MILBANK ANNOUNCES BONUSES/SALARY INCREASES Forum

[Anonymous User]

There is 0 chance that every single firm just decides to let Milbank be the comp king for 10k; they would dominate recruiting until it changes.

[Anonymous User]

Hearing through grapevine Cravath has indicated to associates it will not match

I also dislike Cravath but there's no way.

I mean wouldn't that be the ultimate power move? I hate the idea of this being isolated to Millbank, but Cravath's strategy of pushing up the scale to show dominance clearly hasn't been working. Millbank still pushes the market and gets the credit for doing so. The real power play would be to say eh you don't move the needle for us so you just do you and we'll raise on our time. If no other firm moves before then I can't see other firms wanting to move after that, especially if they had a bad year (read: less growth than others). That said, all it takes is another firm to call Cravath's bluff and they would get some credit too.

The scale is still called the Cravath scale and they're still number one on vault. I don't know why Cravath would see this as a bad thing.

The eh Milbank doesn't matter and will only happen if Cravath is so deluded and out of touch that they truly think they could get away with that. Given their move to non-equity partners I think they have shown some level of pragmatism. Also there is precedent for Cravath to follow Milbank. If they don't true-up to Milbank now it will look weak or greedy (which it is).

The only way no matches could happen is if all the other firms get together and collectively decide to just ignore Milbank and try to box them out. That is hard to do though because the raises are so small that there is incentive for a firm just outside the realm of Cravath like STB to just raise to edge out Cravath for top law students.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath might be looking at Goldman’s ability to command sub-market salaries and think “maybe we can pull that off.” They can’t, though, because law is a much less consolidated business than banking—all that needs to happen is a V10 match and suddenly Cravath’s preftige advantage over Milbank’s above-market comp is gone.

If I had to guess, DPW or PW will match first and that will start the cascade. The rumored Sidley over-the-top might do it, but I think it would have to be an NYC V10 to really force Cravath to act.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath might be looking at Goldman’s ability to command sub-market salaries and think “maybe we can pull that off.” They can’t, though, because law is a much less consolidated business than banking—all that needs to happen is a V10 match and suddenly Cravath’s preftige advantage over Milbank’s above-market comp is gone.

If I had to guess, DPW or PW will match first and that will start the cascade. The rumored Sidley over-the-top might do it, but I think it would have to be an NYC V10 to really force Cravath to act.

Well see the GS thing only works because it is *substantively* better than its peers on various metrics. It is at or near the top in nearly every league table, from M&A to IPOs, and often does so as both a strategic lead-left advisor beyond just being a "balance sheet bank"-style advisor. So it has qualitatively a more interesting (and rigorous) experience to offer compared to its peers. Its bankers, for example, can recruit for the best private equity firms and hedge funds on the planet almost regardless of which industry group they are in.

Does it have the snobby "your family has heard of them" prestige factor? Of course. And some hardos who think girls at the bar will be impressed by the name are willing to "pay" for that privilege through a lower salary. But the discount isn't *just* due to these airs.

Cravath is a poor analog for GS because its competitive advantage seems to *only* derive from historical prestige (and related aspects like only having one US office until recently), absent some kind of micro-focus on idk securities lit.

It is not a true market leader in comp, relative to WLRK or the lit boutiques.

It is not a marquee M&A firm or embedded with PE like K&E or STB. It is not known for a niche RX practice, either.

Its culture is marked by a distinctive rotational program that is actually *panned* rather than praised; its summer program is notoriously sweatier than nearly every other law firm in the country; it's not particularly known as a "nice" place.

It is not where any of the SCOTUS / feeder / even generally big-brained lit people want to work, relative to the lit boutiques or the DC elites. Its new DC office does not seem to compete with the appellate big dogs (who's their superstar partner?) and appears to do more "churn-y" regulatory work (unlike a Cov DC). Its work does not seem to implicate hot button issues either politically or legally, especially in the admin and constitutional worlds. It is not particularly known for its skill in conducting investigations like W&C. It does not have a nice plaintiff bent to it like a Leiff or a Kaplan Hecker that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. And even in NYC, where its bread-and-butter lit practice is located, it's easy to argue that P,W is qualitatively just a better substantive experience across the board.

