Wachtell v. Cravath Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm unsure whether I want to do corporate or litigation--leaning lit, with a view toward AUSA or other prestigious government work, but very open to corporate when I try it next summer.

I clicked a lot more with the people I met at CSM, but definitely doing second looks at both.

Take law school debt out of the equation for the moment.

[schmelling]

If you’re unsure if corporate or lit, I’d go Wachtell. If you’re leaning corporate I’d go Wachtell. If you’re leaning lit, but still don’t know for sure, I’d go Wachtell. The only time I’d even consider picking cravath over Wachtell is if I was 100% lit, and even then I’d probably end up picking Wachtell. The work is incredible and people simply understand that, as hard as it is to get an offer at cravath, it is significantly harder to get a job at Wachtell. On top of that your bonus will raise Comp significantly. By all accounts I’ve heard the bonus is no longer 100% of salary, but even if It is more like 50-60%, that is huge. Your exit options will be comparable or better at Wachtell (comparable if lit, better if corporate). Don’t take the money out of the equation - it will allow you to pursue less lucrative options like AUSA or gov more easily when the time comes.

[thebasedgod]

pick the sweatshop that pays more

[jbagelboy]

This is not even remotely a question. Wachtell is the superior firm both from a compensation and experiential perspective. The primary argument for turning down Wachtell for another prestigious NY firm is lifestyle/hours; and that variable is barely in Cravath’s favor.

[Anonymous User]

OP, I am leaning lit and struggling with this exact decision. I love the people at CSM but I know I should probably pick Wachtell. Am very nervous about the hours and not as sure about the people. I will probably end up picking Wachtell, for what it’s worth. If you hate it, your resume will stand out more during 3L OCI since the class is small and it is considered one of the hardest offers to get I think.

Wish we could actually talk more about this but obviously can’t PM on anonymous.

[esther0123]

I agree with the analysis above, with one thing about CSM v. Wachtell that did not get mentioned, as far as litigation is concerned. My impression is that litigation at Wachtell is considered a service group for the firm's corporate practice, whereas CSM's litigation stands on its own, despite it being a much smaller department than its corporate counterpart. Furthermore, CSM has a broader practice area than Wachtell, both in corporate and litigation, but especially in litigation. While that weighs in CSM's favor in my mind, the extra compensation at Wachtell is incredibly enticing and might make up for it. ETA: CSM hours are quite bad (a step worse than other big law) but Wachtell hours sound actually worse than CSM. CSM and Wachtell are both pretty formal, regardless of what you've seen at the OCI.

[lawschool2016nyc]

Wachtell, unlike Cravath, is band one for white collar, just saying.

[BrainsyK]

There are 190,000 reasons to go Wachtell here.

[genjustice]

Does anyone know the bonus rate at WLRK now?

[Anonymous User]

OP, I am leaning lit and struggling with this exact decision. I love the people at CSM but I know I should probably pick Wachtell. Am very nervous about the hours and not as sure about the people. I will probably end up picking Wachtell, for what it’s worth. If you hate it, your resume will stand out more during 3L OCI since the class is small and it is considered one of the hardest offers to get I think.

Wish we could actually talk more about this but obviously can’t PM on anonymous.

Wish I could talk to you too. Hopefully the second looks and assorted courtship events help clarify things.

[smokeylarue]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

[Anonymous User]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

[alexMar]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

But the people OP met at Cravath vs. Wachtell during callbacks probably aren't representative of either firm, so basing a decision on this isn't smart. For what it's worth, I've found the people I've dealt with at Wachtell incredibly nice overall, considering what their lives are like.

[jbagelboy]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

I find this hard to believe, but even in this hypothetical, you’ve met what, ten or fifteen attorneys of a 500+ lawyers? You can’t really know. Fit is important when comparing peer firms, but first impressions of a tiny percentage are inconsequential in this scheme

[TheProsecutor]

I agree with the analysis above, with one thing about CSM v. Wachtell that did not get mentioned, as far as litigation is concerned. My impression is that litigation at Wachtell is considered a service group for the firm's corporate practice, whereas CSM's litigation stands on its own, despite it being a much smaller department than its corporate counterpart. Furthermore, CSM has a broader practice area than Wachtell, both in corporate and litigation, but especially in litigation. While that weighs in CSM's favor in my mind, the extra compensation at Wachtell is incredibly enticing and might make up for it. ETA: CSM hours are quite bad (a step worse than other big law) but Wachtell hours sound actually worse than CSM. CSM and Wachtell are both pretty formal, regardless of what you've seen at the OCI.

Wachtell's litigation department is not a service group for the firm's corporate department. Litigators at Wachtell often do MERGER litigation, but that is largely separate from the actual deal-making process. Additionally, WLRK is top of the class in shareholder litigation, securities litigation, and white collar criminal (both domestic and cross-border).

[timbs4339]

The strength of the litigation practices among the big NY corporate/defense side shops is going to be heavily related to the strength of the firm’s public M+A practice, either M+A lit in connection with the deal, securities and antitrust actions against plaintiff’s firms related to a deal or IPO, or white collar work stemming from a deal or offering. The more public companies you represent, the more likely you’ll be on call for that kind of work. Whether a firm has strong relationships with investment banks (which tend to get sued for a ton of antitrust and securities violations or are the subject of a lot of white collar activity) also drives whether they are in the mix for the most high value litigation, and then there is also the firm’s ability to handle a major litigation/investigation. I think that Wachtell and Cravath have pretty equal access to those kind of clients and that kind of work.

