Why is there so much hate for Quinn Emanuel? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I don't hate Quinn Emanuel. Best place for a commercial litigator (with the exception of Cravath perhaps)

The idea that either are the best place to be a commercial litigator, period, is absurd. They can’t match the real boutiques if you want that sort of environment, and if you want a more conventional biglaw experience, lots of good firms don’t have “we brutalize our associates” as their “thing.” Most people would be much happier at like Jenner & Block.

This gave me a good laugh. Cravath's commercial litigation practice is widely considered among the best in the country. Then add in the fact that they're the most prestigious firm in NYC and have among the best exit options

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

[Anonymous User]

I don't hate Quinn Emanuel. Best place for a commercial litigator (with the exception of Cravath perhaps)

The idea that either are the best place to be a commercial litigator, period, is absurd. They can’t match the real boutiques if you want that sort of environment, and if you want a more conventional biglaw experience, lots of good firms don’t have “we brutalize our associates” as their “thing.” Most people would be much happier at like Jenner & Block.

This gave me a good laugh. Cravath's commercial litigation practice is widely considered among the best in the country. Then add in the fact that they're the most prestigious firm in NYC and have among the best exit options

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

Feel like this has to be a troll. It’s better for what? Exit opps into a back office cost center legal role at a large company in NYC. Yeah maybe. Those aren’t the exit opps the people going to lit boutiques want.

[Moneytrees]

The idea that either are the best place to be a commercial litigator, period, is absurd. They can’t match the real boutiques if you want that sort of environment, and if you want a more conventional biglaw experience, lots of good firms don’t have “we brutalize our associates” as their “thing.” Most people would be much happier at like Jenner & Block.

This gave me a good laugh. Cravath's commercial litigation practice is widely considered among the best in the country. Then add in the fact that they're the most prestigious firm in NYC and have among the best exit options

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

Feel like this has to be a troll. It’s better for what? Exit opps into a back office cost center legal role at a large company in NYC. Yeah maybe. Those aren’t the exit opps the people going to lit boutiques want.

There's no point in arguing with the 1st year from Cravath who is desperately clinging to the prestige of yore to justify the horrible decision of picking Cravath to begin with

[Anonymous User]

I don't hate Quinn Emanuel. Best place for a commercial litigator (with the exception of Cravath perhaps)

The idea that either are the best place to be a commercial litigator, period, is absurd. They can’t match the real boutiques if you want that sort of environment, and if you want a more conventional biglaw experience, lots of good firms don’t have “we brutalize our associates” as their “thing.” Most people would be much happier at like Jenner & Block.

This gave me a good laugh. Cravath's commercial litigation practice is widely considered among the best in the country. Then add in the fact that they're the most prestigious firm in NYC and have among the best exit options

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

At risk of feeding the troll, chiming in to add to other comments that rightly point out that chambers/vault disproportionately favor large well-known and generalist firms over boutiques

[Anonymous User]

The idea that either are the best place to be a commercial litigator, period, is absurd. They can’t match the real boutiques if you want that sort of environment, and if you want a more conventional biglaw experience, lots of good firms don’t have “we brutalize our associates” as their “thing.” Most people would be much happier at like Jenner & Block.

This gave me a good laugh. Cravath's commercial litigation practice is widely considered among the best in the country. Then add in the fact that they're the most prestigious firm in NYC and have among the best exit options

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

At risk of feeding the troll, chiming in to add to other comments that rightly point out that chambers/vault disproportionately favor large well-known and generalist firms over boutiques

The idea that Susman is "Band 2" while Kirkland is "Band 1" shows how absurd these rankings are.

[Anonymous User]

This gave me a good laugh. Cravath's commercial litigation practice is widely considered among the best in the country. Then add in the fact that they're the most prestigious firm in NYC and have among the best exit options

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

At risk of feeding the troll, chiming in to add to other comments that rightly point out that chambers/vault disproportionately favor large well-known and generalist firms over boutiques

The idea that Susman is "Band 2" while Kirkland is "Band 1" shows how absurd these rankings are.

