Susman (NY) vs Kellogg vs Wachtell (lit) Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm also choosing between Susman NY and Kellogg. Has anyone else heard things about how the two firms compare and what their strengths are?

Don't choose between them. Do both unless you have the option of splitting with a place like Munger or Williams and Connolly. Wachtell is great, but it isn't top tier in litigation like those 4 firms are.

If you happen to have MOT or WC, then it's a harder decision. Otherwise no brainer IMO if you're focused on trial/appellate.

Neither Susman nor Kellogg guarantees offers so you should do WLRK for one. Plus Susman and Kellogg do not have full summer programs. And I’ve frankly literally never heard anything good about Kellogg besides the comp, whereas (beyond the insane hours) Susman NY has a great culture and WLRK has a good-for-biglaw one.

Also the idea that MTO or W&C are on a meaningfully higher tier than WLRK is a law student giveaway. These firms do not do the same type of lit and are not in the same cities. They are not direct competitors except at OCI, and all are at the top of their respective markets. WLRK has very good white-collar and general lit practices and an outstanding Delaware practice.

If the OPs are the type of candidates to get offers from both, they almost assuredly will get a clerkship (if they don't already have one). Thus, getting a return offer isn't of the highest importance. And FWIW, I know people who did get return offers from those places after summering there.

Regarding WLRK, yes agree they're top tier for Delaware, etc. However to clarify, I stand by my original intent which is that the 4 firms I listed are on a tier of their own for appellate litigation, which is what I assume OPs are interested in. And yes I acknowledge these prestige games are stupid, but again, my assumption is that OPs value prestige.

WLRK/Susman/Kellogg are not close to the top of the heap for appellate work. MTO and W&C have very good appellate practices built around a handful of people, but many other big firms (Wilmer, Jones Day, Gibson, Jenner, Sidley, etc.) and boutiques (Clement & Murphy, MoloLamken, etc.) have comparably strong appellate practices.

As another poster noted, Kellogg has quite a good appellate practice. However, it is different from the other firms you mentioned in that no one does only appellate work, especially not at the associate level. That said, for appellate work it is far ahead of Susman and Wachtell.

[Anonymous User]

Post clerkship, if you could get any of these jobs and you are prestige focused, what would you choose? Specifically between Kellogg and Susman?

Also if anyone has any input on Wilkinson Stekloff or Hueston Hennigan?

Goal is likely to be there for a couple years and return to Florida where none of these firms have a presence.

Are you a clerk or a 1L looking forwards?

IME a lot of people get sick of moving by the time they’re post-clerkship and skip the “biglaw for a couple of years” step. By that age you may be at a significantly different life stage (e.g. not many 1Ls are married or engaged, but at least half of clerks are). So if you’re a 1L I would strongly consider splitting w/ e.g. BSF Miami, which has very good clerkship bonuses anyway. Plus you can make FL connections.

But if you’re a clerk and you’re asking the question non-hypothetically, SG unless you want to live in DC for the reasons described above.

Clerk. I’m open to moving. It’s really only Boies and now Quinn. If those other firms are available then I think they do the most for me long term.

Why do you say Susman? Just curious.

Also any thoughts on Wilkinson?

[Anonymous User]

SG associate here. Compared to Kellogg, I think SG would hypothetically get you more trial experience that would align more with whatever firm you land in in Florida. From what I learned while deciding between firms (aka someone correct me if I'm wrong), Kellogg's matters are typically more antitrust/telecom work focused. Whereas SG is more broad--it is plaintiff's work, IP litigation, and general commercial litigation focused. To be fair, I don't think you can lose with Kellogg, Wachtell, SG, Wilkinson, HH, etc. If you're looking for real litigation experience and a firm to serve as a gold star on your resume before you return home, you can't lose with any of these. I imagine all would make you a very marketable associate in Florida recruiting.

