DPW vs. PW vs. Kirkland vs. Weil. All NY restructuring. Forum

[Anonymous User]

To echo one post above, the thing I most noted when I switched from a debtor shop to a creditor shop was how much less of a shit I gave about my clients and how much less of a shit they gave about me. That will probably matter more to some people than to others

[Anonymous User]

To echo one post above, the thing I most noted when I switched from a debtor shop to a creditor shop was how much less of a shit I gave about my clients and how much less of a shit they gave about me. That will probably matter more to some people than to others

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone here weigh in on:

(1) Restructuring at WLRK?

(2) Culture in the Rx groups at DPW/PW/Weil

(3) Which practices are the most litigation-oriented and which are the most transaction-oriented? If you really want to handle contested stuff / litigation but aren't committed to being a litigator (b/c of long partnership odds and bad exit ops), which Rx practice would be the best to join?

(4) When handling the transaction stuff, what do you actually do? Is it interesting? I worked on a DIP once on the finance (not Rx, straight debt finance) side and found it extremely tedious.

(5) Whether debtor/creditor work is more interesting/rewarding.

Thanks!

Anon at one of the creditor shops in the thread's title.

WLRK: Don't see them around. They're lateral recruiting for ReFi, maybe trying to change things. They lost people recently to PW (Bolin, Witt). They do finance and RX in the same group (including vanilla acquisition work).

Culture: Weil is a grindhouse searching for bodies. DPW RX is DPW. PW is unremarkable (not a good or a bad thing, hard to put an adjective on their culture.) I know happy and unhappy people at all 3 shops.

Lit-oriented: if you're committed to a lit-heavy practice, go do UCC work at Akin or do Quinn's bk lit practice. (WLRK has a bk lit group that I don't know much about but sounds different from everyone else's.) At DPW / PW / Weil BK does stuff related to the code (e.g. plan confirmation) and lit does stuff that isn't (e.g. adversary proceeding regarding a patent dispute). Lit also does evidence, deposition, testimony, discovery for all bk matters at those shops.

Transactions: depends on what you want. You're going to be involved in a DIP, but that can be in a minor way (for bk-related stuff) or whole-hog. Ditto M&A agreements through 363. Other big documents are RSAs and plans. I find it interesting but I also like credit stuff so who knows what you'll like. You'll also be quarterbacking pretty often (i.e. making sure that others work on those docs will be done on time, etc).

Debtor-creditor: really hard to generalize. (And substantial differences between UCC, fulcrum, senior secured, etc). At PW / DPW you will get debtor reps (though still clearly majority creditor shops) and if that's what you love you can go to KE, Weil and do it more full time. Haven't seen KE / Weil as creditors basically ever. FWIW debtor people will tell you that 1.) their clients are way more thankful than creditor clients and 2.) they feel good about saving businesses.

Thanks for this. I have a few follow ups:

(1) Re: Quinn -- I have heard they have a phenomenal bankruptcy litigation group. But the general rep is that QE is just an awful place to work. Do you (or anyone else on here) have any insight into that?

(2) Re: Weil/PW/DPW -- I guess what I'm wondering is, what is the character of litigation at these firms if you're in the Rx group? Are you actually making arguments in briefs ever? Reading cases / writing memos? Arguing about things in court? Or are you just doing first days / other rote motions / helping lit develop facts for their briefs. My sense is that some of these firms' Rx groups may have more of a litigation bent than others and are much more actively engaged in lit than others, even if they're still technically not litigation.

(3) Agree that credit is interesting. But the issue I have had with transactional stuff is that it feels like you're not really negotiating or even critically analyzing/advising on things that much, you're just kind of figuring out how to do what the client wants. I feel like that's a common complaint about transactional work, but I've also heard that bankruptcy is different, and I was wondering if that is true in your (or anyone's) experience.

Answering anon.

1.) I know one person in Quinn BK lit who's very happy there. No real insight, sorry.
2.) In my creditor group, yes to all. Though a lot of things are settled out -- UCC wants to bring a claim against my creditor client, I analyze in a memo, we settle. But I can spend a considerable amount of time on westlaw depending on the matter. Also some stuff is rote, but some bk motion practice -- especially opposed motion practice -- is not, imo.
3.) In my practice our clients often come to us for legal / strategic advice. A relatively small % of it is truly unthinking in the way you suggest. Often our client's goals are tricky to achieve, though -- so we're "figuring out how to do what the client wants" but it's creative and thoughtful (they don't know the code and oftentimes we have a better grasp of the financial covenants than they do). People don't pay our rates unless they think we add something meaningful to their work: you could get someone to do a rote job of just papering stuff for very cheap.
Especially in situations where your creditors want to stay restricted -- i.e. they can't know any MNPI -- the creditor lawyers have a tremendous amount of leeway and more-or-less structure the deal (subject to the paramaters given by our clients, obviously) before the clients ever even talk to the debtor.

