Help! CSM vs. Latham vs. Cleary (NY) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

[dabigchina]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

You seem to be getting pretty angry that people are not saying that working at Cravath is an unambiguous good. Any reason why?

Cravath is a good firm, but this low effort trolling adds no value.

[nerd1]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

You seem to be getting pretty angry that people are not saying that working at Cravath is an unambiguous good. Any reason why?

Cravath is a good firm, but this low effort trolling adds no value.

That poster you just quoted was supporting Cleary, not CSM. He or she's mad that the other poster questioned Cleary's prestige.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

You seem to be getting pretty angry that people are not saying that working at Cravath is an unambiguous good. Any reason why?

Cravath is a good firm, but this low effort trolling adds no value.

Apparently, I'm angry that people don't think Cravath is an "unambiguous good." Since nobody here claimed that, your argument is a straw man.

To be clear: Many people have worked at Cravath, hated it, and left the law entirely. That happens at every big firm.

Here we have an OP with vague corporate goals, an even vaguer interest in "international presence," and an aversion (shared by virtually everyone) to nasty bosses and long hours.

I've read this whole thread and have yet to see a good argument for why the OP should turn down Cravath. All his options are NY v20 corporate. If anyone has a good reason, please share it.

[thepsychedelic]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

You seem to be getting pretty angry that people are not saying that working at Cravath is an unambiguous good. Any reason why?

Cravath is a good firm, but this low effort trolling adds no value.

Apparently, I'm angry that people don't think Cravath is an "unambiguous good." Since nobody here claimed that, your argument is a straw man.

To be clear: Many people have worked at Cravath, hated it, and left the law entirely. That happens at every big firm.

Here we have an OP with vague corporate goals, an even vaguer interest in "international presence," and an aversion (shared by virtually everyone) to nasty bosses and long hours.

I've read this whole thread and have yet to see a good argument for why the OP should turn down Cravath. All his options are NY v20 corporate. If anyone has a good reason, please share it.

The point is that not everyone chooses their firm just on prestige and who does the “best” work. Cravath attorneys will likely work more than other Big Law attorneys and it has a more buttoned-up culture. This might not matter to you, but it’s perfectly reasonable for someone else to turn down Cravath for a similarly situated firm because of it. Whether Cleary and Latham are similarly situated in NY corporate is a separate question, but the point is that it wouldn’t be insane to turn down Cravath even though it’s the V1 or whatever.

[nerd1]

Cravath attorneys will likely work more than other Big Law attorneys and it has a more buttoned-up culture.

This is not true. Only speaking for M&A, associates at STB or K&E work just about as much as associates at Cravath do. Aside from the rotation system and perhaps a few other things, Cravath is no different from its peer firms like DPW or STB. They don't have a particularly bad culture either. From my perspective, turning down Cravath or Cleary to choose Latham doesn't seem to make sense. Look, the cultures are very similar across all M&A sweatshops. The hours are pretty much similar too. There are overly demanding or just purely asshole partners in every firm. Because that's the case, it generally makes sense to work at Wachtell instead of Cravath, Cravath instead of Latham.

[LBJ's Hair]

Cravath attorneys will likely work more than other Big Law attorneys and it has a more buttoned-up culture.

This is not true. Only speaking for M&A, associates at STB or K&E work just about as much as associates at Cravath do. Aside from the rotation system and perhaps a few other things, Cravath is no different from its peer firms like DPW or STB. They don't have a particularly bad culture either. From my perspective, turning down Cravath or Cleary to choose Latham doesn't seem to make sense. Look, the cultures are very similar across all M&A sweatshops. The hours are pretty much similar too. There are overly demanding or just purely asshole partners in every firm. Because that's the case, it generally makes sense to work at Wachtell instead of Cravath, Cravath instead of Latham.

I mean, the decision is pretty easy if you're looking at WLRK. not only are they indisputably the best, they pay twice as much as everyone else.

Cravath... pays market? And doesn't have the ultra-low leverage, selectivity, etc?

[Person1111]

Cravath attorneys will likely work more than other Big Law attorneys and it has a more buttoned-up culture.

This is not true. Only speaking for M&A, associates at STB or K&E work just about as much as associates at Cravath do. Aside from the rotation system and perhaps a few other things, Cravath is no different from its peer firms like DPW or STB. They don't have a particularly bad culture either. From my perspective, turning down Cravath or Cleary to choose Latham doesn't seem to make sense. Look, the cultures are very similar across all M&A sweatshops. The hours are pretty much similar too. There are overly demanding or just purely asshole partners in every firm. Because that's the case, it generally makes sense to work at Wachtell instead of Cravath, Cravath instead of Latham.