I know people at Wilkinson and HH and have heard wonderful things. They both have good cultures, offer substantive experience, and have great exit opps (both are good for government exit opps). When I clerked DC/2d/9th Cir., both appeared and/or briefed and were stellar. My judge and the other panel members held them in high regard. (FWIW, judges in particular seem to view all of these elite firms as comparably amazing places with exceptional advocates. Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

One of the posters above brought up a great point about you possibly being in a different place in a few years post-clerkship that might make you averse to entering the recruiting ring again. Out of curiosity, why not aim for a DC office of a firm with a Florida presence, like BSF, Quinn, Kirkland, Jones Day, etc.? While still being big firms, it's no secret that these DC offices are harder to get, typically carry more "prestige," and, more importantly, give associates more substantive litigation experience than their NY office counterparts. Transferring offices would allow you to keep the repetitional capital you should build from doing good work there instead of throwing it away to start from scratch by starting at a new firm in a new market. Seems like the best of both worlds for what you want. I know classmates at some of these DC offices and their experiences resemble those of associates at boutiques. One classmate in particular chose this path to get real experience going to trial/doing depos/covering hearings/arguing motions/etc. before transferring to an office of the firm back in their hometown. They are getting the experience they hoped for.

[Anonymous User]

SG associate here. Compared to Kellogg, I think SG would hypothetically get you more trial experience that would align more with whatever firm you land in in Florida. From what I learned while deciding between firms (aka someone correct me if I'm wrong), Kellogg's matters are typically more antitrust/telecom work focused. Whereas SG is more broad--it is plaintiff's work, IP litigation, and general commercial litigation focused. To be fair, I don't think you can lose with Kellogg, Wachtell, SG, Wilkinson, HH, etc. If you're looking for real litigation experience and a firm to serve as a gold star on your resume before you return home, you can't lose with any of these. I imagine all would make you a very marketable associate in Florida recruiting.

I know people at Wilkinson and HH and have heard wonderful things. They both have good cultures, offer substantive experience, and have great exit opps (both are good for government exit opps). When I clerked DC/2d/9th Cir., both appeared and/or briefed and were stellar. My judge and the other panel members held them in high regard. (FWIW, judges in particular seem to view all of these elite firms as comparably amazing places with exceptional advocates. Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

One of the posters above brought up a great point about you possibly being in a different place in a few years post-clerkship that might make you averse to entering the recruiting ring again. Out of curiosity, why not aim for a DC office of a firm with a Florida presence, like BSF, Quinn, Kirkland, Jones Day, etc.? While still being big firms, it's no secret that these DC offices are harder to get, typically carry more "prestige," and, more importantly, give associates more substantive litigation experience than their NY office counterparts. Transferring offices would allow you to keep the repetitional capital you should build from doing good work there instead of throwing it away to start from scratch by starting at a new firm in a new market. Seems like the best of both worlds for what you want. I know classmates at some of these DC offices and their experiences resemble those of associates at boutiques. One classmate in particular chose this path to get real experience going to trial/doing depos/covering hearings/arguing motions/etc. before transferring to an office of the firm back in their hometown. They are getting the experience they hoped for.

Is it right to say that the tradeoff between Kellogg and SG (aside from the differences in culture) is that at SG there is a broader trial practice, whereas at Kellogg there is a substantial and high-profile appellate practice?

[throwawayt14]

Is it right to say that the tradeoff between Kellogg and SG (aside from the differences in culture) is that at SG there is a broader trial practice, whereas at Kellogg there is a substantial and high-profile appellate practice?

The primary tradeoff is that they are located in entirely different cities hundreds of miles apart.

[Anonymous User]

Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

This is a popular talking point on TLS/for anon posters online, but in practice MANY if not most hiring partners, committees, judges, etc. take "prestige" into account along a number of metrics. And at at certain caliber, this will inevitably be "hair-splitting."

Scoffing or turning your nose up at it, as though you're above it, is naïve at best, especially coming from someone working at SG.

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

[throwawayt14]

Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

This is a popular talking point on TLS/for anon posters online, but in practice MANY if not most hiring partners, committees, judges, etc. take "prestige" into account along a number of metrics. And at at certain caliber, this will inevitably be "hair-splitting."

Scoffing or turning your nose up at it, as though you're above it, is naïve at best, especially coming from someone working at SG.

If you are deciding between Susman or Kellogg, yeah, you are above the nonsensical prestige debate. And yes, a SG associate would probably know more about it.

[throwawayt14]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

Agreed. The person who suggested Cravath must be one of those Cravath trolls in the Quinn thread

[Anonymous User]

Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

This is a popular talking point on TLS/for anon posters online, but in practice MANY if not most hiring partners, committees, judges, etc. take "prestige" into account along a number of metrics. And at at certain caliber, this will inevitably be "hair-splitting."

