Why is there so much hate for Quinn Emanuel? Forum

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

Ah yes, people go to Susman because quality of life is perceived to be better. This guy gets it. Lol at "more prestigious firm (Cravath)."

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

Ah yes, people go to Susman because quality of life is perceived to be better. This guy gets it. Lol at "more prestigious firm (Cravath)."

We've probably humored the Cravath troll enough, but to circle back to topic. Quinn is a solid spot. Slightly more likely to get early substantive experience, but known for high hours and rep for being unnecessarily aggressive, as others have said. Not "prefftigious" in the way people have discussed in this forum, but there are definitely worse lit shops to end up at. Partnership prospects similar to typical biglaw would be my guess.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

Following this logic, might as well go to DLA Piper or Dentons, since they are in the top 5 on the Acritas Global Elite Law Firm Index. Definitely choose DLA Piper or Dentons over Susman, Williams & Connolly, etc if you want to play in the big leagues. DLA Piper >>> Cravath >>> Susman.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

Following this logic, might as well go to DLA Piper or Dentons, since they are in the top 5 on the Acritas Global Elite Law Firm Index. Definitely choose DLA Piper or Dentons over Susman, Williams & Connolly, etc if you want to play in the big leagues. DLA Piper >>> Cravath >>> Susman.

Not familiar with Acritas. I would recommend Chambers, Legal 500, and Vault (in that order). DLA Piper is a fine firm, though!

[Anonymous User]

I've been at Quinn for years. I never bill much more than 2100. I would be curious to hear some real billable numbers from Cravath lit associates. Part of why I turned them down was I saw many of them billing 2700-3000 (and generally being wrecks on the verge of a breakdown, dropping like flies with a crazy number of departure emails coming what seemed like every week). I also ignored a lateral recruiting call from Wachtell because they bill around 3500-4000. And unlike at Quinn, Cravath & Watchtell folks have no choice; those firms have authoritarian models where associates are closely watched and told what to do when. Quinn is choose-your-own-adventure. It's almost like being a contractor. If you don't bill 2100 you won't get a year-end bonus, so generally people hit 2100. Billing more than that is one's own choice (likely to gun for partnership). I don't think one can consistently bill much less than 2100 at a peer firm. Speaking of peer firms: Cravath, Wachtell, Quinn, Munger, Keker, K&E, Kellogg, W&C, and Susman are all great lit firms. I may be leaving out a few, but those are generally the most esteemed lit firms as far as I know. Vault is utter garbage. Chambers is a bit better but still has some obvious errors (I'm no fan of Wachtell, but to say their NYC lit group is "Band 3," two tiers below Skadden, is ludicrous).

Quinn is a great place to work. It truly is different from any other big law firm for the reasons some have provided: litigation only, does plaintiff-side work, no dress code, no hierarchy, no committees, no non-billable obligations, full WFH. People here love litigating and the environment is relatively driven and competitive, but we also have a lot of fun. A difference I noticed between Quinn and other firms is other offices were much quieter; attorneys were much more reserved (even visibly scared); people at Quinn are often cracking jokes. Quinn really does leave its attorneys to their own devices, engage in very little management, and encourage people to be themselves. I love it. And there is no shortage of high-stakes newsworthy matters to work on if that's your cup of tea.

Over the years it has become clear to me that Quinn is hated on forums like this mostly because people don't enjoy being on the other side of the "v" from us. We are thought to be uncooperative and aggressive as opposing counsel. Even if that's true (I take no position on it), it has no impact on the quality of your life as a Quinn attorney. Quinn critics may incorrectly project their notion of how we (purportedly) act as OC into a notion of what life inside Quinn is like, when in reality we have a great internal culture that is way more fun, supportive, transparent, and generally humane than what I saw at other firms. Keep an eye out for negative posts from people who have actually worked at Quinn. They are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of the attacks are coming from people who have never set foot inside Quinn.

Finally: Even setting aside the clerkship bonuses, Quinn's compensation is far above market due to little-known associate retention bonuses. Essentially, all 2nd-through-7th year associates get a "profit sharing" award that typically exceeds $50,000. It vests 3 years later (the point is to keep people from leaving). We also pay zero dollars for health insurance (which I understand is unusual) and get free Equinox memberships. On top of all that, approx. $10,000 randomly appears in my 401(k) every year courtesy of the firm (I don't know what they call it, but it's yet another form of extra compensation).

