Top Law Schools

I've been very fortunate thus far with OCI and it's come down to a choice between SullCrom and Cravath for NY lit. I'm interested in white collar and internal/regulatory investigations, but also just developing the general lit competencies that would enable me to become a trial lawyer down the road. I'm also interested in future govt. employment down the line, or having the kind of career that would enable periods of govt service and private practice. Which firm should I choose?

For general lit, these firms are close enough that I would differentiate based on cultural fit/peculiarities of the two firms. So which culture is more attractive to you, what do you think of Cravath's assignment system (only work for one partner for 18 months at a time), etc.

S&C, however, does a lot more work in white collar/government investigations. If that's really your focus, that's probably a better fit in terms of practice area mix. Cravath does relatively little work in the area, especially compared to S&C.

Anonymous User wrote:I've been very fortunate thus far with OCI and it's come down to a choice between SullCrom and Cravath for NY lit. I'm interested in white collar and internal/regulatory investigations, but also just developing the general lit competencies that would enable me to become a trial lawyer down the road. I'm also interested in future govt. employment down the line, or having the kind of career that would enable periods of govt service and private practice. Which firm should I choose?

I don't have a real answer, but am interested in the same question (I am between S&C, and another similar firm). Anecdotally, EDNY and SDNY are full of former Cravath people. I haven't come across many S&C alum, but they must be there. Is there a list anywhere for where DOJ people came from?

There have been many posts like this recently: S&C v. Skadden, Cravath v. Skadden, S&C v. Simpson . . .

I think maybe the real questions are: are there actual differences in prestige and exit options within the V5? Does V5 v. V10 mean anything?

imchuckbass58 wrote:For general lit, these firms are close enough that I would differentiate based on cultural fit/peculiarities of the two firms. So which culture is more attractive to you, what do you think of Cravath's assignment system (only work for one partner for 18 months at a time), etc.

S&C, however, does a lot more work in white collar/government investigations. If that's really your focus, that's probably a better fit in terms of practice area mix. Cravath does relatively little work in the area, especially compared to S&C.

+1

Both obviously have very, very strong litigation practices, but white collar work seems to be an area where S&C has a real edge. Basing this on conversations with several former and current AUSAs.

Anonymous User wrote: I think maybe the real questions are: are there actual differences in prestige and exit options within the V5? Does V5 v. V10 mean anything?

In terms of overall quality? No. In terms of type, yes.

If you want to work in-house for a private equity fund, you're much better served by going to Simpson than S&C or Cravath. Similarly, if you want to do bankruptcy you're better off going to Weil than Cravath or S&C. If you want to work for a bank, you should go to Cravath, S&C, Simpson or DPW, since they do most of the bank-side representation.

But in terms of overall quality, you're not going to be significantly better off anywhere, except maybe Wachtell.

MTC87 wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:For general lit, these firms are close enough that I would differentiate based on cultural fit/peculiarities of the two firms. So which culture is more attractive to you, what do you think of Cravath's assignment system (only work for one partner for 18 months at a time), etc.

S&C, however, does a lot more work in white collar/government investigations. If that's really your focus, that's probably a better fit in terms of practice area mix. Cravath does relatively little work in the area, especially compared to S&C.

+1

Both obviously have very, very strong litigation practices, but white collar work seems to be an area where S&C has a real edge. Basing this on conversations with several former and current AUSAs.

I'd point out though that it's not an absolute prerequisite to have white collar/investigations experience in order to get hired as an AUSA. Obviously it's a plus, but SDNY in particular is very willing to take great all-around litigators who may not have focused on white collar/investigations.

That said, it probably does give you a little bump in terms of demonstrated interest, and if you're interested in being an AUSA or working for the DOJ, you're probably interested in white collar/investigations independent of any resume bump.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: I think maybe the real questions are: are there actual differences in prestige and exit options within the V5? Does V5 v. V10 mean anything?

In terms of overall quality? No. In terms of type, yes.

If you want to work in-house for a private equity fund, you're much better served by going to Simpson than S&C or Cravath. Similarly, if you want to do bankruptcy you're better off going to Weil than Cravath or S&C. If you want to work for a bank, you should go to Cravath, S&C, Simpson or DPW, since they do most of the bank-side representation.

But in terms of overall quality, you're not going to be significantly better off anywhere, except maybe Wachtell.

Can you elaborate on the bolded? Easier to get into finance from Wachtell, sure. But legal exit options?

And I'm still wondering if Wachtell's exit options are a function of the prestige of the firm or the fact that its associates are generally the best of the best in terms of resume and grades, thus making their exit options exceptional regardless of working at Wachtell or S&C.

For example, my friend received a Wachtell offer because she worked at Goldman prior to law school. Another friend worked at a private equity shop prior to law school and now works at Wachtell. I also know they like hiring JD/MBA students and students with strong work experience prior to law school. All of these factors would provide associates better exit options regardless of which firm in the V5 they work at.

Anonymous User wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: I think maybe the real questions are: are there actual differences in prestige and exit options within the V5? Does V5 v. V10 mean anything?

In terms of overall quality? No. In terms of type, yes.