You have a very poor understanding of what "culture" means.

[nerd1]

Cravath attorneys will likely work more than other Big Law attorneys and it has a more buttoned-up culture.

This is not true. Only speaking for M&A, associates at STB or K&E work just about as much as associates at Cravath do. Aside from the rotation system and perhaps a few other things, Cravath is no different from its peer firms like DPW or STB. They don't have a particularly bad culture either. From my perspective, turning down Cravath or Cleary to choose Latham doesn't seem to make sense. Look, the cultures are very similar across all M&A sweatshops. The hours are pretty much similar too. There are overly demanding or just purely asshole partners in every firm. Because that's the case, it generally makes sense to work at Wachtell instead of Cravath, Cravath instead of Latham.

You have a very poor understanding of what "culture" means.

Elaborate.

[DoveBodyWash]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

You seem to be getting pretty angry that people are not saying that working at Cravath is an unambiguous good. Any reason why?

Cravath is a good firm, but this low effort trolling adds no value.

Apparently, I'm angry that people don't think Cravath is an "unambiguous good." Since nobody here claimed that, your argument is a straw man.

To be clear: Many people have worked at Cravath, hated it, and left the law entirely. That happens at every big firm.

Here we have an OP with vague corporate goals, an even vaguer interest in "international presence," and an aversion (shared by virtually everyone) to nasty bosses and long hours.

I've read this whole thread and have yet to see a good argument for why the OP should turn down Cravath. All his options are NY v20 corporate. If anyone has a good reason, please share it.

Sigh fine.

1. You get a lot more substantive experience early as a junior, maybe even as a summer. This isn't because Cravath partners think it's good for your or clients buy that CSM juniors are somehow better prepared for it. It's because most of the midlevels are gone and all the seniors are gone. I always lol whenever CSM reluctantly raises bonuses because it's probably only going to a handful of associates anyway. Early substantive experience at CSM doesn't mean your partner sits with you in a conference room and walks you through documents or sits by you during conference calls as you negotiate deal points. It means you're cc'ed on a shit ton of emails and you sit in the office until you figure it out. Literally any junior associate any V5 or V10 could do that, there's nothing special about it. But it's an unnecessarily miserable and inefficient way to learn how to practice law. A small handful will survive this initial gauntlet. Most don't. But everyone is miserable, just a matter of frequency. And mind you this associate corp is already comprised of people that self-selected into this environment (i.e., they are not lazy and worked hard their entire academic and professional life).

2. The frantic sit-in-office-until-3am-until-you-"get it" repeats itself with each rotation, and actually gets worse your middle years as you are now a 3rd or 4th year trying to run your first bond offering or term loan facility without knowing any of the basics.

3. CSM is pretty cheap. Because they are straight up poor compared to the firms that are picking off their partners and top seniors. Because they are overpaying for their lease whilest tied to a lockstep comp system without being able to lateral in additional associates in their core groups. Barshay was making $4 million at the high end of the scale at CSM. He made $11 million jumping to PW. Circle jerk about lockstep culture all you want but money talks at some point. There are Kirkland partners that would jump out a window if they woke up one morning and found themselves making CSM-level comp.

4. They have no real private equity/hedge fund/distressed practice to speak of on the corporate side. Can cripple you substantively because you will never see issues that your counterparts at other firms see regularly (while also picking up public/investment-level deals). Also means you're only ever working on massive bet-the-public-company deals and cases which amplifies the scrutiny and pressure re #1 above. Also, if you haven't noticed, there has been, and continues to be, a real market shift towards alternative asset managers and the aggressive/crazy shit they try to pull off.

5. The partners take Cravath seriously. Like the Cravath funeral walk is an actual thing and they print/distribute glossy hardcovers about their 200-year history and generally just swim around in their own kool-aid as they knight themselves before Paul Cravath's original cherry wood desk. Anyone who has ever worked in BigLaw knows why this might add to the misery.

6. Your margin of error as a junior associate is razor thin, made more stressful by #1, 4 and 5. Have very close friends at CSM and they describe situations where certain associates are just completely left out of staffing for months until they get the hint and leave. Which makes sense given their model. Can't risk an associate fucking things up on a massive engagement (i.e., all their engagements), which is more likely to happen since that associate will regularly be instructed to do things out of their depth (see, the "Cravath way" and again, all the seniors have left).

