MILBANK ANNOUNCES BONUSES/SALARY INCREASES Forum

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

Agree that this thread has devolved into a cesspool of useless prestige jerking. But the notion that every high earning profession isn’t the same is laughable. It manifests in different ways but the prestige whoring, self importance, and Stockholm syndrome is at least as bad or worse in banking and finance, tech, and consulting. And only finance reliably pays more than biglaw. Sure my friends in tech don’t work as many productive hours but they spend arguably more time obsessing over FAANG prestige, office perks, academic pedigree, VC prestige and their cap tables etc. Their comp caps out much more quickly too - and they have arguably more job risk than anyone halfway competent at a decent BL firm.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

Agree that this thread has devolved into a cesspool of useless prestige jerking. But the notion that every high earning profession isn’t the same is laughable. It manifests in different ways but the prestige whoring, self importance, and Stockholm syndrome is at least as bad or worse in banking and finance, tech, and consulting. And only finance reliably pays more than biglaw. Sure my friends in tech don’t work as many productive hours but they spend arguably more time obsessing over FAANG prestige, office perks, academic pedigree, VC prestige and their cap tables etc. Their comp caps out much more quickly too - and they have arguably more job risk than anyone halfway competent at a decent BL firm.

Yeah, but I view the pissing contest by FAANG tech bros as less psychotic than BL. Like, you're really gonna spread gospel while billing 2200+ hours and then feel good about it? Lol insane...

But agreed, the few pulling the same hours in tech are equally insane, although I hope it's at least more justified by the substance of their work and contribution than in BL.

[Anonymous User]

Tech comp massively varies depending on what you do in “tech”, whatever that means. The salaries distros look nothing like the big law bi-modal distribution and you don’t have the quasi medieval guild bar protecting your livelihood. 180k TC, yawn. Might as well work for the gov and take home more in TC and only work 10 hours a week. Also, F product development or app design or backend work or any other “high end” developer tech crap. You’re like a microscopic cog in a barely visible wheel. If you have any hint of megalomania in your personality you’ll go insane doing that itty bitty design junk.

[Anonymous User]

Tech comp massively varies depending on what you do in “tech”, whatever that means. The salaries distros look nothing like the big law bi-modal distribution and you don’t have the quasi medieval guild bar protecting your livelihood. 180k TC, yawn. Might as well work for the gov and take home more in TC and only work 10 hours a week. Also, F product development or app design or backend work or any other “high end” developer tech crap. You’re like a microscopic cog in a barely visible wheel. If you have any hint of megalomania in your personality you’ll go insane doing that itty bitty design junk.

I'll take the bait. (a) 180K TC was the low end figure, (b) more than what a lot of ex-BL in-house lawyers make, (c) the bar is getting gutted (see OR, CA), and (d) you're not competing against the people who failed the bar for jobs (at least I hope not... if you are, then 180K might be a reach).

[Anonymous User]

[]

[Anonymous User]

Tech comp massively varies depending on what you do in “tech”, whatever that means. The salaries distros look nothing like the big law bi-modal distribution and you don’t have the quasi medieval guild bar protecting your livelihood. 180k TC, yawn. Might as well work for the gov and take home more in TC and only work 10 hours a week. Also, F product development or app design or backend work or any other “high end” developer tech crap. You’re like a microscopic cog in a barely visible wheel. If you have any hint of megalomania in your personality you’ll go insane doing that itty bitty design junk.

I'll take the bait. (a) 180K TC was the low end figure, (b) more than what a lot of ex-BL in-house lawyers make, (c) the bar is getting gutted (see OR, CA), and (d) you're not competing against the people who failed the bar for jobs (at least I hope not... if you are, then 180K might be a reach).

What he means by the bar protecting you is that in order to practice law you have to go to law school, take the bar, go through all the hoops, etc. I don't think OR CA or any other state is about to start reducing those anytime soon. That also blocks out AI lawyers, etc. Developers don't have nearly as many protections in place.

Also if you're in-house and making less than 180k TC... oof, unless you're in a LCOL/MCOL place.

