Top Law Schools

.

purplepebbles00 wrote:I know there are a lot of previous threads comparing these firms but I wanted to get some fresh insights.

I've read about the "abusive" culture at S&C but Skadden also has a "sweatshop" reputation. For someone interested in corporate law, which firm would you recommend? At this point, some of my main concerns are prestige (both lay prestige and within the industry) and exit options down the line (either moving laterally or going in-house).

Not sure whether I want to practice in New York or California, so would you recommend one over the other differently for the coasts?

Would anything change throwing STB into the discussion? Thanks.

From what I have heard, the Skadden corporate group in LA isn't a sweatshop at all.

The reputation is that S&C is top-notch for public company M&A, STB is for PE (although I can confirm from my old job that STB does a lot of public-side deals too), and Skadden kinda does everything.

ETA: OP do you even have offers at these firms?

First, these firms are all great for corporate practice, so there is no wrong choice here. Second, none of these firms are "lifestyle" firms, so your work-life balance is going to be similar at all 3. Your actual hours will depend more on practice group and partners you work for than the firm itself.

Speaking of practice groups, are you interested in a particular corporate specialty (e.g., M&A, banking, project finance, etc.)? These firms have different strengths -- STB for private equity work, Skadden for M&A, SullCrom for banking/structured finance. I would evaluate the strength of the particular group you're interested in over the firm as a whole. In a similar vein, I would look to whether the firm makes you a corporate generalist or allows you to specialize. Skadden has a rotation for your first two years or so in NYC where you go through at least 2 corporate practices, but then you commit to a specialized group. S&C is more generalist in its approach so associates don't specialize. STB is similar to S&C. There are pros and cons to each approach, but that's a factor that should drive your decision.

Re: NYC v. California, I think Skadden has the most national name recognition. The Skadden brand is one that people in and out of the law recognize, at least more so than STB, if not also S&C. Skadden is also stronger than both S&C and STB in CA (but, again, I would look the strength of the practice group in CA, not just the firm overall). The "prestige" difference between the three is negligible in NYC.

jayohtee wrote:First, these firms are all great for corporate practice, so there is no wrong choice here. Second, none of these firms are "lifestyle" firms, so your work-life balance is going to be similar at all 3. Your actual hours will depend more on practice group and partners you work for than the firm itself.

Speaking of practice groups, are you interested in a particular corporate specialty (e.g., M&A, banking, project finance, etc.)? These firms have different strengths -- STB for private equity work, Skadden for M&A, SullCrom for banking/structured finance. I would evaluate the strength of the particular group you're interested in over the firm as a whole. In a similar vein, I would look to whether the firm makes you a corporate generalist or allows you to specialize. Skadden has a rotation for your first two years or so in NYC where you go through at least 2 corporate practices, but then you commit to a specialized group. S&C is more generalist in its approach so associates don't specialize. STB is similar to S&C. There are pros and cons to each approach, but that's a factor that should drive your decision.

Re: NYC v. California, I think Skadden has the most national name recognition. The Skadden brand is one that people in and out of the law recognize, at least more so than STB, if not also S&C. Skadden is also stronger than both S&C and STB in CA (but, again, I would look the strength of the practice group in CA, not just the firm overall). The "prestige" difference between the three is negligible in NYC.

Could you elaborate on the pros and cons of being a generalist? I am currently at one of these firms, and I agree that your "lifestyle" depends on who you work with and varies significantly within the firm.

purplepebbles00 wrote:I know there are a lot of previous threads comparing these firms but I wanted to get some fresh insights.

I've read about the "abusive" culture at S&C but Skadden also has a "sweatshop" reputation. For someone interested in corporate law, which firm would you recommend? At this point, some of my main concerns are prestige (both lay prestige and within the industry) and exit options down the line (either moving laterally or going in-house).

Not sure whether I want to practice in New York or California, so would you recommend one over the other differently for the coasts?

Would anything change throwing STB into the discussion? Thanks.

If you are interested broadly in corporate law and only care about prestige and exit options then these firms are fungible. Once you focus more on what part of corporate or what sort of culture you are looking for, people can advise you more. I doubt though someone would be dinged from a job because they went to stb and sullcrom unless it is something weird like big sullcrom client or something like that:

This is going to be preachy but oh well - if you are a 1L with offers at all of these firms please disregard but I'm assuming you aren't.

Why are you asking this question at this time? There's no reason why these firms (and their peers) shouldn't all be included in your OCI bid list/mass mailing efforts and if you are already trying to work on ordering them that's a colossal waste of time until you have all of your grades. You need to at LEAST see where you have callbacks at before you start committing time and effort into comparisons and realistically, if you have callbacks at any of these firms you should take them regardless so the comparison really doesn't matter until the offer stage.

To double down on this, I will say it's very odd that you aren't also including Latham, Kirkland and perhaps Gibson (in addition to Davis Polk and Weil if your California interest includes Silicon Valley). Each of those firms is substantially similar to another on your list culturally and all are well regarded making it odd to cherry pick which you include.

