Sidley NY Forum

[Anonymous User]

Sidley is not band 1 in anything specific to New York (except M&A/highly regarded), but does have several band 1 nationwide rankings: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/3692-42611. What makes Sidley a tough nut to crack is figuring out how the NY office fits into those high-band rankings - in securities, for example, it's almost all NY; in other areas, Chicago and DC play a bigger role. More of an art than a science.

agreed, it's absurdly hard to figure out where Sidley falls in terms of NY. i'll probably end up choosing the firm due to the culture (liked it way better & felt a lot more comfortable there than any of my other options). i also have absolutely no desire to do M&A though, would probably choose another firm if i did.

Making a similar decision and leaning the same way for the same reasons. Any chance you'd be willing to share any of the other places you're looking at or the practice areas you're considering?

i'd rather not say the exact names of the firms, but they are between v15 (sidley) & v30. i'm considering a NY-based firm with similar vault ranking to Sidley's, but i've heard a good number of people say it's a rough work environment, which is also the feel i got from my interviews overall, and that the firm is not doing particularly well financially (you may be able to guess the firm from those particular details).

i'm looking at corporate and leaning toward private equity and hedge funds right now, but have no idea how this may change after the summer. pre-ITE i'd also have liked Sidley for its securitization practice, but a lot of its work centered around mortgage-backed securities, which is total shit right now. if cap markets ever pick up again (have no idea what the outlook on this, other than it seems unlikely to happen anytime soon), i'd also look into getting that type of work if i do go to sidley.

sounds like our considerations are all pretty similar. nice to see someone else who's leaning toward the same result i am after thinking through this a bit.

[Anonymous User]

sounds like our considerations are all pretty similar. nice to see someone else who's leaning toward the same result i am after thinking through this a bit.

agreed! i feel like a lot of the discussion on here is M&A-skewed, which is fine for the people who want to do that but not too helpful otherwise. also, in addition to practice areas, i'm also considering national rep, possibility of lateraling to other offices within the firm, & the firm's overall financial health, which makes sidley a good fit for me personally despite the fact it's not a NYC M&A powerhouse.

[Anonymous User]

Hello. Sidley NY SA here. NY is as autonomous as any other office. If the concern is that the NY office works as a satellite office, somewhat like A&P NY or some other out of town firm, that is not the case. This is a 300+ lawyer office that generates its own work and can handle any matter from any of its clients. Securities and Gen. Comm lit are incredibly strong. NY office is positioned to expand white collar aggressively (see recent laterals). As for corporate, just as one would suspect, a great amount of work originates from the NY office specifically. Some major M&A matters are handled across offices based on what's needed. The NY office does interface on an international level quite frequently on both corporate and litigation side. I'd encourage anyone with questions to take their callback and second look. I had the same concerns going through the process after visiting true "satellite offices" of other firms, but those concerns were instantly allayed and further proven inaccurate after working at the firm. Just thought I'd add my two cents.

[Anonymous User]

Hello. Sidley NY SA here. NY is as autonomous as any other office. If the concern is that the NY office works as a satellite office, somewhat like A&P NY or some other out of town firm, that is not the case. This is a 300+ lawyer office that generates its own work and can handle any matter from any of its clients. Securities and Gen. Comm lit are incredibly strong. NY office is positioned to expand white collar aggressively (see recent laterals). As for corporate, just as one would suspect, a great amount of work originates from the NY office specifically. Some major M&A matters are handled across offices based on what's needed. The NY office does interface on an international level quite frequently on both corporate and litigation side. I'd encourage anyone with questions to take their callback and second look. I had the same concerns going through the process after visiting true "satellite offices" of other firms, but those concerns were instantly allayed and further proven inaccurate after working at the firm. Just thought I'd add my two cents.

You are an amazing godsend.

[rayiner]

Am I just retarded... because when I go to the above link I see NY having band 1 rankings in a lot of things, including corporate/MA. Where are you seeing "highly regarded"? And where did you read that "highly regarded" means band 5 or 6? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Less confusing ranking: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/3692-42611

Sidley is Band one in Corporate M&A "Highly Regarded". It's an entire separate category from Corporate M&A "The Elite". I think the distinction is one of smaller/mid-market deals versus mega deals.

