Top Law Schools

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.

Bump. Also interested in this.

shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage

milbank imo.

Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage

milbank imo.

What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?

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.

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.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage

milbank imo.

What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?

Congrats on your offers but I honestly think you should research the firms more on your own using better online resources.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage

milbank imo.

What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?

Congrats on your offers but I honestly think you should research the firms more on your own using better online resources.

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...

I would definitely go to Milbank of these three.

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.

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:

Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage

milbank imo.

What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?

Not the quoted anon, but here's my understanding:

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.

first/vague anon:

Wol wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:shearman = downward spiral
cadwalader = really high leverage

milbank imo.

What is the basis for saying that Shearman is in a downward spiral? Any numbers or specifics?

Not the quoted anon, but here's my understanding:

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.

Absolutely this - minus the vault rankings stuff, which is largely pointless.
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

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.

Anonymous User wrote:If you are interested in ... capital markets, Shearman is no-brainer here.

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.

Anon would probably get better advice if he/she provided more background info, thread has been maximized

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

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

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

The rare, factually incorrect thread necro.

Someone from Milbrank got in trouble for their precipitous drop in Vault ranking.

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.

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.

Your bumping strategy seems to now involve above the law articles, so nicely done. You should post about bonus payouts next.

Looks like Milbank is engaging in a new online PR campaign.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:44 pm

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.

Nailed it

Aged like milk.

We should all be eternally grateful to Milbank for the $$$$$