Skadden - Exit Options Forum

[nygrrrl]

Reading this thread made me feel like I was watching a really awkward Steve Carell scene from the Office -- skin was straight crawling

Wait. I get to be Dwight.

[Anonymous User]

Skadden is about as selective as Latham and Weil at my firm. People almost universally choose firms like STB and Cleary over it. Skadden can't be anymore selective because they're just not that appealing to top student. From my understanding, Skadden's exit options are not exactly top of the line. They're still very good, but we're not talking about Wachtell or even Cravath or SullCrom here, folks.

[thesealocust]

They're still very good, but we're not talking about Wachtell or even Cravath or SullCrom here, folks.

This is an extremely misguided post. The world does not operate by vault rankings, Skadden is an amazing firm and people who start there have amazing options down the line.

Exits from a firm come down to connections, clients, and practice area. All three firms have sterling, top of the line practice areas, star-studded client lists, and deep connections in the legal world. I guarantee you that nobody ITT can provide a shred of evidence that Skadden's exit options are in any measurable way inferior to Cravath or S&C. Just not how the world works.

There is something different about Skadden NYC compared to the rest of the V5(ish) firms - it's enormous and often a bit less selective in hiring. That coupled with some of its reputation issues can make it less popular to law students. That DOES NOT mean it provides inferior exit options or is anything but one of the very best law firms in the world, stocked with the best lawyers doing the best work for the best clients.

[Anonymous User]

They're still very good, but we're not talking about Wachtell or even Cravath or SullCrom here, folks.

This is an extremely misguided post. The world does not operate by vault rankings, Skadden is an amazing firm and people who start there have amazing options down the line.

Exits from a firm come down to connections, clients, and practice area. All three firms have sterling, top of the line practice areas, star-studded client lists, and deep connections in the legal world. I guarantee you that nobody ITT can provide a shred of evidence that Skadden's exit options are in any measurable way inferior to Cravath or S&C. Just not how the world works.

There is something different about Skadden NYC compared to the rest of the V5(ish) firms - it's enormous and often a bit less selective in hiring. That coupled with some of its reputation issues can make it less popular to law students. That DOES NOT mean it provides inferior exit options or is anything but one of the very best law firms in the world, stocked with the best lawyers doing the best work for the best clients.

(Different anon here.)

Eh, maybe. I talked to a hiring partner at a V10 firm about what they look for in a lateral. He specifically said that if you started at Wachtell, Cravath, SullCrom, DPW, or STB, you instantly get a leg up over the competition. I don't think this was an off-the-cuff remark either—it was sort of apparent that he had recited this list before and had thought about it.

[thesealocust]

Here's the thing: laterals are never brought in because a firm needs more warm bodies; that's what summer programs and first years are for. Laterals are brought in to fill certain specific practice area holes when too many people leave.

Random example 1: Skadden's M&A group is gangbusters. DPW's is also good and "better" than many/most other firms, but I think basically anybody would tell you Skadden's M&A practice is "better" - and I'd eat my shoe if the average Skadden M&A associate didn't see better exit options than the average DPW M&A associate (though probably not by a wide margin, and in both cases the clients you worked with / deals you did probably matter a lot).

Random example 2: Wachtell doesn't do securities/capital markets work. I'd imagine they literally never place people into securities/capital markets groups. Another reason why talking about exit options and vault rankings just doesn't make much sense, you're often stuck comparing apples and oranges.

I talked to hiring partners in NY firms who shat on all kinds of random firms (a guy at Cravath basically gave me the same line you mentioned, except Davis Polk was the one they were saying wasn't at the same level as the group of firms instead of Skadden). Hell, I had a hiring partner at a firm talk at great length about how UVA had the 2nd best clerkship placement after Harvard. In no way, with no assumptions, and in no universe is that true - but the hiring partner was as sure of it as he was the sun had come up that morning.