Scoffing or turning your nose up at it, as though you're above it, is naïve at best, especially coming from someone working at SG.

I am a partner at a firm that is fairly credential-conscious, regularly hires SCOTUS clerks, has a fancy appellate practice, etc. Most of the folks on our hiring committee are not drawing fine-grained distinctions between super-selective firms (this would include firms like SG, HH, Wilkinson, Wachtell, MTO, Kellogg, etc.) when considering lateral resumes. I think we understand that firms in this tier are more selective and prestigious than generic prestigious biglaw (Cravath, S&C, Kirkland, etc.), which are in turn more selective than generic biglaw, which are in turn more selective than fringe biglaw/AmLaw 101-200 type firms, but the distinction is nowhere near as granular as you suggest.

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

This is really silly and does not reflect the views of practitioners in or outside NYC. Of course, pay is important, but OP won't have financial concerns working at any of these firms. Once you're lucky enough to be in that position, you can start comparing the firms in terms of quality of work, breadth of practice groups, overall name recognition, etc.

I don't know OP but I know one thing: no one changes their mind like a 3L or junior associate. OP's interests may very well change, too. At such an early stage of their career, OP would be wise to at least consider the most prestigious generalist firm in the United States. They'll get tons of litigation experience early on working in a small group during their rotation(s). A small boutique just simply won't have the breadth of top-level practice groups that feed work to the litigators. And don't even get me started on resources. Need to talk to one of the best tax lawyers in the United States? Just head down the hall, right past a practitioner who's worked on 50+ MDLs.

All this is to say, just be aware of what you may be giving up by only looking to boutiques

[throwawayt14]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

This is really silly and does not reflect the views of practitioners in or outside NYC. Of course, pay is important, but OP won't have financial concerns working at any of these firms. Once you're lucky enough to be in that position, you can start comparing the firms in terms of quality of work, breadth of practice groups, overall name recognition, etc.

I don't know OP but I know one thing: no one changes their mind like a 3L or junior associate. OP's interests may very well change, too. At such an early stage of their career, OP would be wise to at least consider the most prestigious generalist firm in the United States. They'll get tons of litigation experience early on working in a small group during their rotation(s). A small boutique just simply won't have the breadth of top-level practice groups that feed work to the litigators. And don't even get me started on resources. Need to talk to one of the best tax lawyers in the United States? Just head down the hall, right past a practitioner who's worked on 50+ MDLs.

All this is to say, just be aware of what you may be giving up by only looking to boutiques

Oh, its just the Cravath Quinn thread troll again.

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

This is really silly and does not reflect the views of practitioners in or outside NYC. Of course, pay is important, but OP won't have financial concerns working at any of these firms. Once you're lucky enough to be in that position, you can start comparing the firms in terms of quality of work, breadth of practice groups, overall name recognition, etc.

I don't know OP but I know one thing: no one changes their mind like a 3L or junior associate. OP's interests may very well change, too. At such an early stage of their career, OP would be wise to at least consider the most prestigious generalist firm in the United States. They'll get tons of litigation experience early on working in a small group during their rotation(s). A small boutique just simply won't have the breadth of top-level practice groups that feed work to the litigators. And don't even get me started on resources. Need to talk to one of the best tax lawyers in the United States? Just head down the hall, right past a practitioner who's worked on 50+ MDLs.

All this is to say, just be aware of what you may be giving up by only looking to boutiques

Oh, its just the Cravath Quinn thread troll again.

Honestly, I admire the shamelessness at this point lol. OP, with your credentials, if you want big law, just consider WC, MOT, or Wachtell. Ignore the Cravath trolls. It's gotta be someone on their recruiting team.

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

This is really silly and does not reflect the views of practitioners in or outside NYC. Of course, pay is important, but OP won't have financial concerns working at any of these firms. Once you're lucky enough to be in that position, you can start comparing the firms in terms of quality of work, breadth of practice groups, overall name recognition, etc.

I don't know OP but I know one thing: no one changes their mind like a 3L or junior associate. OP's interests may very well change, too. At such an early stage of their career, OP would be wise to at least consider the most prestigious generalist firm in the United States. They'll get tons of litigation experience early on working in a small group during their rotation(s). A small boutique just simply won't have the breadth of top-level practice groups that feed work to the litigators. And don't even get me started on resources. Need to talk to one of the best tax lawyers in the United States? Just head down the hall, right past a practitioner who's worked on 50+ MDLs.