[rayiner]

Bottom line, for general corporate practice, I think the tiers are roughly:

CSM/S&C/SASMF/DPW/STB/Cleary
Weil/Kirkland/Latham/Gibson
S&C/Willkie/Cahill/Milbank
Sidley/CWT/etc

[5ky]

Am I just retarded... because when I go to the above link I see NY having band 1 rankings in a lot of things, including corporate/MA. Where are you seeing "highly regarded"? And where did you read that "highly regarded" means band 5 or 6? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Less confusing ranking: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/3692-42611

Sidley is Band one in Corporate M&A "Highly Regarded". It's an entire separate category from Corporate M&A "The Elite". I think the distinction is one of smaller/mid-market deals versus mega deals.

That link just goes to Sidley's general page on Chambers. I'm thinking that perhaps you meant this: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/Editorial/36781

It's very easy to understand when laid out in this format.

[rayiner]

Am I just retarded... because when I go to the above link I see NY having band 1 rankings in a lot of things, including corporate/MA. Where are you seeing "highly regarded"? And where did you read that "highly regarded" means band 5 or 6? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Less confusing ranking: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/3692-42611

Sidley is Band one in Corporate M&A "Highly Regarded". It's an entire separate category from Corporate M&A "The Elite". I think the distinction is one of smaller/mid-market deals versus mega deals.

That link just goes to Sidley's general page on Chambers. I'm thinking that perhaps you meant this: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/Editorial/36781

It's very easy to understand when laid out in this format.

Click the "ranking" tab on the page I linked to see other practice areas. You can't link it directly.

[Anonymous User]

Bottom line, for general corporate practice, I think the tiers are roughly:

CSM/S&C/SASMF/DPW/STB/Cleary
Weil/Kirkland/Latham/Gibson
S&C/Willkie/Cahill/Milbank
Sidley/CWT/etc

Bottom line, this doesn't seem entirely plausible. Sidley should absolutely be a tier above Cadwalader, and both Cahill and Milbank are one-trick ponies on the corporate side. First two lines probably hold up, but putting Sidley at the bottom of this particular list is ridiculous.

[rayiner]

Bottom line, for general corporate practice, I think the tiers are roughly:

CSM/S&C/SASMF/DPW/STB/Cleary
Weil/Kirkland/Latham/Gibson
S&C/Willkie/Cahill/Milbank
Sidley/CWT/etc

Bottom line, this doesn't seem entirely plausible. Sidley should absolutely be a tier above Cadwalader, and both Cahill and Milbank are one-trick ponies on the corporate side. First two lines probably hold up, but putting Sidley at the bottom of this particular list is ridiculous.

Milbank and Cahill may be heavily dependent on project finance and high-yield debt, respectively, but Sidley NY is heavily dependent on securitization and the former are more complex, lucrative practice areas, while the latter is quite commoditized. Sidley NY's general litigation practice isn't ranked by Chambers, while Milbank gets a Band 4 in General Commercial Lit: The Elite. Milbank gets a higher rating in securities litigation. Milbank's tax and bankruptcy groups get higher ratings than Sidley's.

This is not meant as a slight on Sidley. But given a choice between Milbank and Sidley NY, I think there isn't a lot of reason to take the latter.

[Anonymous User]

Bottom line, for general corporate practice, I think the tiers are roughly:

CSM/S&C/SASMF/DPW/STB/Cleary
Weil/Kirkland/Latham/Gibson
S&C/Willkie/Cahill/Milbank
Sidley/CWT/etc

Bottom line, this doesn't seem entirely plausible. Sidley should absolutely be a tier above Cadwalader, and both Cahill and Milbank are one-trick ponies on the corporate side. First two lines probably hold up, but putting Sidley at the bottom of this particular list is ridiculous.

Milbank and Cahill may be heavily dependent on project finance and high-yield debt, respectively, but Sidley NY is heavily dependent on securitization and the former are more complex, lucrative practice areas, while the latter is quite commoditized. Sidley NY's general litigation practice isn't ranked by Chambers, while Milbank gets a Band 4 in General Commercial Lit: The Elite. Milbank gets a higher rating in securities litigation. Milbank's tax and bankruptcy groups get higher ratings than Sidley's.

This is not meant as a slight on Sidley. But given a choice between Milbank and Sidley NY, I think there isn't a lot of reason to take the latter.

