Top Law Schools

Have it narrowed down to Cravath and BSF, now looking for some input. There are one of two threads from the past that talk about the distinction, but they don't really come down on one side or the other and I'm looking for more perspectives.

My factors:
I'm sure I want to do litigation, but I don't know if there's a specific practice area that I like or dislike more than any others. I don't feel strongly about Cravath's rotation system either way (think it might be decent for lit). $$$ for crazy hours sounds like a reasonable tradeoff to me for a few years. I don't have much of a preference either way regarding culture.

As far as my career path goes, I would like to make partner somewhere...ideally I would like to start at one of BSF or CSM then eventually lateral to my home market of Boston/Philly/Atlanta (if it matters which, ask for a PM please!) and try to make partner there, perhaps with a BigGov stop along the way. So name recognition outside of NYC matters. Boies does not have an office in my home market, and I have some concerns that the BSF name doesn't travel quite as well as the CSM name. Thoughts on that? I also worry that Boies doing as much plaintiff-side work as they do might make going in-house harder if that ends up being where I want to go. Then of course there are concerns about David Boies being the force keeping the firm legitimate (largely outweighed by my understanding that there is a ton of attrition at both firms). And in the recent Quinn vs. Boies thread, some anonymous poster was talking about people regularly being fired at Boies, which worries me a little bit. Also, I am not very concerned about being no-offered for a number of personal reasons I'd rather not discuss.

So given what I want to do and the preferences I have expressed, which would you pick? The money has me leaning toward Boies, but I don't want to be shortsighted if the rest of my factors should push me toward Cravath.

Cravath because I'm pretty sure Boies no-offers.

rad lulz wrote:Cravath because I'm pretty sure Boies no-offers.

Not concerned about getting no-offered for various reasons I don't want to discuss.

Anonymous User wrote:

rad lulz wrote:Cravath because I'm pretty sure Boies no-offers.

Not concerned about getting no-offered for various reasons I don't want to discuss.

David Boies Sanduskied you in the shower, and now you have him over a barrel?

Anonymous User wrote:

rad lulz wrote:Cravath because I'm pretty sure Boies no-offers.

Not concerned about getting no-offered for various reasons I don't want to discuss.

If you're posting anonymously, you can probably at least hint at them.

HeavenWood wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

rad lulz wrote:Cravath because I'm pretty sure Boies no-offers.

Not concerned about getting no-offered for various reasons I don't want to discuss.

If you're posting anonymously, you can probably at least hint at them.

My situation is somewhat unique and I think it could out me. But really not a concern.

A lot of HYS students I know do not care about getting no-offered because they don't actually plan on working permanently at their 2L summer job. They want the pay from a summer job and the prestigious resume line but after their summer at say Cravath, S&C, Covington, or Munger they plan on going on to a COA clerkship and then something else. Maybe academia or DOJ or a boutique. Top 1/4 students at HYS are not as bound to the 2L SA -> permanent job model.

Anonymous User wrote:A lot of HYS students I know do not care about getting no-offered because they don't actually plan on working permanently at their 2L summer job. They want the pay from a summer job and the prestigious resume line but after their summer at say Cravath, S&C, Covington, or Munger they plan on going on to a COA clerkship and then something else. Maybe academia or DOJ or a boutique. Top 1/4 students at HYS are not as bound to the 2L SA -> permanent job model.

I do plan on working biglaw career-wise, but the fact that I plan on clerking and should be able to get a good clerkship is part of my lack of concern. There is more to it, the part I won't discuss. Prestige for me matters in terms of hometown market (see OP) and BigGov exit options. Money also matters to me.

I would definitely say Cravath. I never interviewed there, but I interviewed with BSF in another city. I ended up choosing a different firm because I kept hearing so many legitimately negative things about working as an associate for BSF. If neither firm has an office in your eventual destination, then you may as well go with Cravath.

Boies no offers? If I'm reading NALP correctly, they offered every one of their 2L summers:

"Number of 2011 Summer 2Ls considered for associate offers - 22"
"Number of offers made to summer 2L associates -22"

Can anyone legitimately confirm that Boies no offers? Maybe I'm reading that wrong. Plus, the last thing I've read about Boies and firing anyone (not just no-offering summers) was just that weird Terra Firma thing in November of 2010.

I'd like some data or a good story or something

taf wrote:Boies no offers? If I'm reading NALP correctly, they offered every one of their 2L summers:

"Number of 2011 Summer 2Ls considered for associate offers - 22"
"Number of offers made to summer 2L associates -22"

Can anyone legitimately confirm that Boies no offers? Maybe I'm reading that wrong. Plus, the last thing I've read about Boies and firing anyone (not just no-offering summers) was just that weird Terra Firma thing in November of 2010.

I'd like some data or a good story or something

You're not going to get a good story or data because those who are in a position to provide those will be outed if the info comes out. No one is going to put their career at risk to save you from a bad sitaution. If you keep hearing bad things about a firm, best to steer clear before evidence comes in the form of your own bad experience.

Go with Cravath.

Especially if you want the brand name factor and prestige on your resume.

And, yes, I know you don't care about being "no-offered" or working their full-time post 2L SA.

One never knows what BSF will be in 10 years. They may get swallowed up and cease to exist as "BSF" or David may decide to retire and the firm will essentially dissolve like cheap soap down the bathtub. If that happens, having BSF on your resume will not have as much impact as having Cravath on your resume.

Heller Ehrman used to be very prestigious, and folks went there wanting it on their resume line. Then it went kaput, and nowadays if you are trying to lateral, many people have never heard of Heller Ehrman. Many have, but you don't want to be in that situation.

