Cravath vs. Skadden vs. Kirkland (NY Corp.) Forum

[Anonymous User]

I realize similar threads have been made in the past, but a lot of the Skadden / Cravath / K&E stuff seemed either outdated or derailed so just wanted to see if there were any new thoughts or if anyone wanted to chip in with their experiences with these (or other similar) firms.

I really liked the people at all 3 (despite the rep of CSM and K&E), but not sure how much recruiting is trotting out the nicest people to meet me.

I don't have necessarily a particular area I'm in love with, but I am leaning M&A (though the fact that even by corporate standards it's unbelievably cyclical seems like it would burn people out eventually). Definitely open to trying out other areas as well.

I also can't make up my mind on if the rotation or free-market system makes more sense to me. Part of the allure of K&E is that in theory at least I'd make a higher bonus.

Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous User]

Skadden and Cravath are even when it comes to corporate practice in NY. Their M&A groups are cream of the crop. Kirkland NY is also a great firm, but not in the same elite tier of Skadden and Cravath for corporate. These firms do have unique characteristics to consider as you mentioned, so you should make your decision based on those factors. Cravath has the rotational system. Kirkland has the free-market (you are right about the potentially higher bonus but consider the negatives as well). Skadden is a mix of both. Skadden is fratty, Cravath a little more conservative and Kirkland probably in the middle somewhere. Nobody can really decide what you like based on these. Do some second looks, maybe? Either way, congratulations on great options. Can't go wrong here.

[Anonymous User]

Skadden and Cravath are even when it comes to corporate practice in NY. Their M&A groups are cream of the crop. Kirkland NY is also a great firm, but not in the same elite tier of Skadden and Cravath for corporate. These firms do have unique characteristics to consider as you mentioned, so you should make your decision based on those factors. Cravath has the rotational system. Kirkland has the free-market (you are right about the potentially higher bonus but consider the negatives as well). Skadden is a mix of both. Skadden is fratty, Cravath a little more conservative and Kirkland probably in the middle somewhere. Nobody can really decide what you like based on these. Do some second looks, maybe? Either way, congratulations on great options. Can't go wrong here.

Thanks for your input. I did do a second look at one the other day. The lines between them seem to be blurring the more I talk to people at each, but I guess each will be putting their best foot forward to recruit.

[thesealocust]

If you were leaning towards the stuff K&E does very well (PE), then it would be worth considering, but otherwise I think you should really be looking at Cravath and Skadden. IMO not a great idea to choose a firm because in the past they have sometimes given bonuses that are sometimes higher for some high billers given the size of the disparity (not huge).

As between Cravath and Skadden, I'd agree that they're peers for NYC corporate practice, although Cravath has a much stronger allure amongst law students for reasons that probably don't pass muster in the professional world.

You're likely to work brutally hard at any of them, and your interests don't seem all that well defined, so I'd follow your gut or just go to Cravath if I were you, because why not, it's definitely the strongest "brand" for what little that is worth to your life down the road.

[Anonymous User]

If you were leaning towards the stuff K&E does very well (PE), then it would be worth considering, but otherwise I think you should really be looking at Cravath and Skadden. IMO not a great idea to choose a firm because in the past they have sometimes given bonuses that are sometimes higher for some high billers given the size of the disparity (not huge).

As between Cravath and Skadden, I'd agree that their peers for NYC corporate practice, although Cravath has a much stronger allure amongst law students for reasons that probably don't pass muster in the professional world.

You're likely to work brutally hard at any of them, and your interests don't seem all that well defined, so I'd follow your gut or just go to Cravath if I were you, because why not, it's definitely the strongest "brand" for what little that is worth to your life down the road.

I understand that Cravath may have more "allure" among law students, but does it really have a stronger "brand" than Skadden in the professional/legal/whatever world? My impression was that the two were virtually indistinguishable. I had similar options as the OP so I'm just curious.

