Best Litigation Firm in New York Forum

[Anonymous User]

I can confirm that WLRK hires below HYSCCN. They definitely hire from Penn every year, and they do OCI at Berkeley every year and generally offer a couple students.

I was the anon who said that they didn't hire below CCN. You're right, they do hire regularly at Penn. Everywhere else is an exception though. But I think this is a diversion from the original point of my response to the poster who was wondering why he may not have gotten WLRK despite being competitive for a COA clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

To OP: I have similar goals and am going to PW before I clerk, and then I may look at Susman/Boies.

I agree with others that you should take a hard look at Boies, but PW sounds like a good fit from the firms you listed. It is litigation driven firm, even as they continue to grow their corporate practice. It's less stuffy than a lot of the other firms you mentioned, though people do work hard there. I do not think this is unique to PW.

While they do a lot of work for Citi, they also have a wide range of different kinds of work. You just need to be sure to seek out the partners who do things that interest you and try and avoid a situation where you do nothing but RMBS work for five years or something. While people critique a generalist approach on these boards, this is actually more ideal for you if you intend to be on the other side of the v in the long term.

Also reading between the lines a little, the firms politics were a draw for me, and might be for you. The firm is very proud of its history, and continues to take public service work and pro bono work very seriously. It seems to be a very encouraging place if you are at all interested in doing some government work at some point.

Ultimately all the listed firms are great firms with recognizable names. None of them do plaintiffs work, so it may not be that important which one you pick, since they all will advance towards that goal equally. You should probably go where you liked people the most.

[Anonymous User]

Outside of the boutiques, the best place to litigate in NYC is Kirkland & Ellis

[RaceJudicata]

Outside of the boutiques, the best place to litigate in NYC is Kirkland & Ellis

Thank you for this well reasoned, substantive analysis.

[Anonymous User]

Outside of the boutiques, the best place to litigate in NYC is Kirkland & Ellis

Thank you for this well reasoned, substantive analysis.

No problem, fella.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Outside of the boutiques, the best place to litigate in NYC is Kirkland & Ellis

lol

[Anonymous User]

I know this is going to blow the OP's mind, but there are actually many different types of prestige. Wachtell and Cravath are obviously extremely prestigious, but they only practice very specific types of litigation. WLRK pretty much only does white collar and securities lit (although I think someone ITT said that's not true), and Cravath EXCLUSIVELY does antitrust, securities lit, deal-based lit, and IP (with a little bit of white collar on the side). These are all high-paying practices, but at the F500 I used to work at Skadden was universally acknowledged as the best lit shop in the country. Whenever there was real estate litigation, or a tax controversy, they would go to Skadden. The impression I got was that Skadden reigned supreme amongst in-house counsel across the country (and no, I don't work there), with Jones Day and Kirkland as close seconds. So remember - law student prestige is very different from in house counsel prestige, which are both different than what actual litigators think is prestigious.

TL;DR - prestige is so heterogenous that you should basically forget about it entirely

[Anonymous User]

To OP: I have similar goals and am going to PW before I clerk, and then I may look at Susman/Boies.

I agree with others that you should take a hard look at Boies, but PW sounds like a good fit from the firms you listed. It is litigation driven firm, even as they continue to grow their corporate practice. It's less stuffy than a lot of the other firms you mentioned, though people do work hard there. I do not think this is unique to PW.

While they do a lot of work for Citi, they also have a wide range of different kinds of work. You just need to be sure to seek out the partners who do things that interest you and try and avoid a situation where you do nothing but RMBS work for five years or something. While people critique a generalist approach on these boards, this is actually more ideal for you if you intend to be on the other side of the v in the long term.

Also reading between the lines a little, the firms politics were a draw for me, and might be for you. The firm is very proud of its history, and continues to take public service work and pro bono work very seriously. It seems to be a very encouraging place if you are at all interested in doing some government work at some point.

Ultimately all the listed firms are great firms with recognizable names. None of them do plaintiffs work, so it may not be that important which one you pick, since they all will advance towards that goal equally. You should probably go where you liked people the most.

+1

[Anonymous User]

Work at a 'peer' firm; would consider Skadden the only wrong choice here.

I think Lieff or Boies would be where I would go (in that order) if I were you, but to each their own.

[cookiejar1]

I know this is going to blow the OP's mind, but there are actually many different types of prestige. Wachtell and Cravath are obviously extremely prestigious, but they only practice very specific types of litigation. WLRK pretty much only does white collar and securities lit (although I think someone ITT said that's not true), and Cravath EXCLUSIVELY does antitrust, securities lit, deal-based lit, and IP (with a little bit of white collar on the side). These are all high-paying practices, but at the F500 I used to work at Skadden was universally acknowledged as the best lit shop in the country. Whenever there was real estate litigation, or a tax controversy, they would go to Skadden. The impression I got was that Skadden reigned supreme amongst in-house counsel across the country (and no, I don't work there), with Jones Day and Kirkland as close seconds. So remember - law student prestige is very different from in house counsel prestige, which are both different than what actual litigators think is prestigious.

