How good is Cahill Forum

[Anonymous User]

I've heard from a number of different people that the firm is not doing too well right now.

That's doubtful. They had over 40 SAs last year and plan to have the same amount this year. They just paid mid-year bonuses last month, just like they did the previous 2 years. They've been in the top 10 for PPP and RPL for many years. Markets aren't slowing down at all either.

I heard that the bonuses (and number of summer associates) were, in part, to keep up appearances and that their bottom line is hurting. I wouldn't say anything except I've heard this from a number of different, reliable sources.

This is absolutely not true. They are actually asking some first years to start early (before October) because there is that much work to go around right now.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard from a number of different people that the firm is not doing too well right now.

That's doubtful. They had over 40 SAs last year and plan to have the same amount this year. They just paid mid-year bonuses last month, just like they did the previous 2 years. They've been in the top 10 for PPP and RPL for many years. Markets aren't slowing down at all either.

I heard that the bonuses (and number of summer associates) were, in part, to keep up appearances and that their bottom line is hurting. I wouldn't say anything except I've heard this from a number of different, reliable sources.

This is absolutely not true. They are actually asking some first years to start early (before October) because there is that much work to go around right now.

You might be right; just repeating what others were telling me. I thought their info was credible, but maybe they didn't have the whole story.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard from a number of different people that the firm is not doing too well right now.

That's doubtful. They had over 40 SAs last year and plan to have the same amount this year. They just paid mid-year bonuses last month, just like they did the previous 2 years. They've been in the top 10 for PPP and RPL for many years. Markets aren't slowing down at all either.

I heard that the bonuses (and number of summer associates) were, in part, to keep up appearances and that their bottom line is hurting. I wouldn't say anything except I've heard this from a number of different, reliable sources.

New anon. I think this doesn't have any truth to it after having just summered there, but then again, I was just a summer. I think this rumor started on xoxohth.

Cahill is one of the most profitable firms in the country (see RPL and PPP here: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/the-2012 ... o-climb/2/) and they offered all 43 of us the thursday before the program ended (they told us on day one we'd all get offers unless we "massively f*cked up"). Cahill has also been ranked in best business outlook (and compensation) on Vault for the past few years. Its stability is probably one of its biggest selling points--Cahill doesn't open a lot of offices because it's so conservatively managed. Also, anecdotally, associates were constantly talking about how ready they were for the first years to come in because there's so much work they could use help with. I really didn't get the vibe once the entire summer that anyone was hurting for work. Plus, the bonuses. It's hilarious logic to me that people think giving out bonuses would be some sort of "cover" for financial instability (that's law student logic, not business logic).

If you have more detail than a blanket statement and citing a vague "number of different, reliable sources" I'd (and I'm sure some 2Ls considering the firm) would love to hear it. Better yet, I'd love to hear from a Cahill associate on this.

[Anonymous User]

Their top 5 PPP is nothing new either. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

[Anonymous User]

Their top 5 PPP is nothing new either. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

New anon here. Why is a firm that is seemingly so profitable not really seen as that prestigious by lawyers in NYC? It's reputation isn't awful, but it seems like firms such as Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk, and Skadden are very, very far ahead in terms of reputation and prestige.

[sundance95]

Dunno anything about Cahill, but the idea that a firm would give away money to associates in the form of a spring bonus "just to keep up appearances" is pretty laughable. Firms in trouble hoard cash, not spend it.

[Pokemon]

I agree. There are plenty of examples of firms not caring about appearances and not being hurt in the long term. Latham the most notorious one. If they are hurting, they would probably not pay bonuses, certainly not just for appearances.

[Anonymous User]

Their top 5 PPP is nothing new either. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

New anon here. Why is a firm that is seemingly so profitable not really seen as that prestigious by lawyers in NYC? It's reputation isn't awful, but it seems like firms such as Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk, and Skadden are very, very far ahead in terms of reputation and prestige.

Aside from being NY only, my guess is that high-yield bonds aren't that glamourous (especially after the 80s, Drexel, etc.), and those account for the majority of their business on the corporate side. Every lay person is familiar with equities or M&A, but fixed income is often seen as boring, and high-yield an even less desirable subset of that. On the litigation side, it's basically Floyd Abrams and then everyone else. That isn't to say the rest of litigation is weak, but it just doesn't get the same level of cases as Floyd does with First Amendment.

[Anonymous User]

Their top 5 PPP is nothing new either. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

New anon here. Why is a firm that is seemingly so profitable not really seen as that prestigious by lawyers in NYC? It's reputation isn't awful, but it seems like firms such as Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk, and Skadden are very, very far ahead in terms of reputation and prestige.

