Davis Polk vs. Cleary vs. Paul Weiss for NY Lit? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm definitely leaning towards litigation rather than corporate...I've seen, talked and interacted with enough corporate lawyers to know what they do, and honestly, it's not for me.

As for fit: I enjoy a more structured atmosphere; Cleary was kind of too "loose" for me. I know people say DPW can get stuffy, but I like a little more structure in my work environment.

What's the best option for doing NY lit?

[Anonymous User]

OP here:

I apologize in advance for people who are less fortunate. I know this is seen as a douchebag post, but I would really appreciate everyone's feedback

[txdude45]

Of the three, I'd take PW. It's hard to find a better litigation firm in the city. If you think you may swing corporate instead, DPW will probably the better choice as far as hedging bets.

[Anonymous User]

I have these options right now, and I am set on litigation. I'm going to choose Paul Weiss.

In no particular order, here are some of my thoughts:

1. Litigation strength: Paul Weiss and Davis Polk have stronger and broader lit practices than Cleary (e.g., Band 1 vs. Band 2). For this reason, my decision was mostly focused on Paul Weiss v. Davis Polk.

2. Focus: Paul Weiss is a renowned litigation firm. At Davis Polk and Cleary, the core of their practice is the corporate department. I want to be at a firm that is oriented towards my interests.

3. Fit. I personally just really like the culture at Paul Weiss. People seem very friendly, whereas (as you alluded to) Davis Polk people seem more reserved. It's harder to describe Cleary, but I also haven't found the people as friendly as at Paul Weiss. (This is obviously only based on my limited experience).

4. Pro Bono: All these firms have pro bono work, but Paul Weiss just seems *particularly* committed to pro bono work. Every litigation associate I met there was involved in an interesting pro bono project, and those are the projects where you're most likely to get good experience.

5. Generalist practice: On the specialized/generalist spectrum, Paul Weiss is firmly on the generalist side. This was a big plus to me. I think it's more beneficial and just more interesting to get to work on a variety of kinds of litigation. Davis Polk has a rotation system, and seemed more slotted to me.

6. Leverage: This is the typical knock against Paul Weiss. Taking into account staff attorneys, the associate:partner ratio is about 5:1. I don't remember Davis Polk's leverage stats offhand, but it's lower because the department is smaller. I'm not sure how meaningful this statistic is in practice. It really depends on how the firm assigns work. In general, I haven't gotten the sense that either Paul Weiss or Davis Polk was giving out "better" assignments to junior associates, at least from my conversations with lawyers there.

7. General reputation: Technically, Davis Polk is V5 and Paul Weiss is V15. But it's common knowledge that Vault is M&A-focused. For litigation, the two are peers (and Paul Weiss may even have the edge).

8. Pipeline to government: This is probably a wash between Paul Weiss and Davis Polk. Both seem very supportive of associates moving into government (e.g. AUSA's).

9. Trial work: Paul Weiss is a firm that actually goes to trial. I've gotten the sense that Davis Polk does not as much, but on this I'm a little less certain.


Ultimately, you can't make a mistake here. Fit alone could justify any of these three options. Hope this helps.

(Edited for grammar.)

[Anonymous User]

OP here:

Thanks so much for your help; it's exactly what I needed. The only thing that I had concerned was the disparity between V5 and V15 (law school gunner troll, I know), but honestly, I didn't know that Vault was M&A/corporate-oriented (which makes sense since Wachtell is always 1 and W&C is not).

I also got the sense that Paul Weiss people were more casual and friendly. Davis Polk did seem more reserved and the atmosphere seems more "restricted" which may be because of the rotation system.

[Anonymous User]

I'd say both of the above assessments are pretty solid, and for what it's worth, I'd lean toward Paul Weiss, too. I can't add much to what's already been said, but I also really liked the culture and people at the firm. If it comes down to prestige, I don't even think Davis wins there as long as it's on the litigation front.

I worked this last summer with a DOJ Division in New York, and we frequently came up against almost all the major New York firms for various investigations. Everyone had an extremely high opinion of Paul Weiss, and one of the recent hires was a Paul Weiss guy. We didn't have any Davis Polk guys in the office but everyone was more neutral about the firm generally (not bad but they didn't have an edge, either).

[Lincoln]

I'd say it's a tie b/w DPW and PW. I voted PW just because I know a lot of people there and like them, whereas I know only one person at DPW well and he's in corporate. But I honestly think it's pretty much a tie between those two. I personally wouldn't choose Cleary because I can't stand the self-described quirkiness, with skits and contributing to the newsletter and whatnot. Being able to live in BK with a short commute cuts in Cleary's favor though, IMO.

The vault ranking is irrelevant. All three of these firms are considered top NYC shops, and the exit options and work is similar, as far as I know.

FWIW, I'm a lit associate at another V5 in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a current associate at one of those places. It seems like you have had access to plenty of people at the firm, but if you want to chat, feel free to email me at mayomiosanchez@gmail.com - I would say pvt msg me, but I think we both want to be anonymous.

[Anonymous User]

For what it's worth, the rotation system at DPW is for corporate associates only. It works like this: Before coming to the firm, you rank the corporate practice groups 1-9 (or whatever). You are then slotted into your first rotation (which ends March 31). Most people get their first or second choices, but I have heard some get their fourth choice. In February, you re-rank the practice groups and then get slotted into your second rotation (which ends September 30). At both junctures (i.e. before coming to the firm and in February), you can request to assign into a group. Rarely happens at the first point. In February, some groups will take assignees (e.g., Credit) but others likely won't (e.g., Bankruptcy, M&A). Finally, in August during your second rotation, you pick which group to assign to / request a third rotation.

Litigation associates do not rotate through "practice groups" because there are no litigation practice groups. Instead, litigation associates work on a variety of different cases assigned through the assignment coordinator. In practice, people begin to specialize a bit by working on the same type of cases, for the same partners, etc. But there is not a litigation rotation system.

[Anonymous User]

Different anon but related question, I'm throwing S&C in the mix (DPW v Cleary v S&C, no PW offer unfortunately), anyone have additional thoughts on this front? Specifically, I'm wondering whether S&C's hours would actually be worse / matters more sophisticated than the other two as ATL and other sources suggest or whether that is hype and it's all a wash