Cravath Forum

[Anonymous User]

[*]

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

Agreed. To me I think the big takeaway is that most of the firms within a certain cluster/band are basically the same thing broadly speaking. The argument isn’t “Cravath isn’t special because Latham is special” it’s that “neither of them is special, but unlike Latham, Cravath won’t shut the fuck up about how special it is so let’s drill down into why it isn’t.”

Sums it up perfectly.

But is Cravath really claiming to be special, or is it you guys that are doing so by virtue of bringing it down for not being special.

I haven't seen any posts from Cravath/SullCrom associates talking about their love for the firm or how they think it's so much better than other firms. It's usually law students claiming they would chose to go there over other firms or asking why it's considered great, and then other associates saying they're "overrated" or "nothing special". I feel this to be especially true for Cravath, SullCrom, Latham and K&E where people just feel the need to shit on it randomly and in a vacuum.

Kinda reminds me of Don Draper from Mad Men,

"i feel bad for you"
"i don't think about you at all"

[Anonymous User]

Kinda confused about the recent posts, aren’t Cravath and S&C still a tier above the rest of NY v10? They might not be comp leaders anymore, or as prestigious as they used to be, but I don’t think they are overrated.

[Anonymous User]

I think Cravath's willingness--and ability--to mint equity partners after 7 years is still kinda classy. FWIW, I'm at another V10, and it's a bit frustrating to see firms (by all accounts Cravath's peers) stretching out their partnership tracks and/or adding a nonequity tier. It's marketed as giving associates more time to prove themselves or whatnot, but we all know it's to delay splitting the pie while milking senior associates dry. At least at CSM, it's more like survive for 7 years and then you've "made it." It used to be 7 years vs. maybe 8-9 years. Now it's easily 7 years vs. 11+ years to get equity. Sure, it doesn't affect the vast majority of associates, but since we're trying to identify what things differentiate Cravath from the rest, I thought I might throw it out there. S&C is similar in this regard (I think they still stick to 8-9 years for full equity, without a nonequity tier). DPW used to be more like S&C/CSM, but I've heard they're actively trying to lengthen the path to partner these days, with the addition of an in-between counsel position. I don't think they've had to expand into nonequity yet (?).

[Sackboy]

I think Cravath's willingness--and ability--to mint equity partners after 7 years is still kinda classy. FWIW, I'm at another V10, and it's a bit frustrating to see firms (by all accounts Cravath's peers) stretching out their partnership tracks and/or adding a nonequity tier. It's marketed as giving associates more time to prove themselves or whatnot, but we all know it's to delay splitting the pie while milking senior associates dry. At least at CSM, it's more like survive for 7 years and then you've "made it." It used to be 7 years vs. maybe 8-9 years. Now it's easily 7 years vs. 11+ years to get equity. Sure, it doesn't affect the vast majority of associates, but since we're trying to identify what things differentiate Cravath from the rest, I thought I might throw it out there. S&C is similar in this regard (I think they still stick to 8-9 years for full equity, without a nonequity tier). DPW used to be more like S&C/CSM, but I've heard they're actively trying to lengthen the path to partner these days, with the addition of an in-between counsel position. I don't think they've had to expand into nonequity yet (?).

Pretty sure ECEB, T&E, and Tax sometimes (although, not always) mint at years 8-10 at Cravath, but you're right that for pure corporate (and presumably litigation) still mint at 7. You're right that this certainly distinguishes the firm. I'd say that in pure corporate (i.e., M&A, CM, and Funds) 8-9 years still seems reasonably common for equity at many V10. Litigation and specialists seem to get elongated tracks, though, that can be 10+ years. I've always thought getting good at a "chiller" firm for 5 years that pays market and then hopping over to a meat grinder for the last 2-4 years makes the most sense. Obviously, you still can't hop over to Cravath in pure corporate, but you could do so with S&C or other single-tier firms that offer <10yr timelines.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Wachtell is obviously non-fungible, but like the rest of the v5? Is Cravath, Davis Polk, Skadden & Latham really distinguishable from Kirkland, SullCrom, Simpson, Paul Weiss or Debevoise?

[Anonymous User]

Kinda confused about the recent posts, aren’t Cravath and S&C still a tier above the rest of NY v10? They might not be comp leaders anymore, or as prestigious as they used to be, but I don’t think they are overrated.

No, they aren’t in a tier above the rest. That’s the entire point of the conversion so far lol

[Anonymous User]

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

In accounting for firm prestige, cash is king. The cash that the firm makes (RPL - Wachtell, Sullcrom, and recently Kirkland, dominate, as do the V20 generally), cash the firm pays (PPP and associate pay - Wachtell, Kirkland, some plaintiffs firms, and the usual V10 suspects are tops - this includes secret retention bonuses), and the cash the client makes (PE, banks, F500, family offices, etc are prestigious due to cash and the top people cash attracts - this is what separates rich personal injury lawyers from rich corporate lawyers) control prestige.

The day Wachtell falls below Kirkland in PPP and drops to the Baker scale is the day Wachtell loses it aura. M&A lit is not inherently prestigious and it won’t prop up Wachtell. Chambers, law school stats, SCOTUS clerk stocks are all “softs.”