Aside from being NY only, my guess is that high-yield bonds aren't that glamourous (especially after the 80s, Drexel, etc.), and those account for the majority of their business on the corporate side. Every lay person is familiar with equities or M&A, but fixed income is often seen as boring, and high-yield an even less desirable subset of that. On the litigation side, it's basically Floyd Abrams and then everyone else. That isn't to say the rest of litigation is weak, but it just doesn't get the same level of cases as Floyd does with First Amendment.

Anon you quoted.

Yeah, I was talking about just the reputation in NY—personally, I don't care what people on the West Coast think about NY firms. I was out with a couple law-school friends in NYC and we met a couple banking associates—one from Lazard and the other from GS. They gave an "Ah yeah, we know ______; great firm" when my friend who was working at a V5 this summer mentioned his firm, but just gave blank looks and a "Sorry, not familiar with that one" when my friend who is starting at Cahill this fall answered where he was working. Is this just because of Cahill's lack of "big, front-page deals"? I was wondering how that might translate into exit options, especially on the banking side of things.

[Anonymous User]

so am i wrong with the impression i got of super type-a personalities and long hours?

This was my overall impression when I interviewed with them as well, but I also met a couple of lateral associates who were very nice and seemed genuinely happier at Cahill than at their previous prestige firms. Still, my overall CB experience was a turn off because one of the partners I met was the most unpleasant interviewer I've had yet, and he happens to work in my area of specialty. I guess the benefit of the free market system is that if the practice group is large enough, you wouldn't have to deal with the bad eggs.

Responding to other anons, I would guess Cahill is generally viewed as less prestigious than some other NYC-centric firms because their practice areas and client base are relatively limited compared to bigger firms, seems like mostly banks with a splash of Floyd Abrams.

[Old Gregg]

Dunno anything about Cahill, but the idea that a firm would give away money to associates in the form of a spring bonus "just to keep up appearances" is pretty laughable. Firms in trouble hoard cash, not spend it.

Lol what...

[Old Gregg]

It's hilarious logic to me that people think giving out bonuses would be some sort of "cover" for financial instability (that's law student logic, no

Umm... These law students become lawyers, who are the worst businessmen alive. It's through their ineptitude that we are in the current salary/bonus situation. Yes, firm down the street is paying market, but can they afford it? Who cares... simpson is, so we have to as well. That's shitty business thinking.

And enough of the kool aid. There's shit going down at Cahill. Nothing you should worry about, but spilling money left and right shouldnt be taken as a necessary symbol of prosperity.

To go to the larger theme of this thread, Cahill is not as prestigious because they don't keep massive, blue chip companies as clients for work that is considered prestigious. They don't do bet the company litigation for Samsung, or big public deals for Toyota. They specialize in a lucrative field, but a field that no one cares about, that's it.

I won't begrudge someone for going to Cahill because of the money. I'd do it too. But don't take any of their PPP or bonuses or whatever as signs that they're underrated. Vault rankings are dumb, so they're not really underrated. And if they were not dumb, they'd still be rated as they are because while the rising tide is lifting all boats right now, things can get really shitty. It got really shitty thre years ago for them, and given their specialty, it could get really shitty for them again, moreso than at other firms.

[fw8014]

Cahill is one of the most profitable firms in the country (see RPL and PPP here: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/the-2012 ... o-climb/2/) and they offered all 43 of us the thursday before the program ended (they told us on day one we'd all get offers unless we "massively f*cked up"). Cahill has also been ranked in best business outlook (and compensation) on Vault for the past few years. Its stability is probably one of its biggest selling points--Cahill doesn't open a lot of offices because it's so conservatively managed.

Don't you think that making offers to all 43 SAs when the firm size is only 300 attorneys speaks against Cahill's stability / conservative management? I don't know about Cahill's future business prospects or its expected rate of attrition, but this number seems excessively high to me. I used to work at a firm that had twice Cahill's size and half its number of SAs, and I've interviewed at similarly-sized firms with a much smaller class of SAs. Grats on the job offer though.

[Anonymous User]

Their top 5 PPP is nothing new either. http://www.law.com/special/professional ... 0_ppp.html

New anon here. Why is a firm that is seemingly so profitable not really seen as that prestigious by lawyers in NYC? It's reputation isn't awful, but it seems like firms such as Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk, and Skadden are very, very far ahead in terms of reputation and prestige.