[Anonymous User]

To echo one post above, the thing I most noted when I switched from a debtor shop to a creditor shop was how much less of a shit I gave about my clients and how much less of a shit they gave about me. That will probably matter more to some people than to others

Why did you make the switch? Is it still better on the creditor side despite the lack of attachment between you and your clients?

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone here weigh in on:

(1) Restructuring at WLRK? You will advise equityholders of bankrupt companies. Equityholders hire WLRK because you want a platinum-tier name advising PE clients and strategics on how to avoid getting sued in a BK but it has far less of the strategic involvement that goes into a name brand debtor/creditor rep.

(2) Culture in the Rx groups at DPW/PW/Weil WORKWORKWORKWORKWORKWORKWORK

(3) Which practices are the most litigation-oriented and which are the most transaction-oriented? If you really want to handle contested stuff / litigation but aren't committed to being a litigator (b/c of long partnership odds and bad exit ops), which Rx practice would be the best to join? Either be a litigator or don't. When you have genuine contested matters/litigation, the litigators handle it because the Rx teams are generalists and aren't fully savvy on motion practice outside of the FRBP. If you handle a BK you will see a lot of contested work, sword-rattling, etc., terse emails and letters, but the litigators will handle the actual litigation.

(4) When handling the transaction stuff, what do you actually do? Is it interesting? I worked on a DIP once on the finance (not Rx, straight debt finance) side and found it extremely tedious. As a debt lawyer who handles a lot of DIPs, the reason they can be tedious is because a DIP is frequently a need it/don't need it affair. If you need the DIP you just have to drive to terms so that the company can operate in BK and won't trip over itself. The real interesting work comes months before when you're analyzing options pre-bankruptcy and seeing what out of court solutions are available, what in-court solutions will maximize value, etc. The Rx team's principal contribution on the transactional side of things is the fundamentals of the overall deal - what kind of economics go to which party, how much economics per party, different strategic implications for the various constituencies and players, etc. .

[RX_distressed]

Not one of the posters above but work in a similar seat for a large private fund manager. Technically not a hybrid seat, rather an investment seat but 25% of the group are ex-lawyers and we often-times negotiate legal term sheets with opposing counsel. I've seen these jumps around year 4 - year 7+. Its pretty infrequently I see the direct jump at a junior level and usually its a jump to RX IB -> maybe to a fund.

For these seats, you tend to be involved in amendments and restructurings of current portfolio. For example you would negotiate commercial terms rate increases, PIK, fees, etc. while also negotiating legal items like covenants and other credit agreement items. Around 15-20% the people I interact with at other funds when we negotiate amendments in our portfolio are ex-lawyers. Others tend to be ex-lev fin bankers, restructuring bankers, and some homegrown talent. At some funds they are "in-house counsel" while at other funds they are in investment seats.

Getting into a pure investment seat is difficult because you come in at a mid-level where expectations of underwriting businesses, financial modeling skills, and executive presence are expected to be pristine. For example, sure you talk to clients and partners often, but asking a management team about their relationship with their largest customer in an intelligent way is alot more difficult than it sounds. Unless you did an IBD analyst stint, there is a very little chance you are going to be competitive on any of those fronts even with a shit-ton of practice. I thought I was pretty good since I worked in corporate development for a year or so and was the resident "excel guru" at my law firm and realized I had a huge learning curve when I moved over.

Sorry for the double postings -

Thanks much for sharing your experience. I'm 2L at T7 with Top BB IBD (M&A, not RX) experience (+4 years). I have a summer offer at one of the top creditors-focused law firms mentioned here. I went to law school as I wanted to learn and practice BK law but I'm thinking, after ~5 years of practicing, of going back to finance/investing side leveraging my finance+law experience. Can you share how you made that transition into hybrid/investing role and any advice for someone who's thinking of making the similar move later in the future? Thank you!

[forthelols]

Can anyone here weigh in on:

(1) Restructuring at WLRK?

(2) Culture in the Rx groups at DPW/PW/Weil

(3) Which practices are the most litigation-oriented and which are the most transaction-oriented? If you really want to handle contested stuff / litigation but aren't committed to being a litigator (b/c of long partnership odds and bad exit ops), which Rx practice would be the best to join?

(4) When handling the transaction stuff, what do you actually do? Is it interesting? I worked on a DIP once on the finance (not Rx, straight debt finance) side and found it extremely tedious.

(5) Whether debtor/creditor work is more interesting/rewarding.

Thanks!

Anon at one of the creditor shops in the thread's title.

WLRK: Don't see them around. They're lateral recruiting for ReFi, maybe trying to change things. They lost people recently to PW (Bolin, Witt). They do finance and RX in the same group (including vanilla acquisition work).

Culture: Weil is a grindhouse searching for bodies. DPW RX is DPW. PW is unremarkable (not a good or a bad thing, hard to put an adjective on their culture.) I know happy and unhappy people at all 3 shops.

Lit-oriented: if you're committed to a lit-heavy practice, go do UCC work at Akin or do Quinn's bk lit practice. (WLRK has a bk lit group that I don't know much about but sounds different from everyone else's.) At DPW / PW / Weil BK does stuff related to the code (e.g. plan confirmation) and lit does stuff that isn't (e.g. adversary proceeding regarding a patent dispute). Lit also does evidence, deposition, testimony, discovery for all bk matters at those shops.