If you want to work in-house for a private equity fund, you're much better served by going to Simpson than S&C or Cravath. Similarly, if you want to do bankruptcy you're better off going to Weil than Cravath or S&C. If you want to work for a bank, you should go to Cravath, S&C, Simpson or DPW, since they do most of the bank-side representation.

But in terms of overall quality, you're not going to be significantly better off anywhere, except maybe Wachtell.

Can you elaborate on the bolded? Easier to get into finance from Wachtell, sure. But legal exit options?

And I'm still wondering if Wachtell's exit options are a function of the prestige of the firm or the fact that its associates are generally the best of the best in terms of resume and grades, thus making their exit options exceptional regardless of working at Wachtell or S&C.

For example, my friend received a Wachtell offer because she worked at Goldman prior to law school. Another friend worked at a private equity shop prior to law school and now works at Wachtell. I also know they like hiring JD/MBA students and students with strong work experience prior to law school. All of these factors would provide associates better exit options regardless of which firm in the V5 they work at.

yea a wachtell associate told me a typical candidate for them is someone who is a former banker. im sure their exit options are a combination of individual talent and the wachtell name.

OP....Can you describe your Cravath callback a little bit please? Have one coming up.

See the thread on Cravath calbacks. I posted there as did others.

ruski wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: I think maybe the real questions are: are there actual differences in prestige and exit options within the V5? Does V5 v. V10 mean anything?

In terms of overall quality? No. In terms of type, yes.

If you want to work in-house for a private equity fund, you're much better served by going to Simpson than S&C or Cravath. Similarly, if you want to do bankruptcy you're better off going to Weil than Cravath or S&C. If you want to work for a bank, you should go to Cravath, S&C, Simpson or DPW, since they do most of the bank-side representation.

But in terms of overall quality, you're not going to be significantly better off anywhere, except maybe Wachtell.

Can you elaborate on the bolded? Easier to get into finance from Wachtell, sure. But legal exit options?

And I'm still wondering if Wachtell's exit options are a function of the prestige of the firm or the fact that its associates are generally the best of the best in terms of resume and grades, thus making their exit options exceptional regardless of working at Wachtell or S&C.

For example, my friend received a Wachtell offer because she worked at Goldman prior to law school. Another friend worked at a private equity shop prior to law school and now works at Wachtell. I also know they like hiring JD/MBA students and students with strong work experience prior to law school. All of these factors would provide associates better exit options regardless of which firm in the V5 they work at.

yea a wachtell associate told me a typical candidate for them is someone who is a former banker. im sure their exit options are a combination of individual talent and the wachtell name.

This does seem to be true. Now that i think about it, I can't remember a single Wachtell associate I've spoken to who didn't have some pretty substantial work experience. I guess they can afford to be picky!

re sullcrom v. cravath - I agree that the objective differences are probably too close too call for just "general lit." The really important differentiating factors will be subjective to each individual.

Anonymous User wrote:

ruski wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: I think maybe the real questions are: are there actual differences in prestige and exit options within the V5? Does V5 v. V10 mean anything?

In terms of overall quality? No. In terms of type, yes.

If you want to work in-house for a private equity fund, you're much better served by going to Simpson than S&C or Cravath. Similarly, if you want to do bankruptcy you're better off going to Weil than Cravath or S&C. If you want to work for a bank, you should go to Cravath, S&C, Simpson or DPW, since they do most of the bank-side representation.

But in terms of overall quality, you're not going to be significantly better off anywhere, except maybe Wachtell.

Can you elaborate on the bolded? Easier to get into finance from Wachtell, sure. But legal exit options?

And I'm still wondering if Wachtell's exit options are a function of the prestige of the firm or the fact that its associates are generally the best of the best in terms of resume and grades, thus making their exit options exceptional regardless of working at Wachtell or S&C.

For example, my friend received a Wachtell offer because she worked at Goldman prior to law school. Another friend worked at a private equity shop prior to law school and now works at Wachtell. I also know they like hiring JD/MBA students and students with strong work experience prior to law school. All of these factors would provide associates better exit options regardless of which firm in the V5 they work at.

yea a wachtell associate told me a typical candidate for them is someone who is a former banker. im sure their exit options are a combination of individual talent and the wachtell name.

This does seem to be true. Now that i think about it, I can't remember a single Wachtell associate I've spoken to who didn't have some pretty substantial work experience. I guess they can afford to be picky!

re sullcrom v. cravath - I agree that the objective differences are probably too close too call for just "general lit." The really important differentiating factors will be subjective to each individual.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lat

can anyone comment on whether face time requirements are similar at s&c and csm?

Anonymous User wrote:can anyone comment on whether face time requirements are similar at s&c and csm?

3rd-year M&A associate at S&C said face time policy is pretty lax there. Not sure about Cravath, but since you're working with a single partner and the environment is more intense than at S&C, I'd say face time is more of an issue there.

He also said that M&A is so unpredictable that sometimes he's working into 1-2am while other times he has nothing to do at 12pm so he goes home, but can instantly be reached by Blackberry and can connect to his work computer at home.

This guy is well-respected enough to work on his own 50m-100m deals so he clearly isn't being penalized for lack of face time.

OP here. Went with Cravath in the end.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. Went with Cravath in the end.

Congrats - couldn't really make a bad choice here. Pretty sure you won't regret it (few people do).