Top Law Schools

Tough decision, but basically I'm looking for what firm is going to give me the most corporate experience within a few years and the best lateral options to other firms (not in-house).

Are there any real differences in lifestyle? They're all NY firms so I'm guessing they're all pretty grueling.

This should be a choice between S&C and Skadden.

As between the two, S&C offers more firm stability than Skadden.

Fresh Prince wrote:This should be a choice between S&C and Skadden.

+1

Fresh Prince wrote:As between the two, S&C offers more firm stability than Skadden.

+1

Fresh Prince nailed it. S&C ftw. Dont think twice, imo.


Congrats!

What about S&C versus Cravath for corporate? I'm leaning towards S&C simply because Cravath is just a terrible place to work and their bonuses have been terrible for a so-called market leader. But are the exit options similar?

Anonymous User wrote:What about S&C versus Cravath for corporate? I'm leaning towards S&C simply because Cravath is just a terrible place to work and their bonuses have been terrible for a so-called market leader. But are the exit options similar?

S&C all the way.

Picking S&C over Cravath is a fine choice, but if you're doing it because "Cravath is just a terrible place to work" you probably need to do more due diligence on S&C.

Do you actually have offers at these places? or are we just kinda playing that "hypo"/"what if" game?

Curious, why do y'all think S&C is more stable? Less boom and bust driven hiring?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:What about S&C versus Cravath for corporate? I'm leaning towards S&C simply because Cravath is just a terrible place to work and their bonuses have been terrible for a so-called market leader. But are the exit options similar?

S&C all the way.

Agreed that S&C over Cravath is the way to go for corporate, but exit options will be quite similar. If you're looking to exit into a bank or fund, S&C likely has an edge.

To be fair, it's not just Cravath's bonuses that are terrible---it's every firm that is on that scale. That's basically everyone, S&C included, notwithstanding the spring bonus which isn't really worth discussing.

Skadden all the way. The people there are way more social than Sullcrom.

This is all remarkably stupid advice between the discussions of S&C, Cravath, and Skadden. They all do top-quality work. There's almost no difference in quality work, ESPECIALLY as a junior. The main difference is:

Cravath: rotation system. Great for lit but terrible for corporate. People flee when they get a shitty rotation (i.e., if you want to do M&A and they tell you that your next two rotations are Securities and ExecComp, that's three years of your life doing something you don't want to do.).

S&C: small teams of generalists. You'll get swamped when your deal gets busy but you're doing more substantive work at an earlier point (specifically as compared to Skadden; same work at Cravath). Also in Battery Park (vs. Times Square area).

Skadden: hyperspecialization. You see huge deal teams and each person has a defined role. They tend to spit people out more. However, the firm has a well deserved rep of more socializing among associates than other two.

Weil: work is inferior to top three named, except for bankruptcy, which basically dominates everyone. Some offices have views of Central Park.

Now that I've been through OGIs and had offers at all these last year, my advice is 100% true (and not TLS echo chamber).

Anonymous User wrote:This is all remarkably stupid advice between the discussions of S&C, Cravath, and Skadden. They all do top-quality work. There's almost no difference in quality work, ESPECIALLY as a junior. The main difference is:

Cravath: rotation system. Great for lit but terrible for corporate. People flee when they get a shitty rotation (i.e., if you want to do M&A and they tell you that your next two rotations are Securities and ExecComp, that's three years of your life doing something you don't want to do.).

S&C: small teams of generalists. You'll get swamped when your deal gets busy but you're doing more substantive work at an earlier point (specifically as compared to Skadden; same work at Cravath). Also in Battery Park (vs. Times Square area).

Skadden: hyperspecialization. You see huge deal teams and each person has a defined role. They tend to spit people out more. However, the firm has a well deserved rep of more socializing among associates than other two.

Weil: work is inferior to top three named, except for bankruptcy, which basically dominates everyone. Some offices have views of Central Park.

Now that I've been through OGIs and had offers at all these last year, my advice is 100% true (and not TLS echo chamber).

Same poster: Also while S&C considers itself peers with (and vice versa), both consider themselves superior to Skadden. A Cravath partner I interviewed with was genuined surprised I was even considering them.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:This is all remarkably stupid advice between the discussions of S&C, Cravath, and Skadden. They all do top-quality work. There's almost no difference in quality work, ESPECIALLY as a junior. The main difference is:

Cravath: rotation system. Great for lit but terrible for corporate. People flee when they get a shitty rotation (i.e., if you want to do M&A and they tell you that your next two rotations are Securities and ExecComp, that's three years of your life doing something you don't want to do.).

S&C: small teams of generalists. You'll get swamped when your deal gets busy but you're doing more substantive work at an earlier point (specifically as compared to Skadden; same work at Cravath). Also in Battery Park (vs. Times Square area).

Skadden: hyperspecialization. You see huge deal teams and each person has a defined role. They tend to spit people out more. However, the firm has a well deserved rep of more socializing among associates than other two.

Weil: work is inferior to top three named, except for bankruptcy, which basically dominates everyone. Some offices have views of Central Park.

Now that I've been through OGIs and had offers at all these last year, my advice is 100% true (and not TLS echo chamber).

Same poster: Also while S&C considers itself peers with (and vice versa), both consider themselves superior to Skadden. A Cravath partner I interviewed with was genuined surprised I was even considering them.

So where did you end up going?

also curious

also curious

I went with S&C.