Transactions: depends on what you want. You're going to be involved in a DIP, but that can be in a minor way (for bk-related stuff) or whole-hog. Ditto M&A agreements through 363. Other big documents are RSAs and plans. I find it interesting but I also like credit stuff so who knows what you'll like. You'll also be quarterbacking pretty often (i.e. making sure that others work on those docs will be done on time, etc).

Debtor-creditor: really hard to generalize. (And substantial differences between UCC, fulcrum, senior secured, etc). At PW / DPW you will get debtor reps (though still clearly majority creditor shops) and if that's what you love you can go to KE, Weil and do it more full time. Haven't seen KE / Weil as creditors basically ever. FWIW debtor people will tell you that 1.) their clients are way more thankful than creditor clients and 2.) they feel good about saving businesses.

Thanks for this. I have a few follow ups:

(1) Re: Quinn -- I have heard they have a phenomenal bankruptcy litigation group. But the general rep is that QE is just an awful place to work. Do you (or anyone else on here) have any insight into that?

(2) Re: Weil/PW/DPW -- I guess what I'm wondering is, what is the character of litigation at these firms if you're in the Rx group? Are you actually making arguments in briefs ever? Reading cases / writing memos? Arguing about things in court? Or are you just doing first days / other rote motions / helping lit develop facts for their briefs. My sense is that some of these firms' Rx groups may have more of a litigation bent than others and are much more actively engaged in lit than others, even if they're still technically not litigation.

(3) Agree that credit is interesting. But the issue I have had with transactional stuff is that it feels like you're not really negotiating or even critically analyzing/advising on things that much, you're just kind of figuring out how to do what the client wants. I feel like that's a common complaint about transactional work, but I've also heard that bankruptcy is different, and I was wondering if that is true in your (or anyone's) experience.

Answering anon.

1.) I know one person in Quinn BK lit who's very happy there. No real insight, sorry.
2.) In my creditor group, yes to all. Though a lot of things are settled out -- UCC wants to bring a claim against my creditor client, I analyze in a memo, we settle. But I can spend a considerable amount of time on westlaw depending on the matter. Also some stuff is rote, but some bk motion practice -- especially opposed motion practice -- is not, imo.
3.) In my practice our clients often come to us for legal / strategic advice. A relatively small % of it is truly unthinking in the way you suggest. Often our client's goals are tricky to achieve, though -- so we're "figuring out how to do what the client wants" but it's creative and thoughtful (they don't know the code and oftentimes we have a better grasp of the financial covenants than they do). People don't pay our rates unless they think we add something meaningful to their work: you could get someone to do a rote job of just papering stuff for very cheap.
Especially in situations where your creditors want to stay restricted -- i.e. they can't know any MNPI -- the creditor lawyers have a tremendous amount of leeway and more-or-less structure the deal (subject to the paramaters given by our clients, obviously) before the clients ever even talk to the debtor.

Any chance you could PM me so I can follow up w/ more specific concerns? Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

(3) Which practices are the most litigation-oriented and which are the most transaction-oriented? If you really want to handle contested stuff / litigation but aren't committed to being a litigator (b/c of long partnership odds and bad exit ops), which Rx practice would be the best to join? Either be a litigator or don't. When you have genuine contested matters/litigation, the litigators handle it because the Rx teams are generalists and aren't fully savvy on motion practice outside of the FRBP. If you handle a BK you will see a lot of contested work, sword-rattling, etc., terse emails and letters, but the litigators will handle the actual litigation.

(4) When handling the transaction stuff, what do you actually do? Is it interesting? I worked on a DIP once on the finance (not Rx, straight debt finance) side and found it extremely tedious. As a debt lawyer who handles a lot of DIPs, the reason they can be tedious is because a DIP is frequently a need it/don't need it affair. If you need the DIP you just have to drive to terms so that the company can operate in BK and won't trip over itself. The real interesting work comes months before when you're analyzing options pre-bankruptcy and seeing what out of court solutions are available, what in-court solutions will maximize value, etc. The Rx team's principal contribution on the transactional side of things is the fundamentals of the overall deal - what kind of economics go to which party, how much economics per party, different strategic implications for the various constituencies and players, etc. .

Diff anon at a major creditor shop. Want to follow up on these points. Many RX seniors / partners are somewhat "cross-trained," usually in finance or m&a -- much less often in litigation, securities, or tax. They tend to be very involved in the thing they know well, and sort of straddle the two roles. They otherwise defer to the specialists entirely on the stuff they don't. That means that a bk partner could be very involved in bk litigation (but I have to imagine that this is more debtor-oriented, simply because creditors are not involved in major lawsuits nearly as often as debtors. I could see a creditor who plans to acquire the company getting involved in that lit but that's really it on creditor side.) Were I starting out I would try to cross-train in credit because anon's point above re figuring out what's possible is correct. Your clients are looking to have their debts worked out; one way to do that is an out-of-court workout, another is bankruptcy. They don't see them as distinct but as points on a spectrum. Being able to do both makes you far more valuable.