All this is to say, just be aware of what you may be giving up by only looking to boutiques

Oh, its just the Cravath Quinn thread troll again.

Honestly, I admire the shamelessness at this point lol. OP, with your credentials, if you want big law, just consider WC, MOT, or Wachtell. Ignore the Cravath trolls. It's gotta be someone on their recruiting team.

Can confirm that I do not work for Cravath.

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

This is really silly and does not reflect the views of practitioners in or outside NYC. Of course, pay is important, but OP won't have financial concerns working at any of these firms. Once you're lucky enough to be in that position, you can start comparing the firms in terms of quality of work, breadth of practice groups, overall name recognition, etc.

I don't know OP but I know one thing: no one changes their mind like a 3L or junior associate. OP's interests may very well change, too. At such an early stage of their career, OP would be wise to at least consider the most prestigious generalist firm in the United States. They'll get tons of litigation experience early on working in a small group during their rotation(s). A small boutique just simply won't have the breadth of top-level practice groups that feed work to the litigators. And don't even get me started on resources. Need to talk to one of the best tax lawyers in the United States? Just head down the hall, right past a practitioner who's worked on 50+ MDLs.

All this is to say, just be aware of what you may be giving up by only looking to boutiques

Oh, its just the Cravath Quinn thread troll again.

Honestly, I admire the shamelessness at this point lol. OP, with your credentials, if you want big law, just consider WC, MOT, or Wachtell. Ignore the Cravath trolls. It's gotta be someone on their recruiting team.

Yeah this. And throw in almost every big law office in DC. Cravath wouldn't even be my top biglaw pick in NYC. It's miles behind Wachtell and imo behind SullCrom and Paul Weiss also (which have the same litigation prestige without the rotation system).

[Anonymous User]

SG associate here. Compared to Kellogg, I think SG would hypothetically get you more trial experience that would align more with whatever firm you land in in Florida. From what I learned while deciding between firms (aka someone correct me if I'm wrong), Kellogg's matters are typically more antitrust/telecom work focused. Whereas SG is more broad--it is plaintiff's work, IP litigation, and general commercial litigation focused. To be fair, I don't think you can lose with Kellogg, Wachtell, SG, Wilkinson, HH, etc. If you're looking for real litigation experience and a firm to serve as a gold star on your resume before you return home, you can't lose with any of these. I imagine all would make you a very marketable associate in Florida recruiting.

I know people at Wilkinson and HH and have heard wonderful things. They both have good cultures, offer substantive experience, and have great exit opps (both are good for government exit opps). When I clerked DC/2d/9th Cir., both appeared and/or briefed and were stellar. My judge and the other panel members held them in high regard. (FWIW, judges in particular seem to view all of these elite firms as comparably amazing places with exceptional advocates. Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

One of the posters above brought up a great point about you possibly being in a different place in a few years post-clerkship that might make you averse to entering the recruiting ring again. Out of curiosity, why not aim for a DC office of a firm with a Florida presence, like BSF, Quinn, Kirkland, Jones Day, etc.? While still being big firms, it's no secret that these DC offices are harder to get, typically carry more "prestige," and, more importantly, give associates more substantive litigation experience than their NY office counterparts. Transferring offices would allow you to keep the repetitional capital you should build from doing good work there instead of throwing it away to start from scratch by starting at a new firm in a new market. Seems like the best of both worlds for what you want. I know classmates at some of these DC offices and their experiences resemble those of associates at boutiques. One classmate in particular chose this path to get real experience going to trial/doing depos/covering hearings/arguing motions/etc. before transferring to an office of the firm back in their hometown. They are getting the experience they hoped for.

I understand your point about a DC office of a Florida firm. I just think it would add more long term fire power to work at one of those listed trial firms and then return to Florida to either do government work or do my own thing. Whether I work at a local firm depends on the timing but as you said, a gold star on my resume, along with a nice pay day is what I’m looking for.

[Joachim2017]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If you're looking for a "wide variety of litigation experience" or want "the best generalist litigation experience and training" you should NOT go to WLRK. This is not even a controversial opinion. You people need to do basic homework before posting on these boards...

