Fried Frank vs. Shearman (NY) for corporate Forum

[Anonymous User]

Offers from Fried Frank NY and Shearman NY and interested in corporate work (M&A/Capital Markets/Finance). There's conflicting info regarding Shearman's business outlook lately and was wondering what would be the better choice.

[Anonymous User]

I would go with Shearman. It is the older more established firm and still gets some of the bigger deals based on that reputation.

[Anonymous User]

I'm also considering both firms and have the same interest you do.

My understanding is that Shearman had several major rainmakers in a row leave to work for clients, and they weren't invested enough in countercyclical practices like litigation to handle the economic downturn that coincided with those departures. They went from 5th by gross revenue to mid 30s in ten years, though that decline seems to have finally leveled off since about 2012. I've read that 2014 was really positive for them, but I think it's too early to tell if they're out of the woods completely. Also, the international focus scares me. I'm currently trying to muster the courage to ask them about this stuff, though I will probably chicken out,

I'm also not sold on Fried Frank. They're doing well(ish) now because Real Estate is hot at the moment, but how long will that last?

[PennBull]

Also, the international focus scares me.

How does this scare you?

[Anonymous User]

Also, the international focus scares me.

How does this scare you?

I don't have very sophisticated/ informed thoughts on this, so I'm sure someone will chime in to tell me that I'm way off. I just have a collection of impressions.

They recently consolidated their two offices in Germany (I think they lost work there due to increased competition), and have lost a lot of partners there. India is a difficult market for lawyers to get into. A partner at a different firm explained to me that China is a losing prospect for law firms, that firms can't make money there. A different partner at a different firm suggested that Brazil is about to collapse (don't know how credible this is though). Things like the Greek debt crisis and my limited understanding of what's happening with China make me skittish. Also I just don't have any particular interest in international work.

[notgreat]

I'm also considering both firms and have the same interest you do.

My understanding is that Shearman had several major rainmakers in a row leave to work for clients, and they weren't invested enough in countercyclical practices like litigation to handle the economic downturn that coincided with those departures. They went from 5th by gross revenue to mid 30s in ten years, though that decline seems to have finally leveled off since about 2012. I've read that 2014 was really positive for them, but I think it's too early to tell if they're out of the woods completely. Also, the international focus scares me. I'm currently trying to muster the courage to ask them about this stuff, though I will probably chicken out,

I'm also not sold on Fried Frank. They're doing well(ish) now because Real Estate is hot at the moment, but how long will that last?

Shearman's finance and capital markets groups have been doing well recently. The M&A group in NYC is certainly highly ranked and seems well regarded.

Fried Frank does a lot more than just RE--they have strong M&A, PE and hedge fund practices. They lost some high profile capital markets partners about a year ago, and not sure how that has affected the group.

These both seem like strong corporate firms.

[PennBull]

Also, the international focus scares me.

How does this scare you?

I don't have very sophisticated/ informed thoughts on this

Okay, well, my only advice to that is recognize what you don't know and don't rely on it too much. I will say, in short, that a firm having cross-border expertise doesn't necessarily mean a firm is just plunking offices across the globe trying to get work in that region. Often, these "international" firms simply have a more diverse client base and have the ability to smoothly handle, say, their Chinese client looking to purchase a German company owned by a British parent company. Clients looking to do these sort of transactions immediately look to these types of firms. There's also a ton of domestic work that supports these firms as well. Overall, cross-border transactions continue to be on the rise generally and there will always be a healthy demand for a Shearman, a Freshfields, etc.

Also I just don't have any particular interest in international work.

Then you don't have to apply to work in the Tokyo office of some firm. It's funny because those who seek out "international" work without any real understanding of what that means are often really disappointed that they're not being asked to jetset across the globe or whatever. You just have more diverse clients and, depending on the countries or regions involved, a transaction may have a quirk or four that needs particular attention and crafting (see, e.g., CFIUS).

Choosing firms is a weird nebulous decision and only you can make the gut-check determination, but if one of these "international" firms is on your mind there's no reason to treat that as any sort of negative. It'll only help you.

[Anonymous User]

Choosing firms is a weird nebulous decision and only you can make the gut-check determination, but if one of these "international" firms is on your mind there's no reason to treat that as any sort of negative. It'll only help you.

Thanks for the input!

[Anonymous User]

Any anecdotes regarding firm culture at each?

[Anonymous User]

.