Top Law Schools

Which would you pick and why?

edit: for corporate

i am trying to decide between these two and davis polk. simpson thacher is a distant fourth.

my sense is that the biggest distinction between the two is cravath's weird and pretty risky rotational system. if youve got an area within which youd like to specialize, it obviously isnt ideal

You should pick Sullivan and Cromwell. Cravath isn't even a close second.

quakeroats wrote:You should pick Sullivan and Cromwell. Cravath isn't even a close second.

why?

SullCrom also allows you to work in different broad practice areas in your first year. Cravath slots you into litigation or corporate (or tax/ERISA/estates) before you even start your summer. If you're uncertain about what you want to do, SullCrom is the obvious choice.

SullCrom does next to no screening for personality/fit, so I kind of suspect they end up with a lot of the oddball personalities who had great grades but didn't get offers from the other V10s. This is just a guess, though.

There's also the FiDi v. Midtown debate.

For lit or corporate?

I would personally pick Cravath, but here are some considerations:

-Cravath's 18-month rotation system. Highly risky in that you may get assigned to a partner you do not work well with, or a partner that does a type of work you don't care for. On the other hand, it offers great opportunities for mentorship and development if you do.

-S&C is heavily focused on the corporate side on financial institutions M&A, Cravath has a bit more of a generalist practice.

Both are pretty hard-charging, formal cultures, so that's not really a differentiator.

FWIW, I would pick Davis Polk over either of them. Nicer, more considerate culture (in my opinion, both S&C and Cravath have terrible cultures), and is good at a broader span of corporate specialties (M&A, bank regulatory, cap markets, creditor-side restructuring).

Anonymous User wrote:For lit or corporate?

I would personally pick Cravath, but here are some considerations:

-Cravath's 18-month rotation system. Highly risky in that you may get assigned to a partner you do not work well with, or a partner that does a type of work you don't care for. On the other hand, it offers great opportunities for mentorship and development if you do.

-S&C is heavily focused on the corporate side on financial institutions M&A, Cravath has a bit more of a generalist practice.

Both are pretty hard-charging, formal cultures, so that's not really a differentiator.

FWIW, I would pick Davis Polk over either of them. Nicer, more considerate culture (in my opinion, both S&C and Cravath have terrible cultures), and is good at a broader span of corporate specialties (M&A, bank regulatory, cap markets, creditor-side restructuring).

What aspects make SullCrom and Cravath have terrible cultures in your opinion?

Anonymous User wrote:For lit or corporate?

I would personally pick Cravath, but here are some considerations:

-Cravath's 18-month rotation system. Highly risky in that you may get assigned to a partner you do not work well with, or a partner that does a type of work you don't care for. On the other hand, it offers great opportunities for mentorship and development if you do.

-S&C is heavily focused on the corporate side on financial institutions M&A, Cravath has a bit more of a generalist practice.

Both are pretty hard-charging, formal cultures, so that's not really a differentiator.

FWIW, I would pick Davis Polk over either of them. Nicer, more considerate culture (in my opinion, both S&C and Cravath have terrible cultures), and is good at a broader span of corporate specialties (M&A, bank regulatory, cap markets, creditor-side restructuring).

for what its worth, ive heard people describe dpw's "nicer, more considerate culture" as "passive-aggressive and kinda fake." that said, i REALLY liked my davis polk interviewers, so i guess the firm really might have nicer people as a general matter.

Anonymous User wrote:SullCrom also allows you to work in different broad practice areas in your first year. Cravath slots you into litigation or corporate (or tax/ERISA/estates) before you even start your summer. If you're uncertain about what you want to do, SullCrom is the obvious choice.

SullCrom does next to no screening for personality/fit, so I kind of suspect they end up with a lot of the oddball personalities who had great grades but didn't get offers from the other V10s. This is just a guess, though.

There's also the FiDi v. Midtown debate.

Really? The lawyers I met so far from SullCrom were all very nice/outgoing/relaxed. I know the ones that put out for interviewers/hospitality suites are the ones that present well, but they were stacked from the schools they were interviewing for that day (BU/BC) which isn't the largest well of lawyers to draw from, so I figured if they pull 3 or 4 good people from that crew then that was saying something. I think everyone I talked to said they were impressed by the SullCrom people, even those who just popped in to grab food from the suite during lunch.

