Top Law Schools

What do people say about Cahill? They seem to be consistent market leaders for compensation: See: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/biglaw-f ... l-bonuses/

It's very specialized, I understand, in that the corporate practice is pretty much only lev finance (lender's side credit deals / capital markets). Is that why it's not as well regarded as other firms? Why wouldn't more people want to go here if it's more money and they don't have a specific transactional interest (as most law students generally don't). Does the type of work suck? Is it because lateraling out to banks is not an ideal exit option?

Your question regarding people with a lack of a specific transactional interest is probably the answer to the broader question. If you have no real concept of what being a NY corporate lawyer looks like in practice, you are generally better off going to a firm that does everything (or at least several things) well. If you go to Cahill and end up hating lev fin/high yield debt work it's not like working at an S&C or an STB where you can just target your practice, somewhat immediately, toward something drastically different but equally well regarded. If you are inclined to "just do lev fin for a few years, get paid more than the suckers at [other firm] and have good exit options!" then you are probably underestimating the life sacrifice required to do something you really hate for enough years to make the next step worth the sunk cost (not to mention that the next step is likely going to involve work of a similar nature).

For people who somehow know they want to do the type of work Cahill is good at or for people who realize they are going to hate anything and are just powering through some loans before dipping out of law altogether, Cahill may make total sense.

As an aside, its general reputation is a "sweat shop" with poor QOL, but as a further aside that is stupid because there are zero corporate firms in the city that can offer a reliably and meaningfully different experience, no matter what they think or say.

2014 wrote:Your question regarding people with a lack of a specific transactional interest is probably the answer to the broader question. If you have no real concept of what being a NY corporate lawyer looks like in practice, you are generally better off going to a firm that does everything (or at least several things) well. If you go to Cahill and end up hating lev fin/high yield debt work it's not like working at an S&C or an STB where you can just target your practice, somewhat immediately, toward something drastically different but equally well regarded. If you are inclined to "just do lev fin for a few years, get paid more than the suckers at [other firm] and have good exit options!" then you are probably underestimating the life sacrifice required to do something you really hate for enough years to make the next step worth the sunk cost (not to mention that the next step is likely going to involve work of a similar nature).

For people who somehow know they want to do the type of work Cahill is good at or for people who realize they are going to hate anything and are just powering through some loans before dipping out of law altogether, Cahill may make total sense.

As an aside, its general reputation is a "sweat shop" with poor QOL, but as a further aside that is stupid because there are zero corporate firms in the city that can offer a reliably and meaningfully different experience, no matter what they think or say.

Yea i generally discount all talk abut sweatshop etc, because cmon, pretty much every top nyc law firm is a sweatshop.

Good point raised about students hedging the risk they won't like a practice area by going to a more varied firm.

More of a sweatshop than most.
Not afraid to trim the fat.
I'd avoid unless you have specific practice group interests that make sense.

Anonymous User wrote:More of a sweatshop than most.
Not afraid to trim the fat.
I'd avoid unless you have specific practice group interests that make sense.

What kind of stories have you heard?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:More of a sweatshop than most.
Not afraid to trim the fat.
I'd avoid unless you have specific practice group interests that make sense.

What kind of stories have you heard?

That folks get let go relatively early on (second year or so) if they're not making hours or not seen as desireable. Also heard relatively short notice period.

That said know people who are happy there.

Just think it's not a firm that'll handle you gently.

if you are interested in representing banks in lev fin/high yield deals, then go for it. a lot of people seem to burn out early there.

They are known for having a preeminent 1st amendment practice. Anyone know whether that's something a junior can work in or is it reserved for a handful of former SCOTUS clerks.

Why does Chambers regard them so highly for general commercial litigation, securities litigation, and white collar defense/government investigations?

Wild Card wrote:Why does Chambers regard them so highly for general commercial litigation, securities litigation, and white collar defense/government investigations?

Why is anyone highly regarded by Chambers for anything? The industry holds them in high regard in those areas.