Aside from being NY only, my guess is that high-yield bonds aren't that glamourous (especially after the 80s, Drexel, etc.), and those account for the majority of their business on the corporate side. Every lay person is familiar with equities or M&A, but fixed income is often seen as boring, and high-yield an even less desirable subset of that. On the litigation side, it's basically Floyd Abrams and then everyone else. That isn't to say the rest of litigation is weak, but it just doesn't get the same level of cases as Floyd does with First Amendment.

Anon you quoted.

Yeah, I was talking about just the reputation in NY—personally, I don't care what people on the West Coast think about NY firms. I was out with a couple law-school friends in NYC and we met a couple banking associates—one from Lazard and the other from GS. They gave an "Ah yeah, we know ______; great firm" when my friend who was working at a V5 this summer mentioned his firm, but just gave blank looks and a "Sorry, not familiar with that one" when my friend who is starting at Cahill this fall answered where he was working. Is this just because of Cahill's lack of "big, front-page deals"? I was wondering how that might translate into exit options, especially on the banking side of things.

(Anon who responded)--
I think Cahill has a pretty good reputation within the high-yield groups of major banks, but because there's such a drop-off in its other areas, its reputation isn't as high with bankers as a whole. As far as those two specific banks, Lazard doesn't show up on the league tables for fixed income and anecdotally I heard that Cahill just doesn't have a strong institutional relationship with GS for some reason. For exit options, you would just be limited to the high-yield groups because those are the people you would be working with, and I heard it was something that happened more frequently in better times. A few people did switch over while I summered there, including some to the business side.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill is one of the most profitable firms in the country (see RPL and PPP here: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/the-2012 ... o-climb/2/) and they offered all 43 of us the thursday before the program ended (they told us on day one we'd all get offers unless we "massively f*cked up"). Cahill has also been ranked in best business outlook (and compensation) on Vault for the past few years. Its stability is probably one of its biggest selling points--Cahill doesn't open a lot of offices because it's so conservatively managed.

Don't you think that making offers to all 43 SAs when the firm size is only 300 attorneys speaks against Cahill's stability / conservative management? I don't know about Cahill's future business prospects or its expected rate of attrition, but this number seems excessively high to me. I used to work at a firm that had twice Cahill's size and half its number of SAs, and I've interviewed at similarly-sized firms with a much smaller class of SAs. Grats on the job offer though.

(Not OP) Interesting. I think this ratio is on the high end, but not unusually high. I had compiled these numbers for OCI research and these are some firms with similar or higher ratios. K&E NY, 52 SAs, 333 Attorneys. Cravath, 82 SAs, 518 Attorneys. Dechert NY 43 SAs, 175 Attorneys. Linklaters NY, 30 SAs, 219 Attorneys. Paul Weiss NY, 106 SAs, 720 Attorneys. Rope & Gray NY, 45 SAs, 290 Attorneys.

Edit: Dechert's summer class seems like it may have been oversubscribed though, as there were talks in other threads that they no-offered a few of their SAs.

[fw8014]

(Not OP) Interesting. I think this ratio is on the high end, but not unusually high. I had compiled these numbers for OCI research and these are some firms with similar or higher ratios. K&E NY, 52 SAs, 333 Attorneys. Cravath, 82 SAs, 518 Attorneys. Dechert NY 43 SAs, 175 Attorneys. Linklaters NY, 30 SAs, 219 Attorneys. Paul Weiss NY, 106 SAs, 720 Attorneys. Rope & Gray NY, 45 SAs, 290 Attorneys.

Edit: Dechert's summer class seems like it may have been oversubscribed though, as there were talks in other threads that they no-offered a few of their SAs.

For me, the difference is that most of these firms have multiple offices (including international), are aggressively expansive, and/or have traditionally high attrition rates so the high SA classes make a bit more sense. I also knew all of these firms before OCI season but not Cahill. IDK, based on Cahill's representations, something just does not compute. From my interviews, I had the impression that they have a fairly good retention rate, and the other two aforementioned variables simply do not apply. I'm not flaming Cahill btw, just airing out my own reservations about accepting an offer from them.

[Anonymous User]

(Not OP) Interesting. I think this ratio is on the high end, but not unusually high. I had compiled these numbers for OCI research and these are some firms with similar or higher ratios. K&E NY, 52 SAs, 333 Attorneys. Cravath, 82 SAs, 518 Attorneys. Dechert NY 43 SAs, 175 Attorneys. Linklaters NY, 30 SAs, 219 Attorneys. Paul Weiss NY, 106 SAs, 720 Attorneys. Rope & Gray NY, 45 SAs, 290 Attorneys.

