Best culture of the V10? Forum

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh, interesting. You don't think there's enough work to go around for both KE and STB? I would be more concerned with Cravath or S&C - their reliance on basically only doing "bet-the-company" pubco work seems to be more vulnerable as firms like Skadden/KE/DPW/Latham dip into that work, no?

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh, interesting. You don't think there's enough work to go around for both KE and STB? I would be more concerned with Cravath or S&C - their reliance on basically only doing "bet-the-company" pubco work seems to be more vulnerable as firms like Skadden/KE/DPW/Latham dip into that work, no?

That's fair and I agree Cravath and S&C's business model is more anachronistic than STB. But I don't see a hyper growth firm focused on top-tier pubco M&As the way KE is going after PE. There is enough work to go around for KE and STB but that wouldn't stop a firm like KE from continuing to encroach on STB's territory. If you look at Blackstone reps, STB used to handle a substantial majority less than 10 years ago but I feel I see KE and STB representing BX fairly evenly as of late (with the edge going to KE I dare say). STB's market share loss is tangible in my experience and they have so far failed to keep KE at bay. Although to be fair to STB PE is KE's strongest practice and they have done admirably in protecting their wallet against ruthless competition.

Latham on the other hand is generally growing its transactional market share at a (very) slightly lower tier (vs. what S&C and Cravath traditionally target). This strategy seems to work well given their recent successes (and I would argue that Latham has a substantial scale / growth advantage over Weil, Cleary, Milbank and Deb etc. that traditionally fill this segment of the market). Cravath and S&C are probably tougher to crack - thus smart for Latham to avoid full-on direct competition with those guys. If Skadden returns to its growth trajectory Pre-08 then I would be much more worried about CSM and S&C but for now there is no meaningful direct competitor on the horizon. Nevertheless, I would argue that Skadden is the firm that broke CSM and made them just another V5. Pre-Skadden Cravath was definitely top 2 in corporate works and peer to WLRK.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh, interesting. You don't think there's enough work to go around for both KE and STB? I would be more concerned with Cravath or S&C - their reliance on basically only doing "bet-the-company" pubco work seems to be more vulnerable as firms like Skadden/KE/DPW/Latham dip into that work, no?

That's fair and I agree Cravath and S&C's business model is more anachronistic than STB. But I don't see a hyper growth firm focused on top-tier pubco M&As the way KE is going after PE. There is enough work to go around for KE and STB but that wouldn't stop a firm like KE from continuing to encroach on STB's territory. If you look at Blackstone reps, STB used to handle a substantial majority less than 10 years ago but I feel I see KE and STB representing BX fairly evenly as of late (with the edge going to KE I dare say). STB's market share loss is tangible in my experience and they have so far failed to keep KE at bay. Although to be fair to STB PE is KE's strongest practice and they have done admirably in protecting their wallet against ruthless competition.

Latham on the other hand is generally growing its transactional market share at a (very) slightly lower tier (vs. what S&C and Cravath traditionally target). This strategy seems to work well given their recent successes (and I would argue that Latham has a substantial scale / growth advantage over Weil, Cleary, Milbank and Deb etc. that traditionally fill this segment of the market). Cravath and S&C are probably tougher to crack - thus smart for Latham to avoid full-on direct competition with those guys. If Skadden returns to its growth trajectory Pre-08 then I would be much more worried about CSM and S&C but for now there is no meaningful direct competitor on the horizon. Nevertheless, I would argue that Skadden is the firm that broke CSM and made them just another V5. Pre-Skadden Cravath was definitely top 2 in corporate works and peer to WLRK.

There are a variety of ways to measure firm strength. For past success you can look at:

Financial (Profits per partner, revenue per lawyer, profits per lawyer), market performance (league tables for CapM and M&A), and breadth of competence (Chambers and a few others) are most telling, but reputation (Vault) and selectivity (GPAs and schools) offer some lagging info as well.

