Why is there so much hate for Quinn Emanuel? Forum

[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.

The last few associates to leave Susman went to small law firms (Holwell Shuster, Ahmad Zavitsanos, Littler Mendelson, Andrews Myers), and some went to Winston and Strawn, Vinson, etc.. The last few associates to leave Cravath went to MWE, Munger, Proskauer, PW, Selendy Gay, and Jenner. Not saying one set is clearly better than the other, but that's sort of my point. Also, if you look up LinkedIn profiles of SDNY and EDNY AUSAs, you'll see they're generally coming from big law firms like Cravath.

You're operating under a misimpression, which I liken to Cravath Derangement Syndrome

[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?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

[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.

yeah lol @ that last thing you squeezed in there. no top law review president goes to Cravath unless they're underqualified to go somewhere else and/or are blinded by Vault...because they literally could do much better with that shiny credential on their resume (e.g., clerkships then boutique/DC appellate, elite gov't, academia, etc.)

[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.

The really selective lit jobs don’t even care about firm name per se, especially in conservative circles. Judge name matters way more than firm name. And hiring is done more by word of mouth. The boutiques are generally better because you will be working directly with people who either had those elite jobs or know a lot of the people in those elite jobs doing the hiring. There is also much more support for government work. It’s clear that you get more substantive experience and that the top boutiques are more selective than any big law firm besides Wachtell, which does entirely different work.

Cravath is a good option if you want to go in house at a large corporation but it’s a bad option if you want to get top government jobs or if you actually want to be a litigator. I honestly just don’t see many real experienced lawyers coming out of NYC big law anymore period, just a ton of discovery cogs who have absolutely no clue what it’s like to try a case or handle an appeal.

[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?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

[Anonymous User]

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?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

My issue with Cravath lit is the hours. People legitimately work about 50% more there for the same pay. 2700 billable hours is typical, 3000 not uncommon. It's also an authoritarian hellhole where everyone is terrified and miserable and associates are treated like chattel. Otherwise, the firm is fine. They do excellent work (by grinding down and mindf*cking their associates) and have a very good reputation. Everyone knows the Cravath name. It's true that there are quite a few firms that are clearly better (e.g. Susman, Wachtell, Munger, etc.) but there's no denying Cravath has a certain cache. I just don't love that they use it to exploit the sh*t out of their associates.

[Anonymous User]

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?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

[Anonymous User]

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?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

ok.

[Anonymous User]

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

ok.

Lolololololololololololololol. Lolololololololololololololololololol.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

ok.

Lolololololololololololololol. Lolololololololololololololololololol.

Keep inhaling that sweet, sweet copium.

[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.

repeat-player work for megacorps isn’t the most interesting and lucrative work in lit. Firms like Susman and Bartlit tend to get hired for companies’ most serious problems, esp stuff that’s actually going to go to trial, not their everyday ones. Or work plaintiff-side, which is generally more interesting than defense-side. Same advantage WLRK has.

You see something similar with white collar. White collar at the boutiques that rep individuals is high-stakes and demanding. That’s because it’s *not* for a repeat player. Whereas white collar in biglaw is dominated by legally simple, document-heavy investigations for the company.

[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

Why would you take a significant pay cut to do worse work with much worse partnership prospects for lay prestige? Among your immediate peers, i.e. other elite litigators, the boutiques are more prestigious than NYC biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

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?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

to litigators, corporate work doesn’t even really count as practicing law, who cares about deal volume. Likewise, the rankings (besides Chambers) are driven by corporate. Chambers isn’t wrong per se but its criteria are geared towards size, which is *inversely* correlated with good work at the highest levels of lit. You don’t need a small army of associates to try a case or brief an appeal, it’s not deal work, you need a small handful. Quality over quantity. And that’s the stuff the most ambitious litigators want to do, which is why so few opt for traditional biglaw versus boutiques or smaller-office/market biglaw setups.