At the end of the day, people work for Cravath for layman prestige throughout history and some smattering of big-name clients that make you feel important, but if it can't match market, the culture alone should point away from it and toward the DPW's of the world (and arguably applicants have shown the willingness to walk away from CSM offers for quite a while now). Nothing about the work there alone would justify a "Goldman discount" policy for rising 2L's going through OCI, especially considering the obscene COL at its only US offices.

[Anonymous User]

Goldman Sachs and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP operate in different sectors of the financial and legal industries, respectively, each holding its own distinct prestige. Goldman Sachs, a global investment banking and financial services firm, is renowned for its influence in the world of finance. The firm's history, extensive client base, and involvement in major financial transactions contribute to its prestigious status. The name "Goldman Sachs" often resonates with expertise in investment banking, asset management, and securities.

On the legal front, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP stands as a prestigious law firm with a focus on corporate law and litigation. Established in 1819, Cravath has a rich legacy and is recognized for its involvement in high-profile legal matters. The firm's commitment to excellence, notable client list, and contributions to legal precedents have solidified its position among the elite law firms.

While Goldman Sachs and Cravath operate in different spheres, both entities command respect and recognition within their respective industries. Goldman Sachs is synonymous with financial prowess, while Cravath is esteemed for its legal acumen and longstanding presence in the legal landscape. Each institution's prestige is rooted in its history, accomplishments, and the caliber of professionals associated with it.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath might be looking at Goldman’s ability to command sub-market salaries and think “maybe we can pull that off.” They can’t, though, because law is a much less consolidated business than banking—all that needs to happen is a V10 match and suddenly Cravath’s preftige advantage over Milbank’s above-market comp is gone.

If I had to guess, DPW or PW will match first and that will start the cascade. The rumored Sidley over-the-top might do it, but I think it would have to be an NYC V10 to really force Cravath to act.

Well see the GS thing only works because it is *substantively* better than its peers on various metrics. It is at or near the top in nearly every league table, from M&A to IPOs, and often does so as both a strategic lead-left advisor beyond just being a "balance sheet bank"-style advisor. So it has qualitatively a more interesting (and rigorous) experience to offer compared to its peers. Its bankers, for example, can recruit for the best private equity firms and hedge funds on the planet almost regardless of which industry group they are in.

Does it have the snobby "your family has heard of them" prestige factor? Of course. And some hardos who think girls at the bar will be impressed by the name are willing to "pay" for that privilege through a lower salary. But the discount isn't *just* due to these airs.

Cravath is a poor analog for GS because its competitive advantage seems to *only* derive from historical prestige (and related aspects like only having one US office until recently), absent some kind of micro-focus on idk securities lit.

It is not a true market leader in comp, relative to WLRK or the lit boutiques.

It is not a marquee M&A firm or embedded with PE like K&E or STB. It is not known for a niche RX practice, either.

Its culture is marked by a distinctive rotational program that is actually *panned* rather than praised; its summer program is notoriously sweatier than nearly every other law firm in the country; it's not particularly known as a "nice" place.

It is not where any of the SCOTUS / feeder / even generally big-brained lit people want to work, relative to the lit boutiques or the DC elites. Its new DC office does not seem to compete with the appellate big dogs (who's their superstar partner?) and appears to do more "churn-y" regulatory work (unlike a Cov DC). Its work does not seem to implicate hot button issues either politically or legally, especially in the admin and constitutional worlds. It is not particularly known for its skill in conducting investigations like W&C. It does not have a nice plaintiff bent to it like a Leiff or a Kaplan Hecker that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. And even in NYC, where its bread-and-butter lit practice is located, it's easy to argue that P,W is qualitatively just a better substantive experience across the board.

