Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY) Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
At this point I think I am interested in some sort of litigation. Which would you choose? Thanks for the help!
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
This is such an easy decision, Cahill is simply a much finer firm (especially when it comes to litigation). Definitely Cahill
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
This is an absolute no-brainer. Cahill's better at litigation and isn't a miserable sweatshop (as is Cadwalader).
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
I think Cadwalader is a better firm than Cahill. Their new litigation partners from Proskauer make their litigation department better than Cahills. Cadwalader will also lead to better exit options for sure. I don't get why people are voting for Cahill.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Because of the working atmosphere. 2 or 3 new partners do not an entire litigation department make. Plus, Cadwalader is more likely than Cahill to implode in the next few years.Anonymous User wrote:I think Cadwalader is a better firm than Cahill. Their new litigation partners from Proskauer make their litigation department better than Cahills. Cadwalader will also lead to better exit options for sure. I don't get why people are voting for Cahill.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
cahill is also a sweat shop...choose cadwalader for its better exit options
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Why do you think it has better exit options? Exit options not particularly good with 2 years of doc review.Anonymous User wrote:cahill is also a sweat shop...choose cadwalader for its better exit options
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
same thing at cahill (re: two years of doc review)
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
cadwalader has a better vault ranking also, why is everyone saying cahill is a finer firm?
- Kohinoor
- Posts: 2641
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Extremely subtle trolling by a Cadwalader hater trying to get Cadwalader bashing to rise to a fevered beat.Anonymous User wrote:cadwalader has a better vault ranking also, why is everyone saying cahill is a finer firm?
- McBean
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:41 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
You'll work your ass off at both, but both will have lucrative exit options. Cadwalader has a bad employee morale reputation, but mostly unearned (IMO). And Cahill does not have the highest PPP because they coddle their associates and let them all leave at 6. It may come down to which one you felt better at during your call back. I did call backs at both and definitely know which one I liked.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Cahill. Reading that Cadwalader thread scares me.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Well, which did you like better?McBean wrote:You'll work your ass off at both, but both will have lucrative exit options. Cadwalader has a bad employee morale reputation, but mostly unearned (IMO). And Cahill does not have the highest PPP because they coddle their associates and let them all leave at 6. It may come down to which one you felt better at during your call back. I did call backs at both and definitely know which one I liked.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Dunno what Cahill's leverage in their litigation dept is (their website doesn't break associates down by practice area and their NALP sheet is blank), but Cadwalader appears to be 7:1. Don't know why you'll have particularly great exit options as a fungible 3d/4th year associate with lots of experience in doc review out of there.Anonymous User wrote:Well, which did you like better?McBean wrote:You'll work your ass off at both, but both will have lucrative exit options. Cadwalader has a bad employee morale reputation, but mostly unearned (IMO). And Cahill does not have the highest PPP because they coddle their associates and let them all leave at 6. It may come down to which one you felt better at during your call back. I did call backs at both and definitely know which one I liked.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Cadwalader sucks. It's a bunch of half-cocked self-anointed "sharks" from unprestigious schools. They try to play with the big boys by jacking up their PPP using ridiculous leverage ratios.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
If the firms are somewhat comparable, this is the best matrix. Personality fit will go far, because you'll get along better with partners which leads to protection from firing/better experience and therefore better exit options.Anonymous User wrote:
Well, which did you like better?
It's all about the exit options for most incoming associate, because so many won't make it past 3-5 years (by choice or not).
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
OP: unlike all of these students with no big law experience giving you advice, I've actually worked as a lawyer at CWT. It's not as bad as the law school admissions boards (TLS and xoxo) make it out to be at all. The firm isn't about to implode. Economically it's fine. They laid off a lot of attorneys (almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back), but, as they'll tell you, they never once engaged in stealth "performance-based" layoffs. On the contrary they actually wrote rec letters to help laid off attorneys find work with clients, other firms, etc. And since they were one of the first to lay people off, the job market wasn't totally flooded with laid off attorneys from all the other firms; so the CWT people actually benefited by being first. And like it or not, the CWT partners who made the call were right: the economy was about to nosedive.