[Anonymous User]

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

to litigators, corporate work doesn’t even really count as practicing law, who cares about deal volume. Likewise, the rankings (besides Chambers) are driven by corporate. Chambers isn’t wrong per se but its criteria are geared towards size, which is *inversely* correlated with good work at the highest levels of lit. You don’t need a small army of associates to try a case or brief an appeal, it’s not deal work, you need a small handful. Quality over quantity. And that’s the stuff the most ambitious litigators want to do, which is why so few opt for traditional biglaw versus boutiques or smaller-office/market biglaw setups.

Lol seriously. How out of touch do you have to be to bring up deal volume in this conversation? Like who cares rofl. This is either a troll, a clueless law student, or some boomer Cravath M&A partner drowning in his or her own koolaid.

[Anonymous User]

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?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

[Anonymous User]

??? If roster of clients is so important, why don't the top recruits choose the Cravaths of the world?
....

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

[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!

It's guaranteed so long as you stay; you have to bill at least 2000 to get the provisional award, but once you get it, there is no requirement during the 3-year vesting period except that you stay at the firm.

To the other person who asked if it's $50,000 per year (or whatever it might be - the award is a percentage of firm profits so it varies year-to-year); yes, you can get a provisional award every year from 2nd through 6th. So if you get all of them, that's about $250,000 to $350,000 in above-market compensation over a 5-year period. I don't think there's a firm with better compensation that I know of other than Wachtell (though I think their per-hour comp is actually worse because they bill twice as much as us - do the math) and maybe 1 or 2 obscure boutiques.

Partnership is competitive but they promote almost entirely from within (not laterally) and traditionally promote a decent number of generalists and service/working partners so it's more attainable here than most big law firms. The track can be as short as 7 years (some superstars get it even quicker) and as long as like 10 or 11 depending on when you choose to go up, how many deferrals you take, etc. I like the NY office. Don't know as much about the others. People are as social as they want to be. I generally prefer to socialize with non-work friends and appreciate that I have the time and space to do so, but do have a bunch of friends at work. There are a lot of cool people at Quinn. People are encouraged to be themselves and the firm generally cultivates a loose, fun environment which I think makes it easier to form genuine connections. But there may be less capture bonding than at other firms that force everyone to be in-office at all times.

To the person who asked how mentorship works: My general impression is that much of big law "training" is learning by doing. Quinn is certainly that way. Most people here are relatively comfortable figuring stuff out on their own, learning from exemplars and observing the editing process, etc. Associates also get stand-up opportunities and substantive work earlier here than elsewhere (plenty of first-years are taking depositions, drafting dispositive motions, etc.) so you can get a lot of experiential training that way. You may get slightly more "hands on" mentorship elsewhere, but to me, the cost of having someone breathing down my neck isn't worth it. I prefer the autonomy we get. If you want more hands-on mentorship, you can find more hands-on partners/associates to work with who will give it to you. Easily done, since it's a total free-market system. I know a few...

It's basically just all up to you.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

I stopped taking this seriously when you argued that Cravath is worse than Wachtell at litigation. According to several sources, including Chambers, Cravath is much better than Wachtell at litigation. I certainly agree that the firms are peers for corporate law, however.

This is also the fourth or so time I've seen the no true Scotsman fallacy. It certainly doesn't seem that "anyone with any real knowledge" (such as yourself, of course) recognizes that Cravath is worse than most of the boutiques. Otherwise we would see a marked difference in exit options, which I have shown do not exist. In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

I don't write this to convince you, because your worth comes from feeling like an insider who bucks the consensus on Cravath. That's fine. I write this for students who would otherwise be easily beguiled. I encourage you to look up Munger's ratings on Chambers and compare them to Cravath's, and then tell me honestly which firm is overall better (even without the Vault rankings, which are of course relevant). The truth is that small firms can fill their class with a higher proportion of HYS students, but that doesn't always translate to practice area strength or overall reputation in the field, which of course matter and are where Cravath truly shines.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

I stopped taking this seriously when you argued that Cravath is worse than Wachtell at litigation. According to several sources, including Chambers, Cravath is much better than Wachtell at litigation. I certainly agree that the firms are peers for corporate law, however.

