Top Law Schools

What work do top Wall Street law firms do in SV to support their high RPL and PPP? What type of work can support S&C's PPP of around $4m and Davis Polk/Skadden's PPP of around $3m?

Anonymous User wrote:What work do top Wall Street law firms do in SV to support their high RPL and PPP? What type of work can support S&C's PPP of around $4m and Davis Polk/Skadden's PPP of around $3m?

Look at the M&A work Weil has done in the SV in the last couple years. They're carrying the firm from out there-- because from what I could tell they weren't really doing that great M&A in the city.

Same shit they do in NYC.

So their work in SV is different from that of Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, etc.?

Anonymous User wrote:So their work in SV is different from that of Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, etc.?

Yeah they're typically representing large institutions, like large public companies, PE funds, big banks, etc.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:So their work in SV is different from that of Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, etc.?

Yeah they're typically representing large institutions, like large public companies, PE funds, big banks, etc.

I'm curious who you/OP are talking about?

I thought everyone like this was in SF..everyone i ever looked at in SV definitely had a VC/startup/tech/IP slant to it, even the big NY firms (Davis Polk, Weil...) Or they at least pitch themselves this way

GOATlawman wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:So their work in SV is different from that of Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, etc.?

Yeah they're typically representing large institutions, like large public companies, PE funds, big banks, etc.

I'm curious who you/OP are talking about?

I thought everyone like this was in SF..everyone i ever looked at in SV definitely had a VC/startup/tech/IP slant to it, even the big NY firms (Davis Polk, Weil...) Or they at least pitch themselves this way

Well having a tech/IP slant is totally consistent with what TS is saying. They do a lot of the M&A work for the Apples, Facebooks, Amazons of the world, whereas the WSGRs represent the target companies.

There is more of a tech focus because there are so many of those companies out there, but I don't know of any startups that can afford DPW's rates. SV firms I'm talking about include S&C, Skadden, Simpson, Latham, Kirkland etc. There are some huge PE firms out there too that do a lot of big deals and are typically represented by the usual suspects like Kirkland and Simpson.

GOATlawman wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:So their work in SV is different from that of Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, etc.?

Yeah they're typically representing large institutions, like large public companies, PE funds, big banks, etc.

I'm curious who you/OP are talking about?

I thought everyone like this was in SF..everyone i ever looked at in SV definitely had a VC/startup/tech/IP slant to it, even the big NY firms (Davis Polk, Weil...) Or they at least pitch themselves this way

The big NY firms don't really pitch themselves like this (with the exception of Weil, and Latham, if you want to consider that a NY firm). When I was interviewing, most of the NY firms actually expressed pride in doing different work than the native firms, and admitted that they don't usually compete with the native firms for VC/startup work because the fees doing that type of work are too low for them.

Well having a tech/IP slant is totally consistent with what TS is saying. They do a lot of the M&A work for the Apples, Facebooks, Amazons of the world, whereas the WSGRs represent the target companies.

nope