Exit options are shrouded in mystery because data isn't collected en-masse and people who exit rarely talk about it much. Drawing fine lines based on vault rankings, especially within a group as similar/universally good as the NYC V5/10/15 firms, just isn't a good use of time.

[piccolittle]

They're still very good, but we're not talking about Wachtell or even Cravath or SullCrom here, folks.

This is an extremely misguided post. The world does not operate by vault rankings, Skadden is an amazing firm and people who start there have amazing options down the line.

Exits from a firm come down to connections, clients, and practice area. All three firms have sterling, top of the line practice areas, star-studded client lists, and deep connections in the legal world. I guarantee you that nobody ITT can provide a shred of evidence that Skadden's exit options are in any measurable way inferior to Cravath or S&C. Just not how the world works.

There is something different about Skadden NYC compared to the rest of the V5(ish) firms - it's enormous and often a bit less selective in hiring. That coupled with some of its reputation issues can make it less popular to law students. That DOES NOT mean it provides inferior exit options or is anything but one of the very best law firms in the world, stocked with the best lawyers doing the best work for the best clients.

Does anyone think that Skadden's perhaps declining popularity with students may lead to a decline in overall quality or prestige? That their terrible reputation for morale will catch up with them? I ask this as someone who chose a different firm over Skadden for that reason; don't get me wrong, I care primarily about exit options (mostly in-house), but when it comes to firms of similar quality, I'm not going to choose the one that is famous for being a terrible place to work.

[bruinfan10]

Reading this thread made me feel like I was watching a really awkward Steve Carell scene from the Office -- skin was straight crawling

everyone's entitled to go off the rails once in a while, although seeing a mod snap at thesealocust had me expecting Rod Serling's voice welcoming us to a TLS episode of the Twilight Zone.

i'm gonna have to agree with nygrrrl though that without further information on practice area, market, and the identity of this "other V50," all these comments are conjecture.

[Anonymous User]

They're still very good, but we're not talking about Wachtell or even Cravath or SullCrom here, folks.

This is an extremely misguided post. The world does not operate by vault rankings, Skadden is an amazing firm and people who start there have amazing options down the line.

To what extent does this apply to law school rankings? Do not want to derail post, but legitimately curious. Does this mean that after your first job, Harvard is not definitely better than Columbia, Columbia is not definitively better than Georgetown, etc? Does the "YSH, then everyone else" paradigm fade, or is graduating from a tippy top law school a golden ticket for life (or at least a couple decades)?

[Anonymous User]

OP, do you have an idea of your practice area interests? What are the other firms you are considering? Which city are you starting in and which do you hope to end up in? The answers to these questions all make a huge difference in terms of exit options. More so, though, as someone else mentioned, your exit options will depend on how you develop your career at whichever firm you go to (e.g. the level of responsibility you take on and the level of client contact you get, both of which can depend partly on how cases/deals are staffed in your group/firm but also largely on what you seek out).

All else being equal, sure, Skadden is a great name to have on your resume and you may have more opportunities coming from Skadden than you would from a significantly lower Vault-ranked firm. However, it makes more sense to look at which exit option you are actually looking for, since all else is never equal, etc. If you want to lateral, you know your intended practice area, and you have an offer from a lower-ranked firm with a better reputation for that practice, you should probably not choose Skadden just for the name. If you want to go in house, going to a firm with that kind of name recognition can be a major plus. (Again, though, if another firm has a better reputation in an industry-based specialization, that firm will probably also give you better opportunities to deal with in-house counsel in that industry.)

Re: one of the responses above, comparing exit options between, for example, Skadden/SullCrom/Cravath/DPW, is a useless exercise. People will have different personal connections and experiences. Those on the hiring side will too. There is no universal opinion among law firm partners or in house counsel that one of these firms is generally "better" than any of the others. We have all talked to the partner that dislikes firm X or loves firm Y for whatever reason (X was co-counsel once and screwed something up, partner's best friend is a partner at Y, etc). I have never encountered anyone in real life who knows or cares about the reputations that law students have of the various firms (e.g. which are most selective among firms that are basically equally selective and each have huge variation in selectivity year-to-year, particularly ITE). As far as in house counsel, they almost always prefer people from the firms that they usually work with (unsurprising) and all of these firms have high-profile clients.