[Anonymous User]

Not one of the posters above but work in a similar seat for a large private fund manager. Technically not a hybrid seat, rather an investment seat but 25% of the group are ex-lawyers and we often-times negotiate legal term sheets with opposing counsel. I've seen these jumps around year 4 - year 7+. Its pretty infrequently I see the direct jump at a junior level and usually its a jump to RX IB -> maybe to a fund.

For these seats, you tend to be involved in amendments and restructurings of current portfolio. For example you would negotiate commercial terms rate increases, PIK, fees, etc. while also negotiating legal items like covenants and other credit agreement items. Around 15-20% the people I interact with at other funds when we negotiate amendments in our portfolio are ex-lawyers. Others tend to be ex-lev fin bankers, restructuring bankers, and some homegrown talent. At some funds they are "in-house counsel" while at other funds they are in investment seats.

Getting into a pure investment seat is difficult because you come in at a mid-level where expectations of underwriting businesses, financial modeling skills, and executive presence are expected to be pristine. For example, sure you talk to clients and partners often, but asking a management team about their relationship with their largest customer in an intelligent way is alot more difficult than it sounds. Unless you did an IBD analyst stint, there is a very little chance you are going to be competitive on any of those fronts even with a shit-ton of practice. I thought I was pretty good since I worked in corporate development for a year or so and was the resident "excel guru" at my law firm and realized I had a huge learning curve when I moved over.

Sorry for the double postings -

Thanks much for sharing your experience. I'm 2L at T7 with Top BB IBD (M&A, not RX) experience (+4 years). I have a summer offer at one of the top creditors-focused law firms mentioned here. I went to law school as I wanted to learn and practice BK law but I'm thinking, after ~5 years of practicing, of going back to finance/investing side leveraging my finance+law experience. Can you share how you made that transition into hybrid/investing role and any advice for someone who's thinking of making the similar move later in the future? Thank you!

I went in house then moved to my firms post-MBA program.

However, looking around at jobs open right now currently Apollo, Golub, and a couple other firms have these restructuring / workout seats open for someone with your background. Would be a very seamless next immediate step out of law school. Your background is superior in every single way against mine, I would expect recruiting to be relatively easy for these finance / workout seats.

[RX_distressed]

Not one of the posters above but work in a similar seat for a large private fund manager. Technically not a hybrid seat, rather an investment seat but 25% of the group are ex-lawyers and we often-times negotiate legal term sheets with opposing counsel. I've seen these jumps around year 4 - year 7+. Its pretty infrequently I see the direct jump at a junior level and usually its a jump to RX IB -> maybe to a fund.

For these seats, you tend to be involved in amendments and restructurings of current portfolio. For example you would negotiate commercial terms rate increases, PIK, fees, etc. while also negotiating legal items like covenants and other credit agreement items. Around 15-20% the people I interact with at other funds when we negotiate amendments in our portfolio are ex-lawyers. Others tend to be ex-lev fin bankers, restructuring bankers, and some homegrown talent. At some funds they are "in-house counsel" while at other funds they are in investment seats.

Getting into a pure investment seat is difficult because you come in at a mid-level where expectations of underwriting businesses, financial modeling skills, and executive presence are expected to be pristine. For example, sure you talk to clients and partners often, but asking a management team about their relationship with their largest customer in an intelligent way is alot more difficult than it sounds. Unless you did an IBD analyst stint, there is a very little chance you are going to be competitive on any of those fronts even with a shit-ton of practice. I thought I was pretty good since I worked in corporate development for a year or so and was the resident "excel guru" at my law firm and realized I had a huge learning curve when I moved over.

Sorry for the double postings -

Thanks much for sharing your experience. I'm 2L at T7 with Top BB IBD (M&A, not RX) experience (+4 years). I have a summer offer at one of the top creditors-focused law firms mentioned here. I went to law school as I wanted to learn and practice BK law but I'm thinking, after ~5 years of practicing, of going back to finance/investing side leveraging my finance+law experience. Can you share how you made that transition into hybrid/investing role and any advice for someone who's thinking of making the similar move later in the future? Thank you!

I went in house then moved to my firms post-MBA program.

However, looking around at jobs open right now currently Apollo, Golub, and a couple other firms have these restructuring / workout seats open for someone with your background. Would be a very seamless next immediate step out of law school. Your background is superior in every single way against mine, I would expect recruiting to be relatively easy for these finance / workout seats.

Thank you very much. Just to clarify, do you mean recruiting for those rx/workout seats during law school and join right out of law school without going to biglaw restructuring practice?

[Anonymous User]

Not one of the posters above but work in a similar seat for a large private fund manager. Technically not a hybrid seat, rather an investment seat but 25% of the group are ex-lawyers and we often-times negotiate legal term sheets with opposing counsel. I've seen these jumps around year 4 - year 7+. Its pretty infrequently I see the direct jump at a junior level and usually its a jump to RX IB -> maybe to a fund.

