Top Law Schools

At this point I think I am interested in some sort of litigation. Which would you choose? Thanks for the help!

This is such an easy decision, Cahill is simply a much finer firm (especially when it comes to litigation). Definitely Cahill

This is an absolute no-brainer. Cahill's better at litigation and isn't a miserable sweatshop (as is Cadwalader).

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.

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.

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.

cahill is also a sweat shop...choose cadwalader for its better exit options

Anonymous User wrote:cahill is also a sweat shop...choose cadwalader for its better exit options

Why do you think it has better exit options? Exit options not particularly good with 2 years of doc review.

same thing at cahill (re: two years of doc review)

cadwalader has a better vault ranking also, why is everyone saying cahill is a finer firm?

Anonymous User wrote:cadwalader has a better vault ranking also, why is everyone saying cahill is a finer firm?

Extremely subtle trolling by a Cadwalader hater trying to get Cadwalader bashing to rise to a fevered beat.

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.

Cahill. Reading that Cadwalader thread scares me.

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.

Well, which did you like better?

Anonymous User wrote:

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.

Well, which did you like better?

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.

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.

Anonymous User wrote:
Well, which did you like better?

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.

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).

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.

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.

What about the people in the second, third, and fourth rounds of layoffs?

.

Anonymous User wrote:

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.

What about the people in the second, third, and fourth rounds of layoffs?

see, "almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back"

I would choose Cadwalader in a heartbeat for litigation, but that's just me.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

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.

What about the people in the second, third, and fourth rounds of layoffs?

see, "almost all were heavily involved in RMBS work, which isn't coming back"

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."

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).

Layoffs 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.

~Chambers associate

Yes, Chambers Associate.
I've worked there. I'm only speaking from real, live personal experience.
Good luck w/ your decision OP.

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.