ITT we list law firms' institutional clients Forum

[Anonymous User]

E.g. Simpson Thacher: KKR

[jbiresq]

Or you could go here http://top500.law.com/

[unlicensedpotato]

Is this a weird type of trolling?

[bdubs]

You will find that many large institutional clients use several or more large firms.

[guano]

You will find that many large institutional clients use several or more large firms.

Hell, even small clients can use multiple firms

Not only that, but a client may use multiple firms for the same matter

Eg: a bank may set up a structure requiring:
Regulatory work in jurisdiction 1 with firm A
Regulatory work in jurisdiction 2 with firm B
Trust drafted by firm C
Offshore LLC administered by firm D
Expertise related to the underlying asset provided by firm E
Due diligence by firm F

Note: most I've seen on a single matter that I can recall off the top of my head is 5
I've frequently dealt with 2 or 3 firms for the same matter.

Basically, either when dealing with issues that are very jurisdiction specific, or when niche expertise is required, there's a decent chance of working with multiple firms. Also, where multiple parties are doing a joint venture, legal work may be split based on each party's preferences or existing relationships

[Anonymous User]

Y'all are being a little too dismissive of this concept.

Goldman Sachs will not hire Sullivan & Cromwell to handle mortgage litigation in Nebraska. But you bet your ass their an institutional client - the ties run deep. There are other obvious examples (such as Morgan Stanley & Davis Polk, to get all ying and yang about it).

It's definitely a different animal than clients chasing individual partners and practice areas. It's probably increasingly rare, but it exists and it has an impact on the culture of the firm and the way it conducts business.

I do work for an institutional client at my firm, and it definitely colors the experience.

[Anonymous User]

edit: mistaken double post

[guano]

Y'all are being a little too dismissive of this concept.

Goldman Sachs will not hire Sullivan & Cromwell to handle mortgage litigation in Nebraska. But you bet your ass their an institutional client - the ties run deep. There are other obvious examples (such as Morgan Stanley & Davis Polk, to get all ying and yang about it).

It's definitely a different animal than clients chasing individual partners and practice areas. It's probably increasingly rare, but it exists and it has an impact on the culture of the firm and the way it conducts business.

A) why is this anonymous?
B) I'm not quite sure what you're saying

[Anonymous User]

Regulation of the Anonymous Post Feature:

. . .

If you see a comment that you believe is misuse or abuse of the anon feature, please report it using the Report button on the lower-right corner of each post.

. . .
Do NOT post in the thread itself about whether or not something violates the anon abuse policy; this is considered thread derailment and may get you banned as well.

[Anonymous User]

Regulation of the Anonymous Post Feature:

. . .

If you see a comment that you believe is misuse or abuse of the anon feature, please report it using the Report button on the lower-right corner of each post.

. . .
Do NOT post in the thread itself about whether or not something violates the anon abuse policy; this is considered thread derailment and may get you banned as well.

Take that Guano!!! Trying to be all smart... and stuff.

accidental anon, I am pokemon...

[guano]

I still don't understand the point anonymous douche was trying to make, but good going with the thread derailment

[Anonymous User]

I still don't understand the point anonymous douche was trying to make, but good going with the thread derailment

anonymous douche here:

OP asked for what firms have institutional clients. These exist, and a discussion of them could be interesting.

Many replies were dismissive of the concept. "many use many firms." My response is... ok, and? There ARE firms with major institutional clients and a discussion of them and their relevance MIGHT be interesting.

To circle back to the obvious, Goldman is a real live institutional client of Sullivan & Cromwell. That has implications for people working in both places and is mildly interesting. Only mildly, it's not good or bad or what have you. But it exists and you can talk about it.

As I initially failed to post/edit, I work for an institutional client of my firm. The partners have a relationship with the people, but everything goes much deeper than that. It means we get some work for that client that we might not be the "best" at, it means we have more complex and involved billing arrangements, it changes what is looked for in the selection of partners, it changes how the partners view the business, etc.

Obvious our institutional client uses other law firms - for specialized work or regions, or because of conflicts. But that doesn't make the institutional client any less of a potentially interesting topic for the employment forum.

[Anonymous User]

People also seem to confuse the fact that a company is an institutional client with the idea that that institutional client ends up being a great exit option for lawyers at that firm. Take Goldman Sachs for example, while S&C is a huge feeder to GS, it is not the biggest feeder the past decade.

[soj]

Next time you see a post that shouldn't have been anonymous, just report it, thanks.