[Anonymous User]

Tech comp massively varies depending on what you do in “tech”, whatever that means. The salaries distros look nothing like the big law bi-modal distribution and you don’t have the quasi medieval guild bar protecting your livelihood. 180k TC, yawn. Might as well work for the gov and take home more in TC and only work 10 hours a week. Also, F product development or app design or backend work or any other “high end” developer tech crap. You’re like a microscopic cog in a barely visible wheel. If you have any hint of megalomania in your personality you’ll go insane doing that itty bitty design junk.

I'll take the bait. (a) 180K TC was the low end figure, (b) more than what a lot of ex-BL in-house lawyers make, (c) the bar is getting gutted (see OR, CA), and (d) you're not competing against the people who failed the bar for jobs (at least I hope not... if you are, then 180K might be a reach).

What he means by the bar protecting you is that in order to practice law you have to go to law school, take the bar, go through all the hoops, etc. I don't think OR CA or any other state is about to start reducing those anytime soon. That also blocks out AI lawyers, etc. Developers don't have nearly as many protections in place.

Also if you're in-house and making less than 180k TC... oof, unless you're in a LCOL/MCOL place.

Gotcha, all they said was the bar so I was taking it literal.

Do you have data to suggest 180K is a suboptimal salary for in house? IIRC, a report passed along by some consulting firm pegged the median in house salary somewhere between 200-230K, so 180K would presumably capture a sizeable portion. Not to mention most job boards postings are 120-150K for counsel with 4-7 YOE reqs.

[Moneytrees]

Tech comp massively varies depending on what you do in “tech”, whatever that means. The salaries distros look nothing like the big law bi-modal distribution and you don’t have the quasi medieval guild bar protecting your livelihood. 180k TC, yawn. Might as well work for the gov and take home more in TC and only work 10 hours a week. Also, F product development or app design or backend work or any other “high end” developer tech crap. You’re like a microscopic cog in a barely visible wheel. If you have any hint of megalomania in your personality you’ll go insane doing that itty bitty design junk.

I'll take the bait. (a) 180K TC was the low end figure, (b) more than what a lot of ex-BL in-house lawyers make, (c) the bar is getting gutted (see OR, CA), and (d) you're not competing against the people who failed the bar for jobs (at least I hope not... if you are, then 180K might be a reach).

What he means by the bar protecting you is that in order to practice law you have to go to law school, take the bar, go through all the hoops, etc. I don't think OR CA or any other state is about to start reducing those anytime soon. That also blocks out AI lawyers, etc. Developers don't have nearly as many protections in place.

Also if you're in-house and making less than 180k TC... oof, unless you're in a LCOL/MCOL place.

Gotcha, all they said was the bar so I was taking it literal.

Do you have data to suggest 180K is a suboptimal salary for in house? IIRC, a report passed along by some consulting firm pegged the median in house salary somewhere between 200-230K, so 180K would presumably capture a sizeable portion. Not to mention most job boards postings are 120-150K for counsel with 4-7 YOE reqs.

I don't think 180k is particularly low starting salary for in-house roles - it just depends on your level of seniority.

Many associates on this forum think that you can automatically lateral after 2 or 3 years in Biglaw into a 200k+ in-house position, which isn't necessarily true (I tried). There are exceptions, but if you only have a junior associate skillset, you likely won't qualify for AVP type roles in-house, which are the roles that pay relatively close to the entry point of the Cravath scale. If you want to make 200k after Biglaw, plan to stay at your firm for approximately 5 years. At that point, you can bypass the most junior in-house roles and start make 200k+ fairly easily, even in lower cost of living areas.

[Anonymous User]

So when are we going to see a match....

[Anonymous User]

I am starting to think that a $10k raise (plus the timing of Milbank’s announcement) isn’t enough to put pressure on Cravath, DPW or others to make a separate announcement apart from their usual EOY bonus announcements. I know Cravath historically releases its bonus memo around Thanksgiving, so I would expect movement then. Once Cravath (and/or Davis Polk) weigh in, the long tail of matches will come shortly thereafter.

[Anonymous User]

I am starting to think that a $10k raise (plus the timing of Milbank’s announcement) isn’t enough to put pressure on Cravath, DPW or others to make a separate announcement apart from their usual EOY bonus announcements. I know Cravath historically releases its bonus memo around Thanksgiving, so I would expect movement then. Once Cravath (and/or Davis Polk) weigh in, the long tail of matches will come shortly thereafter.

