Latham v. Cravath Forum

[Anonymous User]

.

[Wild Card]

Is this a joke? Do you work for Latham, in its recruiting department?

[Anonymous User]

Is this a joke? Do you work for Latham, in its recruiting department?

Not a joke at all, not everyone here is as obsessed with Cravath as you are apparently

Edit: Also, your comment is the exact thing that I’ve found to be of no help whatsoever. I’d like to hear more concrete reasons rather than the usual “Cravath lol”

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I've heard bad things hours and personality-wise from Latham's NYC corporate practice. Same thing with Cravath (at least hours-wise) but the Cravath name, and probably training, will probably carry you further in life.

[legalace]

I can't speak for any other practice areas, but Latham litigation "training" is virtually non-existent.

[Anonymous User]

Bump

[Anonymous User]

If what you want to hear is, “don’t go to cravath,” then sure: don’t go to cravath. There are lots of reasons that it’s a terrible place to work. You just haven’t really articulated a substantive reason Latham would be better, but they are both elite firms so picking on fit is fine

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

If what you want to hear is, “don’t go to cravath,” then sure: don’t go to cravath. There are lots of reasons that it’s a terrible place to work. You just haven’t really articulated a substantive reason Latham would be better, but they are both elite firms so picking on fit is fine

For substantive reasons, I’m very interested in getting exposure to private equity M&A and LatAm work. I know that I’ll have the opportunity to see this at Latham but not Cravath. Cravath’s argument in opposition is that they’re system would train me on the fundamentals and then I could choose to specialize in these practice areas later in life. I’m not sure though if not having earlier exposure to these areas would actually disadvantage me from doing that type of work.

Also,I’m really trying to gauge if I’m leaving anything on the table by not going to Cravath at least to start my career. I’m trying to get underneath the default answer to go to Cravath by asking for more reasoning as to why it’s automatically better for someone’s career.

its not automatically better. for you, it could easily be worse. Cravath is on average a little better than somewhere like Latham for law students who want public M&A or just want to be generic corporate lawyers for a couple years and then figure it out. But Latham is a great firm and they have a much stronger and more dynamic international presence. There's nothing unique about opportunities Cravath vis a vis other V10 firms; its just very very good at what it does, and has a name brand that's attractive to certain law student personalities.

So, if you like Latham better and want to work in its practice groups, go there and don't look back. You wouldn't be alone. At my law school, about 40-45% of students with a Cravath offer accepted it. A few of those 55-60% that turn it down each year go Wachtell or an MTO/W&C/Boies type lit route, which is maybe more obvious; but many of them just liked some other NY V10 better.

[Anonymous User]

If what you want to hear is, “don’t go to cravath,” then sure: don’t go to cravath. There are lots of reasons that it’s a terrible place to work. You just haven’t really articulated a substantive reason Latham would be better, but they are both elite firms so picking on fit is fine

For substantive reasons, I’m very interested in getting exposure to private equity M&A and LatAm work. I know that I’ll have the opportunity to see this at Latham but not Cravath. Cravath’s argument in opposition is that they’re system would train me on the fundamentals and then I could choose to specialize in these practice areas later in life. I’m not sure though if not having earlier exposure to these areas would actually disadvantage me from doing that type of work.

Also,I’m really trying to gauge if I’m leaving anything on the table by not going to Cravath at least to start my career. I’m trying to get underneath the default answer to go to Cravath by asking for more reasoning as to why it’s automatically better for someone’s career.

its not automatically better. for you, it could easily be worse. Cravath is on average a little better than somewhere like Latham for law students who want public M&A or just want to be generic corporate lawyers for a couple years and then figure it out. But Latham is a great firm and they have a much stronger and more dynamic international presence. There's nothing unique about opportunities Cravath vis a vis other V10 firms; its just very very good at what it does, and has a name brand that's attractive to certain law student personalities.