New poster. This definitely has to be a troll. In case they're not a troll: one of the best ways to check how strong a particular office or firm is for lit is to just go through their roster. Compare Cravath's associate roster with Susman NYC's associate roster, and the gulf in clerkships, grades, and schools is incredibly massive. You will not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit (i.e., the COA appellate clerk crowd, NOT the NYC Vault-worshipping corporate bro crowd) by going to Cravaaaath.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

At risk of feeding the troll, chiming in to add to other comments that rightly point out that chambers/vault disproportionately favor large well-known and generalist firms over boutiques

The idea that Susman is "Band 2" while Kirkland is "Band 1" shows how absurd these rankings are.

New poster. This definitely has to be a troll. In case they're not a troll: one of the best ways to check how strong a particular office or firm is for lit is to just go through their roster. Compare Cravath's associate roster with Susman NYC's associate roster, and the gulf in clerkships, grades, and schools is incredibly massive. You will not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit (i.e., the COA appellate clerk crowd, NOT the NYC Vault-worshipping corporate bro crowd) by going to Cravaaaath.

I actually doubt this is a troll. Most people I know who went to Cravath dead seriously thought like this and were kind of brutal. Only suckers go to Cravath for litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Above poster. Fair point, entirely possible that Cravath summers are being fed this kind of Kool-Aid. I'm in a non-NYC major market with high-performing boutiques and lit offices. In my anecdotal experience, the Cravath associates who lateral into our market lateral into good, but not top-tier biglaw firms. Think maybe the second or third tier lit offices in the market. The vast majority of Cravath associates would not even get a lateral screener at the likes of Susman, Munger, etc. Some of these Cravath associates are in for a rude awakening when they try to lateral into their home markets, thinking that they're some kind of bigshot.

[Anonymous User]

Ngl, a lot of this seems like sour grapes from people who couldn't get Cravath, or made the decision not to go and can't stand the thought that their firm isn't as prestigious. But to get back to the point, which has nothing to do with Susman or Keker, Quinn Emanuel is a great firm. No doubt. But it's odd to see people from Quinn act like they're the top litigators in DC when Cravath is right next door.

[Anonymous User]

This gave me a good laugh. Cravath's commercial litigation practice is widely considered among the best in the country. Then add in the fact that they're the most prestigious firm in NYC and have among the best exit options

Cravath isn’t exceptional in anything versus its peer firms anymore, but it especially isn’t exceptional in lit—boutiques and the top DC firms attract significantly higher-caliber talent than any of the New York white-shoe firms.

Here you go: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... 51:12806:1

I think your view is out of step with the views of most practicing attorneys, btw

Compare some Cravath associates with Susman’s, Kellogg’s or Bartlit’s, it’s not even close. It’s not unique to Cravath, which is near the top of the market *for a conventional NYC biglaw firm*—it’s just that in lit people who can work anywhere generally don’t work in conventional NYC biglaw and haven’t for quite a while, as another poster noted.

Chambers and Vault don't lie (Cravath is ranked higher in general commercial lit). It's way better to be at a firm with a better practice group and more prestigious name

At risk of feeding the troll, chiming in to add to other comments that rightly point out that chambers/vault disproportionately favor large well-known and generalist firms over boutiques

The idea that Susman is "Band 2" while Kirkland is "Band 1" shows how absurd these rankings are.

Haha this is rich. TLS likes Chambers until it favors Cravath, and then it's absurd.

[Anonymous User]

Ngl, a lot of this seems like sour grapes from people who couldn't get Cravath, or made the decision not to go and can't stand the thought that their firm isn't as prestigious. But to get back to the point, which has nothing to do with Susman or Keker, Quinn Emanuel is a great firm. No doubt. But it's odd to see people from Quinn act like they're the top litigators in DC when Cravath is right next door.

Ok by now, it's obvious--this is a troll. But the funny/sad thing is that there will be impressionable summers and law students out there who actually think this is 100% serious.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve faced them in two multi-billion dollar multi-year cases. They are very aggressive and on both of these cases the associates were working a ton. Both cases were brought in the hopes that discovery would show that their allegations were valid. In both cases they ended up changing their allegations many times over because what they claimed hadn’t happened. Some of their partners are notably great lawyers and did quite well in depositions. The NYC office is a dump and in shocking condition given the kind of revenue the firm has. I wouldn’t want to work there but in defending a big case there are few firms I less want to see representing plaintiffs on the other side.