[thesealocust]

In terms of client and lawyer perceptions, Skadden and Cravath are definitely peers, so long as you're talking about NYC corporate work (Skadden has like 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices, so quality not likely as consistent?). There's some veneer of Cravathiness that Cravath will probably always have (it is called the Cravath system after all), but I think if you want to do M&A in NYC, for example, there really isn't a meaningful difference between them in terms of perception, so it's fine to follow your gut or other non-prestige/non-quality criteria.

[SLS_AMG]

In terms of client and lawyer perceptions, Skadden and Cravath are definitely peers, so long as you're talking about NYC corporate work (Skadden has like 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices, so quality not likely as consistent?). There's some veneer of Cravathiness that Cravath will probably always have (it is called the Cravath system after all), but I think if you want to do M&A in NYC, for example, there really isn't a meaningful difference between them in terms of perception, so it's fine to follow your gut or other non-prestige/non-quality criteria.

I think tsl is spot on. Skadden is a peer to the top white-shoe firms in quality of work, but I don't think it will ever have the same allure as any of Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB simply because of those 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices. Real or not, it's hard to avoid the perception that the quality can't be as consistently high across all those offices.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of client and lawyer perceptions, Skadden and Cravath are definitely peers, so long as you're talking about NYC corporate work (Skadden has like 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices, so quality not likely as consistent?). There's some veneer of Cravathiness that Cravath will probably always have (it is called the Cravath system after all), but I think if you want to do M&A in NYC, for example, there really isn't a meaningful difference between them in terms of perception, so it's fine to follow your gut or other non-prestige/non-quality criteria.

I think tsl is spot on. Skadden is a peer to the top white-shoe firms in quality of work, but I don't think it will ever have the same allure as any of Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB simply because of those 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices. Real or not, it's hard to avoid the perception that the quality can't be as consistently high across all those offices.

That perception makes no sense to me though. When I was looking at Skadden, I saw that all of its main offices (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, DC for example) were extremely strong in their respective markets. How is consistency in quality across offices a real concern when it has so many respected practice groups across different offices? Size doesn't seem to indicate a sacrifice in quality in this case. I can't speak much about it's foreign offices, but I saw it as a strength more than anything. I chose Skadden over the likes of DPW so I'm admittedly a little biased.

[Anonymous User]

doesn't have the same luster for a lot of people because it isn't as selective, and size is correlated with selectivity and prestige. TLS gets a hard on for exclusivity.

i actually disagree with TSL and think the decision as between the three is splitting hairs. Cravath and Skadden's corp groups are definitely more storied, but K&E is top-rate (just like Latham's).

There are significant cultural differences, though, and I think culture is what the decision should come down to. At K&E, you will be fighting for the rest of your life. You'll be fighting for respect as a junior, you'll be fighting to stop from getting back stabbed when your more senior (from people above you, equal to you and even below you). and the fight never ends. it doesn't end when you make non-share partner. it doesn't end when you get shares. it doesn't even end when you make it on the firm committee.

when you work at the place, you start hearing stories. partners stealing clients. shares being taken away from you. power shuffles. alliances. I saw the most senior and powerful partners get pushed out. just incredible. and there's no regard for the bodies. departure notice? absolutely no one gives a shit.

and when you're fighting that fight, watch yourself just waste away. watch your friends drift away. watch yourself become the person you've always hated. watch your waist as it goes from a size 2 to a size 12. watch your head as the hairline recedes. watch your significant other divorce you. it is the rare unicorn in the leadership who still has their first spouse, is in a loving relationship with that person, has children, and seems to be in good health.

[SLS_AMG]

In terms of client and lawyer perceptions, Skadden and Cravath are definitely peers, so long as you're talking about NYC corporate work (Skadden has like 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices, so quality not likely as consistent?). There's some veneer of Cravathiness that Cravath will probably always have (it is called the Cravath system after all), but I think if you want to do M&A in NYC, for example, there really isn't a meaningful difference between them in terms of perception, so it's fine to follow your gut or other non-prestige/non-quality criteria.