So, if you like Latham better and want to work in its practice groups, go there and don't look back. You wouldn't be alone. At my law school, about 40-45% of students with a Cravath offer accepted it. A few of those 55-60% that turn it down each year go Wachtell or an MTO/W&C/Boies type lit route, which is maybe more obvious; but many of them just liked some other NY V10 better.

You'll be spending a lot of time with your coworkers--if you like the people and personalities at Latham more, definitely go there. You'll get good experience at either firm, but it sounds like you're more likely to get exposure to the practice areas you're interested in by going to Latham. It sounds like a win win.

Also, in some ways, the Cravath rotation model can disadvantage you if you ever want to lateral to a different firm that doesn't take a similar "general corporate" approach. If you're looking to leave as a mid-level or senior associate, having been at Cravath and rotating through a variety of practices in some ways can certainly benefit you in some ways since you have experience across the board, but you're also a less attractive candidate in other ways because you have less experience in any one of those given corporate groups than somebody lateraling from another firm who has had the opportunity to develop the skills and expertise that come with doing more and more matters within one specific practice. That's not to say there isn't overlap across corporate practice groups, but I think you're more likely to be asked to take at least a one year cut in seniority when lateraling to a new firm if you're coming from Cravath versus from another firm where you may have gained more specific practice area expertise.

[almondjoy]

You'll be spending a lot of time with your coworkers--if you like the people and personalities at Latham more, definitely go there. You'll get good experience at either firm, but it sounds like you're more likely to get exposure to the practice areas you're interested in by going to Latham. It sounds like a win win.

Also, in some ways, the Cravath rotation model can disadvantage you if you ever want to lateral to a different firm that doesn't take a similar "general corporate" approach. If you're looking to leave as a mid-level or senior associate, having been at Cravath and rotating through a variety of practices in some ways can certainly benefit you in some ways since you have experience across the board, but you're also a less attractive candidate in other ways because you have less experience in any one of those given corporate groups than somebody lateraling from another firm who has had the opportunity to develop the skills and expertise that come with doing more and more matters within one specific practice. That's not to say there isn't overlap across corporate practice groups, but I think you're more likely to be asked to take at least a one year cut in seniority when lateraling to a new firm if you're coming from Cravath versus from another firm where you may have gained more specific practice area expertise.

Have you actually seen this happen? I have a very hard time believing this is true.

[Anonymous User]

You'll be spending a lot of time with your coworkers--if you like the people and personalities at Latham more, definitely go there. You'll get good experience at either firm, but it sounds like you're more likely to get exposure to the practice areas you're interested in by going to Latham. It sounds like a win win.

Also, in some ways, the Cravath rotation model can disadvantage you if you ever want to lateral to a different firm that doesn't take a similar "general corporate" approach. If you're looking to leave as a mid-level or senior associate, having been at Cravath and rotating through a variety of practices in some ways can certainly benefit you in some ways since you have experience across the board, but you're also a less attractive candidate in other ways because you have less experience in any one of those given corporate groups than somebody lateraling from another firm who has had the opportunity to develop the skills and expertise that come with doing more and more matters within one specific practice. That's not to say there isn't overlap across corporate practice groups, but I think you're more likely to be asked to take at least a one year cut in seniority when lateraling to a new firm if you're coming from Cravath versus from another firm where you may have gained more specific practice area expertise.

Have you actually seen this happen? I have a very hard time believing this is true.

There’s no way a “lower” firm would ask/make a cravath associate take a one year cut in seniority. Also, even if that firm suggested it, there’s no way that associate would agree to it.

[Anonymous User]

You'll be spending a lot of time with your coworkers--if you like the people and personalities at Latham more, definitely go there. You'll get good experience at either firm, but it sounds like you're more likely to get exposure to the practice areas you're interested in by going to Latham. It sounds like a win win.

