Top Law Schools

Can anyone in NYC biglaw speak to the reputation of Wachtell's litigation practice? How does it stack up in quality of work/exit opportunities when compared to more litigation-focused shops?

Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone in NYC biglaw speak to the reputation of Wachtell's litigation practice? How does it stack up in quality of work/exit opportunities when compared to more litigation-focused shops?

Reputation and exit options are as good as or better than anywhere in NYC big law.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone in NYC biglaw speak to the reputation of Wachtell's litigation practice? How does it stack up in quality of work/exit opportunities when compared to more litigation-focused shops?

Reputation and exit options are as good as or better than anywhere in NYC big law.

Yeah, this.

Does anyone know whether Wachtell has decent antitrust litigation group? I mean this as distinct from a purely corporate merger review advisory practice, which I know they have.

Current employee, my impression is not really.

Is Yale a good law school?

Nebby wrote:Is Yale a good law school?

Not if you wanna do health care transactions in the Georgia market.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone in NYC biglaw speak to the reputation of Wachtell's litigation practice? How does it stack up in quality of work/exit opportunities when compared to more litigation-focused shops?

Reputation and exit options are as good as or better than anywhere in NYC big law.

This is true, but my impression of Wachtell's litigation group is that it focuses on a narrower practice area than some of its (arguable) Big Law peers like Cravath, PW, DPW or litigation boutiques like Patterson, Susman etc. The litigation group derives a lot of its work from the corporate group, so the litigation partners tend to focus on merger-related and white collar litigation. If you want a broader practice that includes, say, IP, products liability, antitrust litigation, or really anything that is not deal-derived litigation, Wachtell may not be the best place to be.

Caveat: I have not worked at Wachtell, but I have friends and former co-workers who do, and I worked at a firm that frequently goes up against them.

Wachtell's litigation group is stellar, as you would expect. The conventional wisdom that they simply do merger litigation is ridiculous, as their litigation group does a ton of high impact securities litigation, derivative litigation, and commercial litigation. Their white collar practice is as good as it gets: in the past 6 months, several litigators have gone to SDNY, EDVA, NDCal, and CDCal for AUSA positions. If you can make it to year 7 or 8, another law firm will hire you as a partner if you don't make it at WLRK (which is nearly impossible in litigation).

Anonymous User wrote:Wachtell's litigation group is stellar, as you would expect. The conventional wisdom that they simply do merger litigation is ridiculous, as their litigation group does a ton of high impact securities litigation, derivative litigation, and commercial litigation. Their white collar practice is as good as it gets: in the past 6 months, several litigators have gone to SDNY, EDVA, NDCal, and CDCal for AUSA positions. If you can make it to year 7 or 8, another law firm will hire you as a partner if you don't make it at WLRK (which is nearly impossible in litigation).

What are some (publicly available) examples of this? Just curious, because I never seem to hear anyone mention this (including at Wachtell recruiting events that I've been to).

Totally agree on the white collar point. Notably, I was told that the last round of hires at SDNY USAO were all from Wachtell.

They did the world trade center building litigation which was one of the most significant commercial lit disputes in NYC for a time.

Anonymous User wrote:Wachtell's litigation group is stellar, as you would expect. The conventional wisdom that they simply do merger litigation is ridiculous, as their litigation group does a ton of high impact securities litigation, derivative litigation, and commercial litigation. Their white collar practice is as good as it gets: in the past 6 months, several litigators have gone to SDNY, EDVA, NDCal, and CDCal for AUSA positions. If you can make it to year 7 or 8, another law firm will hire you as a partner if you don't make it at WLRK (which is nearly impossible in litigation).

Why is that the case?

so if you were otherwise qualified (top school, good grades, good COA clerkship) and wanted to break into their litigation group, what would be the best practice group to pitch? just white collar and securities? any way to avoid pure securities? I would be more interested in merger litigation, antitrust, white collar, or commercial, TBH.

Anonymous User wrote:so if you were otherwise qualified (top school, good grades, good COA clerkship) and wanted to break into their litigation group, what would be the best practice group to pitch? just white collar and securities? any way to avoid pure securities? I would be more interested in merger litigation, antitrust, white collar, or commercial, TBH.