I think tsl is spot on. Skadden is a peer to the top white-shoe firms in quality of work, but I don't think it will ever have the same allure as any of Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB simply because of those 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices. Real or not, it's hard to avoid the perception that the quality can't be as consistently high across all those offices.

That perception makes no sense to me though. When I was looking at Skadden, I saw that all of its main offices (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, DC for example) were extremely strong in their respective markets. How is consistency in quality across offices a real concern when it has so many respected practice groups across different offices? Size doesn't seem to indicate a sacrifice in quality in this case. I can't speak much about it's foreign offices, but I saw it as a strength more than anything. I chose Skadden over the likes of DPW so I'm admittedly a little biased.

I didn't say it made sense -- and it may be totally illogical. But when a firm has so many attorneys, it will by default be less selective than the peer firms it's so often compared to. There's no way to maintain exclusivity while having 2000 attorneys at the same time. Indeed, for a lot of Skadden offices (NY included), median grades from a top school are more than enough. That's not true of its peers. So while I'm certainly not going to argue that law school success is a solid predictor of future lawyerly quality, I do think the sheer number of people it recruits each year detracts from its perception -- if only a little.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of client and lawyer perceptions, Skadden and Cravath are definitely peers, so long as you're talking about NYC corporate work (Skadden has like 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices, so quality not likely as consistent?). There's some veneer of Cravathiness that Cravath will probably always have (it is called the Cravath system after all), but I think if you want to do M&A in NYC, for example, there really isn't a meaningful difference between them in terms of perception, so it's fine to follow your gut or other non-prestige/non-quality criteria.

I think tsl is spot on. Skadden is a peer to the top white-shoe firms in quality of work, but I don't think it will ever have the same allure as any of Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB simply because of those 50,000 attorneys and 900 offices. Real or not, it's hard to avoid the perception that the quality can't be as consistently high across all those offices.

That perception makes no sense to me though. When I was looking at Skadden, I saw that all of its main offices (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, DC for example) were extremely strong in their respective markets. How is consistency in quality across offices a real concern when it has so many respected practice groups across different offices? Size doesn't seem to indicate a sacrifice in quality in this case. I can't speak much about it's foreign offices, but I saw it as a strength more than anything. I chose Skadden over the likes of DPW so I'm admittedly a little biased.

I didn't say it made sense -- and it may be totally illogical. But when a firm has so many attorneys, it will by default be less selective than the peer firms it's so often compared to. There's no way to maintain exclusivity while having 2000 attorneys at the same time. Indeed, for a lot of Skadden offices (NY included), median grades from a top school are more than enough. That's not true of its peers. So while I'm certainly not going to argue that law school success is a solid predictor of future lawyerly quality, I do think the sheer number of people it recruits each year detracts from its perception -- if only a little.

Skadden reaches deeper into the class than other peer firms at our school (CCN), but "median grades from a top school" being more than enough is not accurate when you look at the Honor Reports from CLS. It hovers around 85%. Being median at a top school gives you a shot at best (though a better one than other V5 firms). I am not sure if this is necessarily a function of size though, considering Skadden NY gave fewer offers than its peers such as Simpson or Davis Polk. The NY office just has to meet its own target, and I feel like the firm's global size shouldn't affect how strict it is grade-wise. It's not like Skadden NY goes deeper into the class to meet a huge number of summer associates (as I said above, NY office offered fewer summers than Cravath/DPW/STB NY last year). Looks like it's just not as strict on grade cut-off as other V5s.

[Anonymous User]

doesn't have the same luster for a lot of people because it isn't as selective, and size is correlated with selectivity and prestige. TLS gets a hard on for exclusivity.

i actually disagree with TSL and think the decision as between the three is splitting hairs. Cravath and Skadden's corp groups are definitely more storied, but K&E is top-rate (just like Latham's).

