S&C v. Skadden for NYC Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate (and grateful) to have received CB's from S&C and Skadden. Both firms have strong CB:offer ratios at my school and so, while this may be premature, I am curious what you guys think.

Important factors: litigation/trial experience, compensation, as well as pro bono and prestige.

If you think Cleary, Simpson Thacher or Paul Weiss would be better than both -- please explain why.

Many thanks in advance for input.

[imchuckbass58]

Do you have any preferences within litigation? Do you want to do securities? White collar/investigations? IP? Product liability/toxic torts? Or are you open to everything?

Any sense of long-term goals? Want to make partner? Become an AUSA? Go to a boutique?

Also any preferences in terms of type of culture/personality of firms?

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate (and grateful) to have received CB's from S&C and Skadden. Both firms have strong CB:offer ratios at my school and so, while this may be premature, I am curious what you guys think.

Important factors: litigation/trial experience, compensation, as well as pro bono and prestige.

If you think Cleary, Simpson Thacher or Paul Weiss would be better than both -- please explain why.

Many thanks in advance for input.

Curious as to what the CB:offer rate is for Skadden at your school. Thanks in advance

[Anonymous User]

I think for litigation, Paul Weiss is the fairly clear choice. S&C is a great firm, but it is primarily focused on transactional work. It has good litigation as well (they couldn't be such a strong firm without good litigation), but it's not one of the best at litigation like Paul Weiss. Same holds for STB. Cleary is fairly weak on litigation (but of course very strong on the transactional side), and I wouldn't recommend them for a future litigator. Skadden has a better litigation practice than the other three, but it's more balanced between corporate and litigation. I think someone who really wants litigation will probably have the most opportunities coming from a firm known primarily for litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have any preferences within litigation? Do you want to do securities? White collar/investigations? IP? Product liability/toxic torts? Or are you open to everything?

Any sense of long-term goals? Want to make partner? Become an AUSA? Go to a boutique?

Also any preferences in terms of type of culture/personality of firms?

OP here. Open-minded in terms of practice areas within litigation. Long-term goals are government & policy orientated. As for culture, the warmer the better, but that being said I am not overly concerned with this.

To the second poster: approximately 4:3.

[Anonymous User]

I think for litigation, Paul Weiss is the fairly clear choice. S&C is a great firm, but it is primarily focused on transactional work. It has good litigation as well (they couldn't be such a strong firm without good litigation), but it's not one of the best at litigation like Paul Weiss. Same holds for STB. Cleary is fairly weak on litigation (but of course very strong on the transactional side), and I wouldn't recommend them for a future litigator. Skadden has a better litigation practice than the other three, but it's more balanced between corporate and litigation. I think someone who really wants litigation will probably have the most opportunities coming from a firm known primarily for litigation.

I mean, the flipside is Paul Weiss has ridiculous leverage (6:1 in litigation - check NALP) and a steady diet of securities and white collar. If you don't like those practice areas, or you don't want to be associate #12 on a 13 person team, you might be better served elsewhere.

Not saying Paul Weiss is a bad firm, but I don't think it's the "fairly clear choice" by any means. Bigger does not equal better.

And, at least according to Chambers, STB, Skadden and S&C are in fact "one of the best at litigation" along with Paul Weiss: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/43207

[imchuckbass58]

OP here. Open-minded in terms of practice areas within litigation. Long-term goals are government & policy orientated. As for culture, the warmer the better, but that being said I am not overly concerned with this.

To the second poster: approximately 3:4.

Well between Skadden and S&C I'd chose S&C then. Between all the firms you mentioned about, I'd choose either S&C or Paul Weiss. They have the best government investigations/white collar practices among those firms, which is the traditional feeder into government. Both are fairly hard-charging firms, so there's not much of a cultural difference.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP but thinking about S&C vs. Simpson vs. Paul Weiss. The first two stressed that their lean staffing creates a steeper learning curve and greater substantive responsibility early on in lit. Really liked the people at all 3 and having a lot of trouble ranking them in terms of culture/prestige/intangibles.

More thoughts on how to differentiate them in terms of their lit dept structure and such?