The merger stuff is really handled by the same set of litigation associates. Other associates will pitch in if asked.

Mainly, there's white collar stuff, but impossible to make partner doing it, so these are generally associates who want to make the shift to AUSA. There's securities lit and shareholder litigation. If you're really really good you can make partner doing it.

Two main reasons why litigation associates don't make partner, in my opinion: (1) litigation at WLRK is not as profitable as the corporate work; and (2) even though litigators regularly bill 2800 hours, they aren't working nearly as hard as their corporate counterparts who are machines by necessity.

Edit: to break into WLRK lit group, just be smart, push back against the partners in your interviews, show that you have some ideas and value to add.

Out of topic - but does Wachtell lit hire only people with clerkships under their belt?

Nebby wrote:Is Yale a good law school?

Tagging this thread to see the answer to this question.

Pragmatic Gun wrote:

Nebby wrote:Is Yale a good law school?

Tagging this thread to see the answer to this question.

It's a flawed question. Yale's a good school, but the inclusion of the word law assumes that students learn law there. That is a gross misconception.

Anonymous User wrote:Out of topic - but does Wachtell lit hire only people with clerkships under their belt?

No and law review is not required either, but if you're at WLRK in lit, your grades should be really high to where it is no question that you could clerk if you desired.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:so if you were otherwise qualified (top school, good grades, good COA clerkship) and wanted to break into their litigation group, what would be the best practice group to pitch? just white collar and securities? any way to avoid pure securities? I would be more interested in merger litigation, antitrust, white collar, or commercial, TBH.

The merger stuff is really handled by the same set of litigation associates. Other associates will pitch in if asked.

Mainly, there's white collar stuff, but impossible to make partner doing it, so these are generally associates who want to make the shift to AUSA. There's securities lit and shareholder litigation. If you're really really good you can make partner doing it.

Two main reasons why litigation associates don't make partner, in my opinion: (1) litigation at WLRK is not as profitable as the corporate work; and (2) even though litigators regularly bill 2800 hours, they aren't working nearly as hard as their corporate counterparts who are machines by necessity.

Edit: to break into WLRK lit group, just be smart, push back against the partners in your interviews, show that you have some ideas and value to add.

Don't they make a new litigation partner almost every year?

KissMyAxe wrote:

Pragmatic Gun wrote:

Nebby wrote:Is Yale a good law school?

Tagging this thread to see the answer to this question.

It's a flawed question. Yale's a good school, but the inclusion of the word law assumes that students learn law there. That is a gross misconception.

He was being sarcastic doe

Pragmatic Gun wrote:

KissMyAxe wrote:

Pragmatic Gun wrote:

Nebby wrote:Is Yale a good law school?

Tagging this thread to see the answer to this question.

It's a flawed question. Yale's a good school, but the inclusion of the word law assumes that students learn law there. That is a gross misconception.

He was being sarcastic doe

I believe so was Mr. Axe

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Out of topic - but does Wachtell lit hire only people with clerkships under their belt?

No and law review is not required either, but if you're at WLRK in lit, your grades should be really high to where it is no question that you could clerk if you desired.

can confirm neither LR nor clerkship is required for an offer, at least during OCI

Can anyone comment about Wachtell's hiring after completing federal clerkships? Do they hire clerks who have not summered there? How hard is it to get—harder or easier than at OCI? Just curious!

Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone comment about Wachtell's hiring after completing federal clerkships? Do they hire clerks who have not summered there? How hard is it to get—harder or easier than at OCI? Just curious!

As a general matter, they rarely hire laterals. In recent years, they've hired laterals from firms and from clerkships, but generally its like 1-2 people a year. Its extremely difficult to get hired there as a lateral.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Can anyone comment about Wachtell's hiring after completing federal clerkships? Do they hire clerks who have not summered there? How hard is it to get—harder or easier than at OCI? Just curious!

As a general matter, they rarely hire laterals. In recent years, they've hired laterals from firms and from clerkships, but generally its like 1-2 people a year. Its extremely difficult to get hired there as a lateral.

are you really considered a 'lateral' coming off a clerkship when you have no substantial practice experience elsewhere?