+1 - we'll know by 11/28 (which is probably the latest that Cravath would announce bonuses). The better question is can any of us wait two more weeks?

Delaying that long just means Milbank gets more time in the spotlight. Good on them!

[Moneytrees]

I am starting to think that a $10k raise (plus the timing of Milbank’s announcement) isn’t enough to put pressure on Cravath, DPW or others to make a separate announcement apart from their usual EOY bonus announcements. I know Cravath historically releases its bonus memo around Thanksgiving, so I would expect movement then. Once Cravath (and/or Davis Polk) weigh in, the long tail of matches will come shortly thereafter.

It would be kind of a power move to completely ignore Milbank's raise, as if they aren't even a competitor. I don't think it will happen though, matches are incoming soon IMO

[nealric]

Tech comp massively varies depending on what you do in “tech”, whatever that means. The salaries distros look nothing like the big law bi-modal distribution and you don’t have the quasi medieval guild bar protecting your livelihood. 180k TC, yawn. Might as well work for the gov and take home more in TC and only work 10 hours a week. Also, F product development or app design or backend work or any other “high end” developer tech crap. You’re like a microscopic cog in a barely visible wheel. If you have any hint of megalomania in your personality you’ll go insane doing that itty bitty design junk.

I'll take the bait. (a) 180K TC was the low end figure, (b) more than what a lot of ex-BL in-house lawyers make, (c) the bar is getting gutted (see OR, CA), and (d) you're not competing against the people who failed the bar for jobs (at least I hope not... if you are, then 180K might be a reach).

What he means by the bar protecting you is that in order to practice law you have to go to law school, take the bar, go through all the hoops, etc. I don't think OR CA or any other state is about to start reducing those anytime soon. That also blocks out AI lawyers, etc. Developers don't have nearly as many protections in place.

Also if you're in-house and making less than 180k TC... oof, unless you're in a LCOL/MCOL place.

Gotcha, all they said was the bar so I was taking it literal.

Do you have data to suggest 180K is a suboptimal salary for in house? IIRC, a report passed along by some consulting firm pegged the median in house salary somewhere between 200-230K, so 180K would presumably capture a sizeable portion. Not to mention most job boards postings are 120-150K for counsel with 4-7 YOE reqs.

I don't think 180k is particularly low starting salary for in-house roles - it just depends on your level of seniority.

Many associates on this forum think that you can automatically lateral after 2 or 3 years in Biglaw into a 200k+ in-house position, which isn't necessarily true (I tried). There are exceptions, but if you only have a junior associate skillset, you likely won't qualify for AVP type roles in-house, which are the roles that pay relatively close to the entry point of the Cravath scale. If you want to make 200k after Biglaw, plan to stay at your firm for approximately 5 years. At that point, you can bypass the most junior in-house roles and start make 200k+ fairly easily, even in lower cost of living areas.

Talking in-house comp as a monolith is a bit like doing the same for law firms. A "law firm" could be anything from Jimbo's PI Settlement mill to Wachtell. Likewise, a company hiring an in-house attorney could be anything from your friend's "startup" that has no funding to Google. Market comp in-house is going to depend a lot on the size/type of company and location, plus the practice area of the associate. Titles are also all over the place in-house, and can vary a lot depending on company size. An "Assistant GC" could be anything from the #2 lawyer at a F50 megacorp making 7 figures to a new graduate at a small company with two lawyers making $100k.

That said, I think for a good-sized public company in a major city, $180k all-in would indeed be fairly low. Keep in mind that base salaries can be less indicative of all-in than biglaw (especially for the more lucrative jobs). For example, my company's GC "only" makes in the $400s base salary, but their total comp is well into the 7 figures (comp for GCs is typically in the proxy for public companies so you know their comp to the dollar). I'm fairly certain no attorney at my company makes less than $200k all-in. However, it would be unusual for someone to be hired with only 2-3 years of experience.

[GFox345]

A "law firm" could be anything from Jimbo's PI Settlement mill to Wachtell.

LOL

[Anonymous User]

In a futile attempt to stay on topic, I’ll say that there is a zero % chance that the rest of BigLaw doesn’t eventually match. This is because, in addition to all the dozens of other players who would probably do so anyway, there is a 100% chance that Kirkland would match. And Kirkland matching will in turn force the hand of every other major firm in every major market where they compete.