For future success you can look at:

Stability of firm clients with high rates and lots of work (banks and PE), strategic cornering of a legal market, average age of partners (especially with client relationships), ability to place GCs in clients with the most and highest billing work (usually PE and Banks), market trends (although this is based on past data... but, for example, in general people can see that PE is growing over time), regulatory trends that shape the markets (political winds etc).

For financial success, over the last twenty years the big movers in increased RPL have been Kirkland, Ropes, Cooley, Paul H., and maybe one or two others. Wachtell and Sullcrom have a lock on 1 and 2 for RPL; STB, Skadden, Milbank, PW, and Debevoise have all held steady in the top 10 or so; Latham and Weil steady in the top 15 or so; DPW and Cravath used to be consistent top 5 but both dropped out of the top 10 over the last 10 years (excepting the last two years); and Cleary, A&P, and Shearman have been in steep decline. [This is all assuming that we can trust law firms to give accurate unaudited RPL reports].

Banking relationships used to dominate, but as a poster above noted, there has been large consolidation and that has either helped or hurt firms (see Shearman). At the same time, PE (which is seemingly taking on more and more of a banking role) is a cash cow for law firms due to the increasing size of the private market versus public market.

Firms that have tight PE relationships (for example, STB has recently placed partners in the KKR and BX CG roles, Apollo and PW grow with each other) have set themselves up for the future, assuming PE continues to be a cash cow. IMO, despite the hate PE gets, firms that can do both big PE and public M&A (STB, Wachtell, Kirkland, Latham, Gibson) are in a good spot.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh, interesting. You don't think there's enough work to go around for both KE and STB? I would be more concerned with Cravath or S&C - their reliance on basically only doing "bet-the-company" pubco work seems to be more vulnerable as firms like Skadden/KE/DPW/Latham dip into that work, no?

That's fair and I agree Cravath and S&C's business model is more anachronistic than STB. But I don't see a hyper growth firm focused on top-tier pubco M&As the way KE is going after PE. There is enough work to go around for KE and STB but that wouldn't stop a firm like KE from continuing to encroach on STB's territory. If you look at Blackstone reps, STB used to handle a substantial majority less than 10 years ago but I feel I see KE and STB representing BX fairly evenly as of late (with the edge going to KE I dare say). STB's market share loss is tangible in my experience and they have so far failed to keep KE at bay. Although to be fair to STB PE is KE's strongest practice and they have done admirably in protecting their wallet against ruthless competition.

Latham on the other hand is generally growing its transactional market share at a (very) slightly lower tier (vs. what S&C and Cravath traditionally target). This strategy seems to work well given their recent successes (and I would argue that Latham has a substantial scale / growth advantage over Weil, Cleary, Milbank and Deb etc. that traditionally fill this segment of the market). Cravath and S&C are probably tougher to crack - thus smart for Latham to avoid full-on direct competition with those guys. If Skadden returns to its growth trajectory Pre-08 then I would be much more worried about CSM and S&C but for now there is no meaningful direct competitor on the horizon. Nevertheless, I would argue that Skadden is the firm that broke CSM and made them just another V5. Pre-Skadden Cravath was definitely top 2 in corporate works and peer to WLRK.

There are a variety of ways to measure firm strength. For past success you can look at:

Financial (Profits per partner, revenue per lawyer, profits per lawyer), market performance (league tables for CapM and M&A), and breadth of competence (Chambers and a few others) are most telling, but reputation (Vault) and selectivity (GPAs and schools) offer some lagging info as well.

For future success you can look at:

Stability of firm clients with high rates and lots of work (banks and PE), strategic cornering of a legal market, average age of partners (especially with client relationships), ability to place GCs in clients with the most and highest billing work (usually PE and Banks), market trends (although this is based on past data... but, for example, in general people can see that PE is growing over time), regulatory trends that shape the markets (political winds etc).