I really don't say that to just be annoying, I think it's somewhat harmful for people to jump the gun on researching firms (it diverts your attention from more important things) and of the 230 people who have viewed this thread some (probably large) portion are neurotic 1Ls who will probably (wrongly) feel like they are behind.

IN ANY EVENT - a decision between STB/S&C on one hand and Skadden on the other comes down to preference between a NY-centric large firm vs a more global mega firm, each comes with pros and cons. As between STB and S&C i would base a decision primarily on whether you prefer to rotate through groups (STB) or freelance for your first several years (S&C) in addition to cultural differences which you will hopefully pick up through talking to attorneys who work at each. The PE vs Public M&A thing may matter on the margins but I'm highly suspicious of any law student that preaches a love for either without having worked in law or finance before law school and both firms do both things very well and in high volumes regardless. If you are looking to do lit they all seem identical to me and if you are looking to do something more nuanced you should defer to whoever has a better/bigger group in the area you want to practice.

2014 wrote:This is going to be preachy but oh well - if you are a 1L with offers at all of these firms please disregard but I'm assuming you aren't.

Why are you asking this question at this time? There's no reason why these firms (and their peers) shouldn't all be included in your OCI bid list/mass mailing efforts and if you are already trying to work on ordering them that's a colossal waste of time until you have all of your grades. You need to at LEAST see where you have callbacks at before you start committing time and effort into comparisons and realistically, if you have callbacks at any of these firms you should take them regardless so the comparison really doesn't matter until the offer stage.

To double down on this, I will say it's very odd that you aren't also including Latham, Kirkland and perhaps Gibson (in addition to Davis Polk and Weil if your California interest includes Silicon Valley). Each of those firms is substantially similar to another on your list culturally and all are well regarded making it odd to cherry pick which you include.

I really don't say that to just be annoying, I think it's somewhat harmful for people to jump the gun on researching firms (it diverts your attention from more important things) and of the 230 people who have viewed this thread some (probably large) portion are neurotic 1Ls who will probably (wrongly) feel like they are behind.

IN ANY EVENT - a decision between STB/S&C on one hand and Skadden on the other comes down to preference between a NY-centric large firm vs a more global mega firm, each comes with pros and cons. As between STB and S&C i would base a decision primarily on whether you prefer to rotate through groups (STB) or freelance for your first several years (S&C) in addition to cultural differences which you will hopefully pick up through talking to attorneys who work at each. The PE vs Public M&A thing may matter on the margins but I'm highly suspicious of any law student that preaches a love for either without having worked in law or finance before law school and both firms do both things very well and in high volumes regardless. If you are looking to do lit they all seem identical to me and if you are looking to do something more nuanced you should defer to whoever has a better/bigger group in the area you want to practice.

This. All of this.

.

If you summer at any of these as a 1L you'll get a 2L offer/be pretty much guaranteed for a full time offer.

If you have these options as a 1L you'll also probably end up with better offers as a 2L that you'll take over these.

I think practice area is more important than the folks above, but IANA transactional lawyer

Re your initial question, never Skadden.

.

smaug wrote:If you summer at any of these as a 1L you'll get a 2L offer/be pretty much guaranteed for a full time offer.

If you have these options as a 1L you'll also probably end up with better offers as a 2L that you'll take over these.

I think practice area is more important than the folks above, but IANA transactional lawyer

Re your initial question, never Skadden.

Yeah man, you'll totally nail that VAULT 1 Cravath offer. Decidedly a "better offer" than S&C's VAULT 4 status.

v5junior wrote:

smaug wrote:If you summer at any of these as a 1L you'll get a 2L offer/be pretty much guaranteed for a full time offer.

If you have these options as a 1L you'll also probably end up with better offers as a 2L that you'll take over these.

I think practice area is more important than the folks above, but IANA transactional lawyer

Re your initial question, never Skadden.

Yeah man, you'll totally nail that VAULT 1 Cravath offer. Decidedly a "better offer" than S&C's VAULT 4 status.

I hate to break this to you, but there's a world outside of Vault.

purplepebbles00 wrote:Smaug-curious to hear your thoughts against Skadden?

Again, not a transactional attorney so I can't speak to their M&A work which I understand to be very good.

I think a lot of people do themselves a disservice by going to massive firms (especially massive offices of massive firms). Skadden is particularly massive.

IME Skadden also doesn't seem to have much of a personality filter and is kinda notorious for not only being a sweatshop, but also for having a bad culture.

Finally, I am really young and already know multiple folks who lateralled out of Skadden. Seems like people leave when they can.

your mileage may vary and my experience is limited.

Just one dragon's thoughts.

purplepebbles00 wrote:These have been very helpful so far. Thanks.

To answer some questions, I am a 1L and I've heard back from all three of these firms. I won't go into detail about exactly what.