At the end of the day, people work for Cravath for layman prestige throughout history and some smattering of big-name clients that make you feel important, but if it can't match market, the culture alone should point away from it and toward the DPW's of the world (and arguably applicants have shown the willingness to walk away from CSM offers for quite a while now). Nothing about the work there alone would justify a "Goldman discount" policy for rising 2L's going through OCI, especially considering the obscene COL at its only US offices.

TITCR.

Will just add that Cravath's antitrust practice is still standout among its peers and has notched some pretty cutting edge and/or high profile wins in recent years. Varney's the type of superstar that the firm could woo more than a decade ago but failed to attract with its DC office opening. McWilliams has been on the panel at literally every major financial industry summit since she joined the firm (honestly kudos to her, idk how the poor woman does it), but their "rising star" banking partner ditched to go to DPW and the regulatory speaking circuit is starting to look a bit desperate. Other than antitrust, agree with the above poster---Cravath has some admittedly solid practices (and some wholly absent ones, like PE) but absolutely lacks the sort of dominance that GS has in IB.

also lol @ the poster who still thinks DPW/STB/PW/etc are "outside" the rarified air that Cravath supposedly breathes. if the news about salaried partners didn't make you acknowledge it's just as mundane as all the other large, elite NYC firms, idk what will...

[Anonymous User]

At the end of the day, people work for Cravath for layman prestige throughout history and some smattering of big-name clients that make you feel important, but if it can't match market, the culture alone should point away from it and toward the DPW's of the world (and arguably applicants have shown the willingness to walk away from CSM offers for quite a while now). Nothing about the work there alone would justify a "Goldman discount" policy for rising 2L's going through OCI, especially considering the obscene COL at its only US offices.

One thing Cravath does still have going for it is the ability to offer reassurance on a resume line for all kinds of exits in New York (and possibly DC). For sure not as good as an actual relationship, but at least in the litigation side, for a well qualified 2L with plans to clerk and uncertainty otherwise, there’s something to be said for an option that plays reasonably well across boutiques, the USAO, and FAANG. Could Wachtell or DPW or S&C offer the same thing? Maybe, but that’s not necessarily a choice everyone gets, and those aren’t necessarily better options than Cravath.

[Anonymous User]

Goldman Sachs and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP operate in different sectors of the financial and legal industries, respectively, each holding its own distinct prestige. Goldman Sachs, a global investment banking and financial services firm, is renowned for its influence in the world of finance. The firm's history, extensive client base, and involvement in major financial transactions contribute to its prestigious status. The name "Goldman Sachs" often resonates with expertise in investment banking, asset management, and securities.

On the legal front, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP stands as a prestigious law firm with a focus on corporate law and litigation. Established in 1819, Cravath has a rich legacy and is recognized for its involvement in high-profile legal matters. The firm's commitment to excellence, notable client list, and contributions to legal precedents have solidified its position among the elite law firms.

While Goldman Sachs and Cravath operate in different spheres, both entities command respect and recognition within their respective industries. Goldman Sachs is synonymous with financial prowess, while Cravath is esteemed for its legal acumen and longstanding presence in the legal landscape. Each institution's prestige is rooted in its history, accomplishments, and the caliber of professionals associated with it.

See this is not why I'm worried about AI taking my job (in the near future). This is dog shit.

[Anonymous User]

At the end of the day, people work for Cravath for layman prestige throughout history and some smattering of big-name clients that make you feel important, but if it can't match market, the culture alone should point away from it and toward the DPW's of the world (and arguably applicants have shown the willingness to walk away from CSM offers for quite a while now). Nothing about the work there alone would justify a "Goldman discount" policy for rising 2L's going through OCI, especially considering the obscene COL at its only US offices.

One thing Cravath does still have going for it is the ability to offer reassurance on a resume line for all kinds of exits in New York (and possibly DC). For sure not as good as an actual relationship, but at least in the litigation side, for a well qualified 2L with plans to clerk and uncertainty otherwise, there’s something to be said for an option that plays reasonably well across boutiques, the USAO, and FAANG. Could Wachtell or DPW or S&C offer the same thing? Maybe, but that’s not necessarily a choice everyone gets, and those aren’t necessarily better options than Cravath.

