Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote:Hi! I'm fortunate enough to have offers at these firms. My interests: transactional (corporate, securities, M&A, structured finance). I did my research, and I realize each firm has different focus/strengths. Cooley for tech/emerging companies work, Cadwalader for finance/derivatives work, and life sciences for Goodwin.

Having said that, if I'm unsure what I'll like/dislike about niche groups within the transactional practice, which firm would offer the best training/exit ops? Interested in gov't/in-house/international work (aka unsure what my end goal is yet) down the line. I have no preference as far as the office location goes (SF/SV vs. NY) as long as I receive good training and opportunities down the road.

Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hi! I'm fortunate enough to have offers at these firms. My interests: transactional (corporate, securities, M&A, structured finance). I did my research, and I realize each firm has different focus/strengths. Cooley for tech/emerging companies work, Cadwalader for finance/derivatives work, and life sciences for Goodwin.

Having said that, if I'm unsure what I'll like/dislike about niche groups within the transactional practice, which firm would offer the best training/exit ops? Interested in gov't/in-house/international work (aka unsure what my end goal is yet) down the line. I have no preference as far as the office location goes (SF/SV vs. NY) as long as I receive good training and opportunities down the road.

Thanks!

OP here. Wow, thanks for all the feedback, guys! It seems like the consensus is for Cooley. What if I'm not 100% on tech work? I understand they have a unique set of clients that is a little different from in NYC (big banks, HF's, etc.). I wonder how transfer the tech-oriented corp. skills would be?

Also, I'm a little surprised at the consensus for Cooley. I thought most votes would swing in favor of Cadwalader/Goodwin, given the rankings. But I guess the rankings are not end-all-be-all in these things.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hi! I'm fortunate enough to have offers at these firms. My interests: transactional (corporate, securities, M&A, structured finance). I did my research, and I realize each firm has different focus/strengths. Cooley for tech/emerging companies work, Cadwalader for finance/derivatives work, and life sciences for Goodwin.

Having said that, if I'm unsure what I'll like/dislike about niche groups within the transactional practice, which firm would offer the best training/exit ops? Interested in gov't/in-house/international work (aka unsure what my end goal is yet) down the line. I have no preference as far as the office location goes (SF/SV vs. NY) as long as I receive good training and opportunities down the road.

Thanks!

OP here. Wow, thanks for all the feedback, guys! It seems like the consensus is for Cooley. What if I'm not 100% on tech work? I understand they have a unique set of clients that is a little different from in NYC (big banks, HF's, etc.). I wonder how transfer the tech-oriented corp. skills would be?

Also, I'm a little surprised at the consensus for Cooley. I thought most votes would swing in favor of Cadwalader/Goodwin, given the rankings. But I guess the rankings are not end-all-be-all in these things.

Why? Cooley ranks higher than Cadwalader, is basically on par with Goodwin, but when you look at Cooley's ranking within its market its a top 5 bay area firm (along with Wilson Sonsini/Fenwick), whereas Cadwalader/Goodwin are further down the totem pole in NYC

Anonymous User wrote:2L here.

I might have 4-5 friends that have spoken with other attorneys during CBs who lateralled out of Cadwalader.

The message is clear: DO NOT Go to Cadwalader. No one was brave enough to ask what exactly the problem was. But there is clearly something in the water there.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:2L here.

I might have 4-5 friends that have spoken with other attorneys during CBs who lateralled out of Cadwalader.

The message is clear: DO NOT Go to Cadwalader. No one was brave enough to ask what exactly the problem was. But there is clearly something in the water there.

Again, thanks for all the input! it looks like my first order of business is to really figure out where I want to be long-term. Just curious - IF finance/securities law is something I want to practice long-term (exit ops to the Fed? SEC?)), then would Cadwalader be a good option? Aside from the culture and the environment, I heard they have a great structured finance and capital markets groups.

Anonymous User wrote:DO NOT go to Cadwalader.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:2L here.

I might have 4-5 friends that have spoken with other attorneys during CBs who lateralled out of Cadwalader.

The message is clear: DO NOT Go to Cadwalader. No one was brave enough to ask what exactly the problem was. But there is clearly something in the water there.

