Best culture of the V10? Forum

[Anonymous User]

If you’ve interviewed at LW you can prob see what type of ppl they (generally) hire. Vastly diff personalty (generally) than the types that say S&C draws.

[Anonymous User]

Can some people explain why Latham's culture is so much better than other V10 firms? I do not understand this.

I've only been at LW (and maybe have sipped the koolaid) but from my experience and what laterals have told me, people are just nice here and act like humans. It seems to generally be a lasting culture since I've had a couple partners/senior associates mention that when they lateralled here they were waiting for the façade to drop because they thought people were acting nicer than they were used to and associates seemed happier.

[Anonymous User]

Can some people explain why Latham's culture is so much better than other V10 firms? I do not understand this.

Formerly at L&W and now at another V10.

As already discussed, people at LW are just supremely nice and reasonable about deadlines/expectations and genuinely sociable people that have lives outside of the firm.

However, more than that, LW's precedent library, technology and internal organization of its files, resources/know-how is the best I've seen. All of those things sound like they may not matter when you're in law school, but it's actually huge when you're practicing. You don't have to waste hours looking for precedents/know-how because everything is very well organized and searchable. Most of the partners are approachable and willing to help if you're spinning your wheels. The partnership base is also younger than other V10 partnership bases and therefore, at least to me, easier to relate to and approach. They're not just old guys resting on their laurels.

[Anonymous User]

Interviewed at Latham but ended up working for another V10 (did not take the offer because of the cubicle thing). Gotta agree people in Latham are generally a lot more social and nice to talk to, the kind of people you would be happy to share a long flight with. Cannot say the same about the lawyers in my current firm.

[Anonymous User]

Interviewed at Latham but ended up working for another V10 (did not take the offer because of the cubicle thing). Gotta agree people in Latham are generally a lot more social and nice to talk to, the kind of people you would be happy to share a long flight with. Cannot say the same about the lawyers in my current firm.

I don’t see the cubicles/pods as any worse than having an office with someone… might actually be preferable. But yes, own office right away would be ideal.

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard Gibson and Latham generally based on friends who work up and down the V10

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Former LW associate anon from previous post. I want your statement to be true, but it's not. Skadden and DPW, as an example, have much stronger investments/efforts in DEI initiatives than Latham. Not even close there. Even STB, to an extent. For sure K&E as well. I would hear about programming going down at other firms from my friends and would get pretty pissed. DEI at Latham is largely handled by overworked associates, and funding isn't strong IMO. Lots of pushback on even the small initiatives.

A friend on the recruiting committee noted that retention among the diverse candidates, even ones who received hefty scholarships, was shockingly low this year. I'm personally not shocked given my own experience.

I agree that women generally appeared to have it better at Latham than other V10 firms. Other diverse associates, though? Nah. Def not.

ETA: From my time there, it seemed like Latham took the "there are many ways to look at diversity" which actually in turn hurt a lot of the progress on key initiatives.

[LittleRedCorvette]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Former LW associate anon from previous post. I want your statement to be true, but it's not. Skadden and DPW, as an example, have much stronger investments/efforts in DEI initiatives than Latham. Not even close there. Even STB, to an extent. For sure K&E as well. I would hear about programming going down at other firms from my friends and would get pretty pissed. DEI at Latham is largely handled by overworked associates, and funding isn't strong IMO. Lots of pushback on even the small initiatives.

A friend on the recruiting committee noted that retention among the diverse candidates, even ones who received hefty scholarships, was shockingly low this year. I'm personally not shocked given my own experience.

I agree that women generally appeared to have it better at Latham than other V10 firms. Other diverse associates, though? Nah. Def not.

ETA: From my time there, it seemed like Latham took the "there are many ways to look at diversity" which actually in turn hurt a lot of the progress on key initiatives.

Are there not?

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Former LW associate anon from previous post. I want your statement to be true, but it's not. Skadden and DPW, as an example, have much stronger investments/efforts in DEI initiatives than Latham. Not even close there. Even STB, to an extent. For sure K&E as well. I would hear about programming going down at other firms from my friends and would get pretty pissed. DEI at Latham is largely handled by overworked associates, and funding isn't strong IMO. Lots of pushback on even the small initiatives.