Edit: Dechert's summer class seems like it may have been oversubscribed though, as there were talks in other threads that they no-offered a few of their SAs.

For me, the difference is that most of these firms have multiple offices (including international), are aggressively expansive, and/or have traditionally high attrition rates so the high SA classes make a bit more sense. I also knew all of these firms before OCI season but not Cahill. IDK, based on Cahill's representations, something just does not compute. From my interviews, I had the impression that they have a fairly good retention rate, and the other two aforementioned variables simply do not apply. I'm not flaming Cahill btw, just airing out my own reservations about accepting an offer from them.

While I think Cahill is a great place, it is still a NYC biglaw firm, with most of the drawbacks that come along with being one. I looked at the associate lists awhile back and by year 4, 50% of the class was gone, with another 10-15% leaving every year after. Only 1-2 make partner in bad years and maybe 3-4 in good years. Also, not everyone who receives an offer after their 2L SA will accept and some clerk (hence the 3L hiring). This number can be 10-20% of the class.

(disclosure: will be returning to Cahill)

[Anonymous User]

While I think Cahill is a great place, it is still a NYC biglaw firm, with most of the drawbacks that come along with being one. I looked at the associate lists awhile back and by year 4, 50% of the class was gone, with another 10-15% leaving every year after. Only 1-2 make partner in bad years and maybe 3-4 in good years. Also, not everyone who receives an offer after their 2L SA will accept and some clerk (hence the 3L hiring). This number can be 10-20% of the class.

(disclosure: will be returning to Cahill)

While I can't speak to how many people in their summer classes generally accept/don't accept offers, I do know that Cahill runs highly leveraged and they heavily rely on associate attrition. People underestimate how brutal the hours can be there and that it's not a QOL firm at all and most people really do leave pretty quickly. (My contact there isn't particularly happy and is getting ready to jump ship; though not because of any internal problems as insinuated above).

That said, they did just bring in a big litigation partner from Shearman; and as for QOL, from my contact's experience, they actually respect vacation time (which is a positive to the free market).

[Anonymous User]

While I think Cahill is a great place, it is still a NYC biglaw firm, with most of the drawbacks that come along with being one. I looked at the associate lists awhile back and by year 4, 50% of the class was gone, with another 10-15% leaving every year after. Only 1-2 make partner in bad years and maybe 3-4 in good years. Also, not everyone who receives an offer after their 2L SA will accept and some clerk (hence the 3L hiring). This number can be 10-20% of the class.

(disclosure: will be returning to Cahill)

While I can't speak to how many people in their summer classes generally accept/don't accept offers, I do know that Cahill runs highly leveraged and they heavily rely on associate attrition. People underestimate how brutal the hours can be there and that it's not a QOL firm at all and most people really do leave pretty quickly. (My contact there isn't particularly happy and is getting ready to jump ship; though not because of any internal problems as insinuated above).

That said, they did just bring in a big litigation partner from Shearman; and as for QOL, from my contact's experience, they actually respect vacation time (which is a positive to the free market).

Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all. I don't know who your contact is, but as you said, he/she isn't happy so maybe you have to take everything said with a grain of salt. The hours are no different than any other big law firm, but due to the free market system you get to choose who you work for and what deals/cases you take on so you choose how much work you are putting in. The rate of attrition is, again, truly no different than any other big law firm, but you are more likely to make partner if you stay.

They absolutely respect vacation time and they are extremely flexible with working from home, etc. I spent an entire summer there asking the hard questions and while not everyone loves the firm, most in fact do, and are really happy to be able to start their legal career there. People are extremely down to earth, and I know my career is in my hands - not in the hands of a staffer. Cahill is not for everyone, but its a really great place for a lot of people. You have to do what's right for you.

Also, 4/5th of the summer class accepted on the spot and most others accepted the day after. If they fooled me, they fooled us all.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all. I don't know who your contact is, but as you said, he/she isn't happy so maybe you have to take everything said with a grain of salt. The hours are no different than any other big law firm, but due to the free market system you get to choose who you work for and what deals/cases you take on so you choose how much work you are putting in. The rate of attrition is, again, truly no different than any other big law firm, but you are more likely to make partner if you stay.

They absolutely respect vacation time and they are extremely flexible with working from home, etc. I spent an entire summer there asking the hard questions and while not everyone loves the firm, most in fact do, and are really happy to be able to start their legal career there. People are extremely down to earth, and I know my career is in my hands - not in the hands of a staffer. Cahill is not for everyone, but its a really great place for a lot of people. You have to do what's right for you.