[Anonymous User]

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

In accounting for firm prestige, cash is king. The cash that the firm makes (RPL - Wachtell, Sullcrom, and recently Kirkland, dominate, as do the V20 generally), cash the firm pays (PPP and associate pay - Wachtell, Kirkland, some plaintiffs firms, and the usual V10 suspects are tops - this includes secret retention bonuses), and the cash the client makes (PE, banks, F500, family offices, etc are prestigious due to cash and the top people cash attracts - this is what separates rich personal injury lawyers from rich corporate lawyers) control prestige.

The day Wachtell falls below Kirkland in PPP and drops to the Baker scale is the day Wachtell loses it aura. M&A lit is not inherently prestigious and it won’t prop up Wachtell. Chambers, law school stats, SCOTUS clerk stocks are all “softs.”

I can tell from reading this post you work in NYC. That's not judgment, just an observation that different cities see prestige differently. In NYC, cash is king. In DC, prestige is all about connections and influence. Williams & Connolly is more prestigious than Kirkland & Ellis, for example, even though it pays less than market. In California, prestige includes some mix of money, lifestyle, and selectivity. Etc., etc. Different strokes for different folks.

[Anonymous User]

Kinda confused about the recent posts, aren’t Cravath and S&C still a tier above the rest of NY v10? They might not be comp leaders anymore, or as prestigious as they used to be, but I don’t think they are overrated.

No, they aren’t in a tier above the rest. That’s the entire point of the conversion so far lol

That's why the anon said he was "confused"

[Anonymous User]

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

In accounting for firm prestige, cash is king. The cash that the firm makes (RPL - Wachtell, Sullcrom, and recently Kirkland, dominate, as do the V20 generally), cash the firm pays (PPP and associate pay - Wachtell, Kirkland, some plaintiffs firms, and the usual V10 suspects are tops - this includes secret retention bonuses), and the cash the client makes (PE, banks, F500, family offices, etc are prestigious due to cash and the top people cash attracts - this is what separates rich personal injury lawyers from rich corporate lawyers) control prestige.

The day Wachtell falls below Kirkland in PPP and drops to the Baker scale is the day Wachtell loses it aura. M&A lit is not inherently prestigious and it won’t prop up Wachtell. Chambers, law school stats, SCOTUS clerk stocks are all “softs.”

Kinda to this point: I am at skadden and thought meh of it, then I got a 100k mid year retention bonus as a mid level and now I like them a lot more lol.

[Anonymous User]

Kinda confused about the recent posts, aren’t Cravath and S&C still a tier above the rest of NY v10? They might not be comp leaders anymore, or as prestigious as they used to be, but I don’t think they are overrated.

Yeah idk, I think sometimes this forum swings hard on the "self-hating big law, preftige is dumb" pendulum and you get stuff like this. Like are Cravath or SullCrom or Davis Polk the same as Wachtell? Is the work you are doing likely to be demonstrably different than it would be at Wilkie? Is the pay different? All no. Will you work more? yeah.

But it is still probably better to start your career at Davis Polk CapM or Cravath M&A than it is to start it at Ropes CapM or Cleary M&A.

A lot of the preffftige firms are overrated by law students, but that also doesn't mean there are not career benefits to working at them as opposed to V20s. Those advantages don't seem as significant as they used to be and might not justify the WLB at the same pay.

Shops can be "better" but still "overrated"

[Moneytrees]

Kinda confused about the recent posts, aren’t Cravath and S&C still a tier above the rest of NY v10? They might not be comp leaders anymore, or as prestigious as they used to be, but I don’t think they are overrated.

Yeah idk, I think sometimes this forum swings hard on the "self-hating big law, preftige is dumb" pendulum and you get stuff like this. Like are Cravath or SullCrom or Davis Polk the same as Wachtell? Is the work you are doing likely to be demonstrably different than it would be at Wilkie? Is the pay different? All no. Will you work more? yeah.

But it is still probably better to start your career at Davis Polk CapM or Cravath M&A than it is to start it at Ropes CapM or Cleary M&A.

A lot of the preffftige firms are overrated by law students, but that also doesn't mean there are not career benefits to working at them as opposed to V20s. Those advantages don't seem as significant as they used to be and might not justify the WLB at the same pay.

Shops can be "better" but still "overrated"

I don't think anyone was comparing Cravath to Ropes, which is a relative newcomer to the V20. Cravath will always have some cache for having modernized the way law firms conduct business and setting the market for many years, but is largely just another top firm in most respects now. I think even Weil and other firms in the V10-V20 range are roughly as profitable as Cravath these days.

[Anonymous User]

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

In accounting for firm prestige, cash is king. The cash that the firm makes (RPL - Wachtell, Sullcrom, and recently Kirkland, dominate, as do the V20 generally), cash the firm pays (PPP and associate pay - Wachtell, Kirkland, some plaintiffs firms, and the usual V10 suspects are tops - this includes secret retention bonuses), and the cash the client makes (PE, banks, F500, family offices, etc are prestigious due to cash and the top people cash attracts - this is what separates rich personal injury lawyers from rich corporate lawyers) control prestige.

The day Wachtell falls below Kirkland in PPP and drops to the Baker scale is the day Wachtell loses it aura. M&A lit is not inherently prestigious and it won’t prop up Wachtell. Chambers, law school stats, SCOTUS clerk stocks are all “softs.”

Kinda to this point: I am at skadden and thought meh of it, then I got a 100k mid year retention bonus as a mid level and now I like them a lot more lol.

I’m kind of pissed my retention bonus was lower how much did you bill?

[Anonymous User]

I’m kind of pissed my retention bonus was lower how much did you bill?

And now we all see why they were "secret" retention bonuses, lol.