equity partners are clearly partners in name only. As for actual partner comp, why don’t you tell us about it?

As I recall, the YLS/SLS boosters in this thread understood nada about Wachtell’s business model, nada about biglaw’s business model, and probably nada about the real (non-academic) world in general.

Do I need to provide a link to Law.com?

You're wasting your time with RIL. Just block him and forget about it.

Actually, I’ve made plenty of great posts here. Just recently a suicidal poster thanked me for my kindness and support.

In contrast, your 31 posts haven’t contributed much of anything, besides some low quality smarminess like what you’ve brought to this thread.

[BottomOfTotem]

Can you guys tell us which firms you all work at so we can finally have the definitive answer to "firms with the most weird people"?

This.