Good luck with your decision. Happy to address any questions you may have.

[Anonymous User]

I've been at Quinn for years. I never bill much more than 2100. I would be curious to hear some real billable numbers from Cravath lit associates. Part of why I turned them down was I saw many of them billing 2700-3000 (and generally being wrecks on the verge of a breakdown, dropping like flies with a crazy number of departure emails coming what seemed like every week). I also ignored a lateral recruiting call from Wachtell because they bill around 3500-4000. And unlike at Quinn, Cravath & Watchtell folks have no choice; those firms have authoritarian models where associates are closely watched and told what to do when. Quinn is choose-your-own-adventure. It's almost like being a contractor. If you don't bill 2100 you won't get a year-end bonus, so generally people hit 2100. Billing more than that is one's own choice (likely to gun for partnership). I don't think one can consistently bill much less than 2100 at a peer firm. Speaking of peer firms: Cravath, Wachtell, Quinn, Munger, Keker, K&E, Kellogg, W&C, and Susman are all great lit firms. I may be leaving out a few, but those are generally the most esteemed lit firms as far as I know. Vault is utter garbage. Chambers is a bit better but still has some obvious errors (I'm no fan of Wachtell, but to say their NYC lit group is "Band 3," two tiers below Skadden, is ludicrous).

Quinn is a great place to work. It truly is different from any other big law firm for the reasons some have provided: litigation only, does plaintiff-side work, no dress code, no hierarchy, no committees, no non-billable obligations, full WFH. People here love litigating and the environment is relatively driven and competitive, but we also have a lot of fun. A difference I noticed between Quinn and other firms is other offices were much quieter; attorneys were much more reserved (even visibly scared); people at Quinn are often cracking jokes. Quinn really does leave its attorneys to their own devices, engage in very little management, and encourage people to be themselves. I love it. And there is no shortage of high-stakes newsworthy matters to work on if that's your cup of tea.

Over the years it has become clear to me that Quinn is hated on forums like this mostly because people don't enjoy being on the other side of the "v" from us. We are thought to be uncooperative and aggressive as opposing counsel. Even if that's true (I take no position on it), it has no impact on the quality of your life as a Quinn attorney. Quinn critics may incorrectly project their notion of how we (purportedly) act as OC into a notion of what life inside Quinn is like, when in reality we have a great internal culture that is way more fun, supportive, transparent, and generally humane than what I saw at other firms. Keep an eye out for negative posts from people who have actually worked at Quinn. They are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of the attacks are coming from people who have never set foot inside Quinn.

Finally: Even setting aside the clerkship bonuses, Quinn's compensation is far above market due to little-known associate retention bonuses. Essentially, all 2nd-through-7th year associates get a "profit sharing" award that typically exceeds $50,000. It vests 3 years later (the point is to keep people from leaving). We also pay zero dollars for health insurance (which I understand is unusual) and get free Equinox memberships. On top of all that, approx. $10,000 randomly appears in my 401(k) every year courtesy of the firm (I don't know what they call it, but it's yet another form of extra compensation).

Good luck with your decision. Happy to address any questions you may have.

what office are you in?

[Anonymous User]

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

Gupta may not be Band 1 for litigation but they are Band 1 for fart smell.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

[Anonymous User]

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

Gupta may not be Band 1 for litigation but they are Band 1 for fart smell.

Not Anon you're responding to, but this made me spit out my coffee. Thanks a-hole

[Anonymous User]

I've been at Quinn for years. I never bill much more than 2100. I would be curious to hear some real billable numbers from Cravath lit associates. Part of why I turned them down was I saw many of them billing 2700-3000 (and generally being wrecks on the verge of a breakdown, dropping like flies with a crazy number of departure emails coming what seemed like every week). I also ignored a lateral recruiting call from Wachtell because they bill around 3500-4000. And unlike at Quinn, Cravath & Watchtell folks have no choice; those firms have authoritarian models where associates are closely watched and told what to do when. Quinn is choose-your-own-adventure. It's almost like being a contractor. If you don't bill 2100 you won't get a year-end bonus, so generally people hit 2100. Billing more than that is one's own choice (likely to gun for partnership). I don't think one can consistently bill much less than 2100 at a peer firm. Speaking of peer firms: Cravath, Wachtell, Quinn, Munger, Keker, K&E, Kellogg, W&C, and Susman are all great lit firms. I may be leaving out a few, but those are generally the most esteemed lit firms as far as I know. Vault is utter garbage. Chambers is a bit better but still has some obvious errors (I'm no fan of Wachtell, but to say their NYC lit group is "Band 3," two tiers below Skadden, is ludicrous).