For these seats, you tend to be involved in amendments and restructurings of current portfolio. For example you would negotiate commercial terms rate increases, PIK, fees, etc. while also negotiating legal items like covenants and other credit agreement items. Around 15-20% the people I interact with at other funds when we negotiate amendments in our portfolio are ex-lawyers. Others tend to be ex-lev fin bankers, restructuring bankers, and some homegrown talent. At some funds they are "in-house counsel" while at other funds they are in investment seats.

Getting into a pure investment seat is difficult because you come in at a mid-level where expectations of underwriting businesses, financial modeling skills, and executive presence are expected to be pristine. For example, sure you talk to clients and partners often, but asking a management team about their relationship with their largest customer in an intelligent way is alot more difficult than it sounds. Unless you did an IBD analyst stint, there is a very little chance you are going to be competitive on any of those fronts even with a shit-ton of practice. I thought I was pretty good since I worked in corporate development for a year or so and was the resident "excel guru" at my law firm and realized I had a huge learning curve when I moved over.

Sorry for the double postings -

Thanks much for sharing your experience. I'm 2L at T7 with Top BB IBD (M&A, not RX) experience (+4 years). I have a summer offer at one of the top creditors-focused law firms mentioned here. I went to law school as I wanted to learn and practice BK law but I'm thinking, after ~5 years of practicing, of going back to finance/investing side leveraging my finance+law experience. Can you share how you made that transition into hybrid/investing role and any advice for someone who's thinking of making the similar move later in the future? Thank you!

I went in house then moved to my firms post-MBA program.

However, looking around at jobs open right now currently Apollo, Golub, and a couple other firms have these restructuring / workout seats open for someone with your background. Would be a very seamless next immediate step out of law school. Your background is superior in every single way against mine, I would expect recruiting to be relatively easy for these finance / workout seats.

Thank you very much. Just to clarify, do you mean recruiting for those rx/workout seats during law school and join right out of law school without going to biglaw restructuring practice?

Yes. First few years in biglaw are going to be reminiscent of your early analyst years anyways. Sending dial-ins, composing closing doc packages, organizing docs, minor drafting. I'd want to spent 4-5 years doing restructuring / workouts on the finance side rather than doing say bankruptcy at PW for 4-5 years.

Look up on LinkedIn:
- "Golub Capital - Workouts /Special Situations"
- "Associate | Apollo Investment Corporation "
-"Senior Associate - Portfolio Group, Monroe Capital"
- "Restructuring and Workout Associate - Credit Fund"

Gives a bit of flavor of what is out there on the private fund side of things. I think a new grad / graduating attorney with 4 years of IBD experience would be competitive at all.

[Anonymous User]

Not to necro an old thread, but anyone have a read on S&C restructuring? My takeaway from the S&C website and Chambers (Band 5) is that it is small / not a priority for the firm. On the other hand, it seems that they've recently made a couple of big lateral hires in restructuring (e.g., Bromley I think?). Is the group on an upward swing?

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in creditor side work in restructuring as well but I'm torn between Cravath, S&C, Skadden, Latham, STB, DPW, PW. Blessed with multiple offers and i know if creditor restructuring is my thing then it should be between dpw and pw, but i enjoyed chatting with many people from all of these firms. And I wanted to make sure if i miss anything if you want to practice BK law for a long term. Any advice?

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in creditor side work in restructuring as well but I'm torn between Cravath, S&C, Skadden, Latham, STB, DPW, PW. Blessed with multiple offers and i know if creditor restructuring is my thing then it should be between dpw and pw, but i enjoyed chatting with many people from all of these firms. And I wanted to make sure if i miss anything if you want to practice BK law for a long term. Any advice?

Midlevel anon at DPW / PW from above.

Choose between PW or DPW. There are lots of nice people around but other firms are not significant in the practice.

A useful resource here (that's free) is petition11.com/cases. It's a list of filed cases & notes all the firms on a deal. Obviously this doesn't include out-of-court RX (which is a big deal) but it's pretty useful. You won't see those names come up much.

Not to necro an old thread, but anyone have a read on S&C restructuring? My takeaway from the S&C website and Chambers (Band 5) is that it is small / not a priority for the firm. On the other hand, it seems that they've recently made a couple of big lateral hires in restructuring (e.g., Bromley I think?). Is the group on an upward swing?

Was across from them recently (they repped debtor). Very good lawyers. Maybe will be an option if Weil / K&E are conflicted out of a matter, but not going to compete for many mandates I think. As to lateral hires look where they came from. IDK who else S&C hired but the guy you mentioned is a Cleary person and I've basically never seen Cleary around so idk (and Cleary / JD bankruptcy seem to be in trouble but that's like thirdhand).

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in creditor side work in restructuring as well but I'm torn between Cravath, S&C, Skadden, Latham, STB, DPW, PW. Blessed with multiple offers and i know if creditor restructuring is my thing then it should be between dpw and pw, but i enjoyed chatting with many people from all of these firms. And I wanted to make sure if i miss anything if you want to practice BK law for a long term. Any advice?