On the other hand, the CSM guy was real awkward.

/useless anecdotal evidence.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:For lit or corporate?

I would personally pick Cravath, but here are some considerations:

-Cravath's 18-month rotation system. Highly risky in that you may get assigned to a partner you do not work well with, or a partner that does a type of work you don't care for. On the other hand, it offers great opportunities for mentorship and development if you do.

-S&C is heavily focused on the corporate side on financial institutions M&A, Cravath has a bit more of a generalist practice.

Both are pretty hard-charging, formal cultures, so that's not really a differentiator.

FWIW, I would pick Davis Polk over either of them. Nicer, more considerate culture (in my opinion, both S&C and Cravath have terrible cultures), and is good at a broader span of corporate specialties (M&A, bank regulatory, cap markets, creditor-side restructuring).

for what its worth, ive heard people describe dpw's "nicer, more considerate culture" as "passive-aggressive and kinda fake." that said, i REALLY liked my davis polk interviewers, so i guess the firm really might have nicer people as a general matter.

FWIW, I've said it here before and I'll say it again, I've never heard anybody who works for Davis Polk describe it as passive aggressive or fake. Feedback can be muted because the culture doesn't encourage confrontation and does encourage collaboration and positive reinforcement, but I've never heard of anybody outright call it passive aggressive having experienced it. I think that's a bad case of "telephone" that makes the rounds.

Still, the most important factor at this level of firm is going to be where you imagine you'll be the most comfortable. That involves a combination of the people (there are very real cultural differences between the three firms - I happened to like/click with two of the three, but I'm sure it's different for everyone), the policies with respect to associate life style (how safe guarded is vacation? Do people take / return from maternity/paternity leave? What are offices and lifestyle perks like?), and the way the firm assigns work (rotation vs. general practice vs. Davis Polk's 'rotate-then-choose') is a huge, huge difference).

But don't let other people tell you that X firm is nice and Z firm is fake and Y firm is jerks. Go yourself, and take firms up on the offer of a second visit. I think putting yourself infront of as many people as possible before pulling the trigger is smart.

I could write a tome on the differences between the firm's practice areas, but the basic bottom line is that all three are 'the best'. Only minor distinctions exist, and you could bring up impressive factors about all three and go back and forth all night. Your deals, cases, clients, exit opportunities, etc. will be from the point of view of a new associate indistinguishable. As between these firms, there is very little objective criteria you can use. DPW and S&C did weather the downturn a little better than Cravath, Cravath probably has an objectively more intense / longer hours culture (but there will be plenty of S&C and DPW associates working just as many hours, so that's a minor factor), their offices are in different locations (major!), etc.

Anonymous User wrote: What aspects make SullCrom and Cravath have terrible cultures in your opinion?

(1) They are both extremely hierarchical. Granted, every biglaw firm is hierarchical, but there's a degree of formality that permeates every aspect of the culture (must put on your suit jacket when a partner enters your office, all communications must be routed through senior associates). This sounds petty, but I have heard of associates being reprimanded for misordering the address lines of emails (senior to junior).

(2) There are many nice people at both Cravath and S&C. But both are cultures that tolerate senior associates and partners that treat juniors badly. S&C in particular is reputed for having a lot of screamers. This is a bit hyperbolic, but read this article - the allegations may or may not be true, but what struck me most is the fact that the S&C associates interviewed agreed that it's not crazy that stuff like this could have happened (http://nymag.com/news/features/28515/). Other firms tend to push these people out, or at least try not to select them in the interview process.

(3) Both are exceedingly untransparent. There is no associate involvement or solicitation of associate opinion on any decisions. Cravath in particular is known for being extremely opaque in partnership decisions. At most other firms, the firm will give you signals a couple of years in advance as far as how likely it is that you will make partner. At Cravath, it's radio silence until the day after the vote, and if you don't make it, you are told to find another job.

(4) As a general matter, Cravath and S&C tend to attract very competitive, type-A people.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are also positive aspects of Cravath and S&C's culture - they train excellent lawyers (some would argue better than anywhere else). Some like more formal, upfront cultures as opposed to what can be interpreted as passive aggressive or fake cultures (see above). But make sure you are making a choice based on cultural fit, not simply because Cravath and S&C are at the top of the vault rankings. In the real world, nobody makes distinctions between the top firms (including DPW, Simpson, etc.), and you'll get the same caliber work.

