Why is there so much hate for Quinn Emanuel? Forum

[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).

The quality of these arguments is a terrible indictment of Cravath's training and rotation system. So much second-hand embarrassment from reading this.

[Anonymous User]

best think ab this thread was collation of perspectives on the culture/progression at Susman and Kellogg lol

[CondescendingLiberal]

Are Quinn attorneys a-holes to each other, or just to other firms?

[Anonymous User]

All firms in this thread so far are bad because they lack blue-collar grit and determination (which I have)

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone here even like the practice of law, period?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone here even like the practice of law, period?

Yes, which is why people are saying you should prioritize firms where you will get substantive legal experience early on in your career (depos, brief writing, stand-up experience in court, etc.). Strange question.

[Anonymous User]

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

Funny, and obviously you're not being serious, but most Yalies would get rejected by most of the places being discussed in this thread (not including Cravath lol).

[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.

Kellogg elevates the great majority of the eligible associates each year. Otherwise, this post accurately characterizes the firms. Both boutiques are vastly preferable to NY biglaw commercial litigation absent unique circumstances. And even within NY biglaw commercial litigation, I would put Cravath behind at least Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell.

[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.

Kellogg elevates the great majority of the eligible associates each year. Otherwise, this post accurately characterizes the firms. Both boutiques are vastly preferable to NY biglaw commercial litigation absent unique circumstances. And even within NY biglaw commercial litigation, I would put Cravath behind at least Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell.

The anti-Cravath trolling is getting a little funny. Cravath is clearly superior to all of those firms for commercial litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone here even like the practice of law, period?

Yes, which is why people are saying you should prioritize firms where you will get substantive legal experience early on in your career (depos, brief writing, stand-up experience in court, etc.). Strange question.

Not anon you're responding to, but I think you're spot on there. Irrespective of whether people agree that Susman is better than Cravath or vice versa, you get top-notch early career experience at both.

[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.

Kellogg elevates the great majority of the eligible associates each year. Otherwise, this post accurately characterizes the firms. Both boutiques are vastly preferable to NY biglaw commercial litigation absent unique circumstances. And even within NY biglaw commercial litigation, I would put Cravath behind at least Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell.

Agreed on all of this. This sums up the key takeaways from this dumpster fire of a thread.

[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.

Kellogg elevates the great majority of the eligible associates each year. Otherwise, this post accurately characterizes the firms. Both boutiques are vastly preferable to NY biglaw commercial litigation absent unique circumstances. And even within NY biglaw commercial litigation, I would put Cravath behind at least Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell.

The anti-Cravath trolling is getting a little funny. Cravath is clearly superior to all of those firms for commercial litigation.

You're both trolling - Cravath and S&C are identical in the prestige-whore rankings lmao

[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.

Kellogg elevates the great majority of the eligible associates each year. Otherwise, this post accurately characterizes the firms. Both boutiques are vastly preferable to NY biglaw commercial litigation absent unique circumstances. And even within NY biglaw commercial litigation, I would put Cravath behind at least Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell.

The anti-Cravath trolling is getting a little funny. Cravath is clearly superior to all of those firms for commercial litigation.

You're both trolling - Cravath and S&C are identical in the prestige-whore rankings lmao

I love it when TLS people pretend they're not total prestige-whores. In any case, S&C is a wannabe Cravath/Wachtell

[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.

Kellogg elevates the great majority of the eligible associates each year. Otherwise, this post accurately characterizes the firms. Both boutiques are vastly preferable to NY biglaw commercial litigation absent unique circumstances. And even within NY biglaw commercial litigation, I would put Cravath behind at least Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell.

The anti-Cravath trolling is getting a little funny. Cravath is clearly superior to all of those firms for commercial litigation.

You're both trolling - Cravath and S&C are identical in the prestige-whore rankings lmao

Wachtell is head and shoulders above the other firms listed (Wachtell/Cravath isn't a thing, and never has been). The rest are mostly interchangeable, but I would, as a litigator, take them over Cravath because they don't have its rotation system. It doesn't do much good to share an office with Evan Chesler if you never get the chance to work with him.

[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.

Kellogg elevates the great majority of the eligible associates each year. Otherwise, this post accurately characterizes the firms. Both boutiques are vastly preferable to NY biglaw commercial litigation absent unique circumstances. And even within NY biglaw commercial litigation, I would put Cravath behind at least Wachtell, Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell.

The anti-Cravath trolling is getting a little funny. Cravath is clearly superior to all of those firms for commercial litigation.

You're both trolling - Cravath and S&C are identical in the prestige-whore rankings lmao

Wachtell is head and shoulders above the other firms listed (Wachtell/Cravath isn't a thing, and never has been). The rest are mostly interchangeable, but I would, as a litigator, take them over Cravath because they don't have its rotation system. It doesn't do much good to share an office with Evan Chesler if you never get the chance to work with him.