This is also the fourth or so time I've seen the no true Scotsman fallacy. It certainly doesn't seem that "anyone with any real knowledge" (such as yourself, of course) recognizes that Cravath is worse than most of the boutiques. Otherwise we would see a marked difference in exit options, which I have shown do not exist. In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

I don't write this to convince you, because your worth comes from feeling like an insider who bucks the consensus on Cravath. That's fine. I write this for students who would otherwise be easily beguiled. I encourage you to look up Munger's ratings on Chambers and compare them to Cravath's, and then tell me honestly which firm is overall better (even without the Vault rankings, which are of course relevant). The truth is that small firms can fill their class with a higher proportion of HYS students, but that doesn't always translate to practice area strength or overall reputation in the field, which of course matter and are where Cravath truly shines.

Lol. This poster reminds me of the "it's just a flesh wound" guy in Monty Python.

[Anonymous User]

Hadn't chimed into this so far, but I'm at a lit boutique and I agree with the Cravath poster. You might not impress anyone in top-end commercial lit by going to Cravath, but you're not hurting anything. The idea that there's a "kind of firm [that] opens up the most opportunities for the high-achieving, ambitious law student" mistakenly assumes 1) there are particular doors to be opened, apart from the chance to practice in the environment and area that you want to, and 2) that those opportunities can be compared apples-to-apples.

What does this high achieving law student actually want to do? If the answer is taking depositions and going to trial, they should go to a boutique. If the answer is learning how to run a team and becoming head of a major company's litigation department, they should go to Cravath. If the answer is becoming the Ohio solicitor general, they should probably go to the Columbus office of Jones Day.

Likewise, it's not crazy to put Susman in a lower band than Kirkland, when that band is general commercial lit. Kirkland handles its clients' portfolio companies' employment suits, contract disputes, etc. Susman isn't in that market segment and doesn't want to be. (For the record, Susman's rankings on Chambers are dumb, but not because they're the firm to call when you're a company needing some general litigation service. Call them when you've got something worth their time.)

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

I stopped taking this seriously when you argued that Cravath is worse than Wachtell at litigation. According to several sources, including Chambers, Cravath is much better than Wachtell at litigation. I certainly agree that the firms are peers for corporate law, however.

This is also the fourth or so time I've seen the no true Scotsman fallacy. It certainly doesn't seem that "anyone with any real knowledge" (such as yourself, of course) recognizes that Cravath is worse than most of the boutiques. Otherwise we would see a marked difference in exit options, which I have shown do not exist. In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

I don't write this to convince you, because your worth comes from feeling like an insider who bucks the consensus on Cravath. That's fine. I write this for students who would otherwise be easily beguiled. I encourage you to look up Munger's ratings on Chambers and compare them to Cravath's, and then tell me honestly which firm is overall better (even without the Vault rankings, which are of course relevant). The truth is that small firms can fill their class with a higher proportion of HYS students, but that doesn't always translate to practice area strength or overall reputation in the field, which of course matter and are where Cravath truly shines.

Lol. This poster reminds me of the "it's just a flesh wound" guy in Monty Python.

The truth is that Michelin three star restaurants can afford to fill their kitchens with the best chefs in the world, but that doesn't always translate to overall market penetration, which of course matter and are where Applebee's truly shines. Applebee's profits obviously dwarf Alinea's, so stop trying to act like some insider trying to "buck the consensus."

True, Cravath literally has like 1/30th or 1/40th the proportion of appellate clerks, but trust me, we're the best. Why are you trying to dispute it? Stop trying to be such "an insider."