[smokeylarue]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

Doesn't matter. You will literally pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars more at Wachtell. Picking Cravath is like passing up a full ride to Yale to pay full sticker at Harvard, financially speaking.

[Anonymous User]

CSM associate here. I’d pick wachtell. That said, I do think they work substantially more than we do. Most fellow corporate associates I know are going to be around or under 2000 hours this year. Lit has been busier, but nothing in the realm of stories I hear from friends at wachtell.

[Anonymous User]

CSM associate here. I’d pick wachtell. That said, I do think they work substantially more than we do. Most fellow corporate associates I know are going to be around or under 2000 hours this year. Lit has been busier, but nothing in the realm of stories I hear from friends at wachtell.

Very interesting perspective, thanks. I assume your reasons are the same as those stated above?

[Anonymous User]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

Doesn't matter. You will literally pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars more at Wachtell. Picking Cravath is like passing up a full ride to Yale to pay full sticker at Harvard, financially speaking.

Is this really true anymore? It was when WLRK paid 100% bonuses, but now that they're 50% the after-tax pay difference isn't so spectacular.

[AspiringAspirant]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

Doesn't matter. You will literally pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars more at Wachtell. Picking Cravath is like passing up a full ride to Yale to pay full sticker at Harvard, financially speaking.

Is this really true anymore? It was when WLRK paid 100% bonuses, but now that they're 50% the after-tax pay difference isn't so spectacular.

How certain is this reduced 50% bonus? I remember a few posters claiming that the comp had been reduced years ago and it turned out not to be true (the bonus was still 100% at the time).

[Anonymous User]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

Doesn't matter. You will literally pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars more at Wachtell. Picking Cravath is like passing up a full ride to Yale to pay full sticker at Harvard, financially speaking.

Is this really true anymore? It was when WLRK paid 100% bonuses, but now that they're 50% the after-tax pay difference isn't so spectacular.

How certain is this reduced 50% bonus? I remember a few posters claiming that the comp had been reduced years ago and it turned out not to be true (the bonus was still 100% at the time).

You hit the nail on the head. The person posting 50% has no idea what he/she is talking about.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the analysis above, with one thing about CSM v. Wachtell that did not get mentioned, as far as litigation is concerned. My impression is that litigation at Wachtell is considered a service group for the firm's corporate practice, whereas CSM's litigation stands on its own, despite it being a much smaller department than its corporate counterpart. Furthermore, CSM has a broader practice area than Wachtell, both in corporate and litigation, but especially in litigation. While that weighs in CSM's favor in my mind, the extra compensation at Wachtell is incredibly enticing and might make up for it. ETA: CSM hours are quite bad (a step worse than other big law) but Wachtell hours sound actually worse than CSM. CSM and Wachtell are both pretty formal, regardless of what you've seen at the OCI.

Wachtell's litigation department is not a service group for the firm's corporate department. Litigators at Wachtell often do MERGER litigation, but that is largely separate from the actual deal-making process. Additionally, WLRK is top of the class in shareholder litigation, securities litigation, and white collar criminal (both domestic and cross-border).

Ah okay my mistake.

And also to add another cent to the debate -- back when I was a fresh law student, I liked CSM culture more (can't put a finger on what about it that appealed to me more; something just intuitively clicked) and I liked that the firm was very old, very stable, prestigious, etc etc. That my law school professors who were former NYC litigators seem to value Cravath name more than Wachtell name also mattered to me. In fact, someone told me I'd be "crazy" not to take CSM, and I think that might've sealed the deal for me. In hindsight, that might be due to the fact that CSM was around longer and my law school professors saw CSM in its full glory, while Wachtell was only just starting out.

I did not realize the impact of the pay differential on my life; I was living like a pauper anyways as a law student so the difference between 160k (back then) and (potential) 320k did not seem like a big deal in the long term (don't be mad! I was naive and stupid!). The reality is that most of us will not be able to stay in the big law game for long enough to make partner, so even though I don't regret my choice, I do think that cashing in while you can is a defensible position. Plus, not only you're making double, you get substantive assignments with incredibly smart lawyers and cutting edge matters. I personally have a lot of respect for Wachtell litigators; everyone I know who works there is wicked smart. That said, I'm not sure if I could've done Wachtell hours because CSM hours are already really rough..

[Anonymous User]

There is literally no reason to pick Cravath. This question is insane.

What if you like the people much more at Cravath? Wouldn't working 80+ hrs a week with people you hate knock WLRK below Cravath?

Doesn't matter. You will literally pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars more at Wachtell. Picking Cravath is like passing up a full ride to Yale to pay full sticker at Harvard, financially speaking.

Is this really true anymore? It was when WLRK paid 100% bonuses, but now that they're 50% the after-tax pay difference isn't so spectacular.

How certain is this reduced 50% bonus? I remember a few posters claiming that the comp had been reduced years ago and it turned out not to be true (the bonus was still 100% at the time).

You hit the nail on the head. The person posting 50% has no idea what he/she is talking about.

I'm the original anon who suggested that the bonus had been reduced as a percentage of salary. I've heard from primary sources that the bonus is no longer 100% of salary, but is still head and shoulders above market, and have heard nothing beyond that. When I wrote the 50-60% figure, I meant it as an "even if" statement (as in, "even if it is 50-60%, it would still be significant") and did not mean for it to be taken as an actual estimation or statement of fact. I apologize if my statement was misleading.