Lastly, to the OP, if you are asking for the sake of making a decision between firms, I'd make the slightly off-topic suggestion that, absent any other preferences, go to the higher ranked firm where there is a sizeable difference (ie. don't fall for the sweatshop vs. happyniceplace reputations). Your life will not be any better at [wherever] over Skadden. I'm sure any associate can tell you about friends at many firms (including Skadden and other firms with "sweatshop" reputations) who work much less than you would expect and some who work much more than you would expect. This usually depends on your group and the people you end up working with.

- V5 associate (so, caveat, I have not left biglaw and do not know about exit options firsthand, though I have of course seen and discussed this with colleagues who have left)

[Anonymous User]

They're still very good, but we're not talking about Wachtell or even Cravath or SullCrom here, folks.

This is an extremely misguided post. The world does not operate by vault rankings, Skadden is an amazing firm and people who start there have amazing options down the line.

To what extent does this apply to law school rankings? Do not want to derail post, but legitimately curious. Does this mean that after your first job, Harvard is not definitely better than Columbia, Columbia is not definitively better than Georgetown, etc? Does the "YSH, then everyone else" paradigm fade, or is graduating from a tippy top law school a golden ticket for life (or at least a couple decades)?

Same anon as above here. I am still a biglaw associate so have less experience with this. From what I have seen, though, law school is more about alumni connections than pedigree, at least to a point. However, if you are looking at exit options from biglaw, most people hiring will have gone to top schools because they are also former biglaw attorneys. Obviously, there are plenty of current and former biglaw associates who did not go to T14/whatever schools, so there are exceptions. Also, there are plenty of non-biglaw firms to which you might want to lateral, and those firms may not be full of T14 grads to the same extent as most large law firms. I do not think there is any universe outside of certain federal clerkships and government positions where a Harvard degree will give you a definitive advantage over a Georgetown degree. Both have equally massive alumni networks for grads to network in, to the extent that they need/want to make connections based on law school versus, say, biglaw firm or work with a particular client, etc.

[Old Gregg]

OP, do you have an idea of your practice area interests? What are the other firms you are considering? Which city are you starting in and which do you hope to end up in? The answers to these questions all make a huge difference in terms of exit options. More so, though, as someone else mentioned, your exit options will depend on how you develop your career at whichever firm you go to (e.g. the level of responsibility you take on and the level of client contact you get, both of which can depend partly on how cases/deals are staffed in your group/firm but also largely on what you seek out).

All else being equal, sure, Skadden is a great name to have on your resume and you may have more opportunities coming from Skadden than you would from a significantly lower Vault-ranked firm. However, it makes more sense to look at which exit option you are actually looking for, since all else is never equal, etc. If you want to lateral, you know your intended practice area, and you have an offer from a lower-ranked firm with a better reputation for that practice, you should probably not choose Skadden just for the name. If you want to go in house, going to a firm with that kind of name recognition can be a major plus. (Again, though, if another firm has a better reputation in an industry-based specialization, that firm will probably also give you better opportunities to deal with in-house counsel in that industry.)

Re: one of the responses above, comparing exit options between, for example, Skadden/SullCrom/Cravath/DPW, is a useless exercise. People will have different personal connections and experiences. Those on the hiring side will too. There is no universal opinion among law firm partners or in house counsel that one of these firms is generally "better" than any of the others. We have all talked to the partner that dislikes firm X or loves firm Y for whatever reason (X was co-counsel once and screwed something up, partner's best friend is a partner at Y, etc). I have never encountered anyone in real life who knows or cares about the reputations that law students have of the various firms (e.g. which are most selective among firms that are basically equally selective and each have huge variation in selectivity year-to-year, particularly ITE). As far as in house counsel, they almost always prefer people from the firms that they usually work with (unsurprising) and all of these firms have high-profile clients.

