Top Law Schools

1. What is the financial health of the firm, some seem to hint that it isn't as strong as you would think.

2. Does anyone know how associates at the firm feel, it seems from talking with them they are all very happy, however talking to people outside the firm it seems as though that isn't the case.

3. Does anyone have any thoughts on the overall culture?

Anything at all would be greatly appreciated, trying to decide between skadden and another v10 and i'm stumped. Thanks.

Anyone capable of sharing anything?

Anonymous User wrote:1. What is the financial health of the firm, some seem to hint that it isn't as strong as you would think.

2. Does anyone know how associates at the firm feel, it seems from talking with them they are all very happy, however talking to people outside the firm it seems as though that isn't the case.

3. Does anyone have any thoughts on the overall culture?

Anything at all would be greatly appreciated, trying to decide between skadden and another v10 and i'm stumped. Thanks.

FWIW, at my interview the associate told me straight out that they screwed him out of his practice area he wanted to work in. The firm is HUGE and the result is people dont know anyone, and they will do whatever works for them. Thats the feeling i got.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1. What is the financial health of the firm, some seem to hint that it isn't as strong as you would think.

2. Does anyone know how associates at the firm feel, it seems from talking with them they are all very happy, however talking to people outside the firm it seems as though that isn't the case.

3. Does anyone have any thoughts on the overall culture?

Anything at all would be greatly appreciated, trying to decide between skadden and another v10 and i'm stumped. Thanks.

FWIW, at my interview the associate told me straight out that they screwed him out of his practice area he wanted to work in. The firm is HUGE and the result is people dont know anyone, and they will do whatever works for them. Thats the feeling i got.

Went to another Skadden office and did not like it. Just my 2 cents. "we're a NY firm" "we get the job done" etc. Felt like everyone was stressed and putting smiles on top of their misery.

Anyone have any insight as to if the horror stories are true? How realistic is it to expect to make it for 4-5 years at the New York Office?

Very, very, very political. Like in the kiss-ass-till-you-drop sense. Heard straight from an associate.

DC associate told students at our OCI that they shouldn't pay attention to the bad rumors about Skadden, because the DC branch didn't operate like the NY branch, and was thus not nearly as bad.

Very interested in this as well with a bias toward the scoop on litigation.

Would choosing a v15 over skadden be a stupid career move for someone interested in corporate?

Anonymous User wrote:Would choosing a v15 over skadden be a stupid career move for someone interested in corporate?

no, especially if making partner is a potential option in your future. It is almost impossible at Skadden.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Would choosing a v15 over skadden be a stupid career move for someone interested in corporate?

no, especially if making partner is a potential option in your future. It is almost impossible at Skadden.

Which V15 offers good enough partner prospects to give up Skadden for? It seems like, at best, you might just be getting a long shot in exchange for a longer shot. There might be reasons to choose Debevoise or Gibson Dunn over Skadden, but for a better shot at partner? I don't think so.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Would choosing a v15 over skadden be a stupid career move for someone interested in corporate?

no, especially if making partner is a potential option in your future. It is almost impossible at Skadden.

Which V15 offers good enough partner prospects to give up Skadden for? It seems like, at best, you might just be getting a long shot in exchange for a longer shot. There might be reasons to choose Debevoise or Gibson Dunn over Skadden, but for a better shot at partner? I don't think so.

What reasons would those be?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Would choosing a v15 over skadden be a stupid career move for someone interested in corporate?

no, especially if making partner is a potential option in your future. It is almost impossible at Skadden.

Which V15 offers good enough partner prospects to give up Skadden for? It seems like, at best, you might just be getting a long shot in exchange for a longer shot. There might be reasons to choose Debevoise or Gibson Dunn over Skadden, but for a better shot at partner? I don't think so.

What reasons would those be?

I was thinking something in a line with a personal and violent distaste for Skadden. There are a lot of people who wouldn't do well there. You can probably say that about every firm. If you fall into that category and Debevoise is your only other option, you might not be crazy to go there. Maybe if you had previous work experience in the entertainment field and were dead set on media/entertainment law, it might make sense to go Deb over Skadden, but I can't imagine there are too many people out there like that.

So you are saying that the career prospects available to someone at skadden are dramatically different coming from skadden? Keeping in mind that most great exit options don't present themselves until after 4 or so years at a firm.

Anonymous User wrote:DC associate told students at our OCI that they shouldn't pay attention to the bad rumors about Skadden, because the DC branch didn't operate like the NY branch, and was thus not nearly as bad.

I have a friend who has been working the DC office for 2 years now. Weekends are typical for him, and he often has to cancel Saturday and Sunday morning plans. Litigation group. If DC is supposedly not as bad as NY, I fear for NY.

Anonymous User wrote:Would choosing a v15 over skadden be a stupid career move for someone interested in corporate?

It would seriously depend on which one, but often, no. Skadden's model appears to me (an admitted outside) to staff things extraordinarily heavily, so juniors often get significant grunt work and relatively little exposure to the "meat" of a deal. When across from them my counterparts have tended to be several years more senior / junior partners. Could be deal specific but not certain.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Would choosing a v15 over skadden be a stupid career move for someone interested in corporate?

Which V15 offers good enough partner prospects to give up Skadden for? It seems like, at best, you might just be getting a long shot in exchange for a longer shot. There might be reasons to choose Debevoise or Gibson Dunn over Skadden, but for a better shot at partner? I don't think so.