Quinn is a great place to work. It truly is different from any other big law firm for the reasons some have provided: litigation only, does plaintiff-side work, no dress code, no hierarchy, no committees, no non-billable obligations, full WFH. People here love litigating and the environment is relatively driven and competitive, but we also have a lot of fun. A difference I noticed between Quinn and other firms is other offices were much quieter; attorneys were much more reserved (even visibly scared); people at Quinn are often cracking jokes. Quinn really does leave its attorneys to their own devices, engage in very little management, and encourage people to be themselves. I love it. And there is no shortage of high-stakes newsworthy matters to work on if that's your cup of tea.

Over the years it has become clear to me that Quinn is hated on forums like this mostly because people don't enjoy being on the other side of the "v" from us. We are thought to be uncooperative and aggressive as opposing counsel. Even if that's true (I take no position on it), it has no impact on the quality of your life as a Quinn attorney. Quinn critics may incorrectly project their notion of how we (purportedly) act as OC into a notion of what life inside Quinn is like, when in reality we have a great internal culture that is way more fun, supportive, transparent, and generally humane than what I saw at other firms. Keep an eye out for negative posts from people who have actually worked at Quinn. They are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of the attacks are coming from people who have never set foot inside Quinn.

Finally: Even setting aside the clerkship bonuses, Quinn's compensation is far above market due to little-known associate retention bonuses. Essentially, all 2nd-through-7th year associates get a "profit sharing" award that typically exceeds $50,000. It vests 3 years later (the point is to keep people from leaving). We also pay zero dollars for health insurance (which I understand is unusual) and get free Equinox memberships. On top of all that, approx. $10,000 randomly appears in my 401(k) every year courtesy of the firm (I don't know what they call it, but it's yet another form of extra compensation).

Good luck with your decision. Happy to address any questions you may have.

Wow, an actual adult

[Anonymous User]

I've been at Quinn for years. I never bill much more than 2100. I would be curious to hear some real billable numbers from Cravath lit associates. Part of why I turned them down was I saw many of them billing 2700-3000 (and generally being wrecks on the verge of a breakdown, dropping like flies with a crazy number of departure emails coming what seemed like every week). I also ignored a lateral recruiting call from Wachtell because they bill around 3500-4000. And unlike at Quinn, Cravath & Watchtell folks have no choice; those firms have authoritarian models where associates are closely watched and told what to do when. Quinn is choose-your-own-adventure. It's almost like being a contractor. If you don't bill 2100 you won't get a year-end bonus, so generally people hit 2100. Billing more than that is one's own choice (likely to gun for partnership). I don't think one can consistently bill much less than 2100 at a peer firm. Speaking of peer firms: Cravath, Wachtell, Quinn, Munger, Keker, K&E, Kellogg, W&C, and Susman are all great lit firms. I may be leaving out a few, but those are generally the most esteemed lit firms as far as I know. Vault is utter garbage. Chambers is a bit better but still has some obvious errors (I'm no fan of Wachtell, but to say their NYC lit group is "Band 3," two tiers below Skadden, is ludicrous).

Quinn is a great place to work. It truly is different from any other big law firm for the reasons some have provided: litigation only, does plaintiff-side work, no dress code, no hierarchy, no committees, no non-billable obligations, full WFH. People here love litigating and the environment is relatively driven and competitive, but we also have a lot of fun. A difference I noticed between Quinn and other firms is other offices were much quieter; attorneys were much more reserved (even visibly scared); people at Quinn are often cracking jokes. Quinn really does leave its attorneys to their own devices, engage in very little management, and encourage people to be themselves. I love it. And there is no shortage of high-stakes newsworthy matters to work on if that's your cup of tea.