There are significant cultural differences, though, and I think culture is what the decision should come down to. At K&E, you will be fighting for the rest of your life. You'll be fighting for respect as a junior, you'll be fighting to stop from getting back stabbed when your more senior (from people above you, equal to you and even below you). and the fight never ends. it doesn't end when you make non-share partner. it doesn't end when you get shares. it doesn't even end when you make it on the firm committee.

when you work at the place, you start hearing stories. partners stealing clients. shares being taken away from you. power shuffles. alliances. I saw the most senior and powerful partners get pushed out. just incredible. and there's no regard for the bodies. departure notice? absolutely no one gives a shit.

and when you're fighting that fight, watch yourself just waste away. watch your friends drift away. watch yourself become the person you've always hated. watch your waist as it goes from a size 2 to a size 12. watch your head as the hairline recedes. watch your significant other divorce you. it is the rare unicorn in the leadership who still has their first spouse, is in a loving relationship with that person, has children, and seems to be in good health.

How is this different from other big firms?

[SLS_AMG]

Skadden reaches deeper into the class than other peer firms at our school (CCN), but "median grades from a top school" being more than enough is not accurate when you look at the Honor Reports from CLS. It hovers around 85%. Being median at a top school gives you a shot at best (though a better one than other V5 firms). I do not think this is necessarily a function of size though, considering Skadden NY gave fewer offers than its peers such as Simpson or Davis Polk. The NY office just has to meet its own target, and the firm's global size shouldn't affect how strict it is grade-wise. It's not like Skadden goes deeper into the class to meet a huge number of summer associates (as I said above, NY office offered fewer summers than Cravath/DPW/STB last year). Looks like it's just not as strict on grade cut-off as other V5s.

I think the fewer offers thing is also a function of the fact that Skadden NY interviews at like 50 schools. The others interview at like 20. So Skadden probably gives out fewer offers at top schools just because it gives out far more at lower-ranked schools.

[Anonymous User]

Skadden reaches deeper into the class than other peer firms at our school (CCN), but "median grades from a top school" being more than enough is not accurate when you look at the Honor Reports from CLS. It hovers around 85%. Being median at a top school gives you a shot at best (though a better one than other V5 firms). I do not think this is necessarily a function of size though, considering Skadden NY gave fewer offers than its peers such as Simpson or Davis Polk. The NY office just has to meet its own target, and the firm's global size shouldn't affect how strict it is grade-wise. It's not like Skadden goes deeper into the class to meet a huge number of summer associates (as I said above, NY office offered fewer summers than Cravath/DPW/STB last year). Looks like it's just not as strict on grade cut-off as other V5s.

I think the fewer offers thing is also a function of the fact that Skadden NY interviews at like 50 schools. The others interview at like 20. So Skadden probably gives out fewer offers at top schools just because it gives out far more at lower-ranked schools.

I mean, the overall summer class at Skadden NY is not as large as DPW NY. Also, Skadden NY does OCI at 23 schools, compared to 21 for DPW and 26 for STB NY.

[Anonymous User]

Skadden reaches deeper into the class than other peer firms at our school (CCN), but "median grades from a top school" being more than enough is not accurate when you look at the Honor Reports from CLS. It hovers around 85%. Being median at a top school gives you a shot at best (though a better one than other V5 firms). I do not think this is necessarily a function of size though, considering Skadden NY gave fewer offers than its peers such as Simpson or Davis Polk. The NY office just has to meet its own target, and the firm's global size shouldn't affect how strict it is grade-wise. It's not like Skadden goes deeper into the class to meet a huge number of summer associates (as I said above, NY office offered fewer summers than Cravath/DPW/STB last year). Looks like it's just not as strict on grade cut-off as other V5s.

I think the fewer offers thing is also a function of the fact that Skadden NY interviews at like 50 schools. The others interview at like 20. So Skadden probably gives out fewer offers at top schools just because it gives out far more at lower-ranked schools.