This is all shit that anyone who has done the whole V5 thing could tell you. Because they either worked at CSM, across or with them, and/or have friends/classmates who have. You will work harder at CSM. For same money. Because everyone above you has left. And partners don't care because "the partner has died but the firm lives"

[Insert obligatory CSM can be great place to start career] but if your instinct is drawing you elsewhere then just start somewhere else and be less-miserable. You'll probably end up there anyway.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

You seem to be getting pretty angry that people are not saying that working at Cravath is an unambiguous good. Any reason why?

Cravath is a good firm, but this low effort trolling adds no value.

Apparently, I'm angry that people don't think Cravath is an "unambiguous good." Since nobody here claimed that, your argument is a straw man.

To be clear: Many people have worked at Cravath, hated it, and left the law entirely. That happens at every big firm.

Here we have an OP with vague corporate goals, an even vaguer interest in "international presence," and an aversion (shared by virtually everyone) to nasty bosses and long hours.

I've read this whole thread and have yet to see a good argument for why the OP should turn down Cravath. All his options are NY v20 corporate. If anyone has a good reason, please share it.

Sigh fine.

1. You get a lot more substantive experience early as a junior, maybe even as a summer. This isn't because Cravath partners think it's good for your or clients buy that CSM juniors are somehow better prepared for it. It's because most of the midlevels are gone and all the seniors are gone. I always lol whenever CSM reluctantly raises bonuses because it's probably only going to a handful of associates anyway. Early substantive experience at CSM doesn't mean your partner sits with you in a conference room and walks you through documents or sits by you during conference calls as you negotiate deal points. It means you're cc'ed on a shit ton of emails and you sit in the office until you figure it out. Literally any junior associate any V5 or V10 could do that, there's nothing special about it. But it's an unnecessarily miserable and inefficient way to learn how to practice law. A small handful will survive this initial gauntlet. Most don't. But everyone is miserable, just a matter of frequency. And mind you this associate corp is already comprised of people that self-selected into this environment (i.e., they are not lazy and worked hard their entire academic and professional life).

2. The frantic sit-in-office-until-3am-until-you-"get it" repeats itself with each rotation, and actually gets worse your middle years as you are now a 3rd or 4th year trying to run your first bond offering or term loan facility without knowing any of the basics.

3. CSM is pretty cheap. Because they are straight up poor compared to the firms that are picking off their partners and top seniors. Because they are overpaying for their lease whilest tied to a lockstep comp system without being able to lateral in additional associates in their core groups. Barshay was making $4 million at the high end of the scale at CSM. He made $11 million jumping to PW. Circle jerk about lockstep culture all you want but money talks at some point. There are Kirkland partners that would jump out a window if they woke up one morning and found themselves making CSM-level comp.

4. They have no real private equity/hedge fund/distressed practice to speak of on the corporate side. Can cripple you substantively because you will never see issues that your counterparts at other firms see regularly (while also picking up public/investment-level deals). Also means you're only ever working on massive bet-the-public-company deals and cases which amplifies the scrutiny and pressure re #1 above. Also, if you haven't noticed, there has been, and continues to be, a real market shift towards alternative asset managers and the aggressive/crazy shit they try to pull off.

5. The partners take Cravath seriously. Like the Cravath funeral walk is an actual thing and they print/distribute glossy hardcovers about their 200-year history and generally just swim around in their own kool-aid as they knight themselves before Paul Cravath's original cherry wood desk. Anyone who has ever worked in BigLaw knows why this might add to the misery.

6. Your margin of error as a junior associate is razor thin, made more stressful by #1, 4 and 5. Have very close friends at CSM and they describe situations where certain associates are just completely left out of staffing for months until they get the hint and leave. Which makes sense given their model. Can't risk an associate fucking things up on a massive engagement (i.e., all their engagements), which is more likely to happen since that associate will regularly be instructed to do things out of their depth (see, the "Cravath way" and again, all the seniors have left).

This is all shit that anyone who has done the whole V5 thing could tell you. Because they either worked at CSM, across or with them, and/or have friends/classmates who have. You will work harder at CSM. For same money. Because everyone above you has left. And partners don't care because "the partner has died but the firm lives"

[Insert obligatory CSM can be great place to start career] but if your instinct is drawing you elsewhere then just start somewhere else and be less-miserable. You'll probably end up there anyway.

Thank you. You have -- no joke -- convinced me that working at Cravath sucks, at least for corporate.

#5 made me physically cringe.

#4 is a big issue. The more lucrative corporate law exits are into PE and other alternative asset managers. Just doing public company stuff leads to what? Joining the legal department of a F500? I'd rather go to a fund no one's heard of and get paid out of my ass.

