Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC) Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
I want to do transactional stuff and I'm wondering more about fit and long-term prospects. Any insight would be welcomed, I'm finding this to be a really hard decision.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Bump. Also interested in this.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage
milbank imo.
cadwalader = really high leverage
milbank imo.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage
milbank imo.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
OP: I would narrow your options to Shearman and Milbank. If you don't know what within transactional work you want to do (M&A, project finance, capt markets, private equity, etc), then I would choose Shearman, since its corporate practice is more diverse and is highly ranked in many areas. For example, according to http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... torial/5/1 Shearman is a league above Milbank in M&A.
If your interest is specific, Milbank could be a better option depending on what you want to do.
Anon above: If you are obsessed with Vault rankings, Shearman will still never fall to Milbank's range. Nor will Milbank rise up in rankings dramatically over next few years. But all this obsession with Vault is just bs though. I wouldn't rely on Vault to choose where I want to work.
If your interest is specific, Milbank could be a better option depending on what you want to do.
Anon above: If you are obsessed with Vault rankings, Shearman will still never fall to Milbank's range. Nor will Milbank rise up in rankings dramatically over next few years. But all this obsession with Vault is just bs though. I wouldn't rely on Vault to choose where I want to work.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
What's wrong with cadwalader? I've heard they changed up their culture recently, and it's chambers ranked one for capital markets - securitization. Also, office is swanky as fucl.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Congrats on your offers but I honestly think you should research the firms more on your own using better online resources.Anonymous User wrote:What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage
milbank imo.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
I did and it seems like much of whats said on TLS about firms is hive mind. That's why I asked the anon for something concrete. Still interested to hear from the anon...Anonymous User wrote:Congrats on your offers but I honestly think you should research the firms more on your own using better online resources.Anonymous User wrote:What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage
milbank imo.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
I would definitely go to Milbank of these three.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:49 pm
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Milbank was 25th in 2008, which is higher than Shearman is now. Shearman was 14th that year, but the Vault rankings fluctuate.Anonymous User wrote:OP: I would narrow your options to Shearman and Milbank. If you don't know what within transactional work you want to do (M&A, project finance, capt markets, private equity, etc), then I would choose Shearman, since its corporate practice is more diverse and is highly ranked in many areas. For example, according to http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... torial/5/1 Shearman is a league above Milbank in M&A.
If your interest is specific, Milbank could be a better option depending on what you want to do.
Anon above: If you are obsessed with Vault rankings, Shearman will still never fall to Milbank's range. Nor will Milbank rise up in rankings dramatically over next few years. But all this obsession with Vault is just bs though. I wouldn't rely on Vault to choose where I want to work.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:49 pm
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Not the quoted anon, but here's my understanding:Anonymous User wrote:What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage
milbank imo.
Shearman had several incredibly important corporate partners 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 looking at M&A league tables for the first half of this year they're nowhere to be found, so I don't know. I don't know how seriously to take league tables.
Have plummeted in the vault rankings as well. If you go to the vault list, there's a drop down menu where you can select previous year's rankings. That will illustrate what I mean.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
first/vague anon:
You mentioned you're thinking long term.. look at Cadwalader's leverage numbers.. making partner will be tough/impossible
The departure of the head of the firm, as well as key structured finance partners, layoffs through the GFC..
Your original question was pretty vague but id go w milbank. if u are interested in project finance, leveraged finance, restructuring, transportation, or private client work.. its not even a comparison.
cadwalader is clearly solid for cap markets/CMBS powerhouse.
shearman.. meh LatAm?
again original question was fairly vague
Absolutely this - minus the vault rankings stuff, which is largely pointless.Wol wrote:Not the quoted anon, but here's my understanding:Anonymous User wrote:What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage
milbank imo.
Shearman had several incredibly important corporate partners 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 looking at M&A league tables for the first half of this year they're nowhere to be found, so I don't know. I don't know how seriously to take league tables.
Have plummeted in the vault rankings as well. If you go to the vault list, there's a drop down menu where you can select previous year's rankings. That will illustrate what I mean.
You mentioned you're thinking long term.. look at Cadwalader's leverage numbers.. making partner will be tough/impossible
The departure of the head of the firm, as well as key structured finance partners, layoffs through the GFC..
Your original question was pretty vague but id go w milbank. if u are interested in project finance, leveraged finance, restructuring, transportation, or private client work.. its not even a comparison.
cadwalader is clearly solid for cap markets/CMBS powerhouse.
shearman.. meh LatAm?
again original question was fairly vague
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
I would choose Shearman for general corporate practice. If you are interested in M&A, capital markets, Shearman is no-brainer here. Good for project finance too though Milbank is also renowned for project finance. Shearman has gone down enough and it is likely to slowly go back up again.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Yeah, this is definitely wrong. If you want cap markets, you go to Cadwalader. M&A, sure do Shearman. But Cadwalader is no doubt the best cap markets firm of what you've got and the overall best of any firm if you want to do cmbs.Anonymous User wrote:If you are interested in ... capital markets, Shearman is no-brainer here.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Anon would probably get better advice if he/she provided more background info, thread has been maximized
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
milbank just seems heads and shoulders above these guys nowadays. cadwalader seems to be on the decline, shearman is cool. Milbank has been around forever and is beyond well-regarded in NYC, just under the STB PW Cleary band
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:19 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Uh seriously?Anonymous User wrote:milbank just seems heads and shoulders above these guys nowadays. cadwalader seems to be on the decline, shearman is cool. Milbank has been around forever and is beyond well-regarded in NYC, just under the STB PW Cleary band
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Actus Reus
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:21 pm
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
The rare, factually incorrect thread necro.Anonymous User wrote:milbank just seems heads and shoulders above these guys nowadays. cadwalader seems to be on the decline, shearman is cool. Milbank has been around forever and is beyond well-regarded in NYC, just under the STB PW Cleary band
-
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 8:38 pm
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Someone from Milbrank got in trouble for their precipitous drop in Vault ranking.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
I've heard Cadwalader is absolutely tanking (it has lost most, if not all, of its litigation partnership and associate ranks, and I think it might be leaking transactional people too?). I only know 2 peoples' first hand accounts, but IMO, it's definitely worth doing your diligence on Cadwalader before committing to them.
- Actus Reus
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:21 pm
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Your bumping strategy seems to now involve above the law articles, so nicely done. You should post about bonus payouts next.Anonymous User wrote:I've heard Cadwalader is absolutely tanking (it has lost most, if not all, of its litigation partnership and associate ranks, and I think it might be leaking transactional people too?). I only know 2 peoples' first hand accounts, but IMO, it's definitely worth doing your diligence on Cadwalader before committing to them.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Looks like Milbank is engaging in a new online PR campaign.
-
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:36 pm
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Nailed itAnonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:44 pmOP: I would narrow your options to Shearman and Milbank. If you don't know what within transactional work you want to do (M&A, project finance, capt markets, private equity, etc), then I would choose Shearman, since its corporate practice is more diverse and is highly ranked in many areas. For example, according to http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1280 ... torial/5/1 Shearman is a league above Milbank in M&A.
If your interest is specific, Milbank could be a better option depending on what you want to do.
Anon above: If you are obsessed with Vault rankings, Shearman will still never fall to Milbank's range. Nor will Milbank rise up in rankings dramatically over next few years. But all this obsession with Vault is just bs though. I wouldn't rely on Vault to choose where I want to work.
- lolwutpar
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:13 pm
Re: Shearman v. Cadwalader v. Milbank (all NYC)
Aged like milk.
We should all be eternally grateful to Milbank for the $$$$$
We should all be eternally grateful to Milbank for the $$$$$
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login