Over the years it has become clear to me that Quinn is hated on forums like this mostly because people don't enjoy being on the other side of the "v" from us. We are thought to be uncooperative and aggressive as opposing counsel. Even if that's true (I take no position on it), it has no impact on the quality of your life as a Quinn attorney. Quinn critics may incorrectly project their notion of how we (purportedly) act as OC into a notion of what life inside Quinn is like, when in reality we have a great internal culture that is way more fun, supportive, transparent, and generally humane than what I saw at other firms. Keep an eye out for negative posts from people who have actually worked at Quinn. They are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of the attacks are coming from people who have never set foot inside Quinn.

Finally: Even setting aside the clerkship bonuses, Quinn's compensation is far above market due to little-known associate retention bonuses. Essentially, all 2nd-through-7th year associates get a "profit sharing" award that typically exceeds $50,000. It vests 3 years later (the point is to keep people from leaving). We also pay zero dollars for health insurance (which I understand is unusual) and get free Equinox memberships. On top of all that, approx. $10,000 randomly appears in my 401(k) every year courtesy of the firm (I don't know what they call it, but it's yet another form of extra compensation).

Good luck with your decision. Happy to address any questions you may have.

Could you share more about the compensation? Is the associate retention bonus guaranteed as long as you stay and bill 2100 hours? How is partner track there? Would you say there is a ranking of offices (CA vs DC vs NY)? How social is the office - are you friends outside of work? Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous User]

I've been at Quinn for years. I never bill much more than 2100. I would be curious to hear some real billable numbers from Cravath lit associates. Part of why I turned them down was I saw many of them billing 2700-3000 (and generally being wrecks on the verge of a breakdown, dropping like flies with a crazy number of departure emails coming what seemed like every week). I also ignored a lateral recruiting call from Wachtell because they bill around 3500-4000. And unlike at Quinn, Cravath & Watchtell folks have no choice; those firms have authoritarian models where associates are closely watched and told what to do when. Quinn is choose-your-own-adventure. It's almost like being a contractor. If you don't bill 2100 you won't get a year-end bonus, so generally people hit 2100. Billing more than that is one's own choice (likely to gun for partnership). I don't think one can consistently bill much less than 2100 at a peer firm. Speaking of peer firms: Cravath, Wachtell, Quinn, Munger, Keker, K&E, Kellogg, W&C, and Susman are all great lit firms. I may be leaving out a few, but those are generally the most esteemed lit firms as far as I know. Vault is utter garbage. Chambers is a bit better but still has some obvious errors (I'm no fan of Wachtell, but to say their NYC lit group is "Band 3," two tiers below Skadden, is ludicrous).

Quinn is a great place to work. It truly is different from any other big law firm for the reasons some have provided: litigation only, does plaintiff-side work, no dress code, no hierarchy, no committees, no non-billable obligations, full WFH. People here love litigating and the environment is relatively driven and competitive, but we also have a lot of fun. A difference I noticed between Quinn and other firms is other offices were much quieter; attorneys were much more reserved (even visibly scared); people at Quinn are often cracking jokes. Quinn really does leave its attorneys to their own devices, engage in very little management, and encourage people to be themselves. I love it. And there is no shortage of high-stakes newsworthy matters to work on if that's your cup of tea.

Over the years it has become clear to me that Quinn is hated on forums like this mostly because people don't enjoy being on the other side of the "v" from us. We are thought to be uncooperative and aggressive as opposing counsel. Even if that's true (I take no position on it), it has no impact on the quality of your life as a Quinn attorney. Quinn critics may incorrectly project their notion of how we (purportedly) act as OC into a notion of what life inside Quinn is like, when in reality we have a great internal culture that is way more fun, supportive, transparent, and generally humane than what I saw at other firms. Keep an eye out for negative posts from people who have actually worked at Quinn. They are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of the attacks are coming from people who have never set foot inside Quinn.

Finally: Even setting aside the clerkship bonuses, Quinn's compensation is far above market due to little-known associate retention bonuses. Essentially, all 2nd-through-7th year associates get a "profit sharing" award that typically exceeds $50,000. It vests 3 years later (the point is to keep people from leaving). We also pay zero dollars for health insurance (which I understand is unusual) and get free Equinox memberships. On top of all that, approx. $10,000 randomly appears in my 401(k) every year courtesy of the firm (I don't know what they call it, but it's yet another form of extra compensation).

Good luck with your decision. Happy to address any questions you may have.