[Anonymous User]

Not OP but thinking about S&C vs. Simpson vs. Paul Weiss. The first two stressed that their lean staffing creates a steeper learning curve and greater substantive responsibility early on in lit. Really liked the people at all 3 and having a lot of trouble ranking them in terms of culture/prestige/intangibles.

More thoughts on how to differentiate them in terms of their lit dept structure and such?

One caveat on S&C: lean staffing is correct, but people shouldn't make too much of the early substantive responsibility. Certainly, junior associates will contribute to memos and maybe even briefs, but you won't stand up in court (or even at a deposition) until you're a senior associate, at least.

The early substantive responsibility is a much more apt description in corporate, where juniors are negotiating deal points, but this doesn't translate to litigation.

That said, I can't imagine things are any different at any of the other top firms (other than maybe Quinn, W&C and Boies).

[Anonymous User]

Any comments on differences in compensation and exit-options/prestige?

Generally speaking, is there any real difference between V5 and V10? Or at that point is it simply best to focus on practice areas?

[GeePee]

Any comments on differences in compensation and exit-options/prestige?

Generally speaking, is there any real difference between V5 and V10? Or at that point is it simply best to focus on practice areas?

My personal opinion is that there won't be substantial differences on the litigation side in exit options between, say, S+C and Weil or Cleary. Some people may disagree, but to me litigation is more "what you make of it" (obviously somewhat of a misnomer; luck is involved too) than corporate once you're into the range of the elite NY firms.

On the other hand, not sure how this differs between, say, a NY v10 and Quinn/Boies. To me, people should be looking for great litigators and the associates at those firms will handle a case -- albeit with proper partner supervision -- and take a depo/do a cross/argue a motion faster than at the big v10's, except for some specialized small practice groups within those big firms. Whether or not this makes a difference is practice is an entirely different matter.

[Anonymous User]

OP Here.

Now that offers are out, I've narrowed down to:

Skadden
S&C
Paul, Weiss

Got best vibe from Skadden, but thinking PW may have slight edge in reputation for litigation and transition into government litigation.

Any additional input welcome.

[Anonymous User]

I'm also having a hard time deciding between Skadden and Paul Weiss (for litigation).

Is it worth it to get Skadden on my resume for a few years, and start at a Top 10 firm? Or does Paul Weiss's litigation reputation trump?

[Old Gregg]

I'm also having a hard time deciding between Skadden and Paul Weiss (for litigation).

Is it worth it to get Skadden on my resume for a few years, and start at a Top 10 firm? Or does Paul Weiss's litigation reputation trump?

Paul Weiss is a top 10 firm.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss is a top 10 firm.[/quote]

On Vault, it's ranked 13 to Skadden's 4.

[Old Gregg]

Paul Weiss is a top 10 firm.

On Vault, it's ranked 13 to Skadden's 4.

So what? Obviously I know what vault is. I'm telling you that any legal recruiter and law firm would consider Paul Weiss a top 10 firm, so the fact that it's #13 on some stupid ranking that you inexplicably adhere to is irrelevant.

[concurrent fork]

Paul Weiss is a top 10 firm.

On Vault, it's ranked 13 to Skadden's 4.

So what? Obviously I know what vault is. I'm telling you that any legal recruiter and law firm would consider Paul Weiss a top 10 firm, so the fact that it's #13 on some stupid ranking that you inexplicably adhere to is irrelevant.

logic fail

[Anonymous User]

Paul Weiss is a top 10 firm.

On Vault, it's ranked 13 to Skadden's 4.

So what? Obviously I know what vault is. I'm telling you that any legal recruiter and law firm would consider Paul Weiss a top 10 firm, so the fact that it's #13 on some stupid ranking that you inexplicably adhere to is irrelevant.

Which of the V10 must make the sacrifice for Paul Weiss to get that top-10 spot? Surely they are all also "top 10" firms (although it would not surprise me to hear a legal recruiter mention twenty top-10 firms).

That said, Paul Weiss is definitely "top 10" for litigation, at least considering only big firms, and the difference in prestige for litigation between PW and Skadden is negligible or nonexistent.