Also, 4/5th of the summer class accepted on the spot and most others accepted the day after. If they fooled me, they fooled us all.

Nice try, Cahill Recruiting.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all. I don't know who your contact is, but as you said, he/she isn't happy so maybe you have to take everything said with a grain of salt. The hours are no different than any other big law firm, but due to the free market system you get to choose who you work for and what deals/cases you take on so you choose how much work you are putting in. The rate of attrition is, again, truly no different than any other big law firm, but you are more likely to make partner if you stay.

They absolutely respect vacation time and they are extremely flexible with working from home, etc. I spent an entire summer there asking the hard questions and while not everyone loves the firm, most in fact do, and are really happy to be able to start their legal career there. People are extremely down to earth, and I know my career is in my hands - not in the hands of a staffer. Cahill is not for everyone, but its a really great place for a lot of people. You have to do what's right for you.

Also, 4/5th of the summer class accepted on the spot and most others accepted the day after. If they fooled me, they fooled us all.

Nice try, Cahill Recruiting.

No, I'm a former summer. Admins can easily look up my anon postings to confirm.

[clintonius]

Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all.

What? "Leveraged" refers to a high associate-to-partner ratio. They don't have a NYC-specific NALP form, but firmwide, they list 36 partners and 110 associates for corporate, and 23/112 for lit. That's on par with any big firm notorious for using associate leverage.

A non-leveraged firm would have a 1:1 ratio or better (I suppose a truly zero-leverage firm would be all owners). That's rare even in small firms; its absurd to claim it of a place like Cahill.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all. I don't know who your contact is, but as you said, he/she isn't happy so maybe you have to take everything said with a grain of salt. The hours are no different than any other big law firm, but due to the free market system you get to choose who you work for and what deals/cases you take on so you choose how much work you are putting in. The rate of attrition is, again, truly no different than any other big law firm, but you are more likely to make partner if you stay.

They absolutely respect vacation time and they are extremely flexible with working from home, etc. I spent an entire summer there asking the hard questions and while not everyone loves the firm, most in fact do, and are really happy to be able to start their legal career there. People are extremely down to earth, and I know my career is in my hands - not in the hands of a staffer. Cahill is not for everyone, but its a really great place for a lot of people. You have to do what's right for you.

Also, 4/5th of the summer class accepted on the spot and most others accepted the day after. If they fooled me, they fooled us all.

Nice try, Cahill Recruiting.

No, I'm a former summer. Admins can easily look up my anon postings to confirm.

If you're not Cahill Recruiting, maybe you should tone down phrases like "Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all" and "People are extremely down to earth, and I know my career is in my hands - not in the hands of a staffer" in order for people to take you seriously then.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all.

What? "Leveraged" refers to a high associate-to-partner ratio. They don't have a NYC-specific NALP form, but firmwide, they list 36 partners and 110 associates for corporate, and 23/112 for lit. That's on par with any big firm notorious for using associate leverage.

A non-leveraged firm would have a 1:1 ratio. That's rare even in small firms; its absurd to claim it of a place like Cahill.

Leveraged also refers to the amount of debt a firm has a la Dewey problems. I guess I misunderstood what leveraged you were speaking of.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all. I don't know who your contact is, but as you said, he/she isn't happy so maybe you have to take everything said with a grain of salt. The hours are no different than any other big law firm, but due to the free market system you get to choose who you work for and what deals/cases you take on so you choose how much work you are putting in. The rate of attrition is, again, truly no different than any other big law firm, but you are more likely to make partner if you stay.

They absolutely respect vacation time and they are extremely flexible with working from home, etc. I spent an entire summer there asking the hard questions and while not everyone loves the firm, most in fact do, and are really happy to be able to start their legal career there. People are extremely down to earth, and I know my career is in my hands - not in the hands of a staffer. Cahill is not for everyone, but its a really great place for a lot of people. You have to do what's right for you.

Also, 4/5th of the summer class accepted on the spot and most others accepted the day after. If they fooled me, they fooled us all.

Nice try, Cahill Recruiting.

No, I'm a former summer. Admins can easily look up my anon postings to confirm.

If you're not Cahill Recruiting, maybe you should tone down phrases like "Cahill is not highly leveraged - in fact, they are not leveraged at all" and "People are extremely down to earth, and I know my career is in my hands - not in the hands of a staffer" in order for people to take you seriously then.

I was just trying to help.