A friend on the recruiting committee noted that retention among the diverse candidates, even ones who received hefty scholarships, was shockingly low this year. I'm personally not shocked given my own experience.

I agree that women generally appeared to have it better at Latham than other V10 firms. Other diverse associates, though? Nah. Def not.

ETA: From my time there, it seemed like Latham took the "there are many ways to look at diversity" which actually in turn hurt a lot of the progress on key initiatives.

As someone at Latham involved with diversity recruiting and initiatives, I appreciate you detailing this as I think we can always have room for improvement. One point that stood out to me was that at Latham the work is handled by mostly associates that chair the affinity groups which is true but is this not the case at other firms? Do other firms have more dedicated personnel who are handling DEI programming and initiatives and, if so, do you think that creates a better affinity group environment?

It seems that one of the reasons that Latham has a great culture—associates have a lot more power and influence here in how the firm is run than comparable firms—might be a bit of a doubled-edged sword in some instances.

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Former LW associate anon from previous post. I want your statement to be true, but it's not. Skadden and DPW, as an example, have much stronger investments/efforts in DEI initiatives than Latham. Not even close there. Even STB, to an extent. For sure K&E as well. I would hear about programming going down at other firms from my friends and would get pretty pissed. DEI at Latham is largely handled by overworked associates, and funding isn't strong IMO. Lots of pushback on even the small initiatives.

A friend on the recruiting committee noted that retention among the diverse candidates, even ones who received hefty scholarships, was shockingly low this year. I'm personally not shocked given my own experience.

I agree that women generally appeared to have it better at Latham than other V10 firms. Other diverse associates, though? Nah. Def not.

ETA: From my time there, it seemed like Latham took the "there are many ways to look at diversity" which actually in turn hurt a lot of the progress on key initiatives.

As someone at Latham involved with diversity recruiting and initiatives, I appreciate you detailing this as I think we can always have room for improvement. One point that stood out to me was that at Latham the work is handled by mostly associates that chair the affinity groups which is true but is this not the case at other firms? Do other firms have more dedicated personnel who are handling DEI programming and initiatives and, if so, do you think that creates a better affinity group environment?

It seems that one of the reasons that Latham has a great culture—associates have a lot more power and influence here in how the firm is run than comparable firms—might be a bit of a doubled-edged sword in some instances.

To answer LittleRedCorvette: There are many ways, absolutely. But the gist of it was more like "because there are many ways to look at diversity, we should be cautious in justifying efforts to diversify more in one way over another." But it's obvious that diversity of thought is not as pressing of an issue as diversity in ethnic/racial backgrounds, or even in socioeconomic backgrounds. But goodness forbid I said that while I was there. I admit there's a lot of detail I'm omitting, but only because I'm trying to avoid breaking any rules/admittedly am a bit of a scaredy-cat.

FWIW, I didn't really mind that most of the DEI efforts were associate-led, as is the case at most firms; I minded that even when associates and partners involved with DEI came up with initiatives, there was always some pushback that was rooted in (IMO) wildly unfounded claims. I figured diverse associates got tired of it, which is why a large number of them stopped leading DEI committees/efforts.

Even when summer associates arrived, there wasn't any DEI programming. We'd pitch ideas and they'd get repackaged and marketed as something else/a non-DEI event half of the time, and without any notification. Truly head-scratching. So it made it seem like affinity groups weren't reaching out that much to the summers when we actually were.

At my new firm (V10), I don't feel nearly as afraid as I did with bringing up diversity issues or initiatives. Funding is more robust, too. And to be clear, BigLaw in general isn't great as it stands for POC in general, but other firms do better than others.

Anon above, if you truly want feedback, listen to current diverse associates who've been trying to help you. Recruiting needs to stop making major assumptions that end up screwing them in the end; it makes no sense to expect associates to be humble and then recruiting ends up being cocky. Fund ideas and make all DEI work count as billable hours (only some does, and it's not a lot). List goes on and on.