For financial success, over the last twenty years the big movers in increased RPL have been Kirkland, Ropes, Cooley, Paul H., and maybe one or two others. Wachtell and Sullcrom have a lock on 1 and 2 for RPL; STB, Skadden, Milbank, PW, and Debevoise have all held steady in the top 10 or so; Latham and Weil steady in the top 15 or so; DPW and Cravath used to be consistent top 5 but both dropped out of the top 10 over the last 10 years (excepting the last two years); and Cleary, A&P, and Shearman have been in steep decline. [This is all assuming that we can trust law firms to give accurate unaudited RPL reports].

Banking relationships used to dominate, but as a poster above noted, there has been large consolidation and that has either helped or hurt firms (see Shearman). At the same time, PE (which is seemingly taking on more and more of a banking role) is a cash cow for law firms due to the increasing size of the private market versus public market.

Firms that have tight PE relationships (for example, STB has recently placed partners in the KKR and BX CG roles, Apollo and PW grow with each other) have set themselves up for the future, assuming PE continues to be a cash cow. IMO, despite the hate PE gets, firms that can do both big PE and public M&A (STB, Wachtell, Kirkland, Latham, Gibson) are in a good spot.

I think Katie Sudol joining KKR as GC is going to shore up that relationship. She's a Simpson lifer and, from what I've heard, actually likes the firm. Idk about Blackstone though - Finley is ex-Simpson but as others have pointed out, Kirkland has been getting more and more work. I think the biggest Blackstone acquisitions and fund formations have still gone to STB in recent years (might be wrong). At the end of the day, the firm has a very solid mix of pubco and PE M&A (in 2022 alone, Twitter, Microsoft, BX-Atlantia), so I don't think we need to worry about it for the foreseeable future lol. However, if Kirkland starts poaching more partners...

[Anonymous User]

Firms that have tight PE relationships (for example, STB has recently placed partners in the KKR and BX CG roles, Apollo and PW grow with each other) have set themselves up for the future, assuming PE continues to be a cash cow. IMO, despite the hate PE gets, firms that can do both big PE and public M&A (STB, Wachtell, Kirkland, Latham, Gibson) are in a good spot.

to be clear, PE gets hate on this board solely because PE firms are unpleasant to work for. our firms obviously *love* them -- unending stream of work + billables

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh, interesting. You don't think there's enough work to go around for both KE and STB? I would be more concerned with Cravath or S&C - their reliance on basically only doing "bet-the-company" pubco work seems to be more vulnerable as firms like Skadden/KE/DPW/Latham dip into that work, no?

That's fair and I agree Cravath and S&C's business model is more anachronistic than STB. But I don't see a hyper growth firm focused on top-tier pubco M&As the way KE is going after PE. There is enough work to go around for KE and STB but that wouldn't stop a firm like KE from continuing to encroach on STB's territory. If you look at Blackstone reps, STB used to handle a substantial majority less than 10 years ago but I feel I see KE and STB representing BX fairly evenly as of late (with the edge going to KE I dare say). STB's market share loss is tangible in my experience and they have so far failed to keep KE at bay. Although to be fair to STB PE is KE's strongest practice and they have done admirably in protecting their wallet against ruthless competition.

Latham on the other hand is generally growing its transactional market share at a (very) slightly lower tier (vs. what S&C and Cravath traditionally target). This strategy seems to work well given their recent successes (and I would argue that Latham has a substantial scale / growth advantage over Weil, Cleary, Milbank and Deb etc. that traditionally fill this segment of the market). Cravath and S&C are probably tougher to crack - thus smart for Latham to avoid full-on direct competition with those guys. If Skadden returns to its growth trajectory Pre-08 then I would be much more worried about CSM and S&C but for now there is no meaningful direct competitor on the horizon. Nevertheless, I would argue that Skadden is the firm that broke CSM and made them just another V5. Pre-Skadden Cravath was definitely top 2 in corporate works and peer to WLRK.

There are a variety of ways to measure firm strength. For past success you can look at:

Financial (Profits per partner, revenue per lawyer, profits per lawyer), market performance (league tables for CapM and M&A), and breadth of competence (Chambers and a few others) are most telling, but reputation (Vault) and selectivity (GPAs and schools) offer some lagging info as well.