Anonymous User wrote: for what its worth, ive heard people describe dpw's "nicer, more considerate culture" as "passive-aggressive and kinda fake." that said, i REALLY liked my davis polk interviewers, so i guess the firm really might have nicer people as a general matter.

I think there's two sides to every coin. I agree that DPW can come across as passive aggressive, and many people may prefer a culture where people are very upfront about criticism so you know where you stand. But there are benefits to a less confrontational culture as well. It's a matter of preference.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:For lit or corporate?

I would personally pick Cravath, but here are some considerations:

-Cravath's 18-month rotation system. Highly risky in that you may get assigned to a partner you do not work well with, or a partner that does a type of work you don't care for. On the other hand, it offers great opportunities for mentorship and development if you do.

-S&C is heavily focused on the corporate side on financial institutions M&A, Cravath has a bit more of a generalist practice.

Both are pretty hard-charging, formal cultures, so that's not really a differentiator.

FWIW, I would pick Davis Polk over either of them. Nicer, more considerate culture (in my opinion, both S&C and Cravath have terrible cultures), and is good at a broader span of corporate specialties (M&A, bank regulatory, cap markets, creditor-side restructuring).

for what its worth, ive heard people describe dpw's "nicer, more considerate culture" as "passive-aggressive and kinda fake." that said, i REALLY liked my davis polk interviewers, so i guess the firm really might have nicer people as a general matter.

FWIW, I've said it here before and I'll say it again, I've never heard anybody who works for Davis Polk describe it as passive aggressive or fake. Feedback can be muted because the culture doesn't encourage confrontation and does encourage collaboration and positive reinforcement, but I've never heard of anybody outright call it passive aggressive having experienced it. I think that's a bad case of "telephone" that makes the rounds.

Still, the most important factor at this level of firm is going to be where you imagine you'll be the most comfortable. That involves a combination of the people (there are very real cultural differences between the three firms - I happened to like/click with two of the three, but I'm sure it's different for everyone), the policies with respect to associate life style (how safe guarded is vacation? Do people take / return from maternity/paternity leave? What are offices and lifestyle perks like?), and the way the firm assigns work (rotation vs. general practice vs. Davis Polk's 'rotate-then-choose') is a huge, huge difference).

But don't let other people tell you that X firm is nice and Z firm is fake and Y firm is jerks. Go yourself, and take firms up on the offer of a second visit. I think putting yourself infront of as many people as possible before pulling the trigger is smart.

I could write a tome on the differences between the firm's practice areas, but the basic bottom line is that all three are 'the best'. Only minor distinctions exist, and you could bring up impressive factors about all three and go back and forth all night. Your deals, cases, clients, exit opportunities, etc. will be from the point of view of a new associate indistinguishable. As between these firms, there is very little objective criteria you can use. DPW and S&C did weather the downturn a little better than Cravath, Cravath probably has an objectively more intense / longer hours culture (but there will be plenty of S&C and DPW associates working just as many hours, so that's a minor factor), their offices are in different locations (major!), etc.

I would like to read this tome if you have the time to write it.

Curious on people's thoughts on Cleary versus these three.

quakeroats wrote:You should pick Sullivan and Cromwell. Cravath isn't even a close second.

Yes, why? I always thought that the opposite was true.

Anonymous User wrote:I would like to read this tome if you have the time to write it.

Would it suffice to say that all three firms (and a handful of others) are constantly working with one another on deals? That people I know from one of those firms have occasionally pulled all-nighters in each of the others?

These are major wall street firms with deep ties to (basically all of) corporate America.

If you happen to know you're particularly interested in X, then you could investigate and discover that if you really are jonesing for private equity buyout law then Simpson is the place to be, or if high yield debt gets your blood stirring Cravath will stand out, or that DPW gets a ton of IPO and equity work. But if you had a question that narrow (a) I assume you would have asked it and (b) you have all the tools necessary to research firm reputations and practice areas.

To the law student with a general interest in corporate law, there's no meaningful distinctions with respect to practice areas / strength at this level.

