Cravath or Quinn NYC

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:20 pm

Thoughts?

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:33 pm

Practice area? Thoughts on sandals?

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Practice area? Thoughts on sandals?

Dress code is obviously in the mix but not anywhere near decisive. Complex litigation (antitrust, prod. liability, etc.)

Danger Zone · Post by **Danger Zone** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:39 pm

I selected both choices, though I assume that's not an actual option for you.

thesealocust · Post by **thesealocust** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:40 pm

Danger Zone wrote:I selected both choices, though I assume that's not an actual option for you.

enibs · Post by **enibs** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:21 pm

These are both pretty horrible places to work as an associate, so your main focus in choosing between the two should be exit opportunities. I think Cravath is still a bit better on that score than Quinn.

sandiego222 · Post by **sandiego222** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:30 pm

enibs wrote:These are both pretty horrible places to work as an associate, so your main focus in choosing between the two should be exit opportunities. I think Cravath is still a bit better on that score than Quinn.

Oh you've worked at both of these places? Cool.

There are people at every single big law firm that have said it is 'horrible' to work at, and others who have thought it was fine. Anything you are saying is anecdotally, and I have heard anecdotes from associates at each of these firms that enjoyed working there. Experiences vary.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:33 pm

Substantively, the most important difference is probably Plaintiff vs Defendant. Would you rather help defend banks or help sue banks? These two firms tend to focus on opposite sides of the v. As enibs mentioned, if you help defend banks you will have better connections to in-house opportunities at financial institutions. It is not clear where you go after 4-5 years of suing banks other than moving on to other private litigation firms. But perhaps suing banks is more interesting.

Another factor to consider is that Quinn is notoriously cheap with benefits, perks, etc relative to other firms. For example, Quinn associates cannot get dinner from Seamless for free unless you bill 10 hours in the day (most firms allow Seamless if you are there past X time).

KaNa1986 · Post by **KaNa1986** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:43 pm

sandiego222 wrote:
enibs wrote:These are both pretty horrible places to work as an associate, so your main focus in choosing between the two should be exit opportunities. I think Cravath is still a bit better on that score than Quinn.
Oh you've worked at both of these places? Cool.

There are people at every single big law firm that have said it is 'horrible' to work at, and others who have thought it was fine. Anything you are saying is anecdotally, and I have heard anecdotes from associates at each of these firms that enjoyed working there. Experiences vary.

Since the OP is asking about Cravath and Quinn, I assume that a great work-life balance is not his/her top priority.
A place is terrible to work at if you don't like the work; if you like the work, long hours are bearable. I don't know much about Quinn, but at places like Cravath (also other top tier Wall Street corporate firms and litigation shops, W&C, S&C, Wachtell, etc.), you will work on the most interest, complex, and cutting-edge cases and deals, exposing you to the frontier of litigation and deal-making. You will work hard (and do tedious tasks at times), but as long as you are willing get out of the weeds and think high level regularly, the complexity and volume of cases and deals you will be exposed to will teach you a lot about how the world (business, politics, etc.) works beneath the surface.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:48 pm

KaNa1986 wrote:
sandiego222 wrote:
enibs wrote:These are both pretty horrible places to work as an associate, so your main focus in choosing between the two should be exit opportunities. I think Cravath is still a bit better on that score than Quinn.
Oh you've worked at both of these places? Cool.

There are people at every single big law firm that have said it is 'horrible' to work at, and others who have thought it was fine. Anything you are saying is anecdotally, and I have heard anecdotes from associates at each of these firms that enjoyed working there. Experiences vary.
Since the OP is asking about Cravath and Quinn, I assume that a great work-life balance is not his/her top priority.
A place is terrible to work at if you don't like the work; if you like the work, long hours are bearable. I don't know much about Quinn, but at places like Cravath (also other top tier Wall Street corporate firms and litigation shops, W&C, S&C, Wachtell, etc.), you will work on the most interest, complex, and cutting-edge cases and deals, exposing you to the frontier of litigation and deal-making. You will work hard (and do tedious tasks at times), but as long as you are willing get out of the weeds and think high level regularly, the complexity and volume of cases and deals you will be exposed to will teach you a lot about how the world (business, politics, etc.) works beneath the surface.

This - yes, both firms are known for having terrible hours. Clearly OP has considered this. However, both are also prestigious and clients will be high profile either way, so that's an issue of perspective. I think the issue is whether you really want to litigate, and have litigation-focused exit ops (naturally precluding others in high finance or strategy). If trial/depo experience is a high priority and those white-shoe exit ops aren't, I'd probably take Quinn. For the most variety of work & biggest names, Cravath.

rad lulz · Post by **rad lulz** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:49 pm

Old Gregg · Post by **Old Gregg** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:46 am

Do you like chasing the ambulance or being the ambulance that's being chased? That's basically the whole choice in a nutshell. Seems like a pretty obvious answer to me.