[Anonymous User]

Fair points. But "becoming head of a major company's litigation department" is a pretty unlikely outcome for the vast majority of Cravath lit associates. Most Cravathers' long-term outcomes will track those of other generic, above-average biglaw firms (e.g., lateral into smaller firms, often firms that are slighly below the very top firms in the associates' home markets, AUSA, in-house to the extent available, etc.). I don't disagree that Susman won't optimize someone's chances of becoming the lit head for a major company. To the extent that's the goal, the appropriate corollary for Susman is Wachtell, not Cravath. Susman and Wachtell are peer firms, Susman and Cravath are not. The difference in selectivity and desirability is so massive that it doesn't make sense to discuss them in the same context.

I'd also note that it's not just the small boutiques that boast associate credentials that are substantially stronger than Cravath's. Most of the brand-name biglaw offices in DC, Williams & Connolly-type places (lit only firms but too big to be called boutiques), and even top biglaw in some major non-NYC markets (think LA, SF, Dallas, even Jones Day Columbus) have stronger associate rosters. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Cravath. But it's a fairly generic, large office in the least competitive major market in the country, and the posters in this thread are just pushing back against the bizarre notion that getting a Cravath offer is some sort of golden ticket. There's a reason no one attacks peer firms (Davis Polk, STB, even S&C, etc.) in the same way--seems like Cravath cultivates this sort of look-down-on-others ethos in its own internal marketing/recruitment/culture, and it rubs people the wrong way.

Lol at "peer firms." Cravath's only peer firm is Wachtell (excluding noncomparable boutiques). Cravath has the highest average deal value of any firm in the country, ranks no. 1 on the national and regional prestige rankings, and the outcomes between Cravath, Susman, and Wachtell associates are indistinguishable.

These kinds of threads seem to pop up every now and then, mostly when Vault releases its rankings and the TLS gurus come out to tell us plebes why 20k associates, Chambers, Legal 500, and employers are all wrong.

what are you even talking about. I'm willing to actually give some credit where it's due and say that Cravath's litigation department is a solid place, especially for general commercial litigation. but now you're talking about recent deal flow...?? In the past couple of years, Cravath has literally failed to land any of the blockbuster deals (Pfizer-Seagen, Microsoft-Activision, Discovery-AT&T, Twitter, not to mention the big consortium PE deals because the firm doesn't have any PE competency and, unlike S&C and DPW, seems to have given up on trying to build something lol). I think you might be referring to that one early January 2022 Bloomberg feature reporting on Cravath's dealflow for 2021? Sure, but then the firm quickly went radio silent for the rest of the year and hasn't been back now that we're more than halfway through 2023. their corporate team has been bled dry starting with barshay leaving, then the exodus to kirkland, then zoubek to freshfields, THEN the string of departures to dpw recently despite changing comp structure. but keep drinking the koolaid if it makes you happy i guess

Threads like this demonstrate that people at Cravath are being compensated primarily in (perceived) preftige. Their per-hour compensation and working conditions are so abysmal that they need to be continually reassured that it's still "worth it" because they can be "peerless" and lord over others. The derangement goes so far that otherwise intelligent people find themselves defending the accuracy of ludicrous Vault rankings that put some firm called "Troutman Pepper" above Kellogg which is full of SCOTUS clerks. Also a total joke to think Cravath is more preftigious than Wachtell.

When it comes to litigation, anyone with any real knowledge recognizes that while Cravath is marginally better than most of the rest of the typical biglaw firms, it is worse than Wachtell and most of the boutiques. The fact that there are literally like 10 or 20 firms better at litigation (and more selective) than Cravath is something people at Cravath just cannot accept. It would cause their entire worldview to crumble. They have sacrificed too much at the altar of preftige. It is a terrible place to work with horrible hours, no tolerance for individualism, and a zero fun policy. Overall a bad deal - unless you're willing to accept half your compensation in the form of lay preftige (since you bill almost twice as much as other firms that pay the same). People say CSM's office is the Death Star. Having once worked there, I can confirm. Permeated by evil vibes. Not a good time.