Same with the cascade of firm policies around whether to pay summers in 2020 after Covid hit. There was a slow trickle of firms going one way or another but when Kirkland finally announced that they would give full pay regardless of whether the program happened or how long it was, you saw most of the rest of the market follow suit across all the markets Kirkland is in (aka all the ones that matter) because it’s too big of a recruiting threat to not keep up.

No firm has the power to unilaterally block a match, including and especially Cravath.

[curry1]

In a futile attempt to stay on topic, I’ll say that there is a zero % chance that the rest of BigLaw doesn’t eventually match. This is because, in addition to all the dozens of other players who would probably do so anyway, there is a 100% chance that Kirkland would match. And Kirkland matching will in turn force the hand of every other major firm in every major market where they compete.

Same with the cascade of firm policies around whether to pay summers in 2020 after Covid hit. There was a slow trickle of firms going one way or another but when Kirkland finally announced that they would give full pay regardless of whether the program happened or how long it was, you saw most of the rest of the market follow suit across all the markets Kirkland is in (aka all the ones that matter) because it’s too big of a recruiting threat to not keep up.

No firm has the power to unilaterally block a match, including and especially Cravath.

The minute DPW/Cravath issue their bonus memos, the dam will break (I certainly hope they re-raise). So, it's just a question of whether its next Monday or the following Monday.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITCR.

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

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

Wasn't there a spate of very large M&A deals Cravath handled recently? Aren't they still a notch better in M&A?

[Anonymous User]

Is the lack of matches a good thing? Clearly a number of firms thinks there’s some odds that CSM/DPW/etc. re-raise?

[Anonymous User]

Is the lack of matches a good thing? Clearly a number of firms thinks there’s some odds that CSM/DPW/etc. re-raise?

It's not a bad thing. More likely it's a timing issue in that the increases were announced so close to the typical time Cravath announces, my take is that most firms are waiting for that announcement before moving.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

Cravath has way more prestige among law students than Goldman does among MBA students. GS is not viewed any differently than JPM or MS and none of the big banks is at the top of anyone’s list.

[Moneytrees]

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

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

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

Cravath has way more prestige among law students than Goldman does among MBA students. GS is not viewed any differently than JPM or MS and none of the big banks is at the top of anyone’s list.

Not sure about that, Goldman is pretty coveted. Besides, it's not like Cravath has some sort of monopoly over T14 schools. Strange post.

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

Cravath has way more prestige among law students than Goldman does among MBA students. GS is not viewed any differently than JPM or MS and none of the big banks is at the top of anyone’s list.

Hotshot Cravath lawyer currently beefing with a literal robot

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

Cravath has way more prestige among law students than Goldman does among MBA students. GS is not viewed any differently than JPM or MS and none of the big banks is at the top of anyone’s list.

Not sure about that, Goldman is pretty coveted. Besides, it's not like Cravath has some sort of monopoly over T14 schools. Strange post.

Yeah, at least at SLS the top students never went to Cravath--it was Wachtell/Williams & Connolly/Keker/Munger/etc. Cravath had functionally the same people as S&C/DPW/etc, and I don't think anyone thought they were particularly "special."

[Anonymous User]

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

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

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

Cravath has way more prestige among law students than Goldman does among MBA students. GS is not viewed any differently than JPM or MS and none of the big banks is at the top of anyone’s list.

Hotshot Cravath lawyer currently beefing with a literal robot

Determining prestige can be subjective, as each bank has its strengths. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley are all prestigious financial institutions, with different areas of expertise. Factors such as reputation, client base, and global presence contribute to their prestige.

[TigerIsBack]

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

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

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

Cravath has way more prestige among law students than Goldman does among MBA students. GS is not viewed any differently than JPM or MS and none of the big banks is at the top of anyone’s list.

Hotshot Cravath lawyer currently beefing with a literal robot

Determining prestige can be subjective, as each bank has its strengths. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley are all prestigious financial institutions, with different areas of expertise. Factors such as reputation, client base, and global presence contribute to their prestige.

I have to say, this whole thread within a thread about Cravath, GS, tech salaries, etc. is why I'm now trying to learn how to use FB for my updates on this topic (you know, the original one)...