Lastly, to the OP, if you are asking for the sake of making a decision between firms, I'd make the slightly off-topic suggestion that, absent any other preferences, go to the higher ranked firm where there is a sizeable difference (ie. don't fall for the sweatshop vs. happyniceplace reputations). Your life will not be any better at [wherever] over Skadden. I'm sure any associate can tell you about friends at many firms (including Skadden and other firms with "sweatshop" reputations) who work much less than you would expect and some who work much more than you would expect. This usually depends on your group and the people you end up working with.

- V5 associate (so, caveat, I have not left biglaw and do not know about exit options firsthand, though I have of course seen and discussed this with colleagues who have left)

This should be the end of the thread. No real need for further dilly-dallying at this point.

[nygrrrl]

This should be the end of the thread. No real need for further dilly-dallying at this point.

Yep - amazing post and I certainly wish I'd written something like this, from the get-go. Hindsight. Sorry gang: I tend to get cranky (obviously) with vague "what are the exit options" threads for the same reason that I get cranky with "what are my chances threads" before there's an LSAT score: without specifics, I think it's a waste of time. That's my own issue, however, and my initial responses in this thread were uncalled-for. I would echo everything the poster above has said, as well as what Locust said:

Exits from a firm come down to connections, clients, and practice area . . .

I rather like that people are having an open, honest discussion about this that hasn't devolved into "my firm's better than your firm" talk. I hope OP is getting the answers s/he needs.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for all the comments. To be fair, I welcomed baseless conjecture in my OP, so no need to get upset about my lack of details. I have my reasons. One clarifying item is that these are both NYC. Thanks!

[nygrrrl]

OP here. Thanks for all the comments. To be fair, I welcomed baseless conjecture in my OP, so no need to get upset about my lack of details. I have my reasons. One clarifying item is that these are both NYC. Thanks!

That you did, and I certainly think that my initial response counted as "baseless"! Hope this thread is helping you to make a decision - best of luck!

[igo2northwestern]

I would like to discuss the exit options coming from Skadden vs another V50. Are they really that much better? Anyone with experience or some baseless conjecture want to comment?

I'm sorry. I just have to be the person to say this. Why in heck would you be looking at lateralling from Skadden? Where the heck would you GO? Cravath?
(Actually suspects this is a flame but is bored and willing to play along for a short period of time*.)

*a very SHORT period of time

I think what started all this confusion was that this comment mis-equated OP's question on "exit options" with "lateralling". Most other posters in the thread were confused why you were surprised that someone would exit from Skadden (b/c it's very common).

[nygrrrl]

I think what started all this confusion was that this comment mis-equated OP's question on "exit options" with "lateralling". Most other posters in the thread were confused why you were surprised that someone would exit from Skadden (b/c it's very common).

Dude, I've acknowledged my error and apologized. You wanna keep thrashing me for it, well - that's your right and I probably deserve it. But it doesn't help OP get the answers s/he needs. I'm liking the conversation that was happening here, about the realities of moving from firm to firm in NYC; I think it could be very helpful to all of us.

[thesealocust]

To what extent does this apply to law school rankings? Do not want to derail post, but legitimately curious. Does this mean that after your first job, Harvard is not definitely better than Columbia, Columbia is not definitively better than Georgetown, etc? Does the "YSH, then everyone else" paradigm fade, or is graduating from a tippy top law school a golden ticket for life (or at least a couple decades)?

The law school you go to will be meaningful in an amorphous way because it will become the base of your "network," and that will matter in a real but hard to pin down way throughout your career. But your first job, in most cases, will dwarf the impact of your school. The lawyers at any particular NYC V10/V15 will hail from 2-3 dozen different schools. More from HYS than from T2s, to be doubt, but once those people are at the firm - and once they're looking for exits - their work at the firm and connections with clients is going to be the determining factor in where they can go next, not their law school.

