Top Law Schools

If you had the following offers, which ones would you drop?

To give you some info, I am interested in trying both lit and transactional work next summer. For lit, I'm most interested in white collar and corporate investigations. For transactional, I'm interested in M&A or possibly tax. I also like international work.

I also don't like being yelled at and prefer not to work at a sweatshop, though I imagine every large NYC firm is somewhat of a sweatshop. But a "nice firm" reputation is probably more in tune w/ my non-aggressive nature. Not really gunning for partnership either, just a place to get good experience and not want to kill myself.

All NYC:
- Sullivan & Cromwell
- Skadden
- Davis Polk
- Cleary Gottlieb
- Paul Weiss
- Debevoise

Anonymous User wrote:If you had the following offers, which ones would you drop?

To give you some info, I am interested in trying both lit and transactional work next summer. For lit, I'm most interested in white collar and corporate investigations. For transactional, I'm interested in M&A or possibly tax. I also like international work.

I also don't like being yelled at and prefer not to work at a sweatshop, though I imagine every large NYC firm is somewhat of a sweatshop. But a "nice firm" reputation is probably more in tune w/ my non-aggressive nature. Not really gunning for partnership either, just a place to get good experience and not want to kill myself.

All NYC:
- Sullivan & Cromwell
- Skadden
- Davis Polk
- Cleary Gottlieb
- Paul Weiss
- Debevoise

Skadden and one of Debevoise/Davis Polk. Friends seem to all have a thing for Davis Polk, so probably Skadden and Debevoise.

Keep Davis Polk and Paul Weiss

Dispose of the rest in whichever way you see fit.

Pablo Ramirez wrote:Keep Davis Polk and Paul Weiss

Dispose of the rest in whichever way you see fit.

+1.

.

i've heard before "wlrk is as good at litigation as pw is at corporate," which i think was meant to disparage both of those practice groups.

from what i hear, s&c is usually mentioned in the same sweatshop tier as cravath and wlrk, while dpw, cleary, deb, pw is believed to be a second tier sweatshop. simpson and skadden are mentioned in both tiers depending on who's talking. then again, that's just a bunch of 2L-talk with nothing to really back it.

Anonymous User wrote:If you had the following offers, which ones would you drop?

To give you some info, I am interested in trying both lit and transactional work next summer. For lit, I'm most interested in white collar and corporate investigations. For transactional, I'm interested in M&A or possibly tax. I also like international work.

I also don't like being yelled at and prefer not to work at a sweatshop, though I imagine every large NYC firm is somewhat of a sweatshop. But a "nice firm" reputation is probably more in tune w/ my non-aggressive nature. Not really gunning for partnership either, just a place to get good experience and not want to kill myself.

All NYC:
- Sullivan & Cromwell
- Skadden
- Davis Polk
- Cleary Gottlieb
- Paul Weiss
- Debevoise

Dump Skadden and Paul Weiss. TS sucks, even if it is the Conde Naste building.

Anonymous User wrote:i've heard before "wlrk is as good at litigation as pw is at corporate," which i think was meant to disparage both of those practice groups.

from what i hear, s&c is usually mentioned in the same sweatshop tier as cravath and wlrk, while dpw, cleary, deb, pw is believed to be a second tier sweatshop. simpson and skadden are mentioned in both tiers depending on who's talking. then again, that's just a bunch of 2L-talk with nothing to really back it.

I think NYC biglaw are all sweatshops so QOL should not be a consideration if one chooses to work Nyc biglaw

legends159 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:i've heard before "wlrk is as good at litigation as pw is at corporate," which i think was meant to disparage both of those practice groups.

from what i hear, s&c is usually mentioned in the same sweatshop tier as cravath and wlrk, while dpw, cleary, deb, pw is believed to be a second tier sweatshop. simpson and skadden are mentioned in both tiers depending on who's talking. then again, that's just a bunch of 2L-talk with nothing to really back it.

I think NYC biglaw are all sweatshops so QOL should not be a consideration if one chooses to work Nyc biglaw

Some are more sweaty than others.

.