See this is the kind of comment that seems to make sense until you operationalize it, and doesn't really make sense in the specific instances offered. For boutiques and USAO, the idea that they'll judge cachet based not off idk Judge Gruender versus Judge Mcgillicuddy but instead whether someone worked at Cravath versus S&C seems...opposite to how the prestige evaluation process really works. And for Facebook, the idea that literally one of the biggest armies in the *world* would turn their nose up slightly more at...Davis effin' Polk instead of Cravath is laughable!

The only "business" aspects where CSM might pay off for in-house recruiting is frankly at smaller shops or startups without much institutional knowledge at all about the legal world, and even that's debatable. These are the kind of places that think Skadden is one of the top three law firms in the world because the name sounds cool and they're in the news for sports all the time. Not really something that should drive a 2L's career decisions IMO but hey, to each their own.

[Anonymous User]

Hearing through grapevine Cravath has indicated to associates it will not match

I also dislike Cravath but there's no way.

If only everyone on TLS was as honest as you. It's the no. 1 firm for a reason, folks. Sour grapes not necessary.

[Anonymous User]

Hmm. When was the last time the #1 student at a T14 went to Cravath?

[Anonymous User]

Hearing through grapevine Cravath has indicated to associates it will not match

I also dislike Cravath but there's no way.

If only everyone on TLS was as honest as you. It's the no. 1 firm for a reason, folks. Sour grapes not necessary.

I was the anon who said this. By no way was I saying Cravath was the number one firm lmao. It's a good firm—one of the all time greats. So is DPW, S&C, STB, PW. The real sour grapes are litigators at Cravath who insist they actually wanted to go to Cravath and not Susman or M&A lawyers who insist they wanted to go to Cravath and not Wachtell.

[Anonymous User]

Work at CSM. Nobody is saying it’s necessarily any better than DPW or S&C etc — but the comments suggesting that it’s fallen below those firms make no sense. It’s one of the handful of old school elite corporate NY firms and, for better or worse, it has retained more of a prestige factor than most of its peers. Big portion of that depends on stuff like the salary scale — that is their advantage. The prestige qua prestige. So, of course, they will match petty cash to associates.

Lot of misunderstanding of the DC office also. It’s a profit centric firm so yeah they don’t really want appellate and are doing more high churn regulatory work / to support transactional practices. Investigations practice is pretty decent though, especially since it’s like 8 people, cf Wilmer or W&C where you’ve got 10 times that number of lawyers. Also, most of their partners are pretty high value / good gets even for DC. McWilliams has a ton of relationships and is one of the only banking regulator agency heads in private practice. Roisman is pretty well respected in the securities space and young. Phillips is an antitrust star and, as someone else said, teaming him up with someone more established like Varney will make a good pairing for the firm’s practice (already one of the top couple, as it always has been). And, in terms of govt star power, how about Jeff Rosen? Not a bad get at all.

Nobody is seriously saying CSM is really that unique any more. But there’s no reason it’d be worse than any of the other V10-15 corporate oriented elites either. That “cravath will collapse!” stuff just reeks of resentment. Plenty of people pick it for prestige or culture etc. still a lot smaller and flatter imo than some peer firms, where personally I just couldn’t work.

[Anonymous User]

Work at CSM. Nobody is saying it’s necessarily any better than DPW or S&C etc — but the comments suggesting that it’s fallen below those firms make no sense. It’s one of the handful of old school elite corporate NY firms and, for better or worse, it has retained more of a prestige factor than most of its peers. Big portion of that depends on stuff like the salary scale — that is their advantage. The prestige qua prestige. So, of course, they will match petty cash to associates.