You can never control for the idiosyncrasies of each individual in the hiring process, so you can't say school doesn't matter for future hiring, but it's safe to say employers are generally much more concerned with you as a lawyer at that point and not your pre-work pedigree.

[piccolittle]

They're still very good, but we're not talking about Wachtell or even Cravath or SullCrom here, folks.

This is an extremely misguided post. The world does not operate by vault rankings, Skadden is an amazing firm and people who start there have amazing options down the line.

Exits from a firm come down to connections, clients, and practice area. All three firms have sterling, top of the line practice areas, star-studded client lists, and deep connections in the legal world. I guarantee you that nobody ITT can provide a shred of evidence that Skadden's exit options are in any measurable way inferior to Cravath or S&C. Just not how the world works.

There is something different about Skadden NYC compared to the rest of the V5(ish) firms - it's enormous and often a bit less selective in hiring. That coupled with some of its reputation issues can make it less popular to law students. That DOES NOT mean it provides inferior exit options or is anything but one of the very best law firms in the world, stocked with the best lawyers doing the best work for the best clients.

Does anyone think that Skadden's perhaps declining popularity with students may lead to a decline in overall quality or prestige? That their terrible reputation for morale will catch up with them? I ask this as someone who chose a different firm over Skadden for that reason; don't get me wrong, I care primarily about exit options (mostly in-house), but when it comes to firms of similar quality, I'm not going to choose the one that is famous for being a terrible place to work.

Bumping this thought. Any opinions? For example, people have seemingly short memories about the Latham debacle of the early recession, but it did end up having an (albeit brief) impact on their popularity with law students and Vault ranking. Any thoughts as to whether Skadden is going to get increasingly "slim pickings" and consequently suffer any negative effects with client perceptions of quality etc (due to their reputation for terrible morale)?

[Lwoods]

Does anyone think that Skadden's perhaps declining popularity with students may lead to a decline in overall quality or prestige? That their terrible reputation for morale will catch up with them? I ask this as someone who chose a different firm over Skadden for that reason; don't get me wrong, I care primarily about exit options (mostly in-house), but when it comes to firms of similar quality, I'm not going to choose the one that is famous for being a terrible place to work.

Bumping this thought. Any opinions? For example, people have seemingly short memories about the Latham debacle of the early recession, but it did end up having an (albeit brief) impact on their popularity with law students and Vault ranking. Any thoughts as to whether Skadden is going to get increasingly "slim pickings" and consequently suffer any negative effects with client perceptions of quality etc (due to their reputation for terrible morale)?

Slim pickings at Skadden are still probably really talented, bright kids. I doubt clients will notice any decline or significant difference in work product. As for Skadden's reputation for terrible moral, I'm not sure clients will notice or care. Now, I imagine some of the qualities that make a "screamer" partner a jerk to his associate is likely to come through in some form to the client, but some clients like those qualities in their lawyer. Others don't... and they probably chose other representation long ago.

I'm probably being too simplistic, but I think clients will only leave Skadden under two circumstances assuming Skadden continues on its current trajectory:
*Change in leadership at the client (and they don't like the Skadden partners)
*Decline in the quality of the work product (again, unlikely to happen to a noticeable extent)

The Latham news probably hurt their client reputation because clients were afraid they'd go under (or perhaps that they'd give crappy business advice given their sudden need for drastic measures). As far as I know, that's not really a concern with Skadden.

[Old Gregg]

The Latham news probably hurt their client reputation because clients were afraid they'd go under (or perhaps that they'd give crappy business advice given their sudden need for drastic measures).

Nope.

[igo2northwestern]

I think what started all this confusion was that this comment mis-equated OP's question on "exit options" with "lateralling". Most other posters in the thread were confused why you were surprised that someone would exit from Skadden (b/c it's very common).

