Why is there so much hate for Quinn Emanuel? Forum

[dyemond]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

In this thread at least, no one was arguing this. Everyone was just responding to the Cravath lawyer who kept quadrupling-down that Cravath is the country's top lit firm, better than Wachtell for lit, and will teach you to "litigate circles around" your peers when you lateral--all total, complete nonsense. Can't have someone misleading law students like that on a forum like this.

[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.

Ha..."well-spoken"...thanks former QE person! -Current QE person.

Yeah that's exactly why I chose QE over these other firms; their employees literally seemed brainwashed (Cravath was an outlier in that sense - especially brainwashed and downtrodden associates). It freaked me out. Quinn may be relatively intense and annoying to litigate against (or so I hear), but at least the firm is relatively transparent with its employees. It incentivizes people with money and other nice things like WFH, not preftige, and is clear about its (ultimately reasonable) billing expectations.

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

Lol

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

It is now simply beyond dispute that this is a troll, and a very good one at that.

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

lol come on

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

The fact that you can say this without a hint of irony is astounding.

[dyemond]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

The fact that you can say this without a hint of irony is astounding.

You guys are getting trolled and that was a great inclusion for the bit.

[Anonymous User]

If representing W&C as an appellate shop rather than a white-collar one was a deliberate troll, well-played, perfectly calibrate to trigger my “well actually” instincts

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

The fact that you can say this without a hint of irony is astounding.

You guys are getting trolled and that was a great inclusion for the bit.

Obviously a troll, but what's more concerning are the random comments (probably from clueless law students) appearing to take the Cravath troll's posts seriously ("well both sides are making equally dumb arguments" etc etc).

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

[Anonymous User]

If representing W&C as an appellate shop rather than a white-collar one was a deliberate troll, well-played, perfectly calibrate to trigger my “well actually” instincts

My understanding is that they are highly regarded in either, but my point about specialty areas of litigation still stands.

But more importantly, no, I'm not trolling. The arguments against my position are really deteriorating at this point. We've gone from no true Scotsman to ad hominem to just calling reasoned disagreement trolling.

[Anonymous User]

If representing W&C as an appellate shop rather than a white-collar one was a deliberate troll, well-played, perfectly calibrate to trigger my “well actually” instincts

My understanding is that they are highly regarded in either, but my point about specialty areas of litigation still stands.

But more importantly, no, I'm not trolling. The arguments against my position are really deteriorating at this point. We've gone from no true Scotsman to ad hominem to just calling reasoned disagreement trolling.

lol

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

He’s sent like 4-5 clerks in a decade and a half on the bench. That’s not a feeder. CA2 is weak anymore.

[Anonymous User]

If representing W&C as an appellate shop rather than a white-collar one was a deliberate troll, well-played, perfectly calibrate to trigger my “well actually” instincts

I started crying laughing at that. Props where props are due, this Cravath guy commits to the bit.

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

He’s sent like 4-5 clerks in a decade and a half on the bench. That’s not a feeder. CA2 is weak anymore.

I mean, he has 8 feeds in the last 5 years, not exactly bad numbers

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

He’s sent like 4-5 clerks in a decade and a half on the bench. That’s not a feeder. CA2 is weak anymore.

I mean, he has 8 feeds in the last 5 years, not exactly bad numbers

Lol this thread.

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

The fact that you can say this without a hint of irony is astounding.

You guys are getting trolled and that was a great inclusion for the bit.

If this turns into a flame war over the Dean Steinbach incident, this thread will become one for the history books. One of the TLS greats.

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

He’s sent like 4-5 clerks in a decade and a half on the bench. That’s not a feeder. CA2 is weak anymore.

I mean, he has 8 feeds in the last 5 years, not exactly bad numbers

Does he really? That's elite for CA2.

[Anonymous User]

While I recognize that this is the internet and people can post whatever they want (within reason), I do sometimes wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze, to quote a certain administrator. It is sad that individuals on this thread will so persistently and stubbornly insist on ignoring measurable standards of quality (Chambers, Legal 500, Vault, Firm Prospects), for reasons I find difficult to fathom. Law students would follow the advice of posters here and reject Cravath for firms like Hueston Hennigan, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Gupta Wessler. All fine firms, but it is irresponsible to refer to them as even on par with Cravath, let alone better.

The truth matters and I don't mind defending it. For the average top law student interested in litigation or corporate law, Cravath offers something that no other firm in the world can: the ideal combination of mentorship opportunities, generalist training, and the opportunity to become intimately involved with individual cases as part of a small team. I see it as very similar to Williams & Connolly v. Covington (in DC). W&C is great if you know you want to practice appellate litigation, but is there any doubt that the overall better firm across an array of metrics is Covington? The same reasoning applies to Cravath, and yet the vitriol directed at people willing to recognize this is unparalleled. Many of you folks have said the quiet part out loud, namely that you have issues with Cravath associates and how they carry themselves. That is another conversation, but please don't take it out on law students who may be making serious mistakes based on the advice that you are providing.

The fact that you can say this without a hint of irony is astounding.

You guys are getting trolled and that was a great inclusion for the bit.

If this turns into a flame war over the Dean Steinbach incident, this thread will become one for the history books. One of the TLS greats.

So has Cravath bro been trolling this whole time or no? I truly can't tell. If so, masterful (albeit strange) work.

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

He’s sent like 4-5 clerks in a decade and a half on the bench. That’s not a feeder. CA2 is weak anymore.

I mean, he has 8 feeds in the last 5 years, not exactly bad numbers

Does he really? That's elite for CA2.

At least 8, I didn't do a super diligent search or anything - just finder key'd the wikipedia lists. One to CJR and the rest to Kagan/Sotomeyer/Breyer so like, focused but decent

[Anonymous User]

To answer OP’s original question:

Because it leads to the unequivocally deranged litigation boutique prestige arguments that have plagued this forum for the past 2 years.

Compare the Wachtell menu vs the Kirkland Chicago lunch menu, Bama’s NY BL penetration vs Minn’s Chicago penetration, seriously, anything would be preferable to and more interesting than whether [lit boutique that only hires from CA2 feeders] is more exclusive than [lit boutique that likes to hire fed soc people who clerked for SCOTUS].

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

He’s sent like 4-5 clerks in a decade and a half on the bench. That’s not a feeder. CA2 is weak anymore.

I mean, he has 8 feeds in the last 5 years, not exactly bad numbers

Does he really? That's elite for CA2.

At least 8, I didn't do a super diligent search or anything - just finder key'd the wikipedia lists. One to CJR and the rest to Kagan/Sotomeyer/Breyer so like, focused but decent

Still not feeder status though if you look at the other circuits. Honestly, does CA2 even come in the top half for circuits sending clerks to the court anymore?

[dyemond]

There aren’t any CA2 feeders bruh

Lohier?

He’s sent like 4-5 clerks in a decade and a half on the bench. That’s not a feeder. CA2 is weak anymore.

I mean, he has 8 feeds in the last 5 years, not exactly bad numbers

Does he really? That's elite for CA2.

At least 8, I didn't do a super diligent search or anything - just finder key'd the wikipedia lists. One to CJR and the rest to Kagan/Sotomeyer/Breyer so like, focused but decent

Still not feeder status though if you look at the other circuits. Honestly, does CA2 even come in the top half for circuits sending clerks to the court anymore?

I threw this out there as a reason why you guys are annoying and here you go, Ex A.