[Anonymous User]

Many will say Latham, but I had a terrible time there (NY and non-NY). Very cliquey within a number of practice groups. Laterals from white shoe firms made it worse, too. Overall, if you're non a minority or a woman, it's pretty decent if not great. Outside of that, good luck.

I don't think white women have to worry about Latham at all! In general the firm conforms extremely closely to the white center left elitist coastal culture and you should be fine regardless of gender as long as you fit that archetype.

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Honestly if we're including V10-adjacent firms, Cleary and Debevoise are the best when it comes to culture.

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Honestly if we're including V10-adjacent firms, Cleary and Debevoise are the best when it comes to culture.

Deb lockstep will prevent it from achieving the growth / momentum needed to reach V10 (I.e. the KE model) but getting rid of the lockstep will result in serious damage to its culture. Cleary might be in an irreversible decline and could become Shearman & Sterling in 10 years.

Don't think either should be relevant when discussing V10. TBH Milbank / White & Case/Sidley might be better candidates because they actually have a shot joining the V10 with their respective firm leaderships clearly focused on this goal.

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Honestly if we're including V10-adjacent firms, Cleary and Debevoise are the best when it comes to culture.

Deb lockstep will prevent it from achieving the growth / momentum needed to reach V10 (I.e. the KE model) but getting rid of the lockstep will result in serious damage to its culture. Cleary might be in an irreversible decline and could become Shearman & Sterling in 10 years.

Don't think either should be relevant when discussing V10. TBH Milbank / White & Case/Sidley might be better candidates because they actually have a shot joining the V10 with their respective firm leaderships clearly focused on this goal.

A bit off-topic, but very curious to hear your thoughts on how the other V10s will be faring in 10-15 years. I'm guessing prospects hinge a lot on M&A, but with PE's epic run, it'll be interesting to see if firms that have been able to thrive without funds continue to do so (e.g., S&C/CSM).

As for Debevoise specifically, they seem to have had a couple of years of very robust growth, no?

[Anonymous User]

Cleary might be in an irreversible decline and could become Shearman & Sterling in 10 years.

Wait why? They still seem very desirable at my HYS (to the point where I felt almost like I made a mistake turning them down for K&E)

[Anonymous User]

Cleary might be in an irreversible decline and could become Shearman & Sterling in 10 years.

Wait why? They still seem very desirable at my HYS (to the point where I felt almost like I made a mistake turning them down for K&E)

Lagging indicator

[Anonymous User]

Cleary might be in an irreversible decline and could become Shearman & Sterling in 10 years.

Wait why? They still seem very desirable at my HYS (to the point where I felt almost like I made a mistake turning them down for K&E)

Maybe I’m overreacting but I think Cleary is absolutely on the path of Shearman. Their corporate groups have been absolutely gutted by partners defecting to hybrid-lockstep or eat-what-you-kill firms to the point that they inevitably had to modify their lockstep but it seems to have been too little too late.

They are also one of the white shoe firms a bit stuck in the past (like Cravath and Debevoise) led by very senior partners who have not updated the business model. My understanding is that they, and some other firms, have senior partners acting in business roles such as CFO and laughably maintain all of their financials on an excel sheet—unlike firms that have modernized the business and embraced the value of having non-lawyers in positions of power within the firm.

Cravath is able to hold on given the brand and I suppose Debevoise is supported by very strong litigation and funds practices, but Cleary’s bread and butter was Capital Markets and LatAm for a long time. Their CM group has really declined and lost market share significantly and LatAm work has not been as lucrative recently. Ironically, these were two major pillars for Shearman back in the day which also have contributed to their decline.

Ready for the inevitable “Cleary is way more PREFFFTIGIOUS” responses to roll in.

[Anonymous User]

Cleary might be in an irreversible decline and could become Shearman & Sterling in 10 years.

