Top Law Schools

Is there any significant difference between these two firms (definitely including culture) for someone who wants litigation and an "international" working environment?

Loved people at both. Is there any reason this decision should not come down to just which people I like more?

..

Anonymous User wrote:Is there any significant difference between these two firms (definitely including culture) for someone who wants litigation and an "international" working environment?

Loved people at both. Is there any reason this decision should not come down to just which people I like more?

I'd go with Cleary but it depends on practice area.

Litigation departments tend not to be particularly internationalized - most of the work opportunities abroad are in cap markets. That being said, Debevoise has a more pronounced white collar investigations practice (which tends to involve a lot of travel ect). I think it could come down to fit/ect. For corporate I'd go to Cleary though.

jbagelboy wrote:Litigation departments tend not to be particularly internationalized - most of the work opportunities abroad are in cap markets. That being said, Debevoise has a more pronounced white collar investigations practice (which tends to involve a lot of travel ect). I think it could come down to fit/ect. For corporate I'd go to Cleary though.

International arbitration?

zweitbester wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:Litigation departments tend not to be particularly internationalized - most of the work opportunities abroad are in cap markets. That being said, Debevoise has a more pronounced white collar investigations practice (which tends to involve a lot of travel ect). I think it could come down to fit/ect. For corporate I'd go to Cleary though.

International arbitration?

Okay yes, there's a lot of international sounding work & clients

You know more than I do, but you won't be staffed in the London office of any American firm as a first yr associate to do exclusively int'l arbitration

jbagelboy wrote:

zweitbester wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:Litigation departments tend not to be particularly internationalized - most of the work opportunities abroad are in cap markets. That being said, Debevoise has a more pronounced white collar investigations practice (which tends to involve a lot of travel ect). I think it could come down to fit/ect. For corporate I'd go to Cleary though.

International arbitration?

Okay yes, there's a lot of international sounding work & clients

You know more than I do, but you won't be staffed in the London office of any American firm as a first yr associate to do exclusively int'l arbitration

Actually not that hard to get into the London office of an American firm to do either international arbitration or corporate. Very career limiting move, however.

zweitbester wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

zweitbester wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:Litigation departments tend not to be particularly internationalized - most of the work opportunities abroad are in cap markets. That being said, Debevoise has a more pronounced white collar investigations practice (which tends to involve a lot of travel ect). I think it could come down to fit/ect. For corporate I'd go to Cleary though.

International arbitration?

Okay yes, there's a lot of international sounding work & clients

You know more than I do, but you won't be staffed in the London office of any American firm as a first yr associate to do exclusively int'l arbitration

Actually not that hard to get into the London office of an American firm to do either international arbitration or corporate. Very career limiting move, however.

Can you expand on how doing corporate in London could be a career limiting move? I'm considering it and was under the impression the capital markets work would be transferable back to the US.

Anonymous User wrote: Can you expand on how doing corporate in London could be a career limiting move? I'm considering it and was under the impression the capital markets work would be transferable back to the US.

Not the prior poster, but the general logic I have always heard is that it is a lot easier to go from NY to London than the other way around. If you want to do capital markets, better to start in NY (where most US capital markets work is based) than in London (where the range of experience you get may be more limited, generally fewer training resources etc.) Not a hard and fast rule and if you have a compelling reason to be in London I don't think it would be the worst idea, but all things being equal - if you want to be a US capital markets associate, best bet for experience and flexibility down the line is to start in the NY office of a US firm.