Re: Cahill v. CWT, go with your gut feeling. Both are fine firms; I don't know much about litigation at either, but I do know that CWT's lit department has been busy, and they have some very, very high profile clients.
Re: Cahill v. CWT, go with your gut feeling. Both are fine firms; I don't know much about litigation at either, but I do know that CWT's lit department has been busy, and they have some very, very high profile clients.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
What about the people in the second, third, and fourth rounds of layoffs?Anonymous User wrote:They laid off a lot of attorneys (almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back), but, as they'll tell you, they never once engaged in stealth "performance-based" layoffs. On the contrary they actually wrote rec letters to help laid off attorneys find work with clients, other firms, etc. And since they were one of the first to lay people off, the job market wasn't totally flooded with laid off attorneys from all the other firms; so the CWT people actually benefited by being first. And like it or not, the CWT partners who made the call were right: the economy was about to nosedive.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
see, "almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back"Anonymous User wrote:What about the people in the second, third, and fourth rounds of layoffs?Anonymous User wrote:They laid off a lot of attorneys (almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back), but, as they'll tell you, they never once engaged in stealth "performance-based" layoffs. On the contrary they actually wrote rec letters to help laid off attorneys find work with clients, other firms, etc. And since they were one of the first to lay people off, the job market wasn't totally flooded with laid off attorneys from all the other firms; so the CWT people actually benefited by being first. And like it or not, the CWT partners who made the call were right: the economy was about to nosedive.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
I would choose Cadwalader in a heartbeat for litigation, but that's just me.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
See "since they were one of the first to lay people off, the job market wasn't totally flooded with laid off attorneys from all the other firms; so the CWT people actually benefited by being first."Anonymous User wrote:see, "almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back"Anonymous User wrote:What about the people in the second, third, and fourth rounds of layoffs?Anonymous User wrote:They laid off a lot of attorneys (almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back), but, as they'll tell you, they never once engaged in stealth "performance-based" layoffs. On the contrary they actually wrote rec letters to help laid off attorneys find work with clients, other firms, etc. And since they were one of the first to lay people off, the job market wasn't totally flooded with laid off attorneys from all the other firms; so the CWT people actually benefited by being first. And like it or not, the CWT partners who made the call were right: the economy was about to nosedive.
Did those RMBS folks (including first years) laid off in later rounds really benefit from anything at all? It's not like first years in a practice area know anything or have gained skills such that it would really matter to them if RMBS never comes back (and while it no longer represents 40% of their business, it is still a strong component of what they do).
-
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
~Chambers associateLayoffs in 2008 and 2009 – which included many first-year associates – left a sour taste, even though management was honest about the reasons. “We were well aware that making layoffs before any other firm would put us in the cross-hairs of the press, but we were very public and open about it,” Chairman Christopher White explained. “We didn’t surreptitiously fire associates via the back door, saying it was because they weren’t performing when the problem was the market. We sent them out of the front door with lots of support and letters of recommendation.”
There’s no point sugarcoating the fact that Cadwalader is “famous for having crappy morale.” It predates both the recession and the ensuing layoffs, and most likely stems from the 1990s when, under managing partner Robert Link, Cadwalader transformed itself into an aggressive, profit-driven organization. It became the epitome of the ‘eat what you kill’ movement. The financial success that followed came at the expense of a collegial environment, but as long as times were good no one had cause to complain.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
Yes, Chambers Associate.
I've worked there. I'm only speaking from real, live personal experience.
Good luck w/ your decision OP.
I've worked there. I'm only speaking from real, live personal experience.
Good luck w/ your decision OP.
-
- Posts: 428118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Poll: Cahill (NY) v. Cadwalader (NY)
29 to 8? in favor of cahill Is this really warranted? Do we have attorneys from either CWT or Cahill still on TLS? I'm interested in transactional work and want the best outcome in terms of sticking around in big law as long as possible and then exiting to a $$$ more lifestyle job.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login