[Old Gregg]

Which of the V10 must make the sacrifice for Paul Weiss to get that top-10 spot?

None. And that's because it's virtually impossible to distinguish among these firms for the purpose of making a top 10 ranking. When you're lateraling, no recruiter is going to pull out the latest vault rankings, see that Paul Weiss is #13, and rule you out. Recruiters operate from a general sense of what a "top 10" firm is, and Paul Weiss is definitely one such firm.

But go ahead. I challenge you to tell me how Weil is any more a top 10 firm than Paul Weiss is without referring to the Vault rankings. Do it.

[imchuckbass58]

Is it worth it to get Skadden on my resume for a few years, and start at a Top 10 firm? Or does Paul Weiss's litigation reputation trump?

This is a joke, right?

[Anonymous User]

Is it worth it to get Skadden on my resume for a few years, and start at a Top 10 firm? Or does Paul Weiss's litigation reputation trump?

This is a joke, right?

Not the question-poser, but what's so ridiculous about the question? Is it unreasonable to think that S&C/Skadden might lead to better opportunities than PW, based on their higher rank/prestige?

I'm asking sincerely.

[Moxie]

For lit, I believe (through my own SA experience at one of these three firms) that each of these firms are comparable, and that exit opportunities are going to be excellent at all of those firms.

Vault rank is somewhat useless as a lit comparison point for PW, S&C, and Skadden

[imchuckbass58]

Is it worth it to get Skadden on my resume for a few years, and start at a Top 10 firm? Or does Paul Weiss's litigation reputation trump?

This is a joke, right?

Not the question-poser, but what's so ridiculous about the question? Is it unreasonable to think that S&C/Skadden might lead to better opportunities than PW, based on their higher rank/prestige?

I'm asking sincerely.

Yes, that is unreasonable, especially with regard to litigation. I'm not saying that prestige doesn't influence exit opportunities - rather, it's that (1) the differences in prestige are incredibly minute, if they exist at all, and (2) vault is not a very good proxy for prestige as perceived by practitioners, especially in such small increments.

As others have said, nobody in the real world cares about about the vault rankings, or knows where any firm sits on them besides a general range. Sure, for some firms (mostly NY corporate practices) they're a good proxy for general market perception, but you can only really use vault to differentiate where there are large gaps. 4 and 13 is not a large gap. Most people would at least consider PW's litigation department on par with S&C and Skadden, and I bet many practitioners would probably argue if anything, PW has a slight edge.

S&C and Skadden might have different types of exit options, but they will not be categorically "better", and will be driven more by practice area focus than anything else.

[Old Gregg]

and will be driven more by practice area focus than anything else.

I think it will be even more driven by what the dude does when he starts working at these firms. At some point, the firm brand name is good enough and where the associate takes it from there matters much more. With OP's choices between S&C, Skadden, and Paul Weiss, he's far beyond that point.

[Anonymous User]

One of the pervasive issues with this site is the over reliance on Vault and (for law school admission) US News rankings. They both have their place but people need to understand the context in which to apply them. As several have stated in this thread, Vault rankings are really for assessing the strength of NYC corporate practices. For litigation, they are really not that great. For example it's pretty common knowledge that for litigation Paul Weiss isn't just a top 10 firm, it's near the tip top after firms like Williams and Connolly. But for those who are slavish to vault rankings, this might convince you that it is clearly up there with the "V10" firms. If you're going to use Vault as your decision making basis, you might want to use their litigation rankings to do so.

2009 Vault Litigation firm rankings


1. Williams & Connolly LLP 11.78 Washington, DC
2 Kirkland & Ellis LLP 6.96 Chicago, IL
3 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates 6.16 New York, NY
4 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 4.55 New York, NY
5 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 4.55 New York, NY
6 WilmerHale 4.28 Washington, DC
7 Davis Polk & Wardwell 3.75 New York, NY
8 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 3.21 Los Angeles, CA
10 Covington & Burling LLP 2.95 Washington, DC
9 Arnold & Porter LLP 2.95 Washington, DC