Wait why? They still seem very desirable at my HYS (to the point where I felt almost like I made a mistake turning them down for K&E)

Maybe I’m overreacting but I think Cleary is absolutely on the path of Shearman. Their corporate groups have been absolutely gutted by partners defecting to hybrid-lockstep or eat-what-you-kill firms to the point that they inevitably had to modify their lockstep but it seems to have been too little too late.

They are also one of the white shoe firms a bit stuck in the past (like Cravath and Debevoise) led by very senior partners who have not updated the business model. My understanding is that they, and some other firms, have senior partners acting in business roles such as CFO and laughably maintain all of their financials on an excel sheet—unlike firms that have modernized the business and embraced the value of having non-lawyers in positions of power within the firm.

Cravath is able to hold on given the brand and I suppose Debevoise is supported by very strong litigation and funds practices, but Cleary’s bread and butter was Capital Markets and LatAm for a long time. Their CM group has really declined and lost market share significantly and LatAm work has not been as lucrative recently. Ironically, these were two major pillars for Shearman back in the day which also have contributed to their decline.

Ready for the inevitable “Cleary is way more PREFFFTIGIOUS” responses to roll in.

Agree with you on Cleary. Idk why a solid group of Yalies still choose it every summer lol.

I'm guessing you're of the opinion that Cravath made its changes (moving from pure lockstep to modified, expanding regulatory practice, DC office) too late? Personally, I'm surprised that V10 firms without PE practices (i.e., S&C and CSM) have been able to achieve solid increases in profits year after year (Wachtell is sui generis I guess). Cravath in particular - they've lost so many people since 2015/2016. Imagine their profits if Barshay/Zoubek/Goldstein/etc. had all stayed rip.

[Anonymous User]

While we're at it, why does KE have the worst culture? Does it attract people like that or just mess with them once they get there? I've worked opposite a bunch of firms and while not everyone is perfect, it's really noticeable how much worse they are to deal with.

[Anonymous User]

To the person who said minorities and women are treated worse at Latham than other V10s, I'm legitimately shocked. They've had DEI as a part of their platform long before it was trendy, have had balanced associate classes forever, and I have a hard time imagining anyone has put more resources and effort into DEI, than Latham. That's not to say it doesn't have lots of room for improvement, but hard to imagine minorities and women being treated better at the average V10.

Also, I vote for Latham as well. But I generally vote for several non-V10 firms over the V10. V10 is not great for culture.

Honestly if we're including V10-adjacent firms, Cleary and Debevoise are the best when it comes to culture.

Deb lockstep will prevent it from achieving the growth / momentum needed to reach V10 (I.e. the KE model) but getting rid of the lockstep will result in serious damage to its culture. Cleary might be in an irreversible decline and could become Shearman & Sterling in 10 years.

Don't think either should be relevant when discussing V10. TBH Milbank / White & Case/Sidley might be better candidates because they actually have a shot joining the V10 with their respective firm leaderships clearly focused on this goal.

A bit off-topic, but very curious to hear your thoughts on how the other V10s will be faring in 10-15 years. I'm guessing prospects hinge a lot on M&A, but with PE's epic run, it'll be interesting to see if firms that have been able to thrive without funds continue to do so (e.g., S&C/CSM).

As for Debevoise specifically, they seem to have had a couple of years of very robust growth, no?

I think the above poster gave a very astute summary of the perfect storm Cleary is facing so not going to rehash.

Generally, you see significant consolidation at the UMM/MF/Megacorp level of deal making because there has been significant consolidation at the top of corporate America and service providers (ib/law firms/consultants etc.) need to consolidate to match the expanded scope and needs of their clients. If you look at IB market shares now vs. 2008, GS/MS/JPM have captured an additional >10% of the wallet in under 15 years. At this level transactions have also become a lot more global and if you don't have the international network of Skadden/KE/DPW/Latham it is harder to keep up.

Looking at Deb specifically, it has very strong regulatory and litigation practices + MM funds. None of these are as profitable and naturally lead to slightly lower PPP (less prone to be a growth focus for the likes of KE/Latham, hence less encroachment). Moreover, this tier of the market is much more dispersed and regional (less consolidation). Their competitive position looks safe for now.