Is the $50,000 a yearly retention bonus that you collect in 3 years (so $150,000 total)?

[Anonymous User]

I've been at Quinn for years. I never bill much more than 2100. I would be curious to hear some real billable numbers from Cravath lit associates. Part of why I turned them down was I saw many of them billing 2700-3000 (and generally being wrecks on the verge of a breakdown, dropping like flies with a crazy number of departure emails coming what seemed like every week). I also ignored a lateral recruiting call from Wachtell because they bill around 3500-4000. And unlike at Quinn, Cravath & Watchtell folks have no choice; those firms have authoritarian models where associates are closely watched and told what to do when. Quinn is choose-your-own-adventure. It's almost like being a contractor. If you don't bill 2100 you won't get a year-end bonus, so generally people hit 2100. Billing more than that is one's own choice (likely to gun for partnership). I don't think one can consistently bill much less than 2100 at a peer firm. Speaking of peer firms: Cravath, Wachtell, Quinn, Munger, Keker, K&E, Kellogg, W&C, and Susman are all great lit firms. I may be leaving out a few, but those are generally the most esteemed lit firms as far as I know. Vault is utter garbage. Chambers is a bit better but still has some obvious errors (I'm no fan of Wachtell, but to say their NYC lit group is "Band 3," two tiers below Skadden, is ludicrous).

Quinn is a great place to work. It truly is different from any other big law firm for the reasons some have provided: litigation only, does plaintiff-side work, no dress code, no hierarchy, no committees, no non-billable obligations, full WFH. People here love litigating and the environment is relatively driven and competitive, but we also have a lot of fun. A difference I noticed between Quinn and other firms is other offices were much quieter; attorneys were much more reserved (even visibly scared); people at Quinn are often cracking jokes. Quinn really does leave its attorneys to their own devices, engage in very little management, and encourage people to be themselves. I love it. And there is no shortage of high-stakes newsworthy matters to work on if that's your cup of tea.

Over the years it has become clear to me that Quinn is hated on forums like this mostly because people don't enjoy being on the other side of the "v" from us. We are thought to be uncooperative and aggressive as opposing counsel. Even if that's true (I take no position on it), it has no impact on the quality of your life as a Quinn attorney. Quinn critics may incorrectly project their notion of how we (purportedly) act as OC into a notion of what life inside Quinn is like, when in reality we have a great internal culture that is way more fun, supportive, transparent, and generally humane than what I saw at other firms. Keep an eye out for negative posts from people who have actually worked at Quinn. They are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of the attacks are coming from people who have never set foot inside Quinn.

Finally: Even setting aside the clerkship bonuses, Quinn's compensation is far above market due to little-known associate retention bonuses. Essentially, all 2nd-through-7th year associates get a "profit sharing" award that typically exceeds $50,000. It vests 3 years later (the point is to keep people from leaving). We also pay zero dollars for health insurance (which I understand is unusual) and get free Equinox memberships. On top of all that, approx. $10,000 randomly appears in my 401(k) every year courtesy of the firm (I don't know what they call it, but it's yet another form of extra compensation).

Good luck with your decision. Happy to address any questions you may have.

What’s the mentorship like? Some parts of Quinn seem awesome but I feel like the WFH policy might be tough on young associates trying to develop.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

[Anonymous User]

delete

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

Literally everything you said, except partner track, applies to Cravath. Early substantive experience and the resume line are what Cravath is known for.

Also many small boutiques only take 7-10 summers a year. At that number, you can fill your class with just strong students from HYS. When you look at Kaplan Hecker's summer associate roster or Dovel & Luner, you'll see what I mean. But that doesn't mean Kaplan Hecker and Dovel & Luner are the best places to practice litigation (see Chambers). It also doesn't mean that the strongest students are mostly going there. Very many top HYS students on law review go to Cravath (incl. law review presidents).

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

Literally everything you said, except partner track, applies to Cravath. Early substantive experience and the resume line are what Cravath is known for.

Also many small boutiques only take 7-10 summers a year. At that number, you can fill your class with just strong students from HYS. When you look at Kaplan Hecker's summer associate roster or Dovel & Luner, you'll see what I mean. But that doesn't mean Kaplan Hecker and Dovel & Luner are the best places to practice litigation (see Chambers). It also doesn't mean that the strongest students are mostly going there. Very many top HYS students on law review go to Cravath (incl. law review presidents).

