Cahill v. Dechert v. Dewey v. Milbank v. White & Case Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have offers in hand from the following firms. I am exclusively interested in transactional work (capital markets, corporate/m&a, financial restructuring, and possibly tax). I have very little interest in litigation.

While I received very favorable impressions from all of the firms that I met with, but am leaning towards Cahill given their area of expertise.

The idea of working for a large international firm (i.e. White & Case) does not appeal to me anymore than working for a small specialized firm (i.e. Cahill).

I already know where Vault places each of these firms, so please did not let vault rankings heavily influence your vote.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill if you are interested in leveraged finance.

[chadwick218]

Of the firms listed, both Dechert and Milbank no-offered a sizable # of summer associates in recent years.

[Anonymous User]

How long between callback to offer for these firms? ty.

[Anonymous User]

How long between callback to offer for these firms? ty.

From on the spot to about a week and a half.

[Anonymous User]

How long between callback to offer for these firms? ty.

From on the spot to about a week and a half.

Which firm(s) gave on the spot offers?

[Anonymous User]

How long between callback to offer for these firms? ty.

From on the spot to about a week and a half.

Which firm(s) gave on the spot offers?

I'm curious about this also.

Also, Cahill, although I'm not sure about White & Case bc I didn't even get a screening interview with them.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill has, but I've also heard someone got an offer a week later too. So who knows.

[let/them/eat/cake]

OP, school/stats? I'm just wondering, PM me if you'd like.

[Anonymous User]

OP here: My fear w/ White & Case is that I have spoken with a handful of associates at other firms who have indicated that they felt that White & Case associates seemed to perform more mundane work and doc review than their peers at other firms.

[Anonymous User]

I am also very interested in Cahill.

What are the general thoughts on the firm for transactional work for those who failed to make the V15 cut? Cahill historically has shown some of the highest profits per partner while not having the same sort of reputation as CWT.

[Anonymous User]

off topic--what was your turnaround like for dewey? was it a week and a half or sooner?

[Anonymous User]

off topic--what was your turnaround like for dewey? was it a week and a half or sooner?

dewey took about 1.5 weeks. in fact, it may have actually been much closer to 2 weeks. fwiw, of the firms listed, dewey may have had the nicest offices.

[Anonymous User]

Also, for the ppl voting White & Case, why? Vault Ranking? Global Prestige?

[Anonymous User]

I just added Kaye Scholer.

[Anonymous User]

I'd go with Cahill given your interest.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know why people are picking Cahill over Milbank for corporate. Cahill seems to focus on a few niche areas in corporate and OP doesn't seem to indicate he has decided.

[Anonymous User]

IMHO, please, please do not make your decision based upon a vault law firm ranking. It is not a particularly useful metric. I can assure you that among people who practice, the vault rankings are just not taken seriously. They are perhaps only useful to illustrate certain basic echelons among firms. That is, if you are completely in the dark about law firms, the rankings can at least direct you to firms that particularly accomplished; it is no surprise to those who practice that Cravath is ranked higher than Arent Fox (no offense intended to Arent Fox). Beyond that, the vault rankings have little utility. What is behind a "Vault Prestige Ranking"? Why, merely the generally ill-informed opinion of young associates who have little to no idea of what legal practice is like at any firm other than their own. Thought experiment: Would you trust a twenty-six year old who worked at Paul Weiss (or insert any other Vault 50 firm) to rank the Vault 20-30 authoritatively? On what reasonable basis could that associate make such judgment? Furthermore, wouldn't you want that associate to at least gauge the ability of lawyers at other firms he has come up against as opposed to measuring their "prestige"? Asking these associates to gauge the "prestige" of dozens of other firms is an inherently vague metric. Why would you see such a ranking as persuasive? Wouldn't you want to view rankings that based upon more comprehensive criteria (such as those provided by clients to Chambers USA, a far more relied-upon guide for those who do practice). If you are interested in a particular practice area, check out the Chambers rankings or practice-group specific rankings of the firms you're evaluating.

My advice would be to meet as many lawyers as you can from each of the firms where you have offers. Try to the extent you can to gauge what the culture is like and whether you might feel comfortable working with these people. Speak to junior associates, senior associates, partners, people who have been at the firm a long time, etc. When you're working late hours, would you want to work with these people? People matter and humane distinctions among firms is one of the most under-appreciated parts of biglaw legal practice. For the summer program, how much flexibility do you have to explore your interests? Will you be able to get a good idea of what people actually do at the firm? Keep an open mind. Often people start their summers interested in one particular area and leave with a somewhat different idea (the exception is usually people who have significant pre-law school work experience in a particular area that depends upon legal services). What is the junior associate experience like for transactional associates? What kinds of assignments do they take on and what kind of responsibilities do they pursue typically? With offers in hand, you can begin to get answers to these questions which may help you to distinguish among these firms.

Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know why people are picking Cahill over Milbank for corporate. Cahill seems to focus on a few niche areas in corporate and OP doesn't seem to indicate he has decided.

OP here: I am interested in Cahill given their expertise in leverage finance. With that being said, I am interested in Milbank given their project finance, financial restructuring, and tax practices. I do like the fact that Cahill has a structureless practice group.

Also, the Vault Ranking will really not influence my decision all that much. My top choice right now is Cahill (despite the lower vault ranking). Would I be justified to accept Cahill over White & Case and Milbank?

Also, post-summer offers are very important. Cahill has been very consistent in giving near 100% offers. Milbank, on the other hand, had dipped in recent years.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry if this is off-topic, OP, but how long did it take you to hear from Milbank?

[Anonymous User]

Cahill also cleared their deferrals as far as I know if that makes a difference. The recent grads (SA's in '09) are starting in mid October instead of early January '11 (as was originally scheduled).

[Anonymous User]

Why are people voting for Dechert? Seriously.

[Anonymous User]

Why are people voting for Dechert? Seriously.

OP here. I was wondering the same damn thing. There's gotta be an error in the polling. I mean Dechert?

[Anonymous User]

This is not the Dechert v Shulte v Kaye scholar thread. Confused 0Ls?

[Anonymous User]

Why are people voting for Dechert? Seriously.

OP here. I was wondering the same damn thing. There's gotta be an error in the polling. I mean Dechert?

I'm the person you quoted. Dechert was the one CB most of my friends ended up canceling. In NY, unless you want to do, like, mass torts, it seems like the firm where people end up who don't have any other offers. (And seriously, who the fuck wants to do mass torts?) Although Andy Levander does do some really interesting work, esp. for someone at a big firm.

Anyway, my guess is the people who voted Dechert thought is was French and pronounced "Deh-shirt."