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If you're looking for a "wide variety of litigation experience" or want "the best generalist litigation experience and training" you should NOT go to WLRK. This is not even a controversial opinion. You people need to do basic homework before posting on these boards...

I agree. I mostly threw that in to be nice to the WLRK fans, but if I'm being honest, I wouldn't recommend Wachtell for anyone interested in lit

[Anonymous User]

OP, just to make sure I understand your question, do you want a wide variety of litigation experience, or mostly trial work? If you want the best generalist litigation experience and training, then you should be looking at Cravath (and to some extent WLRK). If you are more looking for trial experience specifically and are keen on being a specialist in a particular area of litigation (with less interest in corporate lit), then I would understand why you're mostly looking at Susman/Kellogg.

If anyone chooses Cravath over Susman (or Wachtell), they need their head examined. Without even going into how much more you would be paid at any of the listed firms over Cravath, Cravath is no different than S&C, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson, or any of the other dime-a-dozen large New York firms. And per associate experience in litigation, just lookiing at the partner track at Cravath (10-12 years if lucky, probably never) and Susman (or Kellogg) (6 years), would indicate how dumb this comment is.

This is really silly and does not reflect the views of practitioners in or outside NYC. Of course, pay is important, but OP won't have financial concerns working at any of these firms. Once you're lucky enough to be in that position, you can start comparing the firms in terms of quality of work, breadth of practice groups, overall name recognition, etc.

I don't know OP but I know one thing: no one changes their mind like a 3L or junior associate. OP's interests may very well change, too. At such an early stage of their career, OP would be wise to at least consider the most prestigious generalist firm in the United States. They'll get tons of litigation experience early on working in a small group during their rotation(s). A small boutique just simply won't have the breadth of top-level practice groups that feed work to the litigators. And don't even get me started on resources. Need to talk to one of the best tax lawyers in the United States? Just head down the hall, right past a practitioner who's worked on 50+ MDLs.

All this is to say, just be aware of what you may be giving up by only looking to boutiques

Oh, its just the Cravath Quinn thread troll again.

Honestly, I admire the shamelessness at this point lol. OP, with your credentials, if you want big law, just consider WC, MOT, or Wachtell. Ignore the Cravath trolls. It's gotta be someone on their recruiting team.

Yeah this. And throw in almost every big law office in DC. Cravath wouldn't even be my top biglaw pick in NYC. It's miles behind Wachtell and imo behind SullCrom and Paul Weiss also (which have the same litigation prestige without the rotation system).

I think this comment really encapsulates the issue with TLS. Social credit is generated by bucking the consensus, even though the consensus exists for a reason.

[Anonymous User]

Please let's not turn this thread into a fight about Cravath

[Anonymous User]

Does Kellogg even pay that much above market? If you've clerked twice, you would enter most firms as a 3rd year associate. At Kellogg, you enter as a 1st year.

The Year 1 $255,000 salary is only $5K more than the standard 3rd year associate, and it doesn't seem like the standard bonus, aside from the clerkship bonus, is that much greater on average either.

[Born-Ready29]

The 175k clerkship bonus is tough to turn down. The end of year bonuses are huge also. By your this year they can be 150k.

[Anonymous User]

SG associate here. Compared to Kellogg, I think SG would hypothetically get you more trial experience that would align more with whatever firm you land in in Florida. From what I learned while deciding between firms (aka someone correct me if I'm wrong), Kellogg's matters are typically more antitrust/telecom work focused. Whereas SG is more broad--it is plaintiff's work, IP litigation, and general commercial litigation focused. To be fair, I don't think you can lose with Kellogg, Wachtell, SG, Wilkinson, HH, etc. If you're looking for real litigation experience and a firm to serve as a gold star on your resume before you return home, you can't lose with any of these. I imagine all would make you a very marketable associate in Florida recruiting.

