Simpson Thacher LA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

Ok, but Chambers corporate bands and Vault CA beg to differ, so I don't think your notions of prefftige hold weight here. Or at least they shouldn't.

See the thread on v30 vs. v10 re Mofo if you want an actual breakdown re chambers/etc. FW and Gunderson might be a choice for tech but beyond that? Whether or not it should matter, the "preftige" of STB isn't just a notion

If someone wants to do PE M&A, then yeah, go to STB, particularly since Fenwick/Gunderson don't really do that at all. But if they do practically any other corporate practice, then Fenwick is so much better that it'd be laughable to start at STB in that instance.

STB for funds too... maybe also credit... and heck maybe even CapM too if they are going to throw you in the NY staffing pool anyway... and especially if you may want to lateral out of market. Oh wait I think that's all the core corporate groups.

You are missing the point here, people were saying Cooley/ Fenwick etc have full service in the sense that they have traditional SV style practice - VC/EC/Startup practice, and they offer full-life-cycle service to clients, from start-up stage to IPOs. Some people who wish to end up in SV/SF want to do that kind of traditional SV work and maybe later go in-house at one of those tech companies/ VCs/ Start-ups. STB/KE and other out of town firms just don't offer that kind of practice as much, since it's still New York style practice in CA. They are focused on PE/ PE financing related work, not as much in tech and start-ups. Not to say they are not good at what they do, it's just a different style. One of the appeals of working in SV/SF is the vibrant tech/start-up/VC scene here (def not for the banks in SV ...). If that's OP's potential goal, what's the point of going to non-SV-native firms.

Some non-SV native firms like Latham also offers traditional SV style practice on top of PE/Cap Market work, so that would be a great option to have as well.

Just to add something else: there's a trend of some wall st. firms lawyers leaving S&C, Cravath etc for Cooley in New York - it's not because Cooley has better overall corporate practice, but bc (i think) Cooley and other SV firms offer the kind of SV style practice (tech/ start-up focused) in New York and elsewhere that wall st. firms just don't offer. So in sum, it's goal dependent.

[Anonymous User]

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

Ok, but Chambers corporate bands and Vault CA beg to differ, so I don't think your notions of prefftige hold weight here. Or at least they shouldn't.

See the thread on v30 vs. v10 re Mofo if you want an actual breakdown re chambers/etc. FW and Gunderson might be a choice for tech but beyond that? Whether or not it should matter, the "preftige" of STB isn't just a notion

If someone wants to do PE M&A, then yeah, go to STB, particularly since Fenwick/Gunderson don't really do that at all. But if they do practically any other corporate practice, then Fenwick is so much better that it'd be laughable to start at STB in that instance.

STB for funds too... maybe also credit... and heck maybe even CapM too if they are going to throw you in the NY staffing pool anyway... and especially if you may want to lateral out of market. Oh wait I think that's all the core corporate groups.

You are missing the point here, people were saying Cooley/ Fenwick etc have full service in the sense that they have traditional SV style practice - VC/EC/Startup practice, and they offer full-life-cycle service to clients, from start-up stage to IPOs. Some people who wish to end up in SV/SF want to do that kind of traditional SV work and maybe later go in-house at one of those tech companies/ VCs/ Start-ups. STB/KE and other out of town firms just don't offer that kind of practice as much, since it's still New York style practice in CA. They are focused on PE/ PE financing related work, not as much in tech and start-ups. Not to say they are not good at what they do, it's just a different style. One of the appeals of working in SV/SF is the vibrant tech/start-up/VC scene here (def not for the banks in SV ...). If that's OP's potential goal, what's the point of going to non-SV-native firms.

Some non-SV native firms like Latham also offers traditional SV style practice on top of PE/Cap Market work, so that would be a great option to have as well.

Just to add something else: there's a trend of some wall st. firms lawyers leaving S&C, Cravath etc for Cooley in New York - it's not because Cooley has better overall corporate practice, but bc (i think) Cooley and other SV firms offer the kind of SV style practice (tech/ start-up focused) in New York and elsewhere that wall st. firms just don't offer. So in sum, it's goal dependent.

I think the ease of going from white shoe to Cooley/SV firms is telling. Starting at top corporate shop not only provides wider work exposure but preserves the ability to lateral down. Much harder to go from Cooley to CSM/SC/DPW/STB/etc.

[Anonymous User]

I think the ease of going from white shoe to Cooley/SV firms is telling. Starting at top corporate shop not only provides wider work exposure but preserves the ability to lateral down. Much harder to go from Cooley to CSM/SC/DPW/STB/etc.

"CSM/SC/DPW/STB" ... How to know someone has a job at STB

[Anonymous User]

I think the ease of going from white shoe to Cooley/SV firms is telling. Starting at top corporate shop not only provides wider work exposure but preserves the ability to lateral down. Much harder to go from Cooley to CSM/SC/DPW/STB/etc.

"CSM/SC/DPW/STB" ... How to know someone has a job at STB

^^^How to know someone couldn't land a white shoe v10

[Anonymous User]

I think the ease of going from white shoe to Cooley/SV firms is telling. Starting at top corporate shop not only provides wider work exposure but preserves the ability to lateral down. Much harder to go from Cooley to CSM/SC/DPW/STB/etc.

"CSM/SC/DPW/STB" ... How to know someone has a job at STB

^^^How to know someone couldn't land a white shoe v10

LOL. +1

[LBJ's Hair]

Just to add something else: there's a trend of some wall st. firms lawyers leaving S&C, Cravath etc for Cooley in New York - it's not because Cooley has better overall corporate practice, but bc (i think) Cooley and other SV firms offer the kind of SV style practice (tech/ start-up focused) in New York and elsewhere that wall st. firms just don't offer. So in sum, it's goal dependent.

if you're talking about partners, I think it is because Cooley is offering them ... a lot of money?

[Anonymous User]

Just to add something else: there's a trend of some wall st. firms lawyers leaving S&C, Cravath etc for Cooley in New York - it's not because Cooley has better overall corporate practice, but bc (i think) Cooley and other SV firms offer the kind of SV style practice (tech/ start-up focused) in New York and elsewhere that wall st. firms just don't offer. So in sum, it's goal dependent.

if you're talking about partners, I think it is because Cooley is offering them ... a lot of money?

nah i was talking about associates

[Anonymous User]

Just to add something else: there's a trend of some wall st. firms lawyers leaving S&C, Cravath etc for Cooley in New York - it's not because Cooley has better overall corporate practice, but bc (i think) Cooley and other SV firms offer the kind of SV style practice (tech/ start-up focused) in New York and elsewhere that wall st. firms just don't offer. So in sum, it's goal dependent.

if you're talking about partners, I think it is because Cooley is offering them ... a lot of money?

nah i was talking about associates

I doubt this amounts to a trend - at least any more so than the outpour of associates from every firm.