Yeah I absolutely detest both Wachtell and Cravath (rejected them both, terrible hours, authoritarian culture) but clearly Wachtell is more selective and better in every area. One of my fav aspects of this thread has been Cravath bro trying to claim Cravath is more preftigious for litigation than Wachtell. Utter derangement.

[Anonymous User]

Don't get me wrong, Wachtell is a great firm for corporate law, especially M&A. But it's not a well-balanced firm, and compared to Cravath is weak in banking & finance, antitrust, and especially elite general commercial litigation. Cravath is a peer to Wachtell in pretty much everything else, including tax, antitrust, and M&A. In fact, during the busiest year for M&A in history, Cravath's deals were larger on average. And of course, Cravath is ranked number one nationally and regionally. You always should take rankings with a grain of salt, but Cravath's rank has been very stable for the past decade or so.

[Anonymous User]

Frankly I'm impressed by Cravath poster's endurance here. Perhaps billing way more than peer firms for no extra money pays off in other ways

[Anonymous User]

(Wachtell/Cravath isn't a thing, and never has been)

think back to the the 80's and 90's, when Wachtell/Skadden were the hot upstarts and Cravath/S&C/etc. were the white-shoe Old Guard. Wachtell being the forerunner of the former category, and Cravath the latter, definitely led to their being referred to in the same breath like that. And top HLS students were struggling to decide which of the two they'd work at, if they got offers from both, etc.

But Wachtell won the war sometime during the second Bush administration. It's the firm Cravath pretends to be. "Cravath/Wachtell" - especially in that order - nowadays is evidence of reliance on Vault and therefore profound ignorance

[Anonymous User]

(Wachtell/Cravath isn't a thing, and never has been)

think back to the the 80's and 90's, when Wachtell/Skadden were the hot upstarts and Cravath/S&C/etc. were the white-shoe Old Guard. Wachtell being the forerunner of the former category, and Cravath the latter, definitely led to their being referred to in the same breath like that. And top HLS students were struggling to decide which of the two they'd work at, if they got offers from both, etc.

But Wachtell won the war sometime during the second Bush administration. It's the firm Cravath pretends to be. "Cravath/Wachtell" - especially in that order - nowadays is evidence of reliance on Vault and therefore profound ignorance

How the mighty have fallen. I know for a fact that Cravath will regularly dip to median and below at HLS now. Magnas (top 10%) and most cum laudes (top 40%) will pursue better options. It's just a standard, above-average NYC biglaw firm now.

[Anonymous User]

Because of the firm culture.

Litigation does not need to be unpleasant. There is a line between being a zealous advocate and an asshole and that line gets crossed too many times by QE partners.

QE Story #1
This was years ago.

I was at a deposition on behalf of a corporation, in-house. QE was opposing counsel, they had a partner attend. He was sitting down on his laptop and did not get up or introduce himself when I walked in. I politely introduced myself and offered a handshake. He stared at my hand like it was some alien thing, said nothing, and turned away.

I noticed a heart shaped post-it note on his laptop, probably the wi-fi password given to him by the depo venue. I said "That's a nice post-it you have there." He then grabbed it with his meaty hands, crumpled it up and said "You like it, here, you can have it!" And slammed it down on the table in front of me. I was absolutely stunned. Everyone else in the room was stunned. He went back to watching his laptop.

Other counsel for his side show up, representing employees. One is a fairly well regarded attorney from our area, the other one is a local guy, kind, but budget counsel. The depo begins. We start our Qs.

The QE partner, takes his laptop into his lap, and turns away from the deposition table, the deponent, everybody, and begins looking at websites on his computer. Periodically he laughs. Occasionally, he shows the well regarded attorney the laptop screen and giggles. But for the most part, he just stays in near the corner of the room. Facing away. Laughing.

Lunch break comes. He goes over to his two co-counsel and interposes himself between them, turns towards the well regarded one, and invites them to lunch. Budget counsel looks on, clearly expecting to be invited. That expectation is not met. The QE partner does not even make eye contact. He is left hanging, like my proffered handshake earlier. The well regarded attorney (WRA) has social awareness and can see the shattered hopes of local guy getting to hang with the "cool kids". But does not care enough. The two of them depart leaving local counsel alone.

My team goes to lunch. Counsel and in-house people. We are in a tiny town. There is one nice place. We go there. So did QE partner and WRA. From the looks of things, WRA and QE Partner are having a bloviating contest. Bloviating. I haven't ever written that word before and after this post, I probably won't again, but that's what they were doing. Bloviating, gesticulating their hot air out and about.

The waitress comes by, asks if we want anything to drink. My boss orders water. Counsel 1 orders water. Counsel 2 orders water. I am about to order and my boss says "You know [redacted], you can order a drink, it's alright, you're young." I might have been young but I was not falling for that trap. As I was about to chime in with the fourth order of water, I was struck by inspiration.

"You know what, I'll have a water, but can you get my friend over there a Cosmo?" I point at QE partner. He doesn't notice. Still bloviating. Bloviating.

