Top Law Schools

Several posts have requested comparisons of Milbank, Shearman, and White & Case. Which would you choose? (and why?)

Depends what you want to do

What do you want to do? This is way too open ended.

OP here. I know it's open-ended. Just noticed several posts that had been asked to compare these firms, ones I'm looking at, too. They're all known for doing international work, so maybe answer with that in mind? Or just general feeling about how good the firms are?

I mean it's way too open ended to be useful. I know some people love Milbank and their training stuff. I've met some people I really like at Shearman but it's definitely declined. That said, they're fighting it. I know less about White & Case but I wonder if the quality of life would be higher.

It really, truly depends on what you want to do. If you have these offers firms aren't going to know who you are from a single anonymous post. If you're thinking about international work you're going to want to think about the strength of that market. Would you like to live in another market full time? How much work do you actually want to do in another language? Would you be able to return?

If you want honest answers you're going to need to give more info. If you don't give more you'd be a fool to follow any advice given here.

Didn't White & Case try to stealthily lay off a lot of associates within the last year or so? I think there were some hints about that on TLS fairly recently.

Between Milbank and Shearman, I picked Milbank. I'd prefer to be at a firm that does two or three things excellently than a firm that does a lot of thing averagely. Also, while Milbank@Harvard is a bit gimmicky, it still sounds cool.

But:

hibiki wrote:If you want honest answers you're going to need to give more info. If you don't give more you'd be a fool to follow any advice given here.

OP HERE

AntipodeanPhil wrote:Didn't White & Case try to stealthily lay off a lot of associates within the last year or so? I think there were some hints about that on TLS fairly recently.

Between Milbank and Shearman, I picked Milbank. I'd prefer to be at a firm that does two or three things excellently than a firm that does a lot of thing averagely. Also, while Milbank@Harvard is a bit gimmicky, it still sounds cool.

But:

hibiki wrote:If you want honest answers you're going to need to give more info. If you don't give more you'd be a fool to follow any advice given here.

I give in, ha. I was thinking to make this more a poll for everyone, BUT I will make it about me now: I want to do international capital markets or M&A based out of NYC but with the option to travel (I'm open on region!). Also considering project finance but don't know enough about it to commit to it, sp I wouldn't want to go with a firm that does PF amazingly, for example, but the other two not as well.

Shearman summer here.

Not to bash W&C, but last year when I was choosing it stuck out to me that in the Vault Guide, a few of the associates quoted mentioned how things were slow and there wasn't a lot of work to go around. Not sure if things have picked up since then. There was definitely a lot of rumors on TLS about W&C last year.

OP: Out of the NY office, I know they do LatAm capital markets and M&A deals with US components. Re: travel, normally the firm will ask for a two year commitment - and it'll also depend on what skillsets you end up acquiring, and the need for that skillset at the overseas office. Think the LatAm partners travel fairly regularly, but not sure.

Re: projects, Shearman's project group might not be rated as highly as Milbank's overall, but they're still band 2 for a bunch of different regions and areas, and band 1 in some parts of Asia. I know the practice group has won some awards in the past year for their projects work. Check it out: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/Glob ... 3654-73565

is shearman really on the decline?

or did they just have a spot of rough times in 08-09? they look like they switched from lock-step to eat-what-you-kill and are trying to go back, which might not be the worst thing.

They're on 'the decline' insofar as they used to be a v10 firm in 2000, but didn't keep up with the rest of the v10 since. They definitely took a hit during the recession but things seem to have steadied.

I don't think they went directly to eat-what-you-kill from lockstep; from what I understand, it's modified lockstep where there's a bonus pool that gets doled out to the rainmakers, kind of similar to Skadden's system. I don't think the spread ends up being as wide as it is at true eat-what-you-kill firms.

It was on the decline and is probably no longer, but is definitely not heading back up any time soon. I'd say it's now comfortably a peer of other middle tier corporate practices in NYC.

financially, based on PPP, RPL, leverage and profit margin, Milbank is better.

But, I wonder if Shearman is poised for some sort of comeback?

mephistopheles wrote:But, I wonder if Shearman is poised for some sort of comeback?

If international investment picks up quickly, maybe, but if not, I doubt it.

mephistopheles wrote:financially, based on PPP, RPL, leverage and profit margin, Milbank is better.

But, I wonder if Shearman is poised for some sort of comeback?

Moving up back into the upper echelon of firms is extremely difficult. Depends on a confluence of factors that are very hard to get right all at once.

Any W&C summers or associates listening in? Office experiences?

Anonymous User wrote:Any W&C summers or associates listening in? Office experiences?

How does W&C compare to Shearman in terms of international corporate work?

I was always under the impression that Shearman died in the early two-thow..Milbank is classic white-shoe top -tier and on the rise. White and Case is alright

Anonymous User wrote:I was always under the impression that Shearman died in the early two-thow..Milbank is classic white-shoe top -tier and on the rise. White and Case is alright

this thread is from 2013 man. late pass.

ETA: this is leonardo dicaprio. accidental anon.