Skaden vs. Proskauer (Boston) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Need to make the choice. Any input? Both are obviously offices of larger NY firms.

[kaiser]

What are your interests, goals, etc.? What considerations are important to you? What is factoring into your process?

The question right now is framed as what WE would pick given OUR own personal considerations and factors. But thats not really relevant to you.

[Anonymous User]

OP here...

I think that I want to do corporate work and eventually go the in-house route, but I know that this could change. Will probably stay in Boston long term but would like to have the flexibility.

Can anyone comment on differences between the two offices in terms of culture, hours, etc. Are they substantially similar? From what I gather Proskauer has a bigger office in Boston than Skadden, but Skadden has had a longer presence and has a powerful brand name.

I liked the people I met at both offices and did not have any "gut" feeling about either so I'm trying to get some information that will help me differentiate.

[Anonymous User]

Did CBs at both. Really depends what practice area you want to work in. Proskauer is primarily funds and PE-type work in Boston. Skadden is almost exclusively M&A in the Boston office.

Proskauer is known as a bit bro-y. They're renovating their Boston office. Not sure you would get the same experience of a Proskauer NY or LA where they have the celebrity clients and summers go to the Tony Awards, etc.

Skadden prides itself on a "one Skadden" experience for its clients. That is, it may be a little more laid-back than Skadden NY, but not tremendously so. You don't quite get the prestige of Skadden NY, but will still be working like crazy.

Both are great firms, so congrats. Skadden is more of a household name, while Proskauer is an up-and-comer. But really in Boston it will come down to what practice area you prefer.

[Anonymous User]

From what I could tell with my interview at Proskauer, the corporate group is pretty busy. I agree with poster above that their focus is primarily fund formation and PE, though their M&A team is actually fairly active and I think will be even more active. Also, the corporate people are young, the Boston office seems to be a priority (with a couple of partners from NY corporate having moved over), and its' growth seems like a focus of Proskauer. I don't think they're actually changing offices but it's been a while since I've interviewed there.

Skadden Boston, also from my interview there, is not corporate focused at all - their numbers are primarily litigation focused, and it is small. Not to say that there is no corporate work available there, but given the smaller size of the office and the focus on litigation, I would give Proskauer the edge if you're interested in corporate work because you will have a wider variety of corporate work there, where as Skadden has a smaller, entirely M&A focused group. Also, something to keep in mind is that the age of the office also means that people there are generally older. I don't think the longer presence is something to praise - the fact that they've stayed at 50ish for so long probably means they are not really a big focus at all. Skadden does pride itself on the "one Skadden" experience, and people in Boston seem to think that they work New York hours, but that seems to be disputed on these boards.

[Anonymous User]

OP here...

Thanks for everyones input, It is much appreciated. Any other comments would be welcomed.

[Anonymous User]

Also interested.

[Anonymous User]

Poster from above here.

Working at either Skadden or Proskauer will not really change your ability to leave Boston if you ever want to do so. Both firms have offices in other cities, and both firms will allow for you to switch on a case by case basis. As far as going in-house, that is much more a function of the type of work you do while working at the firms, your own personal networks, etc.

As far as hours and culture goes, it's really hard to generalize about the culture of large firms. Obviously larger firms have a greater variation in culture. TLS wisdom says that your experience with "culture" and hours will depend more on the partners you get to work with and the practice areas you're in, so that's why it's good to try and keep in mind connections made in callbacks. There are some small things that you can try to glimpse, such as how the partners treated the associates, or whether people kept their office doors open. Otherwise, think about what type of corporate work you want to do. M&A means that your hours will be extremely unpredictable no matter what firm you work in. Fund formation has better hours and consistency but can be a bit repetitive.

[Anonymous User]

Proskauer has an office over twice the size of Skadden Boston and a larger selection of practice areas. In terms of Boston, I would go Proskauer over Skadden. New York, that would be a different story.

[Anonymous User]

Resuscitating this thread with a random question. I'm a current law clerk who is about to come off two fairly prestigious clerkships (i.e. SDNY/EDNY/DDC + 2/9/DC) and am planning on going to a firm in Boston after I finish my current clerkship. I summered at one of 'big 3' in Boston (i.e. ropes/wilmer/goodwin) and sort of assumed I'd go back to one of those three after clerking.

I've been struck recently by the appeal of going to a slightly smaller, up-and-coming firm and was wondering if anyone had any insight into the state of Proskauer's litigation practice in Boston. It seems like the firm's office there has grown rapidly recently and has made some interesting hires. But it also seems like the office is heavily PE-focused. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I being irrational in not just sticking with the more usual suspects in Boston?

[Anonymous User]

Resuscitating this thread with a random question. I'm a current law clerk who is about to come off two fairly prestigious clerkships (i.e. SDNY/EDNY/DDC + 2/9/DC) and am planning on going to a firm in Boston after I finish my current clerkship. I summered at one of 'big 3' in Boston (i.e. ropes/wilmer/goodwin) and sort of assumed I'd go back to one of those three after clerking.

I've been struck recently by the appeal of going to a slightly smaller, up-and-coming firm and was wondering if anyone had any insight into the state of Proskauer's litigation practice in Boston. It seems like the firm's office there has grown rapidly recently and has made some interesting hires. But it also seems like the office is heavily PE-focused. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I being irrational in not just sticking with the more usual suspects in Boston?

The litigation group was really slow when I left a few months ago.