If you really want to see how firms break down by practice area, compare their rankings in Chambers & Partners. Law students look at Vault, but lawyers and clients look at C&P (amongst other things).

Anonymous User wrote:

quakeroats wrote:You should pick Sullivan and Cromwell. Cravath isn't even a close second.

Yes, why? I always thought that the opposite was true.

Historically Cravath has had a more storied name than most other NYC firms. In the modern era (not just the past few years) they're all but indistinguishable, and S&C (in addition to a few others) has noticeably outmaneuvered Cravath during and after the financial crisis.

Better here than in a new thread, I think. Help me choose...

Cravath
Skadden
Paul Weiss
Cleary
Weil

Pretty sure I want lit. Enjoy socializing but don't like being expected/pressured to attend every event.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: What aspects make SullCrom and Cravath have terrible cultures in your opinion?

(1) They are both extremely hierarchical. Granted, every biglaw firm is hierarchical, but there's a degree of formality that permeates every aspect of the culture (must put on your suit jacket when a partner enters your office, all communications must be routed through senior associates). This sounds petty, but I have heard of associates being reprimanded for misordering the address lines of emails (senior to junior).

(2) There are many nice people at both Cravath and S&C. But both are cultures that tolerate senior associates and partners that treat juniors badly. S&C in particular is reputed for having a lot of screamers. This is a bit hyperbolic, but read this article - the allegations may or may not be true, but what struck me most is the fact that the S&C associates interviewed agreed that it's not crazy that stuff like this could have happened (http://nymag.com/news/features/28515/). Other firms tend to push these people out, or at least try not to select them in the interview process.

(3) Both are exceedingly untransparent. There is no associate involvement or solicitation of associate opinion on any decisions. Cravath in particular is known for being extremely opaque in partnership decisions. At most other firms, the firm will give you signals a couple of years in advance as far as how likely it is that you will make partner. At Cravath, it's radio silence until the day after the vote, and if you don't make it, you are told to find another job.

(4) As a general matter, Cravath and S&C tend to attract very competitive, type-A people.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are also positive aspects of Cravath and S&C's culture - they train excellent lawyers (some would argue better than anywhere else). Some like more formal, upfront cultures as opposed to what can be interpreted as passive aggressive or fake cultures (see above). But make sure you are making a choice based on cultural fit, not simply because Cravath and S&C are at the top of the vault rankings. In the real world, nobody makes distinctions between the top firms (including DPW, Simpson, etc.), and you'll get the same caliber work.

Anonymous User wrote: for what its worth, ive heard people describe dpw's "nicer, more considerate culture" as "passive-aggressive and kinda fake." that said, i REALLY liked my davis polk interviewers, so i guess the firm really might have nicer people as a general matter.

I think there's two sides to every coin. I agree that DPW can come across as passive aggressive, and many people may prefer a culture where people are very upfront about criticism so you know where you stand. But there are benefits to a less confrontational culture as well. It's a matter of preference.

That NYmag article about SullCrom terrifies me. For all the talk about Cravath working its associates to death, I've actually never heard very negative things about the firm's working culture (formal, cold and professional suits me just fine). SullCrom's working environment, on the other hand, seems truly horrific and appears to be universally despised.

Anonymous User wrote:That NYmag article about SullCrom terrifies me. For all the talk about Cravath working its associates to death, I've actually never heard very negative things about the firm's working culture (formal, cold and professional suits me just fine). SullCrom's working environment, on the other hand, seems truly horrific and appears to be universally despised.

That was my impression after a callback at Cravath. S&C presented well enough at the callback stage, but I heard enough stories both from people there and from people who knew people there to be cautious.

Anonymous User wrote:Better here than in a new thread, I think. Help me choose...

Cravath
Skadden
Paul Weiss
Cleary
Weil

Pretty sure I want lit. Enjoy socializing but don't like being expected/pressured to attend every event.

Cleary and Weil aren't ideal for litigation, but if you really preferred them that'd be fine. Paul Weiss is a huge name in litigation but its corporate group is probably the weakest of those you listed. You can't really go wrong within the group, but if you're leaning litigation I'd drop Cleary & Weil then pick which firm I "clicked" better with.

