Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote:Practice area? Thoughts on sandals?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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