For future success you can look at:

Stability of firm clients with high rates and lots of work (banks and PE), strategic cornering of a legal market, average age of partners (especially with client relationships), ability to place GCs in clients with the most and highest billing work (usually PE and Banks), market trends (although this is based on past data... but, for example, in general people can see that PE is growing over time), regulatory trends that shape the markets (political winds etc).

For financial success, over the last twenty years the big movers in increased RPL have been Kirkland, Ropes, Cooley, Paul H., and maybe one or two others. Wachtell and Sullcrom have a lock on 1 and 2 for RPL; STB, Skadden, Milbank, PW, and Debevoise have all held steady in the top 10 or so; Latham and Weil steady in the top 15 or so; DPW and Cravath used to be consistent top 5 but both dropped out of the top 10 over the last 10 years (excepting the last two years); and Cleary, A&P, and Shearman have been in steep decline. [This is all assuming that we can trust law firms to give accurate unaudited RPL reports].

Banking relationships used to dominate, but as a poster above noted, there has been large consolidation and that has either helped or hurt firms (see Shearman). At the same time, PE (which is seemingly taking on more and more of a banking role) is a cash cow for law firms due to the increasing size of the private market versus public market.

Firms that have tight PE relationships (for example, STB has recently placed partners in the KKR and BX CG roles, Apollo and PW grow with each other) have set themselves up for the future, assuming PE continues to be a cash cow. IMO, despite the hate PE gets, firms that can do both big PE and public M&A (STB, Wachtell, Kirkland, Latham, Gibson) are in a good spot.

I think Katie Sudol joining KKR as GC is going to shore up that relationship. She's a Simpson lifer and, from what I've heard, actually likes the firm. Idk about Blackstone though - Finley is ex-Simpson but as others have pointed out, Kirkland has been getting more and more work. I think the biggest Blackstone acquisitions and fund formations have still gone to STB in recent years (might be wrong). At the end of the day, the firm has a very solid mix of pubco and PE M&A (in 2022 alone, Twitter, Microsoft, BX-Atlantia), so I don't think we need to worry about it for the foreseeable future lol. However, if Kirkland starts poaching more partners...

I don’t think there’s been a big Kirkland poach out of STB for a few years now? (I think they’ve tried in a few cases but STB’s matched or done enough to keep people.) Also agree that Sudol replacing Sorkin is helpful for STB and that it’ll be interesting to see who replaces Finley if he ever retires - but there are lots of other indicators that the STB/BX relationship is strong than the deals Martelli and Calder do (and Calder’s wins in the energy work in Houston are pretty amazing). My understanding is that BX funds and real estate (which is probably Blackstone’s core sector now, and only likely to increase in importance with Jonathan Gray running the place) and the finance work are still all STB. As you also point out, STB still seems to get the bigger deals from Blackstone - on top of the ones you mention, the Refinitiv deals over the last few years has been huge. Plus Blackstone is a behemoth and has been spreading its work for a while - I’ve seen Weil and Ropes doing their deals lately, too. (Not to say that what Kirkland’s done is unimpressive, just that it’s not dispositive.)

The bigger issue for Simpson M&A is succession, although they weathered this well about a dozen years ago when Sorkin, Finley, and Alan Schnitzer all left early. Sudol going won’t help and there are some other senior partners (Horowitz, Meyerson, and especially Alan Klein) with big books who will need to retire at some point. For the sort of work they do experience is important. All the same, they’ve managed to hold on to some younger partners who must have had lucrative offers to go elsewhere and the funds group is just growing all the time - seems like it might be the biggest generator at the firm, which might have contributed to why an M&A person didn’t replace Dougherty as chair this time around.

I don’t know if Cleary corporate was just Google and TPG, but it seems like the Freshfields losses hit them harder than various STB partners’ moves to PW and K&E over the years. In short: if Kirkland was really going to take down STB, it would probably have done so by now.