When someone says "general corporate" that's usually not taken to mean "mostly litigation." Can't speak to litigation at all, but I'm "leaning corporate" and therefore looking at M&A (Sidley markedly better than Milbank and Cahill), private equity, and to a degree tax, real estate, capital markets, investment funds, etc. Sidley has a nice spread in all of these areas, even if it's not "elite."

[rayiner]

Bottom line, for general corporate practice, I think the tiers are roughly:

CSM/S&C/SASMF/DPW/STB/Cleary
Weil/Kirkland/Latham/Gibson
S&C/Willkie/Cahill/Milbank
Sidley/CWT/etc

Bottom line, this doesn't seem entirely plausible. Sidley should absolutely be a tier above Cadwalader, and both Cahill and Milbank are one-trick ponies on the corporate side. First two lines probably hold up, but putting Sidley at the bottom of this particular list is ridiculous.

Milbank and Cahill may be heavily dependent on project finance and high-yield debt, respectively, but Sidley NY is heavily dependent on securitization and the former are more complex, lucrative practice areas, while the latter is quite commoditized. Sidley NY's general litigation practice isn't ranked by Chambers, while Milbank gets a Band 4 in General Commercial Lit: The Elite. Milbank gets a higher rating in securities litigation. Milbank's tax and bankruptcy groups get higher ratings than Sidley's.

This is not meant as a slight on Sidley. But given a choice between Milbank and Sidley NY, I think there isn't a lot of reason to take the latter.

When someone says "general corporate" that's usually not taken to mean "mostly litigation."

Forgot I was talking about just corporate, but project finance + tax + bankruptcy is not "mostly litigation."

[Anonymous User]

When someone says "general corporate" that's usually not taken to mean "mostly litigation."[/quote]

Forgot I was talking about just corporate, but project finance + tax + bankruptcy is not "mostly litigation."[/quote]

point is, these firms are much more comparable on the pure transactional side, whereas you were portraying them as a far and away better. not sure why it's such a big deal to you to prove that broadly similar nyc firms are so stratified.

[rayiner]

When someone says "general corporate" that's usually not taken to mean "mostly litigation."

Forgot I was talking about just corporate, but project finance + tax + bankruptcy is not "mostly litigation."[/quote]

point is, these firms are much more comparable on the pure transactional side, whereas you were portraying them as a far and away better. not sure why it's such a big deal to you to prove that broadly similar nyc firms are so stratified.[/quote]

I don't have a horse in this race. I think Milbank is a better firm than Sidley NY, largely because they have a real strength in their project finance practice that Sidley NY doesn't have. Securitization, one of the areas where Sidley and CWT excel, are consistent work for firms but I've even heard partners mention that it's terrible work for associates. Of course, the data is there; make of it what you will.

[Anonymous User]

When someone says "general corporate" that's usually not taken to mean "mostly litigation."

Forgot I was talking about just corporate, but project finance + tax + bankruptcy is not "mostly litigation."

point is, these firms are much more comparable on the pure transactional side, whereas you were portraying them as a far and away better. not sure why it's such a big deal to you to prove that broadly similar nyc firms are so stratified.

I don't have a horse in this race. I think Milbank is a better firm than Sidley NY, largely because they have a real strength in their project finance practice that Sidley NY doesn't have. Securitization, one of the areas where Sidley and CWT excel, are consistent work for firms but I've even heard partners mention that it's terrible work for associates. Of course, the data is there; make of it what you will.

Just a word from the inside. Yes, Sidley NY dominated the Securitization market. In fact, there's a partner here who basically invented MBSs. But it would be a mistake to think that group floats Sidley NY's corporate practice. Yes, Securitization across the country fell off, but it is making a come back now. Apart from that, the Public Finance group and the Fund group (here it's called Pooled Investment Entities) are stellar.

Anecdotes from partners at other firms is helpful to you all going through the process, but to really know the strength of the firm ask the clients. If you have a chance, talk to the major I-banks or hedge funds not only about Sidley, but about any firm you're considering. I'm not going to try and sell any of you on the firm or talk down about other firms; we all do the same work. I just wanted to point out that ranking firms based on what you perceive to be the case, or what a partner said one time is not going to be hugely helpful to those trying sift through whether a particular group will get them where they want to be as a junior associate.