I mean, the overall summer class at Skadden NY is not as large as DPW NY. Also, Skadden NY does OCI at 23 schools, compared to 21 for DPW and 26 for STB NY.

They take in a sizeable amount of write-in candidates though even if they aren't technically at the OCI I believe (at least when I was going to their events it seemed like a lot of non t-14ers were represented - this isn't a good or bad thing, just saying).

[jbagelboy]

This entire derailment into a selectivity dispute illustrates the problem with how TLS and by extension a segment of the legal industry evaluate career choices. Explain in reasonable terms why OP should care about skadden's honors % or whether they pull from median in making this decision? That information is only relevant for getting an offer, not accepting one.

I'm not trying to give anyone here a tough time because you're trying to help, but it's the kind of people that project their insecurity onto their career by worrying how may plebs from lower tier schools might infect their summer class and dilute their elite purity that will be crushed by the system and life: you could go to Cravath and share your office with a Fordham student (of which there are many there, each very talented), or go to skadden and share with a yale grad.

I can see a shade of validity in the exclusivity argument that more qualified candidates make better attorneys and you want to work with smart/great people, but seeing as that doesn't play out in practice whatsoever, it's bullshit. If vault and chambers can show us anything it's that industry rep and quality of work do not always correlate with selectivity.

As a final note, OP, you should be able to distinguish at least between a strict rotation and a total free market. That difference appears to dictate much of your early experience - I agree that these top firms all blend together, but these firms represent diametrically opposite models so you should take a little time to think about what kind of work environments you thrive in, ect

[911 crisis actor]

You'll talk to a midlevel associate who is super-psyched to work at S&C and you'll find out that he (not a lot of shes) lateralled from some firm that frankly you would never have considered working for (too TTT for you). When you get back to your office, this will trouble you a bit, you'll wonder if your own escutcheon is being blemished by the presence of this type of person (i.e., non-elite) at your S&C. But that feeling will pass as you'll find plenty of other like-minded first years who equally relish the prestige as you you head for a drink at Ulysses (shoulderbag logo facing outward).

[WhirledWorld]

They all suck, but they suck in very different ways.

Do you want to play Russian roulette with your career? If so, Cravath's rotation system is perfect for you! You get very little say over who your partner is or what practice group you want. That can work out great, or it can ruin your career and your marriage and your life. Also, I don't really get the business model -- why pay a senior associate to run my IPO when he has experience in debt and in M&A but this is his first securities deal??

If you enjoy swimming through tourists and being groped by the naked cowboy every morning, Skadden might be for you. If Cravath lawyers are jack offs of all trades but masters of none, Skadden lawyers specialize like crazy. So you want to do M&A -- great! -- will that be bank M&A, tech M&A, insurance M&A, consumer goods M&A? Or maybe you want to do finance -- they have a group for banking and one for corporate finance and one for leveraged and one for structured, and I'm probably forgetting a few. But at least the gym is really nice. And free. And if all you care about is prestige, their M&A group is has been topping the recent league tables.

As for Kirkland -- downsides include people thinking you work at Costco and office politics reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. Upsides include MARKET SHATTERING bonuses and the sweet, sweet satisfaction of updating your LinkedIn profile to say "Partner" while your peers are mere "senior associates" (assuming, of course, you weren't one of the Piggies of your year).

[hellojd]

As for Kirkland -- downsides include people thinking you work at Costco.

[Anonymous User]

doesn't have the same luster for a lot of people because it isn't as selective, and size is correlated with selectivity and prestige. TLS gets a hard on for exclusivity.

i actually disagree with TSL and think the decision as between the three is splitting hairs. Cravath and Skadden's corp groups are definitely more storied, but K&E is top-rate (just like Latham's).