Again, thanks for all the input! it looks like my first order of business is to really figure out where I want to be long-term. Just curious - IF finance/securities law is something I want to practice long-term (exit ops to the Fed? SEC?)), then would Cadwalader be a good option? Aside from the culture and the environment, I heard they have a great structured finance and capital markets groups.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:2L here.

I might have 4-5 friends that have spoken with other attorneys during CBs who lateralled out of Cadwalader.

The message is clear: DO NOT Go to Cadwalader. No one was brave enough to ask what exactly the problem was. But there is clearly something in the water there.

Again, thanks for all the input! it looks like my first order of business is to really figure out where I want to be long-term. Just curious - IF finance/securities law is something I want to practice long-term (exit ops to the Fed? SEC?)), then would Cadwalader be a good option? Aside from the culture and the environment, I heard they have a great structured finance and capital markets groups.

I am a west-coast litigator who knows nothing about Cadwalader, but I'll say this: be very wary of making career choices based on TLS anecdotes. The culture within a firm can vary. It may be that Cadwalader's reputation is due to a couple of conspicuously horrible practice groups, but that its capital market group has great partners who work well with associates. (I'm certainly not saying that's the case; I'm just suggesting you remain open to the possibility.) The individual partners and senior associates you end up working with are WAY more important the overall "culture" of a big law firm.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:2L here.

I might have 4-5 friends that have spoken with other attorneys during CBs who lateralled out of Cadwalader.

The message is clear: DO NOT Go to Cadwalader. No one was brave enough to ask what exactly the problem was. But there is clearly something in the water there.

Again, thanks for all the input! It looks like my first order of business is to really figure out where I want to be long-term. Just curious - IF finance/securities law is something I want to practice long-term (exit ops to the Fed? SEC?)), then would Cadwalader be a good option? Aside from the culture and the environment, I heard they have a great structured finance and capital markets groups.

Michael Gambro is Co-Chair of Cadwalader's Capital Markets Group. He is a corporate and securities lawyer who advises corporations, financial institutions and funds in acquisitions, financings and securitizations of financial assets, including commercial and residential mortgage loans, trade receivables, royalty payments, lease receivables and other payment obligations.

Michael has represented some of the largest companies in the world in many noteworthy transactions, including acting as lead counsel in some of the largest single-borrower commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transactions, and other groundbreaking or one-of-a-kind structured finance transactions recognized as deals of the year by Institutional Investor and Investment Dealer's Digest.

Since 2009, Michael has been a leading attorney on transactions that have helped revive the CMBS market, including: the Developers Diversified Realty CMBS deal, which was the only CMBS deal made eligible for financing under the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility; the novel One Bryant Park and 7 World Trade Center securitizations, involving tranches of taxable CMBS debt and tranches of tax-exempt bonds; and the securitization of loans secured by substantially all of the assets of Hilton Worldwide Inc. and its subsidiaries. Michael has also advised clients in the structuring of the first securitization financings of nonperforming commercial mortgage loans since 1997.

rpupkin wrote:You say that you have no preference as NY vs. SV, but that's really what this choice is about. You say you care about "exit options," but your exit options are going to be as geographically driven as anything. If you go to Cooley SV, your exit options will be in Northern California. If you go to Goodwin, you'll have more exit options in NYC and Boston. Figure out where you want to live and make your decision based on that.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. Thanks for your input! That makes sense. I checked the Vault again, and it looks like Cooley's ranked higher than I thought/remembered. Maybe it's just that they don't seem to have as big a presence in NYC (disclaimer: I go to one of CCN).

zot1 wrote:Cooley because SF is awesome.

I apologize in advance for the tiny a** place you'll be living in though.

SLS_AMG wrote:

zot1 wrote:Cooley because SF is awesome.

I apologize in advance for the tiny a** place you'll be living in though.

Did OP say it was SF? Because SV is awful unless you're like 40 with kids. Also, SF is cool, but I feel like it's idealized by people from the East Coast (not saying that's you, but people on this board in general). It has some major drawbacks that people either overlook or are unaware of. Great city, but not necessarily all it's cracked up to be.