Lot of misunderstanding of the DC office also. It’s a profit centric firm so yeah they don’t really want appellate and are doing more high churn regulatory work / to support transactional practices. Investigations practice is pretty decent though, especially since it’s like 8 people, cf Wilmer or W&C where you’ve got 10 times that number of lawyers. Also, most of their partners are pretty high value / good gets even for DC. McWilliams has a ton of relationships and is one of the only banking regulator agency heads in private practice. Roisman is pretty well respected in the securities space and young. Phillips is an antitrust star and, as someone else said, teaming him up with someone more established like Varney will make a good pairing for the firm’s practice (already one of the top couple, as it always has been). And, in terms of govt star power, how about Jeff Rosen? Not a bad get at all.

Nobody is seriously saying CSM is really that unique any more. But there’s no reason it’d be worse than any of the other V10-15 corporate oriented elites either. That “cravath will collapse!” stuff just reeks of resentment. Plenty of people pick it for prestige or culture etc. still a lot smaller and flatter imo than some peer firms, where personally I just couldn’t work.

Oh also. Portilla - the banking partner who left for DPW - is a loser. He got pushed out when McWilliams came. But he had zero clients and couldn’t do any BD. He will be a better fit at DPW where he can be a service partner to their more senior and serious people. His departure is hardly some indication of Cravath’s demise. As others have said for years, CSM looks more like other firms now - laterals in and out. Underperforming laterals jumping ship, especially when a new partner is hired who will take their work / practice, happens literally everywhere lol.

[Anonymous User]

The Cravath apologist literally just agreed, in detail, with the big Cravath-critical post and then came to the opposite conclusion. Once you factor in culture, the rotational program, and the anemic (by comparison) transactional practice, there's absolutely good reason for offerees to (continue to) make adverse cross-yield decisions relative to peer firms.

[Anonymous User]

I love how this started as a clearinghouse for gossip about matching the new salary scale and then quickly became a rehash of the semi-legendary "Is Cravath Good" thread (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=308965) from a couple years ago.

We really need those partner meetings and salary memos to hit to get us back on track.

[Anonymous User]

The Cravath apologist literally just agreed, in detail, with the big Cravath-critical post and then came to the opposite conclusion. Once you factor in culture, the rotational program, and the anemic (by comparison) transactional practice, there's absolutely good reason for offerees to (continue to) make adverse cross-yield decisions relative to peer firms.

Anon “Cravath apologist.” I don’t know what “conclusion” I was supposed to come to? That CSM isn’t some unicorn firm, head and shoulders above peers? Everyone already knows that. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a strong NY corporate firm and is hardly on the verge of collapse like some of these commenters seemed to suggest.

I don’t really care about why people choose particular firms but there is no objective or uniform reason for anyone to go to any NY elite firm over another. It’s mostly personal preference, goals, culture etc. Every adult knows this. But people making otherwise unjustified yield decisions on the basis of longstanding lay prestige is hardly a unique phenomenon. Look at college decisions etc. All else equal, it is a consideration and you’re being obtuse if you pretend it isn’t a valid one.

[Anonymous User]

The Cravath apologist literally just agreed, in detail, with the big Cravath-critical post and then came to the opposite conclusion. Once you factor in culture, the rotational program, and the anemic (by comparison) transactional practice, there's absolutely good reason for offerees to (continue to) make adverse cross-yield decisions relative to peer firms.

Anon “Cravath apologist.” I don’t know what “conclusion” I was supposed to come to? That CSM isn’t some unicorn firm, head and shoulders above peers? Everyone already knows that. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a strong NY corporate firm and is hardly on the verge of collapse like some of these commenters seemed to suggest.

I don’t really care about why people choose particular firms but there is no objective or uniform reason for anyone to go to any NY elite firm over another. It’s mostly personal preference, goals, culture etc. Every adult knows this. But people making otherwise unjustified yield decisions on the basis of longstanding lay prestige is hardly a unique phenomenon. Look at college decisions etc. All else equal, it is a consideration and you’re being obtuse if you pretend it isn’t a valid one.

The critic: "CSM isn't dying or anything, and has some strong practices, but overall it is a materially worse experience than many of its peers in a way that its marginally higher prestige doesn't justify. Here are specific examples."