Cultural differences are real. There are nice/terrible people at each of these firms, but these firms do tend to hire from the same pool of people (and have for a long time), and people do tend to go with the firm where they think they'll best fit in. The self-selection means that a recognizable culture definitely does emerge. Consider, for example, DPW versus Cravath. At DPW partners offices are mixed-in with associate offices, and are only marginally larger. At Cravath, partners have corner suites, and you have to go through a reception area to go into the office itself. That said, cultural differences are much more about preference than "good" or "bad" per se. I don't think any of the firms have a "bad" culture in the same way that, say, Cadwalader has a "bad" culture. I think a more value-neutral description might be:

DPW = collective
Cravath = patriarchal
S&C = individualistic

Of course with the understanding that these are just tendencies, and that big NYC firms are more alike than they are different.

As for the work, your decision should really come down to whether you want the 2-year unassigned associate system, or the rotation system. I think in terms of parter contact and training opportunities, there are real advantages to Cravath's model. For example at Cravath, your performance reviews are done only by partners, perhaps with input from senior associates.

Keep in mind the NYMag article relies upon Charney, an embittered ex-associate (albeit one with a pretty legitimate problem with the firm), as its primary source. And if he was their link to former and current associates, would you be surprised that the magazine got the worst opinions about the place?

Not saying S&C is a walk in the park, but Cravath is not going to be easier to work for -- not in hours, not in partner's demands. In my own experience, S&C's partners are definitely demanding but also will teach you a lot about how to be a successful lawyer. The "screamers," though they do exist, are a tiny number (literally could name the known screamers on one hand). And I'd be surprised if you could find a firm without any bad apples in the partnership.

Re: corporate -- my understanding is that S&C and Cleary do the most deal volume in NYC. If you want top-notch corporate work and a different culture than either S&C/Cravath, Cleary is probably the place to be. On the corporate side, it is the equal of any of the firms discussed so far, though it lags a bit in litigation.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:That NYmag article about SullCrom terrifies me. For all the talk about Cravath working its associates to death, I've actually never heard very negative things about the firm's working culture (formal, cold and professional suits me just fine). SullCrom's working environment, on the other hand, seems truly horrific and appears to be universally despised.

That was my impression after a callback at Cravath. S&C presented well enough at the callback stage, but I heard enough stories both from people there and from people who knew people there to be cautious.

Anonymous User wrote:Better here than in a new thread, I think. Help me choose...

Cravath
Skadden
Paul Weiss
Cleary
Weil

Pretty sure I want lit. Enjoy socializing but don't like being expected/pressured to attend every event.

Cleary and Weil aren't ideal for litigation, but if you really preferred them that'd be fine. Paul Weiss is a huge name in litigation but its corporate group is probably the weakest of those you listed. You can't really go wrong within the group, but if you're leaning litigation I'd drop Cleary & Weil then pick which firm I "clicked" better with.

One consideration is that Paul Weiss has considerably higher leverage than other firms (6:1 in lit), and does tons of securities work. That makes some people very unhappy if it's not what they want to do. Cleary and Weil both have (in my opinion) more interesting mixes in their litigation departments, though the department as a whole isn't as big/strong.

what about S&C vs. Cravath for litigation? right now i'm leaning heavily towards S&C only because the Cravath rotation system seems nuts to me, but i'm wondering if either firm has a significant edge when it comes to their lit practices.

Anonymous User wrote:what about S&C vs. Cravath for litigation? right now i'm leaning heavily towards S&C only because the Cravath rotation system seems nuts to me, but i'm wondering if either firm has a significant edge when it comes to their lit practices.

The Cravath rotation for lit probably isn't quite as crazy as it is for corporate just because you aren't having to switch gears nearly as dramatically other than the people you are working with being different (which I suppose still might be a big deal).

Anonymous User wrote:what about S&C vs. Cravath for litigation? right now i'm leaning heavily towards S&C only because the Cravath rotation system seems nuts to me, but i'm wondering if either firm has a significant edge when it comes to their lit practices.

They're both top-tier 'go-to' lit firms. One thing that might be helpful is that S&C's lit practice has a heavy focus on Criminal Defense & Investigations (which I'm told accounts for over half the firm's lit work). I have no idea what the spread is like at CSM.