Page 1 of 1
Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:45 pm
by Anonymous User
I have offers from some but not all of these firms, but I'm really just curious as to people's general perceptions about which firms have the best overall litigation practices in New York. This might seem so ridiculously broad a question as to be a pointless exercise (and perhaps it is), but I'm just trying to gauge public perception (amongst law students and, more importantly, lawyers) of these firms' NY litigation practices. Maybe these perceptions actually mean something in terms of NY-litigation-specific exit options (e.g., other firms, SDNY/EDNY USAOs, etc.), although amongst firms of this caliber it's probably splitting hairs.
If you think two or more of the firms are tied as best/most prestigious for NY litigation, then treat it as a question about which firm you would pick if you had offers from all of them (assuming an interest in NY litigation and then inserting whatever other personal preferences you might have). Interpret "best" however you would like.
(Vault, in addition to any other faults it may have, is neither litigation- nor NY-specific. And I recognize Chambers has grouped firms into tiers for NY litigation, but pointing that out in lieu of participating in this poll (1) ruins the fun of the poll; (2) would thwart my desire for a thoroughly unscientific and numerical (as opposed to tiered) ranking of NY lit firms; and (3) is contrary to the spirit of TLS -- that spirit being animated largely by abuse of polls, obsession with prestige, and reliance on anonymous commenters' perceptions thereof.)
(NB: I intentionally left off Quinn and Boies, since my understanding is that, unlike these other firms, they do a lot of plaintiff litigation.)
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:48 pm
by thesealocust
All the same? STB and/or Skadden maybe not as obviously the same?
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:51 pm
by Old Gregg
(NB: I intentionally left off Quinn and Boies, since my understanding is that, unlike these other firms, they do a lot of plaintiff litigation.)
Well shit, that really narrowed the list down...
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:28 pm
by Anonymous User
Fresh Prince wrote:(NB: I intentionally left off Quinn and Boies, since my understanding is that, unlike these other firms, they do a lot of plaintiff litigation.)
Well shit, that really narrowed the list down...
Why does Cravath always get hammered in polls?
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:27 pm
by Anonymous User
Reviving this old thread rather than making a new one.
What if the options were Skadden and STB for litigation/antitrust?
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:38 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:(NB: I intentionally left off Quinn and Boies, since my understanding is that, unlike these other firms, they do a lot of plaintiff litigation.)
Well shit, that really narrowed the list down...
Why does Cravath always get hammered in polls?
Cravath and S&C always get hammered in polls, usually to DPW and STB for corporate and to PW for lit. Yet people still end up choosing Cravath and S&C. At my school (HYS), Cravath and S&C have much lower offer #'s and higher yields compared to those other firms. All the firms in the pool are very good at lit, and only you can determine where you fit in the best.
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:10 pm
by Anonymous User
Old thread.
Still, could be relevant for people now. I would go to Paul Weiss or Davis Polk for lit if I was a homo sapiens, and Cravath if I was a homo Cravathien, which I'm not. I say Davis Polk because OP discussed USAO exit options, and they are probably the safest bet for going to SDNY/EDNY. But I do recognize the training and organic partner-driven work flow opportunities at Cravath in litigation are noteworthy. I think Debevoise is worth representing in this poll if we are talking about the FCPA or investigations litigation work.
Conversely, for transactional work it would depend on what type. For cap markets, davis polk. For PE, STB. For projects, Skadden or S&C. More generally, if I wanted to work with financial institutions, DPW or STB; if I wanted more exposure to issuer/owner/company representation, Cravath or S&C.
If I really wasn't sure between the two, probably S&C, Davis Polk or Cravath, depending on what kind of temperament I had.
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:25 pm
by Anonymous User
Paul Weiss out of that list would be best for Lit IMO but really, they are all probably the same.
What are your reservations for plaintiff work?