It provided me the flexibility of having the time to choose my preferred practice area (all you have to decide is GP (aka corporate) or Lit (or Tax or Estates/Personal)) and top quality practice areas in the important areas (M&A, CapMarkets, Securities, Real Estate, etc.). You're kidding yourself if the hours will be any different at any of the top firms and you're kidding yourself if the people are much different.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions, but after thinking about everything, the answer was pretty clear to me.

I'm thinking I'll go with S&C. I'm gonna wait until after the offer dinner to get a better feel for the people, but the poster above me hit the nail on the head. They're excellent in all the corporate practice areas I'm interested in.

Anonymous User wrote:This is all remarkably stupid advice between the discussions of S&C, Cravath, and Skadden. They all do top-quality work. There's almost no difference in quality work, ESPECIALLY as a junior. The main difference is:

Cravath: rotation system. Great for lit but terrible for corporate. People flee when they get a shitty rotation (i.e., if you want to do M&A and they tell you that your next two rotations are Securities and ExecComp, that's three years of your life doing something you don't want to do.).

S&C: small teams of generalists. You'll get swamped when your deal gets busy but you're doing more substantive work at an earlier point (specifically as compared to Skadden; same work at Cravath). Also in Battery Park (vs. Times Square area).

Skadden: hyperspecialization. You see huge deal teams and each person has a defined role. They tend to spit people out more. However, the firm has a well deserved rep of more socializing among associates than other two.

Weil: work is inferior to top three named, except for bankruptcy, which basically dominates everyone. Some offices have views of Central Park.

Now that I've been through OGIs and had offers at all these last year, my advice is 100% true (and not TLS echo chamber).

Except that at Cravath exec comp isn't part of corporate and so one wouldn't just rotate from M&A to exec comp. So your advice is maybe 98% accurate. And I say this having worked at Cravath.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm thinking I'll go with S&C. I'm gonna wait until after the offer dinner to get a better feel for the people, but the poster above me hit the nail on the head. They're excellent in all the corporate practice areas I'm interested in.

That's great, but just to be clear again - all the top couple firms (eg WLRK, S&C, Cravath, and Skadden) are equally good in all the major practice groups. It's just how you choose to select your desired practice group and career focus: specialized vs generalist, you decide what you want to do vs you are told what to do (for fairness sakes, I will say that the second option is not nearly as bad as it sounds - there's something reassuring about knowing you can't make the wrong choice because the choice is made for you).

Also, all this is contingent of you not knowing, with 90+% certainty, that you want Bankruptcy (Weil) or Private M&A (STB). And if you eventually find out that you want those practice areas, you can lateral (which is not hard among the top firms, except lateraling to WLRK or Cravath).

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:This is all remarkably stupid advice between the discussions of S&C, Cravath, and Skadden. They all do top-quality work. There's almost no difference in quality work, ESPECIALLY as a junior. The main difference is:

Cravath: rotation system. Great for lit but terrible for corporate. People flee when they get a shitty rotation (i.e., if you want to do M&A and they tell you that your next two rotations are Securities and ExecComp, that's three years of your life doing something you don't want to do.).

S&C: small teams of generalists. You'll get swamped when your deal gets busy but you're doing more substantive work at an earlier point (specifically as compared to Skadden; same work at Cravath). Also in Battery Park (vs. Times Square area).

Skadden: hyperspecialization. You see huge deal teams and each person has a defined role. They tend to spit people out more. However, the firm has a well deserved rep of more socializing among associates than other two.

Weil: work is inferior to top three named, except for bankruptcy, which basically dominates everyone. Some offices have views of Central Park.

Now that I've been through OGIs and had offers at all these last year, my advice is 100% true (and not TLS echo chamber).

Except that at Cravath exec comp isn't part of corporate and so one wouldn't just rotate from M&A to exec comp. So your advice is maybe 98% accurate. And I say this having worked at Cravath.

My apologies - I thought I talked with a Cravath lateral who was assigned to that group and that's why he/she left (he/she was assigned to a ExecComp rotation) and I must have misheard.

Another note: Cravath has a REAL summer, meaning late nights. There are fun activities, of course, but far fewer "team-building" and "training" events.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:This is all remarkably stupid advice between the discussions of S&C, Cravath, and Skadden. They all do top-quality work. There's almost no difference in quality work, ESPECIALLY as a junior. The main difference is:

Cravath: rotation system. Great for lit but terrible for corporate. People flee when they get a shitty rotation (i.e., if you want to do M&A and they tell you that your next two rotations are Securities and ExecComp, that's three years of your life doing something you don't want to do.).

S&C: small teams of generalists. You'll get swamped when your deal gets busy but you're doing more substantive work at an earlier point (specifically as compared to Skadden; same work at Cravath). Also in Battery Park (vs. Times Square area).

Skadden: hyperspecialization. You see huge deal teams and each person has a defined role. They tend to spit people out more. However, the firm has a well deserved rep of more socializing among associates than other two.

Weil: work is inferior to top three named, except for bankruptcy, which basically dominates everyone. Some offices have views of Central Park.

Now that I've been through OGIs and had offers at all these last year, my advice is 100% true (and not TLS echo chamber).

Except that at Cravath exec comp isn't part of corporate and so one wouldn't just rotate from M&A to exec comp. So your advice is maybe 98% accurate. And I say this having worked at Cravath.

My apologies - I thought I talked with a Cravath lateral who was assigned to that group and that's why he/she left (he/she was assigned to a ExecComp rotation) and I must have misheard.

Another note: Cravath has a REAL summer, meaning late nights. There are fun activities, of course, but far fewer "team-building" and "training" events.

Cravath summer alum from above. I second this. You work HARD over the summer. The summer can also be very social if you want it to be, but no one is putting a gun to your head making you go out.