There are significant cultural differences, though, and I think culture is what the decision should come down to. At K&E, you will be fighting for the rest of your life. You'll be fighting for respect as a junior, you'll be fighting to stop from getting back stabbed when your more senior (from people above you, equal to you and even below you). and the fight never ends. it doesn't end when you make non-share partner. it doesn't end when you get shares. it doesn't even end when you make it on the firm committee.

when you work at the place, you start hearing stories. partners stealing clients. shares being taken away from you. power shuffles. alliances. I saw the most senior and powerful partners get pushed out. just incredible. and there's no regard for the bodies. departure notice? absolutely no one gives a shit.

and when you're fighting that fight, watch yourself just waste away. watch your friends drift away. watch yourself become the person you've always hated. watch your waist as it goes from a size 2 to a size 12. watch your head as the hairline recedes. watch your significant other divorce you. it is the rare unicorn in the leadership who still has their first spouse, is in a loving relationship with that person, has children, and seems to be in good health.

I summered at a non-Chi/NY office of K&E and will say that every single partner I knew (I can recall at least nine off the top of my head, share and non-share) was married—indeed many of them (seemed) happily so! The firm isn't without criticism, and this summer I was by no means interested in putting my head in the sand and avoiding the harsher aspects of working at a big firm. Even so, the people throughout the office seemed to live balanced, stable, and relatively happy lives.

Of course, they were subject to the same general criticisms one can make about attorneys more generally—few interests outside of work, lack of excitement about the day-to-day, underdeveloped emotional selves...

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

They all suck, but they suck in very different ways.

Do you want to play Russian roulette with your career? If so, Cravath's rotation system is perfect for you! You get very little say over who your partner is or what practice group you want. That can work out great, or it can ruin your career and your marriage and your life. Also, I don't really get the business model -- why pay a senior associate to run my IPO when he has experience in debt and in M&A but this is his first securities deal??

If you enjoy swimming through tourists and being groped by the naked cowboy every morning, Skadden might be for you. If Cravath lawyers are jack offs of all trades but masters of none, Skadden lawyers specialize like crazy. So you want to do M&A -- great! -- will that be bank M&A, tech M&A, insurance M&A, consumer goods M&A? Or maybe you want to do finance -- they have a group for banking and one for corporate finance and one for leveraged and one for structured, and I'm probably forgetting a few. But at least the gym is really nice. And free. And if all you care about is prestige, their M&A group is has been topping the recent league tables.

As for Kirkland -- downsides include people thinking you work at Costco and office politics reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. Upsides include MARKET SHATTERING bonuses and the sweet, sweet satisfaction of updating your LinkedIn profile to say "Partner" while your peers are mere "senior associates" (assuming, of course, you weren't one of the Piggies of your year).

I just want to single out this extremely high-quality post.

[jbagelboy]

They all suck, but they suck in very different ways.

Do you want to play Russian roulette with your career? If so, Cravath's rotation system is perfect for you! You get very little say over who your partner is or what practice group you want. That can work out great, or it can ruin your career and your marriage and your life. Also, I don't really get the business model -- why pay a senior associate to run my IPO when he has experience in debt and in M&A but this is his first securities deal??

If you enjoy swimming through tourists and being groped by the naked cowboy every morning, Skadden might be for you. If Cravath lawyers are jack offs of all trades but masters of none, Skadden lawyers specialize like crazy. So you want to do M&A -- great! -- will that be bank M&A, tech M&A, insurance M&A, consumer goods M&A? Or maybe you want to do finance -- they have a group for banking and one for corporate finance and one for leveraged and one for structured, and I'm probably forgetting a few. But at least the gym is really nice. And free. And if all you care about is prestige, their M&A group is has been topping the recent league tables.

As for Kirkland -- downsides include people thinking you work at Costco and office politics reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. Upsides include MARKET SHATTERING bonuses and the sweet, sweet satisfaction of updating your LinkedIn profile to say "Partner" while your peers are mere "senior associates" (assuming, of course, you weren't one of the Piggies of your year).

I just want to single out this extremely high-quality post.

WhirledWorld, could you do the rest of the V10 for us? Tyia