Anonymous User wrote:They are known for having a preeminent 1st amendment practice. Anyone know whether that's something a junior can work in or is it reserved for a handful of former SCOTUS clerks.

(Normal) people do work in it. Think it's internally competitive though.

Something else you should be aware of if you're in it to suffer for 3-4 years and pay off student loans is that the light at the end of the tunnel here is less likely to be a sweet F100 in-house gig than if you went into another "corporate NYC sweatshop" firm. Lev fin is a pretty specific practice niche, and other posters in this forum (can't remember who or where or I would link to them) have commented recently on how tough it is to translate that experience into a successful in-house offer. But, if you're in it b/c you've always wanted to be a lev fin lawyer, Cahill is the undisputed market leader and you shouldn't have any problem lateraling to a slower/less insane finance practice.

Anonymous User wrote:

Wild Card wrote:Why does Chambers regard them so highly for general commercial litigation, securities litigation, and white collar defense/government investigations?

Why is anyone highly regarded by Chambers for anything? The industry holds them in high regard in those areas.

Cahill has a large investigations group.

deepseapartners wrote:Something else you should be aware of if you're in it to suffer for 3-4 years and pay off student loans is that the light at the end of the tunnel here is less likely to be a sweet F100 in-house gig than if you went into another "corporate NYC sweatshop" firm. Lev fin is a pretty specific practice niche, and other posters in this forum (can't remember who or where or I would link to them) have commented recently on how tough it is to translate that experience into a successful in-house offer. But, if you're in it b/c you've always wanted to be a lev fin lawyer, Cahill is the undisputed market leader and you shouldn't have any problem lateraling to a slower/less insane finance practice.

Yea I heard you can always lateral to another law firm and have more years of that big law money because most finance practices in NYC will take you if you survived Cahill.

From the one person I know who works there, I've heard it's a grind. Expect to be stressed out most of the time.

I think in general, if you're picking firms because of compensation you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Cahill has a great reputation in banking and finance. If that's something you're interested in, then Cahill is a great option. I think the above posters may have understated the strength of Cahill's overall corporate practice group. While it's without a doubt the top shop for LevFin, it's also a Band 1 practice for Banking & Finance overall.

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/Glob ... on-reindel

Was a summer there. Fairly narrow corporate group, which is both a good and a bad thing, for reasons mentioned. Not for everyone on the Corp side but absolutely top of the market for leveraged finance. I also want to stress the ridiculous degree of workflow that Cahill has in that space. I did lit, and Cahill is absolutely underrated on the litigation side. The notable thing is always the First Amendment practice and Floyd Abrams but it also has really good gen commercial lit, investigations, securities, and insurance groups. It's insurance lit group is one of the best in the country. Overall, I think it's a little closer to the top NYC firms in terms of litigation quality than the firms closer to it in Vault

Anonymous User wrote:I think in general, if you're picking firms because of compensation you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Compensation is a better reason to pick a firm than 95% of the reasons that law students give.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:More of a sweatshop than most.
Not afraid to trim the fat.
I'd avoid unless you have specific practice group interests that make sense.

What kind of stories have you heard?

That folks get let go relatively early on (second year or so) if they're not making hours or not seen as desireable. Also heard relatively short notice period.

That said know people who are happy there.

Just think it's not a firm that'll handle you gently.

Former cahill associate here. I don't know what you mean by "trim the fat" and "not a firm that'll handle you gently." The people are mostly great. I do not know anyone who was fired remotely that junior, and when it happened, it seemed merited. Also we didn't have an hours requirement, not that one was necessary.

Yes you definitely work hard (I am skeptical that it's significantly more sweatshop-like than other NYC biglaw). Corp is significantly more taxing than lit at CGR.

Anonymous User wrote:I do not know anyone who was fired remotely that junior, and when it happened, it seemed merited.

does this make sense? sorry for my low IQ.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I think in general, if you're picking firms because of compensation you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Compensation is a better reason to pick a firm than 95% of the reasons that law students give.

It's actually not.