[Anonymous User]

Ngl, a lot of this seems like sour grapes from people who couldn't get Cravath, or made the decision not to go and can't stand the thought that their firm isn't as prestigious. But to get back to the point, which has nothing to do with Susman or Keker, Quinn Emanuel is a great firm. No doubt. But it's odd to see people from Quinn act like they're the top litigators in DC when Cravath is right next door.

Ok by now, it's obvious--this is a troll. But the funny/sad thing is that there will be impressionable summers and law students out there who actually think this is 100% serious.

I am 100% serious, and the fact that you think I'm not shows how far gone you are. By your logic, Dovel & Luner >>> Cravath

[The Lsat Airbender]

Basically no one who actually wants to litigate goes into NYC biglaw period anymore.

This is taking it too far—some people actually want to live in NY in addition to actually wanting to litigate, and there are sound reasons for taking a big firm over a boutique (e.g. not wanting to be part of a BSF-style disaster)

[Anonymous User]

Basically no one who actually wants to litigate goes into NYC biglaw period anymore.

This is taking it too far—some people actually want to live in NY in addition to actually wanting to litigate, and there are sound reasons for taking a big firm over a boutique (e.g. not wanting to be part of a BSF-style disaster)

Point stands - 99% of associates at Susman or Bartlit could have gone to any NY biglaw firm, Cravath easily included. By rough approximation, maybe 10-20% of Cravath (or any other top NY biglaw firm) associates could have done the reverse, and that may even be a little generous.

[Anonymous User]

You are being deceived, or more likely are deceiving yourself. You really need to let go of the idea that the place with the more HLS students with latin honors is the higher quality firm. Gupta Wessler isn't even Band 1 in litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Basically no one who actually wants to litigate goes into NYC biglaw period anymore.

This is taking it too far—some people actually want to live in NY in addition to actually wanting to litigate, and there are sound reasons for taking a big firm over a boutique (e.g. not wanting to be part of a BSF-style disaster)

Point stands - 99% of associates at Susman or Bartlit could have gone to any NY biglaw firm, Cravath easily included. By rough approximation, maybe 10-20% of Cravath (or any other top NY biglaw firm) associates could have done the reverse, and that may even be a little generous.

Yeah it’s not even just about the credentials for me. It’s also better work and experience. The top boutiques get you real experience faster and you don’t service corporate work. But honestly, almost all of the best true trial lawyers I’ve seen are plaintiff’s lawyers who don’t work at any of these firms or government lawyers.

[Anonymous User]

All of these Chambers / Cravath posts are strangely ignoring that QE is listed in Band 1 alongside Cravath. So, if we're focusing on the actual topic of the thread, it supports the point that QE and Cravath have excellent NY commercial litigation groups. Whether either of them are better or worse than Susman or Munger is a different and fairly off-topic question.

[Anonymous User]

You are being deceived, or more likely are deceiving yourself. You really need to let go of the idea that the place with the more HLS students with latin honors is the higher quality firm. Gupta Wessler isn't even Band 1 in litigation.

Well, but that's because Gupta Wessler is more compatible with what HLS students want in terms of values, and does a lot of public interest-type work. That makes the comparison a bit like saying the ACLU or US Attorney's office is not as good as Cravath--it's not apples to apples.

[Anonymous User]

When the most highly-credentialed and heavily recruited law grads choose to go to certain places but not others (e.g., Cravath), there is a reason. They don't just do it for giggles. Simple as that, no amount of Vault-worshipping or marketing spin changes this.

Cravath (and Quinn) are both fine places to land. But that's entirely different from being the top-of-the-market, as one poster keeps insisting.

[Anonymous User]

When the most highly-credentialed and heavily recruited law grads choose to go to certain places but not others (e.g., Cravath), there is a reason. They don't just do it for giggles. Simple as that, no amount of Vault-worshipping or marketing spin changes this.

Cravath (and Quinn) are both fine places to land. But that's entirely different from being the top-of-the-market, as one poster keeps insisting.

Serious question. How the heck does Cravath ever beat Wachtell in the Vault list? I understand why the boutiques don't get love, but everyone knows about Wachtell. Cravath pays about 55% of what Wachtell pays and it's obviously way easier to get a job at Cravath. Wachtell also has won some recent major precedent-setting cases in Chancery. I literally remember some of Wachtell's name partners being mentioned in judicial opinions that we read in my Corporations class. Does Cravath slip the vault editor a few million a year or something?