I know people at Wilkinson and HH and have heard wonderful things. They both have good cultures, offer substantive experience, and have great exit opps (both are good for government exit opps). When I clerked DC/2d/9th Cir., both appeared and/or briefed and were stellar. My judge and the other panel members held them in high regard. (FWIW, judges in particular seem to view all of these elite firms as comparably amazing places with exceptional advocates. Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

One of the posters above brought up a great point about you possibly being in a different place in a few years post-clerkship that might make you averse to entering the recruiting ring again. Out of curiosity, why not aim for a DC office of a firm with a Florida presence, like BSF, Quinn, Kirkland, Jones Day, etc.? While still being big firms, it's no secret that these DC offices are harder to get, typically carry more "prestige," and, more importantly, give associates more substantive litigation experience than their NY office counterparts. Transferring offices would allow you to keep the repetitional capital you should build from doing good work there instead of throwing it away to start from scratch by starting at a new firm in a new market. Seems like the best of both worlds for what you want. I know classmates at some of these DC offices and their experiences resemble those of associates at boutiques. One classmate in particular chose this path to get real experience going to trial/doing depos/covering hearings/arguing motions/etc. before transferring to an office of the firm back in their hometown. They are getting the experience they hoped for.

I understand your point about a DC office of a Florida firm. I just think it would add more long term fire power to work at one of those listed trial firms and then return to Florida to either do government work or do my own thing. Whether I work at a local firm depends on the timing but as you said, a gold star on my resume, along with a nice pay day is what I’m looking for.

I think you’re overestimating the long-term career benefits of spending a couple of years as a junior associate at a DC litigation boutique. Your mindset should be “what would maximize my chances of getting my desired job in Florida?” and the answer to that is probably not e.g. Wilkinson Stekloff. For comp you have to consider COL and taxes in addition to salary when you’re considering multiple markets.

[Anonymous User]

SG associate here. Compared to Kellogg, I think SG would hypothetically get you more trial experience that would align more with whatever firm you land in in Florida. From what I learned while deciding between firms (aka someone correct me if I'm wrong), Kellogg's matters are typically more antitrust/telecom work focused. Whereas SG is more broad--it is plaintiff's work, IP litigation, and general commercial litigation focused. To be fair, I don't think you can lose with Kellogg, Wachtell, SG, Wilkinson, HH, etc. If you're looking for real litigation experience and a firm to serve as a gold star on your resume before you return home, you can't lose with any of these. I imagine all would make you a very marketable associate in Florida recruiting.

I know people at Wilkinson and HH and have heard wonderful things. They both have good cultures, offer substantive experience, and have great exit opps (both are good for government exit opps). When I clerked DC/2d/9th Cir., both appeared and/or briefed and were stellar. My judge and the other panel members held them in high regard. (FWIW, judges in particular seem to view all of these elite firms as comparably amazing places with exceptional advocates. Hairsplitting over firm "prestige" seems to be a practice reserved for law students/junior attorneys, but I digress...) HH has a new NY office in meatpacking that sounds amazing.

One of the posters above brought up a great point about you possibly being in a different place in a few years post-clerkship that might make you averse to entering the recruiting ring again. Out of curiosity, why not aim for a DC office of a firm with a Florida presence, like BSF, Quinn, Kirkland, Jones Day, etc.? While still being big firms, it's no secret that these DC offices are harder to get, typically carry more "prestige," and, more importantly, give associates more substantive litigation experience than their NY office counterparts. Transferring offices would allow you to keep the repetitional capital you should build from doing good work there instead of throwing it away to start from scratch by starting at a new firm in a new market. Seems like the best of both worlds for what you want. I know classmates at some of these DC offices and their experiences resemble those of associates at boutiques. One classmate in particular chose this path to get real experience going to trial/doing depos/covering hearings/arguing motions/etc. before transferring to an office of the firm back in their hometown. They are getting the experience they hoped for.

I understand your point about a DC office of a Florida firm. I just think it would add more long term fire power to work at one of those listed trial firms and then return to Florida to either do government work or do my own thing. Whether I work at a local firm depends on the timing but as you said, a gold star on my resume, along with a nice pay day is what I’m looking for.

I think you’re overestimating the long-term career benefits of spending a couple of years as a junior associate at a DC litigation boutique. Your mindset should be “what would maximize my chances of getting my desired job in Florida?” and the answer to that is probably not e.g. Wilkinson Stekloff. For comp you have to consider COL and taxes in addition to salary when you’re considering multiple markets.

The thing about the Florida litigation market is it’s driven by boutiques that are prominent in Florida but aren’t the kind of firm that will give you national clout. The best litigation jobs in Florida aren’t really GT or HK, they’re specifically the Miami boutiques. Getting a job at one after clerking isn’t too difficult but I would like to have a national brand on my resume and make contacts in NY and DC that I can return to Florida with.