This was also purely out of curiosity as well, and possibly for future reference as I think about 2L summer and beyond. And I agree with those who've said that there'll be much better advice given when I have a better sense of the practice area I want to go into.

I was also focusing on S&C vs. Skadden because those firms seem to be neck and neck in terms of Vault rankings which I know many will say aren't dispositive in any way. As you guys noted, I knew more about Skadden in the beginning (probably because of sheer size of the firm/global presence), but looking at past threads I get a sense that S&C has more...historical prestige? There was just a lot of people lumping S&C and Cravath together and people saying Skadden is over-hyped so I just wanted to know what you think.

Another question for 2L/3L+ TLS posters - What are the chances of getting a 2L summer offer after finishing the 1L SA program at one of these firms? What keeps a firm from giving you an offer to return at the end?

Bolded is stupid. You will quickly realize this. These are all top notch firms. Equivalent in more ways than they are different. Chances at 2L SA are 100% if you have a 1L SA at any of them.

Also, it doesn't sound like you have a 1L SA at any of them, let alone all of them. Also, if you get an SA at one of them, you will likely get offers at all of them for 2L SA (unless you don't get them in lottery or shit the bed in your interview).

Finally, and most importantly, do well second half of 1L and worry about this during OCI.

purplepebbles00 wrote:lay prestige

No firm has lay prestige. Nobody has heard of any of these firms outside of the people who have to work with them for some reason. If you want people to be impressed with where you work you should work at Google, Facebook, or Goldman Sachs.

.

purplepebbles00 wrote:These have been very helpful so far. Thanks.

To answer some questions, I am a 1L and I've heard back from all three of these firms. I won't go into detail about exactly what.

This was also purely out of curiosity as well, and possibly for future reference as I think about 2L summer and beyond. And I agree with those who've said that there'll be much better advice given when I have a better sense of the practice area I want to go into.

I was also focusing on S&C vs. Skadden because those firms seem to be neck and neck in terms of Vault rankings which I know many will say aren't dispositive in any way. As you guys noted, I knew more about Skadden in the beginning (probably because of sheer size of the firm/global presence), but looking at past threads I get a sense that S&C has more...historical prestige? There was just a lot of people lumping S&C and Cravath together and people saying Skadden is over-hyped so I just wanted to know what you think.

Another question for 2L/3L+ TLS posters - What are the chances of getting a 2L summer offer after finishing the 1L SA program at one of these firms? What keeps a firm from giving you an offer to return at the end?

Guys, guys, guys

I'm willing to bet anything this a slightly above median T14 1L w/o offers at any of these firms. He's just too clueless

(first anon)

dabigchina wrote:

purplepebbles00 wrote:lay prestige

No firm has lay prestige. Nobody has heard of any of these firms outside of the people who have to work with them for some reason. If you want people to be impressed with where you work you should work at Google, Facebook, or Goldman Sachs.

LOL this is so true IMO. If i told my family or any non-law school friends that I was considering offers from Skadden or S&C they would have ZERO idea what I was talking about. Shit, I bet many of the old-timey lawyers in the small city I am from wouldn't know what I was talking about.

.

purplepebbles00 wrote:Maybe lay prestige wasn't the most accurate.

And Anonymous, I have to say that you're incorrect in so many ways and this information is relevant to me right now.

Everyone else, I appreciate your input.

what exactly do u mean by lay prestige then?

I would also caution against picking things because they r "prestigious".

dabigchina wrote:

purplepebbles00 wrote:Maybe lay prestige wasn't the most accurate.

And Anonymous, I have to say that you're incorrect in so many ways and this information is relevant to me right now.

Everyone else, I appreciate your input.

what exactly do u mean by lay prestige then?

I would also caution against picking things because they r "prestigious".

That an average, non lawyer will think/know that x firm is prestigious. I.e. If I tell you that I'm an engineer (or even a lawyer) at facebook, most people will say wow - must be a smart guy to get that prestigious job. Same thing with Goldman, Tesla, Google, etc.

RaceJudicata wrote:

dabigchina wrote:

purplepebbles00 wrote:Maybe lay prestige wasn't the most accurate.

And Anonymous, I have to say that you're incorrect in so many ways and this information is relevant to me right now.

Everyone else, I appreciate your input.

what exactly do u mean by lay prestige then?

I would also caution against picking things because they r "prestigious".

That an average, non lawyer will think/know that x firm is prestigious. I.e. If I tell you that I'm an engineer (or even a lawyer) at facebook, most people will say wow - must be a smart guy to get that prestigious job. Same thing with Goldman, Tesla, Google, etc.

I've heard great things about Crane, Poole & Schmidt.

RaceJudicata wrote: That an average, non lawyer will think/know that x firm is prestigious. I.e. If I tell you that I'm an engineer (or even a lawyer) at facebook, most people will say wow - must be a smart guy to get that prestigious job. Same thing with Goldman, Tesla, Google, etc.

Hahaha I am laughing so hard right now. This is gold!!

.