Pablo Ramirez wrote:

legends159 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:i've heard before "wlrk is as good at litigation as pw is at corporate," which i think was meant to disparage both of those practice groups.

from what i hear, s&c is usually mentioned in the same sweatshop tier as cravath and wlrk, while dpw, cleary, deb, pw is believed to be a second tier sweatshop. simpson and skadden are mentioned in both tiers depending on who's talking. then again, that's just a bunch of 2L-talk with nothing to really back it.

I think NYC biglaw are all sweatshops so QOL should not be a consideration if one chooses to work Nyc biglaw

Some are more sweaty than others.

really depends on a lot of factors out of your control. Some firms might expect a few more hours a week but the work might be more interesting and substantive and less busy work. You might go to a less sweaty firm but work for a very sweaty partner

.

NYAssociate wrote:

might be more interesting and substantive and less busy work.

Nope. The type of work at all these firms is pretty much the same.

I didn't limit my opinion to just the firms OP listed but to top NY firms. I think Cravath junior associates can get more substantive work b/c of the rotation system. I stress CAN b/c it's a crapshoot. But you're not limited to your class years in terms of responsibilities because you get almost all your work from one partner each rotation. WLRK associates definitely get more experience simply b/c the cases are so large and the firm so small. Those are the two firms notorious for sheer amount of hours associates are expected to work. The tradeoff is that first years have more opportunities to do more interesting work than their peers at other firms.

Skadden, Sullcrom, Cleary, DPW will pretty much give the same work b/c they adhere strictly to the class level hierarchy.

.

NYAssociate wrote:Don't understand the "keep Paul Weiss" mentality. Their corporate group is not nearly in the same league as the others.

I'd keep Davis Polk, Cleary, and Debevoise.

Seconded. S&C and Skadden have much less friendly reputations than Davis Polk, Cleary and Debevoise, so strike those two. As for PW, I don't know how friendly or aggressive it is, but PW is known for its stellar litigation practice and not so much for its corporate department.

Davis Polk and Cleary should be the leading candidates. Debevoise is solid, but not quite as good. The rest can go.

NYAssociate wrote:Oh, ok. The Wachtell thing rings true (of course). Didn't know that about Cravath.

Really? Another NY associate here, I thought everyone knew that.

.

I think given OP's practice area interest (at least in terms of trying stuff out), Debevoise should be up there. Their lit strength is white collar (they did the Siemens bribery case, and just hired Mukasey, Mary Jo White, and Lord Goldsmith), and their corporate strength is M&A.

I would agree that you should keep DPW, Cleary and Debevoise.

imchuckbass58 wrote:I think given OP's practice area interest (at least in terms of trying stuff out), Debevoise should be up there. Their lit strength is white collar (they did the Siemens bribery case, and just hired Mukasey, Mary Jo White, and Lord Goldsmith), and their corporate strength is M&A.

I would agree that you should keep DPW, Cleary and Debevoise.

Debevoise should definitely be in the picture because it has great people and a very solid white collar practice, as you noted. But its corporate and tax practices are discernibly weaker than Davis's and Cleary's.

Anonymous User wrote:

NYAssociate wrote:Oh, ok. The Wachtell thing rings true (of course). Didn't know that about Cravath.

Really? Another NY associate here, I thought everyone knew that.

everyone knows about rotations, just unclear how that leads to more substantive work

OP here. Thanks the replies - very helpful! I think I'm going to drop Skadden and then PW and then after that try and meet more people at the remaining places.

I also assume you guys recommend that I cancel my Weil callback?

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. Thanks the replies - very helpful! I think I'm going to drop Skadden and then PW and then after that try and meet more people at the remaining places.

I also assume you guys recommend that I cancel my Weil callback?

yes if you can't see yourself choosing them over your other options

Having similar interests and perferences to the OP, which of these two firms would you drop and why: Davis Polk or Simpson Thacher?

Anonymous User wrote:Having similar interests and perferences to the OP, which of these two firms would you drop and why: Davis Polk or Simpson Thacher?

I would drop STB.

Both firms have outstanding corporate departments, but DPW's litigation group is a little more high-profile. I have heard great things about both firms though. DPW has great practice groups across the board, while STB is stronger in some select areas.