I agree that the combination of big public deals and a solid stable of PE clients is a sound marker of financial health. With the SPAC mania in recent years there’s a glut of new public companies out there, so public deals may increase in importance.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with above, and my understanding is STB has been fine since it broke lockstep (which Kirkland forced it to do). Crazy good financial numbers past few years, and didn't it lead M&A league tables in H1 of this year?

Not to say no one will ever leave STB for Kirkland, but I don't think STB is more at risk of that than any other V10 is.

They have private equity, cap markets, solid pubco M&A presence, and for better or for worse (better, from RPL/PPP perspective), they seem fine with a pretty minimal litigation profile.

The places that are vulnerable are ones where, for cultural reasons, the firm is averse to a big spreads in partner comp. So that's SullCrom, WLRK, Debevoise. Cravath broke it, but question is to what degree.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with above, and my understanding is STB has been fine since it broke lockstep (which Kirkland forced it to do). Crazy good financial numbers past few years, and didn't it lead M&A league tables in H1 of this year?

Not to say no one will ever leave STB for Kirkland, but I don't think STB is more at risk of that than any other V10 is.

They have private equity, cap markets, solid pubco M&A presence, and for better or for worse (better, from RPL/PPP perspective), they seem fine with a pretty minimal litigation profile.

The places that are vulnerable are ones where, for cultural reasons, the firm is averse to a big spreads in partner comp. So that's SullCrom, WLRK, Debevoise. Cravath broke it, but question is to what degree.

Yeah they led a league table in which DPW and SullCrom were absent for some reason.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

For any children reading: the faux insider posts about partner comp, league tables, partner lateral movement etc. are all close to irrelevant to firm culture as you’ll experience.

How partners treat associates, and how associates treat each other, is all about social norms within your practice group, which individual folks you work with, and the standards set everyday by the senior associates, partners, and star mids.

[Anonymous User]

For any children reading: the faux insider posts about partner comp, league tables, partner lateral movement etc. are all close to irrelevant to firm culture as you’ll experience.

How partners treat associates, and how associates treat each other, is all about social norms within your practice group, which individual folks you work with, and the standards set everyday by the senior associates, partners, and star mids.

not saying it's relevant to culture, just of personal interest to some of us

[Anonymous User]

I agree with above, and my understanding is STB has been fine since it broke lockstep (which Kirkland forced it to do). Crazy good financial numbers past few years, and didn't it lead M&A league tables in H1 of this year?

Not to say no one will ever leave STB for Kirkland, but I don't think STB is more at risk of that than any other V10 is.

They have private equity, cap markets, solid pubco M&A presence, and for better or for worse (better, from RPL/PPP perspective), they seem fine with a pretty minimal litigation profile.

The places that are vulnerable are ones where, for cultural reasons, the firm is averse to a big spreads in partner comp. So that's SullCrom, WLRK, Debevoise. Cravath broke it, but question is to what degree.

Yeah they led a league table in which DPW and SullCrom were absent for some reason.

Is this because those groups did not obtain significant work over the course of the last year or did they just elect to participate in whichever league table this is?

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

KE's internal culture is pretty bad in way too many groups.

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

The way they make it unpleasant and personal speaks to more than just being tough negotiators.
I guess it's possible their culture is uniquely bad externally but not internally. That doesn't seem to be the case from the reputation, but it's possible. Either way, I'm genuinely curious why.

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

KE's internal culture is pretty bad in way too many groups.

I've heard the horror stories about real estate. Out of curiousity, what's the tea on their Rx group? I've worked across from them a couple times and they seemed like they had their shit together but no idea what their culture looks like

[Anonymous User]

I agree with above, and my understanding is STB has been fine since it broke lockstep (which Kirkland forced it to do). Crazy good financial numbers past few years, and didn't it lead M&A league tables in H1 of this year?

Not to say no one will ever leave STB for Kirkland, but I don't think STB is more at risk of that than any other V10 is.

They have private equity, cap markets, solid pubco M&A presence, and for better or for worse (better, from RPL/PPP perspective), they seem fine with a pretty minimal litigation profile.