Lol ok. You tell yourself that.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

Literally everything you said, except partner track, applies to Cravath. Early substantive experience and the resume line are what Cravath is known for.

Also many small boutiques only take 7-10 summers a year. At that number, you can fill your class with just strong students from HYS. When you look at Kaplan Hecker's summer associate roster or Dovel & Luner, you'll see what I mean. But that doesn't mean Kaplan Hecker and Dovel & Luner are the best places to practice litigation (see Chambers). It also doesn't mean that the strongest students are mostly going there. Very many top HYS students on law review go to Cravath (incl. law review presidents).

Lol ok. You tell yourself that.

Was curious, so pulled up Cravath's webpage and went through the first 40 lit associates. Literally one circuit clerk out of the first 40. LOL what a "resume line". Plenty of lit offices (and not just tippy-top places like Susman, Bartlit Beck, mind you) across the country are stacked with appellate clerks. For example, most DC offices will have at least 1/3 appellate clerks, with higher proportions at the more selective firms, biglaw included. At a Susman, Kellogg, Barlitt, etc., circuit clerks are the dominant majority, with SCOTUS clerks sprinkled in. The talent differential isn't even in the same galaxy and this conversation is entering the twilight zone.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

Literally everything you said, except partner track, applies to Cravath. Early substantive experience and the resume line are what Cravath is known for.

Also many small boutiques only take 7-10 summers a year. At that number, you can fill your class with just strong students from HYS. When you look at Kaplan Hecker's summer associate roster or Dovel & Luner, you'll see what I mean. But that doesn't mean Kaplan Hecker and Dovel & Luner are the best places to practice litigation (see Chambers). It also doesn't mean that the strongest students are mostly going there. Very many top HYS students on law review go to Cravath (incl. law review presidents).

Oh, well, if the law review PRESIDENTS go there…

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

Literally everything you said, except partner track, applies to Cravath. Early substantive experience and the resume line are what Cravath is known for.

Also many small boutiques only take 7-10 summers a year. At that number, you can fill your class with just strong students from HYS. When you look at Kaplan Hecker's summer associate roster or Dovel & Luner, you'll see what I mean. But that doesn't mean Kaplan Hecker and Dovel & Luner are the best places to practice litigation (see Chambers). It also doesn't mean that the strongest students are mostly going there. Very many top HYS students on law review go to Cravath (incl. law review presidents).

Oh, well, if the law review PRESIDENTS go there…

Well they surely have a variety of firms to choose from, so yes

[Anonymous User]

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

Literally everything you said, except partner track, applies to Cravath. Early substantive experience and the resume line are what Cravath is known for.

Also many small boutiques only take 7-10 summers a year. At that number, you can fill your class with just strong students from HYS. When you look at Kaplan Hecker's summer associate roster or Dovel & Luner, you'll see what I mean. But that doesn't mean Kaplan Hecker and Dovel & Luner are the best places to practice litigation (see Chambers). It also doesn't mean that the strongest students are mostly going there. Very many top HYS students on law review go to Cravath (incl. law review presidents).

Lol ok. You tell yourself that.

Was curious, so pulled up Cravath's webpage and went through the first 40 lit associates. Literally one circuit clerk out of the first 40. LOL what a "resume line". Plenty of lit offices (and not just tippy-top places like Susman, Bartlit Beck, mind you) across the country are stacked with appellate clerks. For example, most DC offices will have at least 1/3 appellate clerks, with higher proportions at the more selective firms, biglaw included. At a Susman, Kellogg, Barlitt, etc., circuit clerks are the dominant majority, with SCOTUS clerks sprinkled in. The talent differential isn't even in the same galaxy and this conversation is entering the twilight zone.

If you look at the associates on LinkedIn you'll see latin honors, clerkships, and law review aplenty. Of course they're well-credentialed.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

If academic achievement is so important, why don’t the top clients (clients with high rates, repeat work, in top industries with top people) choose the boutiques of the world?

To answer my question: top clients sometimes do pick boutiques but boutiques are often conflicted out, specialize in plaintiff work, have different (and less lucrative) specialties, do not have the capacity for the work, and most importantly, do not have ongoing client relationships that take years or decades to build.