Of the current V10s, STB is probably the most vulnerable. Its bread and butter is megacap PE which unfortunately is also THE practice area that made KE. From my experience KE really is going all out for the BX/KKR accounts and STB is just bleeding market share to them. STB simply cannot sustain its position without significant megafund PE works and I feel they are doomed against KE in the long run.

[Anonymous User]

While we're at it, why does KE have the worst culture? Does it attract people like that or just mess with them once they get there? I've worked opposite a bunch of firms and while not everyone is perfect, it's really noticeable how much worse they are to deal with.

I think because KE is so incredibly huge culture stuff is really practice group specific. I can totally believe you dealt with some unpleasant teams there but I believe there are better groups there culture wise

[Anonymous User]

While we're at it, why does KE have the worst culture? Does it attract people like that or just mess with them once they get there? I've worked opposite a bunch of firms and while not everyone is perfect, it's really noticeable how much worse they are to deal with.

My impression is that it’s a bit of a self-reinforcing culture. In law school, Kirkland gives an impression of a cut throat / only the best will succeed environment and frankly there are a number of law students who find that attractive. Then when they join the firm, they carry this expectation with them and make it a reality over time.

Maybe a bit anecdotal, but aside from those “successful” gunners mentioned above, the other law students I always saw going to Kirkland (at least NY) were those who came into law school thinking they were the next great legal mind only to finish median or below and find themselves snagging one V10 offer—Kirkland—which was just enough reinforcement for them to revert to their insufferable attitude.

Combine these two camps and you’re left with quite the culture—of course with some perfectly normal people in the mix given the size of the firm.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

While we're at it, why does KE have the worst culture? Does it attract people like that or just mess with them once they get there? I've worked opposite a bunch of firms and while not everyone is perfect, it's really noticeable how much worse they are to deal with.

My impression is that it’s a bit of a self-reinforcing culture. In law school, Kirkland gives an impression of a cut throat / only the best will succeed environment and frankly there are a number of law students who find that attractive. Then when they join the firm, they carry this expectation with them and make it a reality over time.

Maybe a bit anecdotal, but aside from those “successful” gunners mentioned above, the other law students I always saw going to Kirkland (at least NY) were those who came into law school thinking they were the next great legal mind only to finish median or below and find themselves snagging one V10 offer—Kirkland—which was just enough reinforcement for them to revert to their insufferable attitude.

Combine these two camps and you’re left with quite the culture—of course with some perfectly normal people in the mix given the size of the firm.

I’m skeptical that law school grades are a good indicator of legal acumen, and further skeptical that legal acumen is a good indicator of biglaw associate performance.

[Anonymous User]

While we're at it, why does KE have the worst culture? Does it attract people like that or just mess with them once they get there? I've worked opposite a bunch of firms and while not everyone is perfect, it's really noticeable how much worse they are to deal with.

My impression is that it’s a bit of a self-reinforcing culture. In law school, Kirkland gives an impression of a cut throat / only the best will succeed environment and frankly there are a number of law students who find that attractive. Then when they join the firm, they carry this expectation with them and make it a reality over time.

Maybe a bit anecdotal, but aside from those “successful” gunners mentioned above, the other law students I always saw going to Kirkland (at least NY) were those who came into law school thinking they were the next great legal mind only to finish median or below and find themselves snagging one V10 offer—Kirkland—which was just enough reinforcement for them to revert to their insufferable attitude.

Combine these two camps and you’re left with quite the culture—of course with some perfectly normal people in the mix given the size of the firm.

I’m skeptical that law school grades are a good indicator of legal acumen, and further skeptical that legal acumen is a good indicator of biglaw associate performance.

I dont think I suggested they were at any point in my response. The only potential reference that was pulled from was maybe my reference to insufferable “greatest minds” types but really they’re insufferable regardless of their grades. Maybe the issue is that these types who perform well in school get dispersed between more firms whereas those that fall at median or below seem to concentrate at Kirkland since it usually the highest ranking offer they received.