Dude, I've acknowledged my error and apologized. You wanna keep thrashing me for it, well - that's your right and I probably deserve it. But it doesn't help OP get the answers s/he needs. I'm liking the conversation that was happening here, about the realities of moving from firm to firm in NYC; I think it could be very helpful to all of us.

Oh my bad, didn't re-read before I posted - totally didn't intend to get on your case. Was really just trying to clarify. Sorry again

[Lwoods]

The Latham news probably hurt their client reputation because clients were afraid they'd go under (or perhaps that they'd give crappy business advice given their sudden need for drastic measures).

Nope.

Sorry, I meant, "If Latham's client reputation was damaged at all, it was more because [above stated reasons] than anything to do with its treatment of associates."

[piccolittle]

Does anyone think that Skadden's perhaps declining popularity with students may lead to a decline in overall quality or prestige? That their terrible reputation for morale will catch up with them? I ask this as someone who chose a different firm over Skadden for that reason; don't get me wrong, I care primarily about exit options (mostly in-house), but when it comes to firms of similar quality, I'm not going to choose the one that is famous for being a terrible place to work.

Bumping this thought. Any opinions? For example, people have seemingly short memories about the Latham debacle of the early recession, but it did end up having an (albeit brief) impact on their popularity with law students and Vault ranking. Any thoughts as to whether Skadden is going to get increasingly "slim pickings" and consequently suffer any negative effects with client perceptions of quality etc (due to their reputation for terrible morale)?

Slim pickings at Skadden are still probably really talented, bright kids...

I'm probably being too simplistic, but I think clients will only leave Skadden under two circumstances assuming Skadden continues on its current trajectory:
*Change in leadership at the client (and they don't like the Skadden partners)
*Decline in the quality of the work product (again, unlikely to happen to a noticeable extent)

The Latham news probably hurt their client reputation because clients were afraid they'd go under (or perhaps that they'd give crappy business advice given their sudden need for drastic measures). As far as I know, that's not really a concern with Skadden.

But that's what I mean. Students may choose other firms over Skadden if they can, because of the morale problem. Obviously Skadden still gets bright people, but when the overall quality of students they can attract goes down (due to the fact that students might choose the other options to the extent they have them), will clients either experience or perceive a drop in work quality as well? For example, Skadden is one of the least selective V10s at my school, and I wonder if that is due in part to the fact that they aren't as popular with the top students, who are turning them down in favor of other similar-quality firms with better reputations for associate experience (when on the past, they might have gone with Skadden). I'm not saying that clients will leave them because of their terrible morale, I'm asking whether in the long term they might suffer because they can't attract and keep quite the amount of the top talent that they used to.

[Old Gregg]

No. Clients are attracted to partners, not associates. And, ultimately, an associate who makes partner at Skadden will be hard to differentiate, talent-wise, from an associate who makes partner at any other V10.

And clients don't give a shit about associate experience. If anything, clients hire these firms for the ability to get associates to so stuff in a second's notice.

[piccolittle]

No. Clients are attracted to partners, not associates. And, ultimately, an associate who makes partner at Skadden will be hard to differentiate, talent-wise, from an associate who makes partner at any other V10.

And clients don't give a shit about associate experience. If anything, clients hire these firms for the ability to get associates to so stuff in a second's notice.

Okay then humor me for a bit, because I honestly don't understand. What then separates, say, a V75 or whatever from a V5 in a client's eyes? Not the perceived talent of the firm's employees? Why do any firms care about associate morale at all, then, if it has no impact on their financials? Why do they give any perks or anything beyond simply giving you a job (especially in this economy)? Isn't law school recruitment all a competition to attract the best students etc so you can brag on your firm website and thus charge clients millions in fees while assuring them they have "the best people" working on their stuff? Why does recruitment selectivity matter at all, then, if clients don't care and/or it has no impact on the firm's performance financially or otherwise?

I'm not saying there is an absolute direct effect, I'm wondering about the very long term. But I guess I'll shut up now. And sorry for the multiple questions.