[Anonymous User]

When the most highly-credentialed and heavily recruited law grads choose to go to certain places but not others (e.g., Cravath), there is a reason. They don't just do it for giggles. Simple as that, no amount of Vault-worshipping or marketing spin changes this.

Cravath (and Quinn) are both fine places to land. But that's entirely different from being the top-of-the-market, as one poster keeps insisting.

Serious question. How the heck does Cravath ever beat Wachtell in the Vault list? I understand why the boutiques don't get love, but everyone knows about Wachtell. Cravath pays about 55% of what Wachtell pays and it's obviously way easier to get a job at Cravath. Wachtell also has won some recent major precedent-setting cases in Chancery. I literally remember some of Wachtell's name partners being mentioned in judicial opinions that we read in my Corporations class. Does Cravath slip the vault editor a few million a year or something?

Vault is based on associate votes. There are gazillions of New York City associates, which skews the votes heavily toward NYC-centric (and in large part corporate-centric) firms. For better or worse, deservedly or not, Cravath has high name recognition among the run-of-the-mill widget associates of the biglaw world--this doesn't mean it's anywhere close to an ideal target for the ambitious, super high-achieving future litigator.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve faced them in two multi-billion dollar multi-year cases. They are very aggressive and on both of these cases the associates were working a ton. Both cases were brought in the hopes that discovery would show that their allegations were valid. In both cases they ended up changing their allegations many times over because what they claimed hadn’t happened. Some of their partners are notably great lawyers and did quite well in depositions. The NYC office is a dump and in shocking condition given the kind of revenue the firm has. I wouldn’t want to work there but in defending a big case there are few firms I less want to see representing plaintiffs on the other side.

This is spot on. Another way of putting it is a broken clock is right twice a day.* QE is definitely one of those "litigate hard" and "try everything" kind of firms, and all they need (as a mostly P side shop) is to be right about a few things. Regardless, the point still stands that in doing so they piss a lot of people off with their litigation tactics and run their associates into the ground.

*I'm not implying QE attorneys are bad - they have a bunch of great litigators and it takes some skill to keep this style of litigation going. It's just that mixed in with some great litigation moves are a lot of annoying/costly/futile/confrontational things that just plain suck and hurt their reputation.

[Anonymous User]

When the most highly-credentialed and heavily recruited law grads choose to go to certain places but not others (e.g., Cravath), there is a reason. They don't just do it for giggles. Simple as that, no amount of Vault-worshipping or marketing spin changes this.

Cravath (and Quinn) are both fine places to land. But that's entirely different from being the top-of-the-market, as one poster keeps insisting.

Serious question. How the heck does Cravath ever beat Wachtell in the Vault list? I understand why the boutiques don't get love, but everyone knows about Wachtell. Cravath pays about 55% of what Wachtell pays and it's obviously way easier to get a job at Cravath. Wachtell also has won some recent major precedent-setting cases in Chancery. I literally remember some of Wachtell's name partners being mentioned in judicial opinions that we read in my Corporations class. Does Cravath slip the vault editor a few million a year or something?

Vault is based on associate votes. There are gazillions of New York City associates, which skews the votes heavily toward NYC-centric (and in large part corporate-centric) firms. For better or worse, deservedly or not, Cravath has high name recognition among the run-of-the-mill widget associates of the biglaw world--this doesn't mean it's anywhere close to an ideal target for the ambitious, super high-achieving future litigator.

Excellent theory. Now all we need is that pesky, pesky evidence!

[Anonymous User]

When the most highly-credentialed and heavily recruited law grads choose to go to certain places but not others (e.g., Cravath), there is a reason. They don't just do it for giggles. Simple as that, no amount of Vault-worshipping or marketing spin changes this.

Cravath (and Quinn) are both fine places to land. But that's entirely different from being the top-of-the-market, as one poster keeps insisting.

If you're a top student, and you choose to go to a firm with a general commercial lit practice that is ranked worse by Chambers, that's up to you. Of course, if students want a small firm vibe, that's another story. I can understand going to a small firm with a limited reach because it's in DC and you want to practice there, or there's a partner you want to make connections with, or the quality of life is perceived to be better. But what you're giving up is an overall more prestigious firm (Cravath).

Kellogg Hansen is a great example. Band 3 in litigation, but if you want a small firm in DC and the chance to work closely with a star litigator, then it makes sense.