I wasn't sure how my table would react, but they were on board. We watch. A tray passes by: two waters, one Barbie-pink Cosmo. The Cosmo heads toward their table, coasts through the surrounding field of hot air and self-absorption and arrives. The waiter's back is blocks my view.

"I DIDN'T ORDER THIS!" QE Partner roared, standing from his seat, I could see his face now, it was flushed red, his jowls rippled with rage. The waiter was terrified. They mumbled something and pointed at me. "HE CAN TAKE IT. IT'S NOT MINE." QE partner shouted. The waiter put the Cosmo back on the tray and walks over to me. The waiter is trembling so much I can hear the glass clink like a chandelier in an earthquake. He set the drink down in front of me.

"Cheers." I raise the glass and drink it. Why not. We go back to the Depo, QE Partner makes the demand that the in-house people leave. We do, and we discuss his outlandish behavior and the incident the whole car ride to the office.

Truly bizarre

QE Antics

That is one story. I have more. But, it is not just this eccentric, anti-social, sociopathic, self-righteous, smug seriousness that is annoying about QE. It is that they also do all this bush league bullshit. They are like ineffectual villains from children's television.

-They served RFPs/ROGs/RFAs late on Fridays. In their mind, I think they believed this was some Sun Tzu bullshit to make us worry over the weekend. In reality, we didn't even open them until Monday morning.

-They made pointless objections to discovery. Pointless motions. Hearings for no reason.

-Attempted to make us wait for a required attorney for a M&C, ended up calling us hours after the scheduled time.

-Volunteered to write the "Undisputed Facts". (Narrator: They were disputed.)

I have little doubt that if we invited them into our office, they would ask to use the bathroom, turn on all the sinks, and then walk out giggling at their misdeeds.

So, yeah, that's where the hate comes from. I am positive that there are great litigators there, great partners, great associates, but I have met enough complete psychos that cannot even pass for normal in brief work interactions, that I have cause for serious concern over what it would be like to work there.

[NoLongerALurker]

In my case, I hate them because each person I interviewed with there told me flatly in the interview that I would get an offer, then I got ghosted for 3 months and no-offered. Guess I suck.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is amazing -- weirdly makes me nostalgic and slightly inspired that people are still holding these "my law firm is best" beliefs so strongly. Brings me back to when I first read this forum when applying to law school.

Just to stoke the fires a tad more, I thought I'd note:
-I am the former Quinn lawyer from earlier in the thread (before the well-spoken current Quinn lawyer)

-Doesn't this whole thread kind of seem like a PR win for Quinn? Here QE is, a couple of us saying "I didn't really hate it, it worked for me" -- and then by comparison everyone at Cravath and/or boutiques are coming off absolutely batshit insane.

[Anonymous User]

This thread is amazing -- weirdly makes me nostalgic and slightly inspired that people are still holding these "my law firm is best" beliefs so strongly. Brings me back to when I first read this forum when applying to law school.

Just to stoke the fires a tad more, I thought I'd note:
-I am the former Quinn lawyer from earlier in the thread (before the well-spoken current Quinn lawyer)

-Doesn't this whole thread kind of seem like a PR win for Quinn? Here QE is, a couple of us saying "I didn't really hate it, it worked for me" -- and then by comparison everyone at Cravath and/or boutiques are coming off absolutely batshit insane.

There are some facts in this industry that are beyond dispute. One is that Quinn is a good firm that gives good experience, but has a rep for being a bit aggressive and sweatshoppy. No one challenged that premise, so the thread quickly moved on. Another beyond-dispute fact is that Cravath isn't anywhere near the top of the litigation pecking order. Like, not even close. The talent gaps are off the charts. But one never-give-up Cravath poster kept insisting that it's the best litigation firm in the country, and all of TLS came out and spent pages being flabbergasted and confused. That's basically what happened here.

[Anonymous User]

The cosmo story makes no sense at all.

Anyway, if any of that encounter is true, I get why people hate litigating against QE. But as someone pointed out a while back, litigating against them and working for them are 2 different experiences, and even further back, the OP was asking about working for them.

[Anonymous User]

(Wachtell/Cravath isn't a thing, and never has been)

think back to the the 80's and 90's, when Wachtell/Skadden were the hot upstarts and Cravath/S&C/etc. were the white-shoe Old Guard. Wachtell being the forerunner of the former category, and Cravath the latter, definitely led to their being referred to in the same breath like that. And top HLS students were struggling to decide which of the two they'd work at, if they got offers from both, etc.

But Wachtell won the war sometime during the second Bush administration. It's the firm Cravath pretends to be. "Cravath/Wachtell" - especially in that order - nowadays is evidence of reliance on Vault and therefore profound ignorance

How the mighty have fallen. I know for a fact that Cravath will regularly dip to median and below at HLS now. Magnas (top 10%) and most cum laudes (top 40%) will pursue better options. It's just a standard, above-average NYC biglaw firm now.

I also know for a fact that Cravath hires at or just slightly above median at Penn and Columbia too.