Cravath dude: "Why does everyone say CSM is dying?? All those examples are basically just unjustified illogical aesthetics, they don't really matter! Everything's a tie so prestige breaks ties. Plus, I get validation now that my parents never gave me!"

[Anonymous User]

The Cravath apologist literally just agreed, in detail, with the big Cravath-critical post and then came to the opposite conclusion. Once you factor in culture, the rotational program, and the anemic (by comparison) transactional practice, there's absolutely good reason for offerees to (continue to) make adverse cross-yield decisions relative to peer firms.

Anon “Cravath apologist.” I don’t know what “conclusion” I was supposed to come to? That CSM isn’t some unicorn firm, head and shoulders above peers? Everyone already knows that. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a strong NY corporate firm and is hardly on the verge of collapse like some of these commenters seemed to suggest.

I don’t really care about why people choose particular firms but there is no objective or uniform reason for anyone to go to any NY elite firm over another. It’s mostly personal preference, goals, culture etc. Every adult knows this. But people making otherwise unjustified yield decisions on the basis of longstanding lay prestige is hardly a unique phenomenon. Look at college decisions etc. All else equal, it is a consideration and you’re being obtuse if you pretend it isn’t a valid one.

The critic: "CSM isn't dying or anything, and has some strong practices, but overall it is a materially worse experience than many of its peers in a way that its marginally higher prestige doesn't justify. Here are specific examples."

Cravath dude: "Why does everyone say CSM is dying?? All those examples are basically just unjustified illogical aesthetics, they don't really matter! Everything's a tie so prestige breaks ties. Plus, I get validation now that my parents never gave me!"

Way to make it unduly personal and petty. Also not sure what you mean by materially worse experience. I have not billed about 2100, am in good standing, and enjoy the work I do. I work very directly with partners that I like and respect. For biglaw, that’s a pretty decent experience. I have plenty of friends at DPW, S&C, STB elsewhere who work much more than I do, are treated like cogs in a larger machine, etc. Everyone’s experience varies at any firm, but I just don’t think that the myth of CSM being a worse time than peers bears out either. The reflexive disgust at the notion that someone might care about prestige is silly too. It’s a consideration that people care about - you probably went to an overranked college and law school for similar reasons, own a car or clothes for similar reasons etc. We can debate the moral philosophy of it or accept that it’s a factor that many people care about. Fwiw it isn’t why I came here - I’m a lateral and turned down CSM as a law student.

[Anonymous User]

The Cravath apologist literally just agreed, in detail, with the big Cravath-critical post and then came to the opposite conclusion. Once you factor in culture, the rotational program, and the anemic (by comparison) transactional practice, there's absolutely good reason for offerees to (continue to) make adverse cross-yield decisions relative to peer firms.

Anon “Cravath apologist.” I don’t know what “conclusion” I was supposed to come to? That CSM isn’t some unicorn firm, head and shoulders above peers? Everyone already knows that. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a strong NY corporate firm and is hardly on the verge of collapse like some of these commenters seemed to suggest.

I don’t really care about why people choose particular firms but there is no objective or uniform reason for anyone to go to any NY elite firm over another. It’s mostly personal preference, goals, culture etc. Every adult knows this. But people making otherwise unjustified yield decisions on the basis of longstanding lay prestige is hardly a unique phenomenon. Look at college decisions etc. All else equal, it is a consideration and you’re being obtuse if you pretend it isn’t a valid one.

The critic: "CSM isn't dying or anything, and has some strong practices, but overall it is a materially worse experience than many of its peers in a way that its marginally higher prestige doesn't justify. Here are specific examples."

Cravath dude: "Why does everyone say CSM is dying?? All those examples are basically just unjustified illogical aesthetics, they don't really matter! Everything's a tie so prestige breaks ties. Plus, I get validation now that my parents never gave me!"