To everyone else ITT who isn't DoveBodyWash: do better. His/her 6 point takedown of Cravath was convincing, credible, and entertaining. For everyone else, your Cravath shade was weak as hell.

[Anonymous User]

Spent junior years at DPW and now midlevel at a V10. My vote is CSM or Latham.

After several years of BigLaw I still don't know what Cleary corporate really does. Not trying to be obnoxious. I really can't tell what it is they're good at; what is their thing? I see or hear about them on deals occasionally but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their representations other than the cross-border tilt (which sucks btw).

Did you even read the thread? If not, I can summarize:

1) Cravath has a work-hard culture, to an extent that Cleary Gottlieb does not

2) Unbeknownst to Vault itself, Cleary is a V10 law firm

3) People also work hard at Cleary, but expectations at Cravath are "on a different level"

4) Cravath isn't actually more selective than Cleary. Why? Because when Paul Weiss visits Columbia for SA recruiting, they mostly make offers to students in the top third of the class. This might have been different in the past, but only Columbia students can access the data, and they are all too busy "experiencing New York in the summer" and refreshing their loan balances to check.

5) People who don't work at Cravath think you get paired with a single corporate partner. People who work at Cravath think you rotate across corporate sub-groups.

6) Latham is a really good law firm, unless Latham fires you. Then it's a bad law firm.

You seem to be getting pretty angry that people are not saying that working at Cravath is an unambiguous good. Any reason why?

Cravath is a good firm, but this low effort trolling adds no value.

Apparently, I'm angry that people don't think Cravath is an "unambiguous good." Since nobody here claimed that, your argument is a straw man.

To be clear: Many people have worked at Cravath, hated it, and left the law entirely. That happens at every big firm.

Here we have an OP with vague corporate goals, an even vaguer interest in "international presence," and an aversion (shared by virtually everyone) to nasty bosses and long hours.

I've read this whole thread and have yet to see a good argument for why the OP should turn down Cravath. All his options are NY v20 corporate. If anyone has a good reason, please share it.

Sigh fine.

1. You get a lot more substantive experience early as a junior, maybe even as a summer. This isn't because Cravath partners think it's good for your or clients buy that CSM juniors are somehow better prepared for it. It's because most of the midlevels are gone and all the seniors are gone. I always lol whenever CSM reluctantly raises bonuses because it's probably only going to a handful of associates anyway. Early substantive experience at CSM doesn't mean your partner sits with you in a conference room and walks you through documents or sits by you during conference calls as you negotiate deal points. It means you're cc'ed on a shit ton of emails and you sit in the office until you figure it out. Literally any junior associate any V5 or V10 could do that, there's nothing special about it. But it's an unnecessarily miserable and inefficient way to learn how to practice law. A small handful will survive this initial gauntlet. Most don't. But everyone is miserable, just a matter of frequency. And mind you this associate corp is already comprised of people that self-selected into this environment (i.e., they are not lazy and worked hard their entire academic and professional life).

2. The frantic sit-in-office-until-3am-until-you-"get it" repeats itself with each rotation, and actually gets worse your middle years as you are now a 3rd or 4th year trying to run your first bond offering or term loan facility without knowing any of the basics.

3. CSM is pretty cheap. Because they are straight up poor compared to the firms that are picking off their partners and top seniors. Because they are overpaying for their lease whilest tied to a lockstep comp system without being able to lateral in additional associates in their core groups. Barshay was making $4 million at the high end of the scale at CSM. He made $11 million jumping to PW. Circle jerk about lockstep culture all you want but money talks at some point. There are Kirkland partners that would jump out a window if they woke up one morning and found themselves making CSM-level comp.

4. They have no real private equity/hedge fund/distressed practice to speak of on the corporate side. Can cripple you substantively because you will never see issues that your counterparts at other firms see regularly (while also picking up public/investment-level deals). Also means you're only ever working on massive bet-the-public-company deals and cases which amplifies the scrutiny and pressure re #1 above. Also, if you haven't noticed, there has been, and continues to be, a real market shift towards alternative asset managers and the aggressive/crazy shit they try to pull off.

5. The partners take Cravath seriously. Like the Cravath funeral walk is an actual thing and they print/distribute glossy hardcovers about their 200-year history and generally just swim around in their own kool-aid as they knight themselves before Paul Cravath's original cherry wood desk. Anyone who has ever worked in BigLaw knows why this might add to the misery.

6. Your margin of error as a junior associate is razor thin, made more stressful by #1, 4 and 5. Have very close friends at CSM and they describe situations where certain associates are just completely left out of staffing for months until they get the hint and leave. Which makes sense given their model. Can't risk an associate fucking things up on a massive engagement (i.e., all their engagements), which is more likely to happen since that associate will regularly be instructed to do things out of their depth (see, the "Cravath way" and again, all the seniors have left).