The GC of a F500 company is 100 times more likely to come from Cravath corporate than Susman lit and the GC of a PE firm or bank regularly works with V20 etc firms for Corporate work and feels the V20 firm understands the needs of the GC for litigation.

Top grades, accolades, and judicial connections do not fully indicate an ability to provide litigation services to the best clients. The academic system does not perfectly test for client service. The client service test comes in whether you self-select into top client work, in your years of experience performing the work and leading teams of associates, and in whether you find broadly helping top dollar clients more emotionally fulfilling than specializing in trial work, high risk plaintiff work, or low dollar appellate or politically charged work.

Top grades indicate a strong capacity to do academic legal work but are less correlated with a student’s ability and desire to pick the most lucrative career path and succeed on that path.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

That’s right, Associate roster of academic and standardized test accolades >>>>>>> roster of clients.

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world? Early substantive experience, ability to lateral virtually anywhere with an extraordinary resume line, much higher chances of making partner (truer at some firms than others) >>>>>> working as a doc review cog for some fancy-pants client, only to be pushed out many years before you get anywhere close to partnership. Sure, being the senior rainmaker partner at Cravath is a great place to be, but lol at the odds that a random associate will get anywhere close to that.

If academic achievement is so important, why don’t the top clients (clients with high rates, repeat work, in top industries with top people) choose the boutiques of the world?

To answer my question: top clients sometimes do pick boutiques but boutiques are often conflicted out, specialize in plaintiff work, have different (and less lucrative) specialties, do not have the capacity for the work, and most importantly, do not have ongoing client relationships that take years or decades to build.

The GC of a F500 company is 100 times more likely to come from Cravath corporate than Susman lit and the GC of a PE firm or bank regularly works with V20 etc firms for Corporate work and feels the V20 firm understands the needs of the GC for litigation.

Top grades, accolades, and judicial connections do not fully indicate an ability to provide litigation services to the best clients. The academic system does not perfectly test for client service. The client service test comes in whether you self-select into top client work, in your years of experience performing the work and leading teams of associates, and in whether you find broadly helping top dollar clients more emotionally fulfilling than specializing in trial work, high risk plaintiff work, or low dollar appellate or politically charged work.

Top grades indicate a strong capacity to do academic legal work but are less correlated with a student’s ability and desire to pick the most lucrative career path and succeed on that path.

Way to spend several paragraphs hacking at a giant strawman. Hopefully this doesn't reflect the quality of Cravath's briefing. No one is saying that associate academic achievement is what *causes* a firm to be successful. What we're discussing here is what kind of firm opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student. Your strange rant does nothing to answer this question. Genuinely concerned that talented law students going into OCI will make objectively poor decisions based on some of the posts in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

Not anon, but isn't the answer to that the firm that offers the most name recognition and prestige? Surely between Cravath and Bartlit, the answer is Cravath. Irrespective of whether Bartlit has a higher percentage of associates with appellate clerkships, which is something that a boutique can engineer much more easily

[Anonymous User]

Not anon, but isn't the answer to that the firm that offers the most name recognition and prestige? Surely between Cravath and Bartlit, the answer is Cravath. Irrespective of whether Bartlit has a higher percentage of associates with appellate clerkships, which is something that a boutique can engineer much more easily

Not in the circles back matter for ambitious litigators. Lateraling to other highly-selective litigation shops, SG offices, prestigious USAOs, DOJ, so on. Cravath carries very little extra currency in those contexts (compared to more top-market options). Does it carry some currency? For sure--plenty. Just like other big firms like Skadden, Kirkland, etc. But it's not going impress like the Kelloggs and the Susmans. And this isn't mentioning the huge differences in partnership prospects.

Cravath is a great option for corp, no doubt. However, law students who want to litigate at the top levels of the profession should be wary of fudging vague perceptions that predominate in corporate settings with the realities of the litigation market.

Tying this back to the topic of this thread, Quinn has pros and cons. Quinn associates on average aren't creme of the crop, but they're solid and well-credentialed. And they litigate--aggressively, but effectively. Slightly more likely to get depos early on etc. compared to traditional biglaw. Cravath vs Quinn is a fair question, with reasonable room for disagreement. Cravath vs the Williams/Connolly, Kellogg, etc. isn't.