Way to make it unduly personal and petty. Also not sure what you mean by materially worse experience. I have not billed about 2100, am in good standing, and enjoy the work I do. I work very directly with partners that I like and respect. For biglaw, that’s a pretty decent experience. I have plenty of friends at DPW, S&C, STB elsewhere who work much more than I do, are treated like cogs in a larger machine, etc. Everyone’s experience varies at any firm, but I just don’t think that the myth of CSM being a worse time than peers bears out either. The reflexive disgust at the notion that someone might care about prestige is silly too. It’s a consideration that people care about - you probably went to an overranked college and law school for similar reasons, own a car or clothes for similar reasons etc. We can debate the moral philosophy of it or accept that it’s a factor that many people care about. Fwiw it isn’t why I came here - I’m a lateral and turned down CSM as a law student.

So you're literally a unicorn Cravath lateral who didn't work there before, which means you signed up knowing you had a specialized practice, knowing you'd have access to a targeted set of partners, and knowing you'd be outside the general rotational pool of associates for whom this discussion is most relevant. You realize that's an awful perspective from which to share your *personal* experience as a way to justify the broader-based concerns that law students have which motivate the discussion we're having, right?

[Anonymous User]

This is such a bunch of yip-yap anecdotal gibberish. Me, I look at the facts and try to remove emotion from the equation. Look at average deal size, look at Chambers, look at Legal 500, look at Vault. The firm is the only one in the country that offers a unique combination of small-firm feel, individualized training, excellence across all major practice groups, and prestige. For some reason Cravath Derangement Syndrome is strong with people on the internet, though there is a major disconnect between what the experts on TLS think and what people in real-life (especially those in positions of authority) think.

[Anonymous User]

This is such a bunch of yip-yap anecdotal gibberish. Me, I look at the facts and try to remove emotion from the equation. Look at average deal size, look at Chambers, look at Legal 500, look at Vault. The firm is the only one in the country that offers a unique combination of small-firm feel, individualized training, excellence across all major practice groups, and prestige. For some reason Cravath Derangement Syndrome is strong with people on the internet, though there is a major disconnect between what the experts on TLS think and what people in real-life (especially those in positions of authority) think.

Ironically a more anecdata / vibes post than any of the others on this thread.

Small-firm feel: worse leverage than all the boutiques, very similar or worse leverage than its BigLaw peers
Individualized training: lol, this is a brochure phrase that means nothing
All major practice groups: uh, private M&A? Appellate lit?

"Positions of authority": there are *tons* of threads here from Cravath employees, former and current, talking about how the Cravath edge in the lateral market doesn't really materialize and people end up stuck there for longer than they'd like because of it

I think we can wrap this discussion and get back to the $$$ talk now.

[thecaliforniakid]

This thread is a cesspool. The original post should be reason for most people in big law to be optimistic in what has largely been a down year.

Instead, it’s evolved into childish bickering over whether Cravath is still the no. 1 firm. Who gives a f**k - where’s the cash??

[Anonymous User]

This thread is a cesspool. The original post should be reason for most people in big law to be optimistic in what has largely been a down year.

Instead, it’s evolved into childish bickering over whether Cravath is still the no. 1 firm. Who gives a f**k - where’s the cash??

+1, another reason why no one cares about TLS anymore

Also do any of you losers bickering over this have equity in your firm? If not, no idea why you have so much at stake in defending your overlords

[Anonymous User]

This thread is a cesspool. The original post should be reason for most people in big law to be optimistic in what has largely been a down year.

Instead, it’s evolved into childish bickering over whether Cravath is still the no. 1 firm. Who gives a f**k - where’s the cash??

+1, another reason why no one cares about TLS anymore

Also do any of you losers bickering over this have equity in your firm? If not, no idea why you have so much at stake in defending your overlords

It's just the typical cesspool culture that keeps the biglaw wheels spinning. All my friends and colleagues in other professions (especially tech) get paid $180-240K TC living normal lives, 30-40 hour weeks, weekends off while BL associates flexing over how many hours they billed this week/month/YTD... and they're not even the ones driving the deals