This is all shit that anyone who has done the whole V5 thing could tell you. Because they either worked at CSM, across or with them, and/or have friends/classmates who have. You will work harder at CSM. For same money. Because everyone above you has left. And partners don't care because "the partner has died but the firm lives"

[Insert obligatory CSM can be great place to start career] but if your instinct is drawing you elsewhere then just start somewhere else and be less-miserable. You'll probably end up there anyway.

Anon for obvious reasons --- As a DPW associate, it's scary how accurately this also describes Davis Polk.

[DoveBodyWash]

Anon for obvious reasons --- As a DPW associate, it's scary how accurately this also describes Davis Polk.

I'm former DPW. These white shoe shops share certain features (e.g., scrambling to catch the PE train, historical ties to banks and large public companies, heavier demands on juniors because reluctant to use laterals to cushion mid/senior attrition, lockstep partner comp stinging younger rainmakers). But based on watching friends experience CSM, certainly seems like another level of intensity in terms of hours/demands.

ETA: The one thing they should get credit for is that the partners truly don't seem to care where you are or what you're doing when things are slow. They won't care if you don't come in at all for days at a time. At DPW there was more of the "be around for sake of being around" even when things had slowed down

[Anonymous User]

I had a roommate at CSM for several years and I saw them work from home (including on weekends) probably fewer than 20 times, I basically never saw them just skip work. This is not correct.

[Anonymous User]

Current Latham M&A associate. We work from home regularly after 6 pm, and almost always on the weekends. No one cares if you need to work from home on a random weekday either for the whole day. Common sense measures required if you’re out during the day (hey Partner X, I won’t be in the office for the 2 o clock call because I have a dr appt at noon, or my dog is sick, or I’m getting a delivery), and usual caveats for shit hitting the fan on a deal.

We also get paid more than Cravath when we bill Cravath hours.

We regularly work across the “name your white shoe NY firm”, so we do the same type of work.

Agree there’s better exit opportunities in junior years for the white shoe NY firms, but you could probably actually last at a place like Latham until a more mid/senior level where you’ll get similar / same opportunities.

Can’t confirm firing stories from earlier in the thread about “at least one 1st year gets fired every year” - if you are seriously considering Cravath, I would think you’ll manage not to be the one or two unresponsive / unavailable / uncommitted / [insert other 1st year deficiency here] 1st year(s) that gets fired out of hundreds.

I won’t argue that Cravath isn’t more “prestigious”. But if that’s what you’re going for, Latham probably isn’t your place. No matter if we’re V10, V5 or V1, people here spend almost no time talking about rankings and soaking ourselves in prestige. We do work, have fun and go home and live our non-lawyer life.

Oh and for what it’s worth, Latham is V5, and also in the same 1st “elite” band for Corporate/M&A nationwide on chambers as Cravath/DPW/S&C. Full disclosure I think we’re 3rd band elite corporate M&A for NY only.

[QContinuum]

5. The partners take Cravath seriously. Like the Cravath funeral walk is an actual thing and they print/distribute glossy hardcovers about their 200-year history and generally just swim around in their own kool-aid as they knight themselves before Paul Cravath's original cherry wood desk. Anyone who has ever worked in BigLaw knows why this might add to the misery.

... And partners don't care because "the partner has died but the firm lives"

Isn't the whole "the partner has died but the firm lives" just a bit of overly dramatic poetic editorializing by the New Yorker? I don't think it's an actual Cravath thing. Here's the actual quote from the magazine:

As they filled the front of the synagogue, their en-banc presence announced, as it had on so many occasions in the past, ‘A partner has died; the firm lives.’

ATL seems to have confirmed this also (see https://abovethelaw.com/2018/04/lawyers ... -funerals/):

A longtime former partner denies this: “The Cravath partners do NOT chant anything at a partner’s funeral or memorial service. They walk in and sit as a group only as a sign of respect to their departed colleague.”

It's obviously true that CSM associates work longer hours for the same pay as, well, Cravath/Milbank-scale firms. It's true that those associates could be paid more for fewer hours at, say, Kirkland, or any Texas shop, or whatever. But IMO some of the stuff ITT has gone a bit too far. Like, yes, Cravath's partners take the firm seriously. The same is pretty much true of the partners at any firm. I once knew a lawyer at a two-lawyer shop who wouldn't stop bragging about his title of "name partner" at law firm "X & Y".