The places that are vulnerable are ones where, for cultural reasons, the firm is averse to a big spreads in partner comp. So that's SullCrom, WLRK, Debevoise. Cravath broke it, but question is to what degree.

Yeah they led a league table in which DPW and SullCrom were absent for some reason.

Is this because those groups did not obtain significant work over the course of the last year or did they just elect to participate in whichever league table this is?

Bloomberg:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... ppy-market

Refinitiv:
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022 ... -for-2022/

So Bloomberg is the one that didn't include DPW & SullCrom in the top 10 (AZB & Partners was included in the list and I can't think of AZB beating these two firms). STB was included in Refinitiv but they were ranked second after SullCrom. DPW was ranked eighth.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with above, and my understanding is STB has been fine since it broke lockstep (which Kirkland forced it to do). Crazy good financial numbers past few years, and didn't it lead M&A league tables in H1 of this year?

Not to say no one will ever leave STB for Kirkland, but I don't think STB is more at risk of that than any other V10 is.

They have private equity, cap markets, solid pubco M&A presence, and for better or for worse (better, from RPL/PPP perspective), they seem fine with a pretty minimal litigation profile.

The places that are vulnerable are ones where, for cultural reasons, the firm is averse to a big spreads in partner comp. So that's SullCrom, WLRK, Debevoise. Cravath broke it, but question is to what degree.

Yeah they led a league table in which DPW and SullCrom were absent for some reason.

Is this because those groups did not obtain significant work over the course of the last year or did they just elect to participate in whichever league table this is?

Bloomberg:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... ppy-market

Refinitiv:
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022 ... -for-2022/

So Bloomberg is the one that didn't include DPW & SullCrom in the top 10 (AZB & Partners was included in the list and I can't think of AZB beating these two firms). STB was included in Refinitiv but they were ranked second after SullCrom. DPW was ranked eighth.

That feels kinda like nonsense and I don't get it.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with above, and my understanding is STB has been fine since it broke lockstep (which Kirkland forced it to do). Crazy good financial numbers past few years, and didn't it lead M&A league tables in H1 of this year?

Not to say no one will ever leave STB for Kirkland, but I don't think STB is more at risk of that than any other V10 is.

They have private equity, cap markets, solid pubco M&A presence, and for better or for worse (better, from RPL/PPP perspective), they seem fine with a pretty minimal litigation profile.

The places that are vulnerable are ones where, for cultural reasons, the firm is averse to a big spreads in partner comp. So that's SullCrom, WLRK, Debevoise. Cravath broke it, but question is to what degree.

Yeah they led a league table in which DPW and SullCrom were absent for some reason.

Is this because those groups did not obtain significant work over the course of the last year or did they just elect to participate in whichever league table this is?

Bloomberg:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... ppy-market

Refinitiv:
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022 ... -for-2022/

So Bloomberg is the one that didn't include DPW & SullCrom in the top 10 (AZB & Partners was included in the list and I can't think of AZB beating these two firms). STB was included in Refinitiv but they were ranked second after SullCrom. DPW was ranked eighth.

That feels kinda like nonsense and I don't get it.

Yeah, honestly idk how and why these ranking tables are so off sometimes. I mean, I guess you might count the combined value of the target-acquirer in one ranking vs. just the purchase price in another, but I wish they'd just standardize it and stop finessing rankings. Pointless rant bc Bloomberg isn't gonna read this but oh well.

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

The way they make it unpleasant and personal speaks to more than just being tough negotiators.
I guess it's possible their culture is uniquely bad externally but not internally. That doesn't seem to be the case from the reputation, but it's possible. Either way, I'm genuinely curious why.

I’m at K&E (M&A) and am aware that saying anything remotely positive about it on TLS will trigger a wave of hate and dismissals. But for what it’s worth, I find the culture quite positive actually. I think the divide between internal and external to be a very real thing. Not that my teams make a habit out of being aggressive to the other side (the opposite, most of the time), but there is definitely a divide between external behavior and internal behavior.