What reasons would those be?

I was thinking something in a line with a personal and violent distaste for Skadden. There are a lot of people who wouldn't do well there. You can probably say that about every firm. If you fall into that category and Debevoise is your only other option, you might not be crazy to go there. Maybe if you had previous work experience in the entertainment field and were dead set on media/entertainment law, it might make sense to go Deb over Skadden, but I can't imagine there are too many people out there like that.

Genuinely curious about what would make it only "maybe not crazy" to pick Debevoise over Skadden? Their cultures are about as different as you can find in NYC biglaw. Unless you want to eventually try to go in-house at an i-bank or something, what makes Skadden so much better?

Anonymous User wrote: Genuinely curious about what would make it only "maybe not crazy" to pick Debevoise over Skadden? Their cultures are about as different as you can find in NYC biglaw. Unless you want to eventually try to go in-house at an i-bank or something, what makes Skadden so much better?

Nothing. It's actually perfectly reasonable to take Debevoise over Skadden (or vice versa). There really isn't a tangible difference in exit options that level (Skaddens are broader, perhaps, because they have more practice areas, but within any given practice).

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Genuinely curious about what would make it only "maybe not crazy" to pick Debevoise over Skadden? Their cultures are about as different as you can find in NYC biglaw. Unless you want to eventually try to go in-house at an i-bank or something, what makes Skadden so much better?

Nothing. It's actually perfectly reasonable to take Debevoise over Skadden (or vice versa). There really isn't a tangible difference in exit options that level (Skaddens are broader, perhaps, because they have more practice areas, but within any given practice).

What about Gibson NYC v skadden?

Bump on Gibson ny v skadden

The person who posted about media/entertainment law being better at Debevoise than Skadden is wrong. If you look at most media/entertainment in-house positions their attorneys come from a wide range of firms but you see Skadden represented moreso than other firms. Please remember that even if a firm does have a media/entertainment group that doesn't mean it will be the kind of entertainment work that you want to do or that it will present the right options for you (for example Proskauer does alot of sports work that fits into the labor mold which won't help you if you want to do corporate).

Skadden's two biggest banking clients, Bear Stearns and (I believe) Lehman, went bust or were acquired in the recession, so that was a big blow to their FIG group and their banking/lender-side finance practices. As a result, its profits declined sharply in the recession but have bounced back to a degree.

It remains the #1 firm for M&A.

Anonymous User wrote:Skadden's two biggest banking clients, Bear Stearns and (I believe) Lehman, went bust or were acquired in the recession, so that was a big blow to their FIG group and their banking/lender-side finance practices. As a result, its profits declined sharply in the recession but have bounced back to a degree.

It remains the #1 firm for M&A.

WLRK and S&C can easily claim to be the #1 firm for M&A, especially large public M&A. Skadden works on a lot of small deals and only topped the league table a couple of times over the past decade, while S&C topped it 5-6 times. However, at this level, it doesn't matter who's #1, #2, and #3, since it wouldn't affect what you would be doing as a junior associate.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Skadden's two biggest banking clients, Bear Stearns and (I believe) Lehman, went bust or were acquired in the recession, so that was a big blow to their FIG group and their banking/lender-side finance practices. As a result, its profits declined sharply in the recession but have bounced back to a degree.

It remains the #1 firm for M&A.

WLRK and S&C can easily claim to be the #1 firm for M&A, especially large public M&A. Skadden works on a lot of small deals and only topped the league table a couple of times over the past decade, while S&C topped it 5-6 times. However, at this level, it doesn't matter who's #1, #2, and #3, since it wouldn't affect what you would be doing as a junior associate.

All three could probably lay claim as the #1 firm for M&A depending on whether you're going by vault, league tables, average deal size or volume of deals, public or private, etc.

The prestige probably doesn't matter except insofar as exit options to other firms goes, and to an extent, exit options to general counsel offices (though that will depend on the practice group and the client relationships you develop as a midlevel on up).

IMHO.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Skadden's two biggest banking clients, Bear Stearns and (I believe) Lehman, went bust or were acquired in the recession, so that was a big blow to their FIG group and their banking/lender-side finance practices. As a result, its profits declined sharply in the recession but have bounced back to a degree.

It remains the #1 firm for M&A.

WLRK and S&C can easily claim to be the #1 firm for M&A, especially large public M&A. Skadden works on a lot of small deals and only topped the league table a couple of times over the past decade, while S&C topped it 5-6 times. However, at this level, it doesn't matter who's #1, #2, and #3, since it wouldn't affect what you would be doing as a junior associate.

All three could probably lay claim as the #1 firm for M&A depending on whether you're going by vault, league tables, average deal size or volume of deals, public or private, etc.

The prestige probably doesn't matter except insofar as exit options to other firms goes, and to an extent, exit options to general counsel offices (though that will depend on the practice group and the client relationships you develop as a midlevel on up).

IMHO.

Does prestige matter for exit options to other firms/general counsel offices? While Skadden doesn't have the historical prestige that S&C/Cravath have, it has the greatest reach across the country outside of New York. Even though a much bigger percentage of its M&A deals are smaller ones compared to percentages at S&C/Cravath, it probably has a much larger corporate client base compared to Cravath/S&C.