Boies to me seems like the clear winner, mostly due to their compensation.
edit: saw this is old
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:06 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:(NB: I intentionally left off Quinn and Boies, since my understanding is that, unlike these other firms, they do a lot of plaintiff litigation.)
Well shit, that really narrowed the list down...
Why does Cravath always get hammered in polls?
Cravath and S&C always get hammered in polls, usually to DPW and STB for corporate and to PW for lit. Yet people still end up choosing Cravath and S&C. At my school (HYS), Cravath and S&C have much lower offer #'s and higher yields compared to those other firms.
Not necessarily the same at every school. Last year at Yale, Cravath made 20 offers and only 3 accepted, which is a quite low yield when compared with other top firms. Cravath just has a really bad reputation among Yale students for its culture and quality of life.
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:25 pm
by jbagelboy
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:
Well shit, that really narrowed the list down...
Why does Cravath always get hammered in polls?
Cravath and S&C always get hammered in polls, usually to DPW and STB for corporate and to PW for lit. Yet people still end up choosing Cravath and S&C. At my school (HYS), Cravath and S&C have much lower offer #'s and higher yields compared to those other firms.
Not necessarily the same at every school. Last year at Yale, Cravath made 20 offers and only 3 accepted, which is a quite low yield when compared with other top firms. Cravath just has a really bad reputation among Yale students for its culture and quality of life.
FWIW at CLS last year Cravath and S&C had lower yields (and roughly equal offers #'s) than Davis Polk and Cleary, and comparable to Skadden, although its a wash year to year. But I definitely would agree with anon above that cravath/s&c don't enjoy some coveted higher yield vis a vis their peer firms from feeder schools.
ETA: needless to say, Wachtell really does break away from the pack with a strong yield though
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:00 pm
by 2014
Anonymous User wrote:Old thread.
Still, could be relevant for people now. I would go to Paul Weiss or Davis Polk for lit if I was a homo sapiens, and Cravath if I was a homo Cravathien, which I'm not. I say Davis Polk because OP discussed USAO exit options, and they are probably the safest bet for going to SDNY/EDNY. But I do recognize the training and organic partner-driven work flow opportunities at Cravath in litigation are noteworthy. I think Debevoise is worth representing in this poll if we are talking about the FCPA or investigations litigation work.
Conversely, for transactional work it would depend on what type. For cap markets, davis polk. For PE, STB. For projects, Skadden or S&C. More generally, if I wanted to work with financial institutions, DPW or STB; if I wanted more exposure to issuer/owner/company representation, Cravath or S&C.
If I really wasn't sure between the two, probably S&C, Davis Polk or Cravath, depending on what kind of temperament I had.
This seems like a surprisingly reasonable response.
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:14 pm
by Anonymous User
jbagelboy wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
Why does Cravath always get hammered in polls?
Cravath and S&C always get hammered in polls, usually to DPW and STB for corporate and to PW for lit. Yet people still end up choosing Cravath and S&C. At my school (HYS), Cravath and S&C have much lower offer #'s and higher yields compared to those other firms.
Not necessarily the same at every school. Last year at Yale, Cravath made 20 offers and only 3 accepted, which is a quite low yield when compared with other top firms. Cravath just has a really bad reputation among Yale students for its culture and quality of life.
FWIW at CLS last year Cravath and S&C had lower yields (and roughly equal offers #'s) than Davis Polk and Cleary, and comparable to Skadden, although its a wash year to year. But I definitely would agree with anon above that cravath/s&c don't enjoy some coveted higher yield vis a vis their peer firms from feeder schools.
ETA: needless to say, Wachtell really does break away from the pack with a strong yield though
Yield for Wachtell hovers between 30-50% at one of HYS. W&C is the only firm that has consistent high yield (70%+)
Re: Skadden v. DPW v. PW v. S&C v. STB v. Cravath (NY Lit.)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:25 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Reviving this old thread rather than making a new one.
What if the options were Skadden and STB for litigation/antitrust?