Cadwalader DC Forum

[Anonymous User]

Curious if anyone has any thoughts or anecdotes to share about this office. "DC" isn't searchable, and hardly anyone writes out District of Columbia, so it's hard to glean a whole lot from these boards on individual DC offices.

My take from cb interactions: seems like a friendly, social group of associates and partners. Pay seems great for DC (market base + NY bonuses), which is slightly better than some of the bigger non-elite DC offices like Hogan and Venable, and if there's any truth to the average hours listed on NALP it doesn't sound any worse than those places. This office seems like more of a specialty shop than a full service office, focusing on antitrust, energy, and white collar. There's plenty of internet fodder about the unpleasantness of the NY office (even post-McKinsey), but the DC office sounds like a different animal. Anyone with insight into this office, or anecdotes from friends that work there, please feel free to chime in. Also curious if anyone has any insight into the relevance of the recent leadership change and last year's dip in PPP, as discussed here (page 2 is especially detailed):

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/musical- ... adwalader/

Cheers, hivemind.

[parkslope]

Do you have other options? Cadwalader isn't particularly well-regarded in DC.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have other options? Cadwalader isn't particularly well-regarded in DC.

Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous User]

Not that poster but the DC office isn't really on the radar for anything. When I think of top-notch antitrust or energy practices, a couple firms come to mind, but Cadawalader isn't among them. Seems like the DC office clearly plays second fiddle to NYC. Not sure why you'd go there unless you have no other options.

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

Not that poster but the DC office isn't really on the radar for anything. When I think of top-notch antitrust or energy practices, a couple firms come to mind, but Cadawalader isn't among them. Seems like the DC office clearly plays second fiddle to NYC. Not sure why you'd go there unless you have no other options.

I would say generally that the DC satellite offices of NY law firms aren't worth it, except for Cleary and Skadden, which have both established large presences. There might be a couple others.

If you have an offer at a DC-based firm or one with a bigger presence, that would be more advisable.

[Anonymous User]

I would say generally that the DC satellite offices of NY law firms aren't worth it, except for Cleary and Skadden, which have both established large presences. There might be a couple others.

If you have an offer at a DC-based firm or one with a bigger presence, that would be more advisable.

As someone else zeroed in on DC, I would appreciate some elaboration. Cleary's DC office has something like 100 attorneys. The SullCrom DC does seem like a small satellite. Any insight on Kirkland or White & Case DC?

[Anonymous User]

From a work-life balance perspective, Cadwalader DC sounds like a pretty sweet deal. I have friends who work there who say that the people tend to go home at 7, and have lower billing targets than NYC. That said, I'd really investigate what the lack of presence in DC means for workflow, and particularly for long-term options. Ask 3rd years to 5th years what their plans are, if you can.

Good luck!

[Anonymous User]

OP

I do have another option, thankfully, but I'm curious what drives the logic that a satellite is automatically (or at least typically) less good than an HQ?

Not trying to defend Cadwalader specifically, just curious which are the main factors to consider when doing this type of calculus. I could see there being benefits to working in an 80-100 person office over one with 300+ people, for example.

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

I would say generally that the DC satellite offices of NY law firms aren't worth it, except for Cleary and Skadden, which have both established large presences. There might be a couple others.

If you have an offer at a DC-based firm or one with a bigger presence, that would be more advisable.

As someone else zeroed in on DC, I would appreciate some elaboration. Cleary's DC office has something like 100 attorneys. The SullCrom DC does seem like a small satellite. Any insight on Kirkland or White & Case DC?

Kirkland has a substantial presence in DC and I wouldn't view it as a "satellite office" in the same way that STB or DPW's offices in DC are. Kirkland does a lot of high-quality litigation in DC, including appellate, but almost no regulatory work. Kirkland also does whatever corporate work exists in DC. White & Case does a lot of int'l arbitration and trade work out of its DC office. I don't know anything else about them.

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

OP

I do have another option, thankfully, but I'm curious what drives the logic that a satellite is automatically (or at least typically) less good than an HQ?

Not trying to defend Cadwalader specifically, just curious which are the main factors to consider when doing this type of calculus. I could see there being benefits to working in an 80-100 person office over one with 300+ people, for example.

A satellite isn't always worse than a headquarters. It might probably be smart to take, say, Paul Weiss DC over Steptoe & Johnson unless you had a specific practice area interest. Sometimes a satellite office operates as a "boutique" that can be appealing to some people.

In my mind, there's a big gap between a token satellite office with 30 attorneys and one with 80-100. The latter suggests a scale and presence that generates work on its own, while a 30-person office is just an outpost.