TL;DR - prestige is so heterogenous that you should basically forget about it entirely

Outside of the boutiques, the best place to litigate in NYC is Skadden

Fixed this post for you.

[Anonymous User]

I know this is going to blow the OP's mind, but there are actually many different types of prestige. Wachtell and Cravath are obviously extremely prestigious, but they only practice very specific types of litigation. WLRK pretty much only does white collar and securities lit (although I think someone ITT said that's not true), and Cravath EXCLUSIVELY does antitrust, securities lit, deal-based lit, and IP (with a little bit of white collar on the side). These are all high-paying practices, but at the F500 I used to work at Skadden was universally acknowledged as the best lit shop in the country. Whenever there was real estate litigation, or a tax controversy, they would go to Skadden. The impression I got was that Skadden reigned supreme amongst in-house counsel across the country (and no, I don't work there), with Jones Day and Kirkland as close seconds. So remember - law student prestige is very different from in house counsel prestige, which are both different than what actual litigators think is prestigious.

TL;DR - prestige is so heterogenous that you should basically forget about it entirely

Outside of the boutiques, the best place to litigate in NYC is Skadden

Fixed this post for you.

Thank you for this well reasoned, substantive analysis.

[Anonymous User]

The bottom line is if you're at the associate level, nothing about you is prestigious, and working for a prestigious firm won't change that. So go where you'll get paid the most (Wachtell) or where you'll get the best substantive experience early on (Susman, other boutiques, WLRK). I don't see how a person who wants to be well compensated and a litigator would pass up Susman or Wachtell for the other firms on the list. If you can't get Wachtell or Susman, or a boutique, then it doesn't matter which firm you choose in your list; they are all basically the same from an associate's perspective. If you don't like one, lateral in a few years.

[unicorntamer666]

Work at a 'peer' firm; would consider Skadden the only wrong choice here.

I think Lieff or Boies would be where I would go (in that order) if I were you, but to each their own.

care to elaborate on why skadden would be the wrong choice? it struck me as having perhaps the most informal and "fun" culture, which appeals given the fact i know i'll be spending endless hours with my coworkers,. i'm aware of their reputation for being a sweatshop, but i think that's equally true of all of these places (if there is any elite firm that's not a sweatshop, please notify me). in personal interactions, the attorneys at skadden have seemed the least buttoned up, funniest and most direct (PW somewhat similar, but possibly a bit more bookish and reserved). the only reason i'm leaning toward the other firms over skadden is that i've been told they're appreciably "better". if that's untrue, and these firms really are essentially peers, my preference for PW or cravath might be unfounded.

agree that lieff, boies or susman would probably be ideal. my one reservation with boutiques, even highly selective and well-known ones, is i'm told they give you greatly diminished "exit options". could you speak to that?

i'm not sure how many exit options i'll ultimately need, seeing as i essentially just want to be a plaintiff-side litigator. but i suppose my goals could change.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

.

[unicorntamer666]

The bottom line is if you're at the associate level, nothing about you is prestigious, and working for a prestigious firm won't change that. So go where you'll get paid the most (Wachtell) or where you'll get the best substantive experience early on (Susman, other boutiques, WLRK). I don't see how a person who wants to be well compensated and a litigator would pass up Susman or Wachtell for the other firms on the list. If you can't get Wachtell or Susman, or a boutique, then it doesn't matter which firm you choose in your list; they are all basically the same from an associate's perspective. If you don't like one, lateral in a few years.

there's something fatalistic about this assessment, but it's probably more or less right

[lawlorbust]

I said that because I have competitive grades for CoA clerkships (not tough ones like 2d or DC though) and I couldn't get Wachtell or Susman interviews in my wildest dreams. Could be because I'm non-T14 though, maybe those firms dip low for HYS idk.

Look, Susman isn't going to look at random COA clerks from the 10th, or wherever.

[Anonymous User]

Work at a 'peer' firm; would consider Skadden the only wrong choice here.

Skadden is peerless.

[Anonymous User]

Work at a 'peer' firm; would consider Skadden the only wrong choice here.

Skadden is peerless.

This.

[PeanutsNJam]

I said that because I have competitive grades for CoA clerkships (not tough ones like 2d or DC though) and I couldn't get Wachtell or Susman interviews in my wildest dreams. Could be because I'm non-T14 though, maybe those firms dip low for HYS idk.

Look, Susman isn't going to look at random COA clerks from the 10th, or wherever.

Yes, that's my point, that if Susman is willing to give you a look then you probably are sufficiently credentialed for a competitive circuit or sdny or something.