Midlevel anon at DPW / PW from above.

Choose between PW or DPW. There are lots of nice people around but other firms are not significant in the practice.

A useful resource here (that's free) is petition11.com/cases. It's a list of filed cases & notes all the firms on a deal. Obviously this doesn't include out-of-court RX (which is a big deal) but it's pretty useful. You won't see those names come up much.

Thanks much for the advice. I know it's a stupid question but would you say you would go PW/DPW over Wachtell if you're into restructuring? Any potential upside in the longrun to start a career at Wachtell?

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in creditor side work in restructuring as well but I'm torn between Cravath, S&C, Skadden, Latham, STB, DPW, PW. Blessed with multiple offers and i know if creditor restructuring is my thing then it should be between dpw and pw, but i enjoyed chatting with many people from all of these firms. And I wanted to make sure if i miss anything if you want to practice BK law for a long term. Any advice?

Midlevel anon at DPW / PW from above.

Choose between PW or DPW. There are lots of nice people around but other firms are not significant in the practice.

A useful resource here (that's free) is petition11.com/cases. It's a list of filed cases & notes all the firms on a deal. Obviously this doesn't include out-of-court RX (which is a big deal) but it's pretty useful. You won't see those names come up much.

Thanks much for the advice. I know it's a stupid question but would you say you would go PW/DPW over Wachtell if you're into restructuring? Any potential upside in the longrun to start a career at Wachtell?

Same anon as above. FWIW I don't see WLRK around & PW poached and partnered two of their bankruptcy/finance (it's one group there) people recently. I don't think that's the sign of a healthy group but to be clear I have no inside intel whatsoever. I also I wouldn't want to be doing acquisition financing if I was interested in distressed.

If I was you I would ask the PW/WLRK crossover partners about it. From what I've heard they're nice guys.

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in creditor side work in restructuring as well but I'm torn between Cravath, S&C, Skadden, Latham, STB, DPW, PW. Blessed with multiple offers and i know if creditor restructuring is my thing then it should be between dpw and pw, but i enjoyed chatting with many people from all of these firms. And I wanted to make sure if i miss anything if you want to practice BK law for a long term. Any advice?

Midlevel anon at DPW / PW from above.

Choose between PW or DPW. There are lots of nice people around but other firms are not significant in the practice.

A useful resource here (that's free) is petition11.com/cases. It's a list of filed cases & notes all the firms on a deal. Obviously this doesn't include out-of-court RX (which is a big deal) but it's pretty useful. You won't see those names come up much.

Thanks much for the advice. I know it's a stupid question but would you say you would go PW/DPW over Wachtell if you're into restructuring? Any potential upside in the longrun to start a career at Wachtell?

Same anon as above. FWIW I don't see WLRK around & PW poached and partnered two of their bankruptcy/finance (it's one group there) people recently. I don't think that's the sign of a healthy group but to be clear I have no inside intel whatsoever. I also I wouldn't want to be doing acquisition financing if I was interested in distressed.

If I was you I would ask the PW/WLRK crossover partners about it. From what I've heard they're nice guys.

Senior bk associate at PW. If you want to do actual bankruptcy work on the creditor side then pick DPW/PW. Edge goes to PW if you also want to do sponsor work. Wachtell doesn't have a standalone bankruptcy practice - they have a refi group (where the two laterals came from) that does out-of-court workouts and a litigation practice that can do bk litigation when necessary. Of the two WLRK laterals, one is a finance lawyer that sits with finance but also helps the bk group. The other was recently promoted within the restructuring group but he's basically a finance lawyer that's embedded in BK. If you're torn between WLRK and PW then agree that you should ask to be put in touch with them.

[Anonymous User]

I know this board hates on K&E all the time but I'm legitimately surprised they aren't getting more play here. Their market share for debtor-side representation is absurd, they file almost 75% of all chapter 11s. That's about 3x the number of bankruptcies than the next largest debtor shop, Weil, does. I understand the argument that representing creditors will give you more exposure to creditor clients and an understanding of the creditor perspective, but the amount of reps and the number and kinds of issues you encounter (and understanding the company's perspective and how a chapter 11 is run is also a strategic advantage) are a big reason why associates who can last 5 years or so at K&E can lateral to another firm as a partner, and plenty of others have gotten into business roles, especially with the FA shops. While it's true investment banking is a less common exit (I do know of two people personally who have gone this route though), I think a common adage applies here; if you don't want to be a lawyer, you shouldn't have gone to law school, and if you want to be an ibanker, you just need to go that route. People do make the law to business transition, but it's hard for a reason. Not hating on the other mentioned firms, but was surprised.