I have heard of some teams/practices being nasty (such as the aforementioned RE). I also know a handful of M&A people that are not easy to work with. But the vast majority of the M&A people I’ve been on deals with were friendly, helpful, cooperative, optimistic, and not overbearing or unreasonable. It has been easy to work exclusively with the good ones and avoid the bad ones.

Maybe there are other teams or other offices where the culture is worse. But from where I’m sitting, I think it’s about as good as I could hope for and all the negative aspects are a result of the practice itself and sometimes unreasonable demands by clients and OC.

Commence the anti-K&E hate brigade calling me fake and/or full of Koolaid lol.

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

The way they make it unpleasant and personal speaks to more than just being tough negotiators.
I guess it's possible their culture is uniquely bad externally but not internally. That doesn't seem to be the case from the reputation, but it's possible. Either way, I'm genuinely curious why.

I’m at K&E (M&A) and am aware that saying anything remotely positive about it on TLS will trigger a wave of hate and dismissals. But for what it’s worth, I find the culture quite positive actually. I think the divide between internal and external to be a very real thing. Not that my teams make a habit out of being aggressive to the other side (the opposite, most of the time), but there is definitely a divide between external behavior and internal behavior.

I have heard of some teams/practices being nasty (such as the aforementioned RE). I also know a handful of M&A people that are not easy to work with. But the vast majority of the M&A people I’ve been on deals with were friendly, helpful, cooperative, optimistic, and not overbearing or unreasonable. It has been easy to work exclusively with the good ones and avoid the bad ones.

Maybe there are other teams or other offices where the culture is worse. But from where I’m sitting, I think it’s about as good as I could hope for and all the negative aspects are a result of the practice itself and sometimes unreasonable demands by clients and OC.

Commence the anti-K&E hate brigade calling me fake and/or full of Koolaid lol.

No hate from me, your experience is valid. Since you say you have seen a difference between internal and external, what do you think causes that difference?

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

The way they make it unpleasant and personal speaks to more than just being tough negotiators.
I guess it's possible their culture is uniquely bad externally but not internally. That doesn't seem to be the case from the reputation, but it's possible. Either way, I'm genuinely curious why.

I’m at K&E (M&A) and am aware that saying anything remotely positive about it on TLS will trigger a wave of hate and dismissals. But for what it’s worth, I find the culture quite positive actually. I think the divide between internal and external to be a very real thing. Not that my teams make a habit out of being aggressive to the other side (the opposite, most of the time), but there is definitely a divide between external behavior and internal behavior.

I have heard of some teams/practices being nasty (such as the aforementioned RE). I also know a handful of M&A people that are not easy to work with. But the vast majority of the M&A people I’ve been on deals with were friendly, helpful, cooperative, optimistic, and not overbearing or unreasonable. It has been easy to work exclusively with the good ones and avoid the bad ones.

Maybe there are other teams or other offices where the culture is worse. But from where I’m sitting, I think it’s about as good as I could hope for and all the negative aspects are a result of the practice itself and sometimes unreasonable demands by clients and OC.

Commence the anti-K&E hate brigade calling me fake and/or full of Koolaid lol.

No hate from me, your experience is valid. Since you say you have seen a difference between internal and external, what do you think causes that difference?

Hmm. Well I think that there are factors encouraging internal cooperation and not being dicks to each other. There are some for external as well, but different and less powerful.

For example, the free market staffing system means that in the aggregate, people who are better to work with will be more in demand (both by their seniors and by juniors working under them) and those that are difficult will have trouble getting staffed and staffing good people junior to them. If you can’t get staffed on good deals and/or can’t get any juniors to work for you (or only the bottom-of-the-barrel ones that are also shitty) then your own performance will suffer. This is well-known to everyone involved.

I think perhaps if work was scarce and associates were more desperate for staffing, these incentives wouldn’t work as well as I describe. But for the past few years we’ve been absolutely fucking slammed, and associates like me are turning down deals constantly out of necessity. In this environment it’s hard for any midlevel/senior/NSP/SP to be shitty to people below them. One exception might be in smaller teams, like Real Estate, where associates have fewer options and are stuck working with only a handful of people.