Edit: I am 100% joking and I know full well the above makes no sense.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:
KaNa1986 wrote:
sandiego222 wrote:
enibs wrote:These are both pretty horrible places to work as an associate, so your main focus in choosing between the two should be exit opportunities. I think Cravath is still a bit better on that score than Quinn.
Oh you've worked at both of these places? Cool.

There are people at every single big law firm that have said it is 'horrible' to work at, and others who have thought it was fine. Anything you are saying is anecdotally, and I have heard anecdotes from associates at each of these firms that enjoyed working there. Experiences vary.
Since the OP is asking about Cravath and Quinn, I assume that a great work-life balance is not his/her top priority.
A place is terrible to work at if you don't like the work; if you like the work, long hours are bearable. I don't know much about Quinn, but at places like Cravath (also other top tier Wall Street corporate firms and litigation shops, W&C, S&C, Wachtell, etc.), you will work on the most interest, complex, and cutting-edge cases and deals, exposing you to the frontier of litigation and deal-making. You will work hard (and do tedious tasks at times), but as long as you are willing get out of the weeds and think high level regularly, the complexity and volume of cases and deals you will be exposed to will teach you a lot about how the world (business, politics, etc.) works beneath the surface.
This - yes, both firms are known for having terrible hours. Clearly OP has considered this. However, both are also prestigious and clients will be high profile either way, so that's an issue of perspective. I think the issue is whether you really want to litigate, and have litigation-focused exit ops (naturally precluding others in high finance or strategy). If trial/depo experience is a high priority and those white-shoe exit ops aren't, I'd probably take Quinn. For the most variety of work & biggest names, Cravath.

OP here - I just want the best early-career litigation training.

rad lulz · Post by **rad lulz** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:56 am

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:31 am

rad lulz wrote:How about you wait until you actually have the offers brah

That's not a bad point, but there is nothing on TLS comparing the two so I thought I would bring it up now, in the off-season

Blindmelon · Post by **Blindmelon** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:06 pm

Very different in what they do and their culture. This is an odd choice to have (if you actually have this choice). I would go Cravath only because I find the whole "we're trial attorneys!" thing at Quinn annoying.

thesealocust · Post by **thesealocust** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:42 pm

Been working on a more pithy response:

Do you want to sue banks wearing sandals or defend them wearing suits?

911 crisis actor · Post by **911 crisis actor** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:02 am

My friend at Quinn said that incoming first years take depositions within the first week, second-chair trials within the first month, and 85% of first-years have won their first trial by February, adding to Quinn's very impressive 88.5% victory rate seen on their website. So, Quinn.

Blindmelon · Post by **Blindmelon** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:38 am

911 crisis actor wrote:My friend at Quinn said that incoming first years take depositions within the first week, second-chair trials within the first month, and 85% of first-years have won their first trial by February, adding to Quinn's very impressive 88.5% victory rate seen on their website. So, Quinn.

Unless its for pro bono cases, I sincerely doubt the bolded is true. Taking a good deposition is extremely difficult. I couldn't imagine them trusting it to a first year who barely knows what a deposition is.

dead head · Post by **dead head** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:42 am

Blindmelon wrote:
911 crisis actor wrote:My friend at Quinn said that incoming first years take depositions within the first week, second-chair trials within the first month, and 85% of first-years have won their first trial by February, adding to Quinn's very impressive 88.5% victory rate seen on their website. So, Quinn.
Unless its for pro bono cases, I sincerely doubt the bolded is true. Taking a good deposition is extremely difficult. I couldn't imagine them trusting it to a first year who barely knows what a deposition is.

And apparently you have to be a mid-level at your firm before you can be safely exposed to sarcasm.

Blindmelon · Post by **Blindmelon** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:46 am

dead head wrote:
Blindmelon wrote:
911 crisis actor wrote:My friend at Quinn said that incoming first years take depositions within the first week, second-chair trials within the first month, and 85% of first-years have won their first trial by February, adding to Quinn's very impressive 88.5% victory rate seen on their website. So, Quinn.
Unless its for pro bono cases, I sincerely doubt the bolded is true. Taking a good deposition is extremely difficult. I couldn't imagine them trusting it to a first year who barely knows what a deposition is.
And apparently you have to be a mid-level at your firm before you can be safely exposed to sarcasm.

Honestly, its hard to tell with Quinn people. I could imagine a Quinn associate actually saying that sadly.

Danger Zone · Post by **Danger Zone** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:29 am

Blindmelon wrote:I could imagine a Quinn associate actually saying that sadly.

That's why it was funny.

84651846190 · Post by **84651846190** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:57 pm

There are a lot of dumb, antisocial midlevel associates who lateral to Quinn for whatever reason. I'd go with Cravath.

slayerbtvs · Post by **slayerbtvs** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:09 pm

itbdvorm · Post by **itbdvorm** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:42 pm

FWIW - I really can't believe any informed individual is going w/Quinn here. Neither place is going to be all wine and roses...but still