[Anonymous User]

Sidley is not band 1 in anything specific to New York (except M&A/highly regarded), but does have several band 1 nationwide rankings: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/3692-42611. What makes Sidley a tough nut to crack is figuring out how the NY office fits into those high-band rankings - in securities, for example, it's almost all NY; in other areas, Chicago and DC play a bigger role. More of an art than a science.

agreed, it's absurdly hard to figure out where Sidley falls in terms of NY. i'll probably end up choosing the firm due to the culture (liked it way better & felt a lot more comfortable there than any of my other options). i also have absolutely no desire to do M&A though, would probably choose another firm if i did.

Making a similar decision and leaning the same way for the same reasons. Any chance you'd be willing to share any of the other places you're looking at or the practice areas you're considering?

+1

I really liked my interviews. People there are great.

[Anonymous User]

Sidley NY no longer heavily relies on its securitization practice to make money.

For example, if you check the most current report from Thompson Reuters http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf), Sidley was #5 adviser (ranked by # of deals) for both issuers AND underwriters in the US capital market (debt & equity). Sidley was #2 (issuer) / #3 (underwriter) advisor in the overall debt market (debt + ABS/MBS). Even when ABS/MBS deals were taken out of the ranking, it was still #5 in the debt market.

It's m&a practice might be lacking compared to top NY firms, but its capital market practice, which is based in the NY office, is definitely one of the top in the country.

[Anonymous User]

Sidley NY no longer heavily relies on its securitization practice to make money.

For example, if you check the most current report from Thompson Reuters http://dmi.thomsonreuters.com/Content/F ... Review.pdf), Sidley was #5 adviser (ranked by # of deals) for both issuers AND underwriters in the US capital market (debt & equity). Sidley was #2 (issuer) / #3 (underwriter) advisor in the overall debt market (debt + ABS/MBS). Even when ABS/MBS deals were taken out of the ranking, it was still #5 in the debt market.

It's m&a practice might be lacking compared to top NY firms, but its capital market practice, which is based in the NY office, is definitely one of the top in the country.

Just to piggyback on that, the M&A practice isn't as important as other firms', but it's definitely competent and can result in good opportunities. Its not a matter of never doing giant deals (i.e., like $6+ bill.), just a matter of not doing them every day all the time. That might even be better for young associates, because smaller deals tend to mean more immediate responsibility.

[Anonymous User]

on an unrelated note to the firm's strongest practices, does anyone have an idea of how easy or difficult it would be to lateral from sidley ny to sidley chicago? i grew up in chicago, my family is there, & i'd like to have the option of moving home at some point, although i'd also be ok with staying in new york. if anyone does have an idea of how feasible lateraling is, could you speak to whether it's easier as a junior associate (when you're relatively new & haven't made many ties) or as a senior associate (when you have more influence & more control over what happens to you at work)? thanks!

[Anonymous User]

on an unrelated note to the firm's strongest practices, does anyone have an idea of how easy or difficult it would be to lateral from sidley ny to sidley chicago? i grew up in chicago, my family is there, & i'd like to have the option of moving home at some point, although i'd also be ok with staying in new york. if anyone does have an idea of how feasible lateraling is, could you speak to whether it's easier as a junior associate (when you're relatively new & haven't made many ties) or as a senior associate (when you have more influence & more control over what happens to you at work)? thanks!

Also interested in this, for similar reasons but with the DC office.

[Anonymous User]

on an unrelated note to the firm's strongest practices, does anyone have an idea of how easy or difficult it would be to lateral from sidley ny to sidley chicago? i grew up in chicago, my family is there, & i'd like to have the option of moving home at some point, although i'd also be ok with staying in new york. if anyone does have an idea of how feasible lateraling is, could you speak to whether it's easier as a junior associate (when you're relatively new & haven't made many ties) or as a senior associate (when you have more influence & more control over what happens to you at work)? thanks!

Also interested in this, for similar reasons but with the DC office.

Not completely sure, but DC might be more difficult than Chicago, both because the DC office is smaller and because of the overall difficulty of getting into DC offices in general (at my CCN, you pretty much have to have top third grades for DC). Sidley's DC office is also super-selective & a top destination for SC clerks.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know anyone who transferred from NY to DC... not only is the DC office very selective/strong, but the two offices don't really have that many overlaps in their practices. On the other hand, I know someone who moved to the Chi office from the NY office.