Top Law Schools

Hey everyone, I was wondering what people's thoughts were on Chapman and Cutler in Chicago. They pay market and seem/claim to do pretty great work in the finance area. So just wanted to get others opinions of the firm in terms of whether their work is actually on par with the big firms, what the exit options from there look like, and anything else really. Thanks!

Agreed, excellent firm in finance/banking. One of the top 2 or 3 in country for tax-exempt finance (for local governments/local economic development). Exit options should be good to those areas, and likely better partner prospects than a lot of big firms. On a par or better than other big firms in finance/banking, though overall reputation is not as good as the very biggest firms in Chgo. Not strong in lit. Seems financially stable.

But, the fields in which C&C is strong are notoriously commodotized and (relatively) unprofitable. That's why the big firms have left that sort of work to the Chapman & Cutlers and Otterbourgs of the world.

Anonymous User wrote:Agreed, excellent firm in finance/banking. One of the top 2 or 3 in country for tax-exempt finance (for local governments/local economic development). Exit options should be good to those areas, and likely better partner prospects than a lot of big firms. On a par or better than other big firms in finance/banking, though overall reputation is not as good as the very biggest firms in Chgo. Not strong in lit. Seems financially stable.

Basically no litigation.

Anonymous User wrote:But, the fields in which C&C is strong are notoriously commodotized and (relatively) unprofitable. That's why the big firms have left that sort of work to the Chapman & Cutlers and Otterbourgs of the world.

OP here, would you mind expanding on that. I was considering Chapman for their Corporate group or their Financial Institutions practice. The goal was to lateral out in a few years and I want to make sure that it would be transferable to a large law firm if that's the route I choose to go.

Thank you all for your responses so far!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:But, the fields in which C&C is strong are notoriously commodotized and (relatively) unprofitable. That's why the big firms have left that sort of work to the Chapman & Cutlers and Otterbourgs of the world.

OP here, would you mind expanding on that. I was considering Chapman for their Corporate group or their Financial Institutions practice. The goal was to lateral out in a few years and I want to make sure that it would be transferable to a large law firm if that's the route I choose to go.

Thank you all for your responses so far!

In antediluvian times, representing the admin agent on mine run syndicated bank finance deals was a reasonably profitable practice and every big firm did it. Then banks realized that the value add of big firms was very low, and the cost very high. So smaller fish started representing the banks for the ordinary deals - refis, investment grade, etc. There are still bank finance practices at the big firms, but generally for deals with a wrinkle or sex appeal - acquisition finance, leveraged lending, DIP lending, direct lending, really huge numbers, etc. The typical secured deal gets farmed out to places like C&C or Otterbourg or some Charlotte office of a big firm, who're willing to do the deal much more cheaply than any big NY firm would.

Muni work, which is also a C&C specialty, is also notoriously unprofitable, but I know less about it.

Excuse my ignorance (really have no clue about this), but if this work is not very profitable, how is it that C&C is able to pay its associates market in Chicago?

Since they're small they can keep costs low

Anonymous User wrote:Excuse my ignorance (really have no clue about this), but if this work is not very profitable, how is it that C&C is able to pay its associates market in Chicago?

Lower profits per partner compared to bigger firms and specialization. Since they do the same deal over and over again, and the vast majority of their deals have no hair on them, each deal requires less individualized attention and they churn a higher volume. Same model as many firms used back in the day for securitization practices.

Thanks for the explanation. I guess I am more concerned with how their work compares to other firms in Chicago market and not the large NY firms and if it would be transferable to larger Chicago firms.

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the explanation. I guess I am more concerned with how their work compares to other firms in Chicago market and not the large NY firms and if it would be transferable to larger Chicago firms.

Their work is pretty specialized. I doubt it would be easy to trade up with it.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the explanation. I guess I am more concerned with how their work compares to other firms in Chicago market and not the large NY firms and if it would be transferable to larger Chicago firms.

Their work is pretty specialized. I doubt it would be easy to trade up with it.

Is the case with their corporate finance and securities group as well or just the specialized baking and public finance group?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the explanation. I guess I am more concerned with how their work compares to other firms in Chicago market and not the large NY firms and if it would be transferable to larger Chicago firms.

Their work is pretty specialized. I doubt it would be easy to trade up with it.

Is the case with their corporate finance and securities group as well or just the specialized baking and public finance group?

Both. They do that gawdawful agent work out of the corp fin group. IIRC they have some sort of great euphemism for it, like "conventional finance", on their website, that we all had a good laugh about at my firm the first time someone noticed it.

Thanks for the responses, they have been very helpful. Anyone else have any other thoughts/experience with Chapman?

Conventional finance is what almost all lawyers in banking/finance do -- just a handful of lawyers at mega firms are doing M&A, private equity, etc.. Better exit options too, since there are so many smaller firms and businesses that do conventional work. Hard to find a spot at a firm when your expertise is something the firm or business has never done.