NYC Litigation Firms- PW vs. Cravath vs. Debevoise vs. DPW Forum

[Anonymous User]

I've seen another thread like this from last year, but figured I'd try tapping into tls wisdom myself.

I'm fortunate to have offers at the above NYC firms. I want to do litigation, maybe considering an exit into government, prosecution, or another firm--who knows. I'm looking for the firm that has the best reputation, networking, etc. Of course I also value training, substantive work, etc. I know personal preference/ppl has a lot to do with the choice at this stage, but I'd like to know your opinion assuming I liked the ppl at each firm equally.

What is the way, oh wise TLS? And, in general, how would you rank these four firms for litigation?

[thesealocust]

Given your desires and the list of firms: go with the firm you liked the people/culture the most at. They're all the same on paper, or at least their differences boil down to personal preference.

[xael]

only one of those firms gave out selfie sticks

just saying

[Desert Fox]

[seespotrun]

Sorry about your Wachtell rejection

[Desert Fox]

[Anonymous User]

If you want training and substantive work look to non biglaw. It just doesn't exist.

What type of entry-level legal job provides those things? Not questioning you (I don't want to do biglaw), just wondering.

[bearsfan23]

If you want training and substantive work look to non biglaw. It just doesn't exist.

How is this helpful? OP asked for legitimate advice, not another "DF hates his life" tangent.

[Desert Fox]

[Anonymous User]

For junior associates from a training/substantive work perspective, the elite NYC firms make a lot more sense for corporate work than litigation. For litigation, look to firms like Susman and MTO.

[Anonymous User]

Haha thanks to those trying to help, this hasn't been as helpful as I expected!

[Anonymous User]

I didn't get an offer from Paul Weiss but I considered DPW versus Cravath and ultimately went with DPW for firm culture and work assignment reasons. The quality and type of work is essentially the same at those two firms for litigation. Both firms do a ton of major securities litigation; all three offer strengths in other areas like intellectual property lit and investigations as well. Paul Weiss feels like more of a litigation shop than Davis Polk or Cravath, which are both known principally for their corporate excellence (public M&A for CSM, finance and cap markets for DPW). Then again, it's possible that junior lit associates at PW receive slightly worse treatment. Unfortunately overall I agree with other posters in this thread that while DPW, CSM and PW are arguably the "best" mega firms for lit in NY, they still provide crappy quality of life and quality of work for junior associates in litigation.

So the choice between these three really comes down to firm culture and who you want to work for. Cravath for example has a very distinct model for juniors; you do 18 month rotations with one partner, working their cases under their midlevels, and then rotate out to a new partner. You don't have a choice who you would work for or what cases you would work on. Then again, you also have a default mentor figure, which is important. My sense was this could either be the best experience you could have in a firm of this type or an utter catastrophe depending on your rotation and how you fit within it. At Davis Polk, you can work with multiple teams on different cases and you have slightly more say (but still ultimately very little) in the matters you take on. I think partners are far more approachable there (the office setup itself suggests this), but of course, the drawback is you don't have someone directly responsible for mentoring and guiding you. I don't know PW as well but I imagine it's more like Davis Polk as far as work assignment is concerned.

Debevoise is a terrific firm but PW/DPW/CSM might be a slight cut above in the new york market. Then again, if you really like the people at Debevoise or really like white collar investigations, it might be a good fit.

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

Unfortunately overall I agree with other posters in this thread that while DPW, CSM and PW are arguably the "best" mega firms for lit in NY

LOL at this. I've said this in other threads, but is there any real basis for saying that any of the V10 firms are "better" at litigation than any other? They're all ranked the same on Chambers, they all do the same sorts of litigation (white collar, securities, general commercial, financial regulation, etc.) and they all have the same sorts of clients (banks and F500 companies). I understand there's a legitimate basis to split hairs for corporate, as there are real differences, but no one has pointed to anything that shows real differences among the V10 (in terms of litigation "excellence," not structure of the litigation department or work assignment system).

[Anonymous User]

Full disclosure: I'm a litigator at Cravath.

There are definitely differences between these firms in the type of work they do. Cravath probably does more trials than any other (non-boutique) NYC firm, other than maybe Boies and Quinn Emanuel (both of which are bad for very different reasons). The other three firms have more prominent white collar practices, and you are more likely to do that work as a junior; at Cravath you won't do any unless you get a rotation with a partner who does investigations.

The assignment system is very different between the firms. Each has its advantages and drawbacks. I obviously like Cravath's rotation system, but you can also be unlucky and get stuck with a partner or case you don't like, and it's hard to get out of that.

As for getting substantive experience, I will put mine up against any of the people in this thread who seem to think there's none to be gotten at any of these places.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because I have a CSM callback - above anon: how long were you there before you took a depo? How many years before you argue at motions hearings?

[jbagelboy]

Full disclosure: I'm a litigator at Cravath.

There are definitely differences between these firms in the type of work they do. Cravath probably does more trials than any other (non-boutique) NYC firm, other than maybe Boies and Quinn Emanuel (both of which are bad for very different reasons). The other three firms have more prominent white collar practices, and you are more likely to do that work as a junior; at Cravath you won't do any unless you get a rotation with a partner who does investigations.

The assignment system is very different between the firms. Each has its advantages and drawbacks. I obviously like Cravath's rotation system, but you can also be unlucky and get stuck with a partner or case you don't like, and it's hard to get out of that.

As for getting substantive experience, I will put mine up against any of the people in this thread who seem to think there's none to be gotten at any of these places.

could you PM me

[Traynor Brah]

Full disclosure: I'm a litigator at Cravath.

There are definitely differences between these firms in the type of work they do. Cravath probably does more trials than any other (non-boutique) NYC firm, other than maybe Boies and Quinn Emanuel (both of which are bad for very different reasons). The other three firms have more prominent white collar practices, and you are more likely to do that work as a junior; at Cravath you won't do any unless you get a rotation with a partner who does investigations.

The assignment system is very different between the firms. Each has its advantages and drawbacks. I obviously like Cravath's rotation system, but you can also be unlucky and get stuck with a partner or case you don't like, and it's hard to get out of that.

As for getting substantive experience, I will put mine up against any of the people in this thread who seem to think there's none to be gotten at any of these places.

could you PM me