You guys really all think it's worth sacrificing all the extra money (and likely corresponding increase in hours, but as I mentioned I'm fine with that)? This is not the reaction I expected, it's substantially different than the last thread/poll of this topic.

Anonymous User wrote:You guys really all think it's worth sacrificing all the extra money (and likely corresponding increase in hours, but as I mentioned I'm fine with that)? This is not the reaction I expected, it's substantially different than the last thread/poll of this topic.

Shocker: money isn't everything.

Anonymous User wrote:You guys really all think it's worth sacrificing all the extra money (and likely corresponding increase in hours, but as I mentioned I'm fine with that)? This is not the reaction I expected, it's substantially different than the last thread/poll of this topic.

If you factor in the hours worked, and after Uncle Sam's take his share, the difference in money is almost insignificant.

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:You guys really all think it's worth sacrificing all the extra money (and likely corresponding increase in hours, but as I mentioned I'm fine with that)? This is not the reaction I expected, it's substantially different than the last thread/poll of this topic.

If you factor in the hours worked, and after Uncle Sam's take his share, the difference in money is almost insignificant.

I'm aware money isn't everything, but I'm in a lot of debt and biglaw careers are often short. And I don't see how the difference could be described as insignificant. Yeah the hours might be worse but there seems to be a substantial gap in pay, which I'd take for the hours sacrifice I think. Does the Cravath name really travel that much better, even in the litigation world?

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:You guys really all think it's worth sacrificing all the extra money (and likely corresponding increase in hours, but as I mentioned I'm fine with that)? This is not the reaction I expected, it's substantially different than the last thread/poll of this topic.

If you factor in the hours worked, and after Uncle Sam's take his share, the difference in money is almost insignificant.

A) Do people work that much more at Boies? Cravath is already a mega-sweatshop.

B) Even taking into account taxes, the additional bonus and base salary is far from insignificant. Last year the c/o 2010 averaged a 65K bonus compared to Cravath's 7.5k. Plus the higher base.

edit: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/12/associat ... s-cravath/

Cravath was good enough for David Boies to start his career there

PMan99 wrote:
A) Do people work that much more at Boies? Cravath is already a mega-sweatshop.

Yes.

PMan99 wrote:B) Even taking into account taxes, the additional bonus and base salary is far from insignificant. Last year the c/o 2010 averaged a 65K bonus compared to Cravath's 7.5k. Plus the higher base.

edit: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/12/associat ... s-cravath/

Do you think BSF pays more because they are kind, generous souls?

for what it's worth, the students I knew who went to BSF were top of my class at CCN versus merely above average ones who went to cravath. BSF is definitely more competitive to get an offer from (re: litigation). when i did my call-back with BSF, it seemed like if you REALLY want to be a litigator and skip some of the BS work then it'd be a great place to be. The trade off is that there probably isn't any hand-holding, very intense partners/associates, and doing work outside your comfort zone.

anon168 wrote:

Do you think BSF pays more because they are kind, generous souls?

I didn't say that, I just said that a ~70k difference first year out in total compensation can't be considered almost insignificant, even in MFH. If the bro has a clerkship, good grades/school, and isn't planning on staying in NY that long anyway I don't think Cravath's "prestige" boost and apparently laxer hours are worth that amount of money.

Not too long ago BSF wasn't even on the radar and CSM was paying 35K first year bonuses. Choosing a summer job in 2012, that you will take in 2013, become an associate at in 2014, and first collect a bonus in 2015, based on the bonuses they paid in 2011... might not be optimal?

I'm not saying it isn't a factor, but it's not obvious or certain that BSF = megabucks and CSM = poor house. Also note that bonus reports = rumors and info self-reported to Above the Law. I'm not saying it's *inaccurate* but you also can't just take it as gospel.

A good way to think about it is BSF = higher risk, potential higher reward. You know you'll get a lockstep, market bonus at CSM and you're pretty damn sure it's in good financial shape and here to stay. BSF is a young firm with a super-star name and a potentially very rewarding compensation scheme. There are great reasons to do both, but in the end I'd encourage going to the one you liked the culture/people the best before you make a choice based on potential bonus amounts years from now.

thesealocust wrote:Not too long ago BSF wasn't even on the radar and CSM was paying 35K first year bonuses. Choosing a summer job in 2012, that you will take in 2013, become an associate at in 2014, and first collect a bonus in 2015, based on the bonuses they paid in 2011... might not be optimal?

I'm not saying it isn't a factor, but it's not obvious or certain that BSF = megabucks and CSM = poor house. Also note that bonus reports = rumors and info self-reported to Above the Law. I'm not saying it's *inaccurate* but you also can't just take it as gospel.

A good way to think about it is BSF = higher risk, potential higher reward. You know you'll get a lockstep, market bonus at CSM and you're pretty damn sure it's in good financial shape and here to stay. BSF is a young firm with a super-star name and a potentially very rewarding compensation scheme. There are great reasons to do both, but in the end I'd encourage going to the one you liked the culture/people the best before you make a choice based on potential bonus amounts years from now.

^^This guy/girl right here knows what s/he's talking about.

Probably a naive question, but does W&C carry with it any of the same risks that BSF does? I know it's not as new, but is it also less well known than a place like Cravath? Any other downsides to choosing W&C?

Anonymous User wrote:Probably a naive question, but does W&C carry with it any of the same risks that BSF does? I know it's not as new, but is it also less well known than a place like Cravath? Any other downsides to choosing W&C?

Not in the least.