I stopped taking this seriously when you argued that Cravath is worse than Wachtell at litigation. According to several sources, including Chambers, Cravath is much better than Wachtell at litigation. I certainly agree that the firms are peers for corporate law, however.

This is also the fourth or so time I've seen the no true Scotsman fallacy. It certainly doesn't seem that "anyone with any real knowledge" (such as yourself, of course) recognizes that Cravath is worse than most of the boutiques. Otherwise we would see a marked difference in exit options, which I have shown do not exist. In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

I don't write this to convince you, because your worth comes from feeling like an insider who bucks the consensus on Cravath. That's fine. I write this for students who would otherwise be easily beguiled. I encourage you to look up Munger's ratings on Chambers and compare them to Cravath's, and then tell me honestly which firm is overall better (even without the Vault rankings, which are of course relevant). The truth is that small firms can fill their class with a higher proportion of HYS students, but that doesn't always translate to practice area strength or overall reputation in the field, which of course matter and are where Cravath truly shines.

Lol. This poster reminds me of the "it's just a flesh wound" guy in Monty Python.

The truth is that Michelin three star restaurants can afford to fill their kitchens with the best chefs in the world, but that doesn't always translate to overall market penetration, which of course matter and are where Applebee's truly shines. Applebee's profits obviously dwarf Alinea's, so stop trying to act like some insider trying to "buck the consensus."

True, Cravath literally has like 1/30th or 1/40th the proportion of appellate clerks, but trust me, we're the best. Why are you trying to dispute it? Stop trying to be such "an insider."

Also, this whole argument that "the only reason Cravath doesn't have [even close] to the percentage of appellate clerk associates is because these other firms are much tinier and can be picky" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Susman has 62 (litigation) associates, Williams and Connolly has 178, and by a rough count, Cravath looks like it has a bit over 120. Somehow Susman and Williams and Connolly are packed to the brim with appellate clerks with glittering resumes, while Cravath has like 1 appellate clerk per 30-40 associates. I mean, lol.

[Anonymous User]

It’s almost as if they’ve found something more important than clerkships…

[Anonymous User]

It’s almost as if they’ve found something more important than clerkships…

Ah, so now you are suggesting that the future Cravath associates were more desirable to law firms for some other reason. What might that be? At this point, you're just making it up as you go. Lame. I hate prestige-chasing/posturing in our profession as anyone else, but at least the high-end clerkship crowd has some substance behind their elitism. Cravathers are basically $50K millionaires who can't stop reminding everyone they see that they drive a BMW 3-series.

[Anonymous User]

In fact, the majority of AUSA's came from top firms, including Cravath.

This thread is wild, just wild. But in any case, of course the majority of AUSAs come from top firms, because that’s where the majority of lawyers are. Those firms are huge. Susman has 62 associates, so of course there are fewer ex-Susman alums floating around.

(This is leaving aside the question of whether partnership prospects and consequently attrition are the same at the top boutiques compared to the biglaw behemoths, in part because I have absolutely no idea, but it’s definitely a factor that could make a difference.)

[Anonymous User]

As one of the posters who have been contributing, I feel bad about hijacking a thread about Quinn. But it's OCI season, and impressionable law students are trying to do their research now, and it's important to call out BS where we can. Especially when the BS is advanced so forcefully, stubbornly, and repeatedly.

If this is how Cravath lawyers respond to undisputable facts, I can't imagine how forcefully they gaslight their recruits during callbacks etc. I worry in particular about high-achieving first-gen law students who just see the Vault ranking and are bamboozled into foregoing better options. This is an important decision, and if you have the grades to go somewhere better than Cravath, do your due diligence. Use the search function: there's a ton of great wisdom that's percolated in TLS through the years. Compare the associate rosters and make a decision for yourself.