[Anonymous User]

I know this board hates on K&E all the time but I'm legitimately surprised they aren't getting more play here. Their market share for debtor-side representation is absurd, they file almost 75% of all chapter 11s. That's about 3x the number of bankruptcies the next largest debtor shop, Weil, does. I understand the argument that representing creditors will give you more exposure to creditor clients and an understanding of the creditor perspective, but the amount of reps and the number and kinds of issues you encounter (and understanding the company's perspective and how a chapter 11 is run is also a strategic advantage) are a big reason why associates who can last 5 years or so at K&E can lateral to another firm as a partner, and plenty of others have gotten into business roles, especially with the FA shops. While it's true investment banking is a less common exit (I do know of two people personally who have gone this route though), I think a common adage applies here; if you don't want to be a lawyer, you shouldn't have gone to law school, and if you want to be an ibanker, you just need to go that route. People do make the law to business transition, but it's hard for a reason.

K&E attorney here. I've done a lot of creditor reps in workout situations, the one thing I'll give to PW/DPW is that the dynamics are a lot different on the other side, so even as many reps as we get generally, if 75% of your diet is creditor work, you'll be in that mindset from the get-go. Also, having a feel for what the various funds will be sensitive to, how different ad hoc engagements may play out depending on the personalities, etc., all of that comes from reps, same way that different sponsors will have different sensitivities on the buyout end of things and even as good as we can be hitting the ground, having that experience and knowledge in-hand at the outset is crucial.

Don't disagree that we are involved in nearly every large matter right now, but if the hypo is "I want to work for a fund in a hybrid role after 4 years at a firm", PW/DPW both have strong claims to being on the shortlist.

All that said, your post will likely get met with some bizarre flame about how our work product is bad or something so who knows.

[Anonymous User]

Is going to a fund after (say) 4 years from PW/DPW actually realistic? I am considering Rx at one of those firms but don't want to bank on what seems like a really unlikely exit option. And even if you do go over, are you then basically just an in-house lawyer who's never really going to be accepted as an equal of the finance guys, never really have a role in making investment decisions, never make nearly as much money, etc.? My understanding is that in-house legal positions are often cushy but kind of boring and with very limited upside (much less than you'd make as a partner), but don't know if it's like that at a fund. If it is, it seems like it might just be better to go for partner at a firm than accept second-class status at a fund.

Someone also mentioned that PW has more sponsor work. Can you explain how that's different from what DPW does? Can anyone here just elaborate on the differences between those practices more generally? Is the character of the work actually different?

[Anonymous User]

Is going to a fund after (say) 4 years from PW/DPW actually realistic? I am considering Rx at one of those firms but don't want to bank on what seems like a really unlikely exit option. And even if you do go over, are you then basically just an in-house lawyer who's never really going to be accepted as an equal of the finance guys, never really have a role in making investment decisions, never make nearly as much money, etc.? My understanding is that in-house legal positions are often cushy but kind of boring and with very limited upside (much less than you'd make as a partner), but don't know if it's like that at a fund. If it is, it seems like it might just be better to go for partner at a firm than accept second-class status at a fund.

If you want to be an environment where the lawyer is the final decision maker, stay at a firm. That's the case for any practice group, any firm. You will always be second-fiddle to some extent when you go in-house because you're not a profit center. That said, going to a desk lawyer role in a distressed/special situation group is pretty damn close. A growing number of players have former restructuring lawyers (MDs and Directors) embedded with the investment team (e.g., Oaktree, KKR, Blackstone GSO, Sculptor, BlackRock, Guggenheim). They're part of investment decisions, go before investment committee, make decisions and in some cases lead the entire deal. The legal issues and analysis are an integral part of playing in the distressed space. That said, those positions are hard to come by and the "first-class" role doesn't really kick in until you're more senior. If you want to get close to a business-role, then it's a promising path all things considered. If you want to litigate in court then stay at a firm.

Someone also mentioned that PW has more sponsor work. Can you explain how that's different from what DPW does? Can anyone here just elaborate on the differences between those practices more generally? Is the character of the work actually different?

DPW is historically a bank firm, not a PE shop. They don't have institutional PE clients that spin off work for the restructuring group. PW is Apollo's main outside counsel and the Rx group also works with other sponsors like Bain, TPG, Oaktree, KKR and other middle market or sector-focused shops.

Starting with DPW on general differences, Marshall Huebner is a debtor guy, Damian Schaible does ad hoc groups (usually CLOs or secured lender groups), Tim Graulich covers Citi and does a lot of LatAm, Donald Bernstein isn't really active anymore but he's the dean of the group and historically has advised banks (e.g., living wills), Brian Resnick's book is growing and looks like a mixture of Marshall's and Damian's. The rest of them are newer partners. I would say Marshall and Damian are the big rainmakers but Tim always has something going on.

At PW, most of the organic PW senior partners (Rosenberg, Hermann, Eaton) have come up doing Damian-style work: ad hoc creditor groups but more weighted towards unsecured bondholders. You have debtor practitioners in there as well (Cornish). A group of folks came over from Kirkland with Basta (and have now been promoted) that are more debtor-focused but Basta also has deep relationships with sponsors. Another senior partner does most of the Apollo work. Kornberg is probably PW's version of Donald Bernstein - groomed the existing rainmakers, can do pretty much everything but is slowly starting to hand over the reins.

