Top Law Schools

Looking for advice on some NY firms I have offers at. I am interested in litigation and eventually landing in government.

DLA
Simpson
Milbank
Kaye Scholer
Latham & Watkins
Winston & Strawn

I know Winston has gotten a bad rap and that Simpson and Latham are obviously the biggest names, but can people give any more insight?

Dla is a McFirm- they work on low hanging fruit. Cut then from list

Obviously the word is only bad on Winston and Latham

I'd personally go with Simpson

Yep, for me the choices would be Milbank and Simpson. Have heard crappy things about all the rest.

I would choose either Simpson or Latham. Everything on here about Latham is unsubstantiated.

Anonymous User wrote:I would choose either Simpson or Latham. Everything on here about Latham is unsubstantiated.

Yeah those 2009 layoffs never happened.

Simpson is the clear choice here.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I would choose either Simpson or Latham. Everything on here about Latham is unsubstantiated.

Yeah those 2009 layoffs never happened.

Simpson is the clear choice here.

I would choose Simpson as well. I was more or less referring to current chatter about Latham. Of course the 2009 layoffs happened, dude.

I still think Latham is your best exit option. I've seen Latham laterals everywhere, less so with the other firms.

fw8014 wrote:I still think Latham is your best exit option. I've seen Latham laterals everywhere, less so with the other firms.

Well, wouldn't you think this in large part because A) they Lathamed so many people who had to go somewhere else and B) they're still bigger than Simpson & Winston by a factor of 2, and Milbank & Kaye by around a factor of 4?

KidStuddi wrote:

fw8014 wrote:I still think Latham is your best exit option. I've seen Latham laterals everywhere, less so with the other firms.

Well, wouldn't you think this in large part because A) they Lathamed so many people who had to go somewhere else and B) they're still bigger than Simpson & Winston by a factor of 2, and Milbank & Kaye by around a factor of 4?

Simpson and Latham probably provide very similar exit options in terms of quality (both are big brand names). Latham just gets a bad rap on these boards because of what it did three years ago.

KidStuddi wrote:

fw8014 wrote:I still think Latham is your best exit option. I've seen Latham laterals everywhere, less so with the other firms.

Well, wouldn't you think this in large part because A) they Lathamed so many people who had to go somewhere else and B) they're still bigger than Simpson & Winston by a factor of 2, and Milbank & Kaye by around a factor of 4?

IDK, but I've encountered a lot of lit departments around NYC and over half of the significant number of litigators I know that lateraled from Latham left before the culling. If OP was interested in corporate work, Simpson would be a closer call. I just haven't seen many Winston, Milbank, or Kaye Scholer ex-associates around. To give some perspective, I've never worked for Latham nor do I have a SA associate position lined up with them, unlike at least three of the other firms mentioned here. If you really want to talk about catastrophes though, Kaye Scholer has pulled some iffy moves in the not to distant past, but I don't hold it against them. The management has significantly improved.

Edit: I think Simpson also provides terrific exit options for lit., just wanted to give a different perspective from the many anti-Latham posts here.

Simpson
Latham
Milbank

In that order.

Legitimate question: why is seeing a lot of laterals from a firm going to peer firms in the same geographic reason seen as a necessarily positive reflection upon that firm? I understand lateralling to a secondary market or to a smaller boutique or in-house, but what does it say about a firm that so many associates are willing to leave their firm to work at another biglaw job in the same market? I mean, it's nice to have options obviously, but seeing lots of laterals from a given firm isn't really an entirely good signal about that firm.

That said, I agree that prestige-wise (without regards to practice area), it's fairly clear that Simpson, Latham, Milbank should be the ranking.

Anonymous User wrote:Legitimate question: why is seeing a lot of laterals from a firm going to peer firms in the same geographic reason seen as a necessarily positive reflection upon that firm? I understand lateralling to a secondary market or to a smaller boutique or in-house, but what does it say about a firm that so many associates are willing to leave their firm to work at another biglaw job in the same market? I mean, it's nice to have options obviously, but seeing lots of laterals from a given firm isn't really an entirely good signal about that firm.

That said, I agree that prestige-wise (without regards to practice area), it's fairly clear that Simpson, Latham, Milbank should be the ranking.

First, no one said that the Latham laterals were at peer firms, just lit depts in NYC, which could mean anything from midlaw to boutiques to whatever.

Second, it is far from a scientific survey. It's one person anecdotal evidence, if even that.

Anonymous User wrote:Legitimate question: why is seeing a lot of laterals from a firm going to peer firms in the same geographic reason seen as a necessarily positive reflection upon that firm? I understand lateralling to a secondary market or to a smaller boutique or in-house, but what does it say about a firm that so many associates are willing to leave their firm to work at another biglaw job in the same market? I mean, it's nice to have options obviously, but seeing lots of laterals from a given firm isn't really an entirely good signal about that firm.

That said, I agree that prestige-wise (without regards to practice area), it's fairly clear that Simpson, Latham, Milbank should be the ranking.

I agree a high number of laterals doesn't speak well of the original firm's culture. Peer and specialized mid-sized or boutique firms picking up laterals on a partnership track though is a major plus for exit options. A lot of people go into BigLaw thinking they're committed the lifestyle but very few people actually are. Additionally, it's not easy to get a sense of most firms' work cultures until you're actually a full-time employee. Unlike the good old days, people can't think that if they do a good job, they can stay at the same firm for life anymore. I think this is a sad reality and you always have to consider your exit options from the outset. As you say, options are nice and these options are not equal for firms paying market salaries.

Edit: You frame it as the associate's choice but it's often not. All firms hire with attrition in mind.

KidStuddi wrote:

fw8014 wrote:I still think Latham is your best exit option. I've seen Latham laterals everywhere, less so with the other firms.

Well, wouldn't you think this in large part because A) they Lathamed so many people who had to go somewhere else and B) they're still bigger than Simpson & Winston by a factor of 2, and Milbank & Kaye by around a factor of 4?

Nope, it's because dat Latham resume boost is just that powerful.

IAFG wrote:

KidStuddi wrote:

fw8014 wrote:I still think Latham is your best exit option. I've seen Latham laterals everywhere, less so with the other firms.

Well, wouldn't you think this in large part because A) they Lathamed so many people who had to go somewhere else and B) they're still bigger than Simpson & Winston by a factor of 2, and Milbank & Kaye by around a factor of 4?

Nope, it's because dat Latham resume boost is just that powerful.

180 comment chain.