Top Law Schools

Trying to decide between Skadden DC and Arnold & Porter. Loved the people at both and could see myself at both places. Not positive on practice area yet, but I'm not interested in litigation. Want to check out: corporate, tax, antitrust, possibly something national security related and maybe something telecom related or generally regulatory. My gut wants Skadden. Skadden has an amazing gym and the best rooftop deck in town. A&P is a true beltway firm.

I want to be in DC forever, but there's a chance I'll relocate at some point for my SO, and I wouldn't rule out an exit down the road from biglaw to business or government. Still, right now my primary interest is going someplace where I can make a real career (i.e. shoot for partner).

Thoughts?

Anonymous User wrote:Trying to decide between Skadden DC and Arnold & Porter. Loved the people at both and could see myself at both places. Not positive on practice area yet, but I'm not interested in litigation. Want to check out: corporate, tax, antitrust, possibly something national security related and maybe something telecom related or generally regulatory. My gut wants Skadden. Skadden has an amazing gym and the best rooftop deck in town. A&P is a true beltway firm.

I want to be in DC forever, but there's a chance I'll relocate at some point for my SO, and I wouldn't rule out an exit down the road from biglaw to business or government. Still, right now my primary interest is going someplace where I can make a real career (i.e. shoot for partner).

Thoughts?

Go with your gut

game-day bump

I'd go with A&P. Easier hours, stabler firm, strong in the practice areas you want to focus on, and a major DC player (not that Skadden isn't one, but A&P is just something else).

Fresh Prince wrote:I'd go with A&P. Easier hours, stabler firm, strong in the practice areas you want to focus on, and a major DC player (not that Skadden isn't one, but A&P is just something else).

what are you basing this on? A&P's bonus cutoff is at least 200 hours higher.

Anonymous User wrote:

Fresh Prince wrote:I'd go with A&P. Easier hours, stabler firm, strong in the practice areas you want to focus on, and a major DC player (not that Skadden isn't one, but A&P is just something else).

what are you basing this on? A&P's bonus cutoff is at least 200 hours higher.

OP here: does anyone know what bonuses A&P normally pays? I know Skadden DC matches Skadden NY which there is obviously a ton of info on, but not so much on A&P.

what are you basing this on? A&P's bonus cutoff is at least 200 hours higher.

I mean that the hours are fewer if you don't really care about making a bonus. And from what I can tell, you can still have a long life at the firm even if you're not meeting the bonus cut-off. Frankly, $160k in DC goes a long way, especially compared to another major market that shall not be named.

Fresh Prince wrote:

what are you basing this on? A&P's bonus cutoff is at least 200 hours higher.

I mean that the hours are fewer if you don't really care about making a bonus.

1. Aren't you expected to care about a bonus? Granted, it wasn't at A&P, but I've heard a biglaw partner specifically say that not being bonus eligible generally looks bad to superiors.

2. What about Skadden is unstable, even relatively? I've never heard anything about it that made it seem even remotely so.

I've never heard anything about it that made it seem even remotely so.

Associate deferrals? Mediocre financials for its peer class? Generally still not as busy?

Even if the last two are too much based on rumor for your satisfaction, the first should at least be a "remote" indication that the firm isn't that stable. Granted, it probably won't dissolve in 100 years, but in this economy, you want to be at the busier firm.

Don't know why you would go to A&P if you aren't interested in litigation. At least one of their offices don't even have a corporate department and even in the DC office their litigation department is much larger and more respected.

Kronk wrote:Don't know why you would go to A&P if you aren't interested in litigation. At least one of their offices don't even have a corporate department and even in the DC office their litigation department is much larger and more respected.

OP here: seems like for A&P it's Antitrust >>> Regulatory >> Litigation > everything else. I have a slight interest in antitrust, and if I went with A&P it would be to pursue that interest. Then again Skadden also has good antitrust, decent regulatory, and much better tax and corporate.

Any thoughts on which firm gets the nod for exit options/name on the resume? I'd be primarily interested in business if I were to leave law.

I thought the thread title said "Skadden or ARP?" I was gonna vote FLOM.

Fresh Prince wrote:

I've never heard anything about it that made it seem even remotely so.

Associate deferrals? Mediocre financials for its peer class? Generally still not as busy?

Even if the last two are too much based on rumor for your satisfaction, the first should at least be a "remote" indication that the firm isn't that stable. Granted, it probably won't dissolve in 100 years, but in this economy, you want to be at the busier firm.

There's no indication that Skadden still isn't as busy as A&P. They deferred associates, but it's a New York firm. It had a big summer class coming in and a drop-off in corporate work. A&P didn't have to defer associates because it's in a very different business.

If you're interest is in corporate, definitely go to Skadden.

Want to check out: corporate, tax, antitrust, possibly something national security related and maybe something telecom related or generally regulatory.

Dude seriously, go to Skadden.

If you wanted to be a Beltway litigator, I'd argue for A&P (although there is a case to be made for Skadden even that event); but given your interests, I don't think this should even be close.

And all of this talk about Skadden being unstable is bollocks. It is a NY firm with a massive corporate practice. They did what they needed to do to scale back and they took care of their associates in a novel way. There is nothing to suggest that the firm's long-term's stability is in jeopardy.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am going to Skadden (LA).

Anonymous User wrote:Trying to decide between Skadden DC and Arnold & Porter. Loved the people at both and could see myself at both places. Not positive on practice area yet, but I'm not interested in litigation. Want to check out: corporate, tax, antitrust, possibly something national security related and maybe something telecom related or generally regulatory. My gut wants Skadden. Skadden has an amazing gym and the best rooftop deck in town. A&P is a true beltway firm.

I want to be in DC forever, but there's a chance I'll relocate at some point for my SO, and I wouldn't rule out an exit down the road from biglaw to business or government. Still, right now my primary interest is going someplace where I can make a real career (i.e. shoot for partner).

Thoughts?

Go to Cravath

But to answer your question, I'd go Skadden. The likelihood of making partner at either place is pretty slim, and I'd imagine Skadden's exit options (to business/consulting/another firm, at least) are marginally better for corporate. Plus, I'm a fan of following your gut when there's not a clear winner (and I don't think either firm here is "wrong"). So...Skadden imo.

I didn't see that you wanted to do corporate. In that case, definitely go to Skadden.

There's no indication that Skadden still isn't as busy as A&P.

Word around the campfire is that they're still not that busy. That's kind of the problem with having such a massive corporate practice. When things slow down, it's hard to keep them all busy. A&P, by contrast, has gotten the lion's share of massive antitrust cases this year. Granted, A&P's source of work is much different than Skadden's, but I don't see why that's relevant. If that different source means your job is more secure, then in this economy, it's probably a plus that A&P doesn't rely on the same market conditions that Skadden does.

But again, if OP's interest is in corporate, Skadden is the way to go. I didn't read that earlier.

It seems like your interests are still all over the place, and given your interest in both Government & Corporate I think A&P might be the better choice. I know A&P is really good about sending their associates to the government. Furthermore, if you are thinking of doing Antitrust, you cant find a better firm. If your interests are more corporate than government, then Skadden is probably the right choice, but if you are still undecided other than not doing Lit, then A&P is probably better.