For most associates, your deal experience between the two groups will be similar: mostly ad hoc creditor work plus a few debtor cases but never the majority. Main difference is that DPW will do more senior secured bank work (e.g., DIP agents) whereas PW fills that time with sponsor representations.


ETA: If you want to do debtor work, go to Kirkland or Weil. Agree that the associates that can survive and thrive in Kirkland are excellent but I doubt anyone is jumping to other shops as an equity partner after five years.

[Anonymous User]

DPW / PW midlevel anon chiming in again.

Anon above me is correct. But in choosing between the two I would choose based on culture / people more than sponsor/bank. They're smaller groups and you're going to be spending A LOT of your time with them. I have friends at both places. They're both full of good people, imo. However, the cultures are different (DPW RX is ... very DPW whereas PW RX is pretty typical of NYC BigLaw specialist groups). I am very happy at the firm I'm at and would not be nearly as happy at the other. Not saying that either group is toxic (neither are) or anything like that, just that they're different tastes.

Also re: K&E I don't know if I would rec K&E over DPW / PW unless you were 100% on being a debtor's lawyer. I don't think (K&E anons tell me if I'm wrong) K&E people do creditor reps at all (I've never seen them around). Being able to experience both is valuable, then (if your heart is set on it) you can lateral to K&E/Weil.

As to K&E hate, not really? I've been across from you all a lot and while I don't love it for the same reasons most people don't love being across from K&E, I generally like & think well of the K&E people I know/have worked with and your work product is typically very good (more accurately it's usually excellent but 5-10% of the time we're across from a real dud). That said anon who said K&E 5th years can lateral to equity partnership ... what?

[Anonymous User]

DPW / PW midlevel anon chiming in again.

Anon above me is correct. But in choosing between the two I would choose based on culture / people more than sponsor/bank. They're smaller groups and you're going to be spending A LOT of your time with them. I have friends at both places. They're both full of good people, imo. However, the cultures are different (DPW RX is ... very DPW whereas PW RX is pretty typical of NYC BigLaw specialist groups). I am very happy at the firm I'm at and would not be nearly as happy at the other. Not saying that either group is toxic (neither are) or anything like that, just that they're different tastes.

Also re: K&E I don't know if I would rec K&E over DPW / PW unless you were 100% on being a debtor's lawyer. I don't think (K&E anons tell me if I'm wrong) K&E people do creditor reps at all (I've never seen them around). Being able to experience both is valuable, then (if your heart is set on it) you can lateral to K&E/Weil.

As to K&E hate, not really? I've been across from you all a lot and while I don't love it for the same reasons most people don't love being across from K&E, I generally like & think well of the K&E people I know/have worked with and your work product is typically very good (more accurately it's usually excellent but 5-10% of the time we're across from a real dud). That said anon who said K&E 5th years can lateral to equity partnership ... what?

Can you explain "DPW RX is ... very DPW whereas PW RX is pretty typical of NYC BigLaw specialist groups." Having not worked at DPW or a generic NYC BigLaw specialist group, I don't know what that means.

I've seen people say on these threads that the work at PW/DPW Rx is different b/c PW's sponsor clients are less risk-averse/need to litigate (making the group's work more litigation-y) while DPW tends to be more straightforwardly transactional b/c its clients are often banks/senior secureds. Is that true? Can you elaborate on that, if accurate?

[Anonymous User]

Is going to a fund after (say) 4 years from PW/DPW actually realistic? I am considering Rx at one of those firms but don't want to bank on what seems like a really unlikely exit option. And even if you do go over, are you then basically just an in-house lawyer who's never really going to be accepted as an equal of the finance guys, never really have a role in making investment decisions, never make nearly as much money, etc.? My understanding is that in-house legal positions are often cushy but kind of boring and with very limited upside (much less than you'd make as a partner), but don't know if it's like that at a fund. If it is, it seems like it might just be better to go for partner at a firm than accept second-class status at a fund.

Someone also mentioned that PW has more sponsor work. Can you explain how that's different from what DPW does? Can anyone here just elaborate on the differences between those practices more generally? Is the character of the work actually different?

Prior anon who sits in an investment seat.

Really depends on how your fund classifies you. Personally I am in a position where I'm equal to other investment team my level (post MBA and direct promotes) but quite a bit ahead of my level on legal negotiations.

An interesting data point for me is that out of the people I know in similar seats, the ones that are lawyers and went to law school, only one of them was at DPW or PW. There's a smattering of firms, including a ton of finance lawyers (Wilkie, Proskauer, STB, SullCrom) and ofc people who did IBD. I think for these seats the ability to do the business finance side really overweighs whether you were at DPW or say Milbank.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think (K&E anons tell me if I'm wrong) K&E people do creditor reps at all (I've never seen them around). Being able to experience both is valuable, then (if your heart is set on it) you can lateral to K&E/Weil.

As to K&E hate, not really?

K&E does creditor work, though I'd venture a guess that it's probably 25% of a K&E attorney's diet. Also not the other anon, but I'm assuming they are referring to general TLS K&E flaming versus their reputation in the BK world.