Top Law Schools

Offers from both (NYC), but I realize they have very different reputations. Leaning towards litigation, but not 100% married to the idea. Beyond that, I'm flexible and would like to explore different practice areas (none are ruled out).

Interviews at both were decent. Neither firm had partners/associates who totally dazzled me (interestingly enough, one partner during my CB at GDC really impressed me), but neither had interviewers who really turned me off either. Thoughts?

Anonymous User wrote:Offers from both (NYC), but I realize they have very different reputations. Leaning towards litigation, but not 100% married to the idea. Beyond that, I'm flexible and would like to explore different practice areas (none are ruled out).

Interviews at both were decent. Neither firm had partners/associates who totally dazzled me (interestingly enough, one partner during my CB at GDC really impressed me), but neither had interviewers who really turned me off either. Thoughts?

I think this is tough. I think Cleary is more humane and a more pleasant place to work, so I would pick them based on atmosphere. But S&C has a "better" litigation department. I think it depends on what sort of stuff you're interested in within litigation (if you know). If it's international lit or arbitration, I think Cleary's a no brainer. If it's white collar, that weighs more heavily in my mind in favor of S&C.

Just out of curiosity, are you considering GDC? They're not as "overall prestigious" as the other two, but their lit department is hard to beat, even in NY.

If I had to pick, I would say Cleary. Better work environment, and while it may not be quite as strong for lit as S&C, the difference is marginal.

Edit: Oh, and congrats.

Cleary. The prestige bump, if it exists, is minimal, and Cleary is right up there with DPW/Debevoise as far as more humane NYC firms go.

OP here. Arbitration seems interesting to me, though I think I would realistically go with white-collar instead.

One of my possible goals is to become an AUSA. Any thoughts on which firm (if either) would be better for that sort of career path?

OP, did you talk to Victor Hou? If not, ask if you can talk to him. He's a newly minted partner at Cleary and used to work as an AUSA. I worked on one of his cases when he was a senior associate and I was a paralegal and I thought he was also a funny, candid person.

what does everyone mean when they say humane?

As far as I know, S&C/DPW/Cleary all work about the same hours.

legends159 wrote:what does everyone mean when they say humane?

As far as I know, S&C/DPW/Cleary all work about the same hours.

Well, I have heard S&C is slightly more. I have never worked at any of these firms, so any information I have is second-hand, but talking to people who have, S&C has a reputations for having (1) screamers, and (2) very competitive associates, (3) very aggressive associates, and (4) a very competitive work environment. Cleary and DPW do not, relatively speaking.

legends159 wrote:what does everyone mean when they say humane?

As far as I know, S&C/DPW/Cleary all work about the same hours.

Humane = passive/aggressive. Not my cup of tea.

Anonymous User wrote:

legends159 wrote:what does everyone mean when they say humane?

As far as I know, S&C/DPW/Cleary all work about the same hours.

Humane = passive/aggressive. Not my cup of tea.

The "I can't deal with passive aggressive people because I never know if I fucked up" refrain seems to scream "I have no emotional intelligence and can't pick up on signals."

Not saying either applies to S&C/DPW, but just that the general argument strikes me as weak sauce.

rayiner wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

legends159 wrote:what does everyone mean when they say humane?

As far as I know, S&C/DPW/Cleary all work about the same hours.

Humane = passive/aggressive. Not my cup of tea.

The "I can't deal with passive aggressive people because I never know if I fucked up" refrain seems to scream "I have no emotional intelligence and can't pick up on signals."

Not saying either applies to S&C/DPW, but just that the general argument strikes me as weak sauce.

It's good enough for me. I also felt no chemistry with DPW. I just prefer the no-nonsense all-business approach. I declined DPW for that reason.

But hey that's just me.