There are reasons to be pleasant externally as well (better working relationship with counterparties in the future, management of companies we acquire will basically be our clients as soon as the deal closes, etc) but I don’t think they’re collectively as strong as the incentives to be pleasant (or at least not a piece of shit) to people internally. If someone is a dick to opposing counsel, I think any negative ramifications are harder to notice, and depending on the client may even be seen as a good thing. Not that we’re encouraged to be dicks, just that there isn’t too much pushing back against it.

That’s my best attempt to sort it out lol

[Anonymous User]

Having worked at LW for more than a few years and in multiple offices, I can tell you that the DEI is superficial and feels metric-driven by the administrator class. The real partners could not give less of a shit but that may not be unique.

It is commonplace to see the white (male) senior associate get the call and the non-white (male) senior associate leave. Year after year after year, but again, maybe not unique to LW.

Women generally leave before they even get to that point.

Overall, still less psychopathic than most.

[Anonymous User]

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

Does it actually have the worst culture or are they just hard to be across the table from?

The way they make it unpleasant and personal speaks to more than just being tough negotiators.
I guess it's possible their culture is uniquely bad externally but not internally. That doesn't seem to be the case from the reputation, but it's possible. Either way, I'm genuinely curious why.

I’m at K&E (M&A) and am aware that saying anything remotely positive about it on TLS will trigger a wave of hate and dismissals. But for what it’s worth, I find the culture quite positive actually. I think the divide between internal and external to be a very real thing. Not that my teams make a habit out of being aggressive to the other side (the opposite, most of the time), but there is definitely a divide between external behavior and internal behavior.

I have heard of some teams/practices being nasty (such as the aforementioned RE). I also know a handful of M&A people that are not easy to work with. But the vast majority of the M&A people I’ve been on deals with were friendly, helpful, cooperative, optimistic, and not overbearing or unreasonable. It has been easy to work exclusively with the good ones and avoid the bad ones.

Maybe there are other teams or other offices where the culture is worse. But from where I’m sitting, I think it’s about as good as I could hope for and all the negative aspects are a result of the practice itself and sometimes unreasonable demands by clients and OC.

Commence the anti-K&E hate brigade calling me fake and/or full of Koolaid lol.

No hate from me, your experience is valid. Since you say you have seen a difference between internal and external, what do you think causes that difference?

Hmm. Well I think that there are factors encouraging internal cooperation and not being dicks to each other. There are some for external as well, but different and less powerful.

For example, the free market staffing system means that in the aggregate, people who are better to work with will be more in demand (both by their seniors and by juniors working under them) and those that are difficult will have trouble getting staffed and staffing good people junior to them. If you can’t get staffed on good deals and/or can’t get any juniors to work for you (or only the bottom-of-the-barrel ones that are also shitty) then your own performance will suffer. This is well-known to everyone involved.

I think perhaps if work was scarce and associates were more desperate for staffing, these incentives wouldn’t work as well as I describe. But for the past few years we’ve been absolutely fucking slammed, and associates like me are turning down deals constantly out of necessity. In this environment it’s hard for any midlevel/senior/NSP/SP to be shitty to people below them. One exception might be in smaller teams, like Real Estate, where associates have fewer options and are stuck working with only a handful of people.

There are reasons to be pleasant externally as well (better working relationship with counterparties in the future, management of companies we acquire will basically be our clients as soon as the deal closes, etc) but I don’t think they’re collectively as strong as the incentives to be pleasant (or at least not a piece of shit) to people internally. If someone is a dick to opposing counsel, I think any negative ramifications are harder to notice, and depending on the client may even be seen as a good thing. Not that we’re encouraged to be dicks, just that there isn’t too much pushing back against it.

That’s my best attempt to sort it out lol

Out of curiosity, is Rx big enough to avoid the RE-style problems of a smaller team? I imagine so but I feel like K&E gets such bad press its hard to tell when its team-to-team.