Also, in some ways, the Cravath rotation model can disadvantage you if you ever want to lateral to a different firm that doesn't take a similar "general corporate" approach. If you're looking to leave as a mid-level or senior associate, having been at Cravath and rotating through a variety of practices in some ways can certainly benefit you in some ways since you have experience across the board, but you're also a less attractive candidate in other ways because you have less experience in any one of those given corporate groups than somebody lateraling from another firm who has had the opportunity to develop the skills and expertise that come with doing more and more matters within one specific practice. That's not to say there isn't overlap across corporate practice groups, but I think you're more likely to be asked to take at least a one year cut in seniority when lateraling to a new firm if you're coming from Cravath versus from another firm where you may have gained more specific practice area expertise.

Have you actually seen this happen? I have a very hard time believing this is true.

There’s no way a “lower” firm would ask/make a cravath associate take a one year cut in seniority. Also, even if that firm suggested it, there’s no way that associate would agree to it.

To the first responder above, yes, I've seen it happen. And to the second, that's absolutely false on both counts -- people do take seniority cuts, especially if they don't have the skills to be successful at their current seniority level coming into a new firm. For instance, you can't expect to successfully supervise a junior associate when the junior may have more experience in a particular practice than you do. And FWIW, just because somebody worked at Cravath does not mean they're automatically a desirable candidate for a "lower" firm. Once you're out of law school, getting a new job (especially in corporate) is much more about the experiences you've had & the expertise you've developed (e.g., what types of deals, what roles you played, what skills you've learned, etc.) than what law firm you started out at.

[Anonymous User]

You'll be spending a lot of time with your coworkers--if you like the people and personalities at Latham more, definitely go there. You'll get good experience at either firm, but it sounds like you're more likely to get exposure to the practice areas you're interested in by going to Latham. It sounds like a win win.

Also, in some ways, the Cravath rotation model can disadvantage you if you ever want to lateral to a different firm that doesn't take a similar "general corporate" approach. If you're looking to leave as a mid-level or senior associate, having been at Cravath and rotating through a variety of practices in some ways can certainly benefit you in some ways since you have experience across the board, but you're also a less attractive candidate in other ways because you have less experience in any one of those given corporate groups than somebody lateraling from another firm who has had the opportunity to develop the skills and expertise that come with doing more and more matters within one specific practice. That's not to say there isn't overlap across corporate practice groups, but I think you're more likely to be asked to take at least a one year cut in seniority when lateraling to a new firm if you're coming from Cravath versus from another firm where you may have gained more specific practice area expertise.

Have you actually seen this happen? I have a very hard time believing this is true.

There’s no way a “lower” firm would ask/make a cravath associate take a one year cut in seniority. Also, even if that firm suggested it, there’s no way that associate would agree to it.

To the first responder above, yes, I've seen it happen. And to the second, that's absolutely false on both counts -- people do take seniority cuts, especially if they don't have the skills to be successful at their current seniority level coming into a new firm. For instance, you can't expect to successfully supervise a junior associate when the junior may have more experience in a particular practice than you do. And FWIW, just because somebody worked at Cravath does not mean they're automatically a desirable candidate for a "lower" firm. Once you're out of law school, getting a new job (especially in corporate) is much more about the experiences you've had & the expertise you've developed (e.g., what types of deals, what roles you played, what skills you've learned, etc.) than what law firm you started out at.

Different anon here. I’ve seen Cravath seniors take a cut in partnership track (I.e., adding 1-2 years before partnership to account for less practice group-specific expertise) when they lateral, but not to associate compensation. But that’s hardly unique to cravath.

[Anonymous User]

Is this a joke? Do you work for Latham, in its recruiting department?

Not a joke at all, not everyone here is as obsessed with Cravath as you are apparently

Edit: Also, your comment is the exact thing that I’ve found to be of no help whatsoever. I’d like to hear more concrete reasons rather than the usual “Cravath lol”

The reason this poster (and many others) didn't take this thread seriously is because Latham is not a peer to Cravath. If you were choosing between Cravath, on the one hand, and S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/Skadden, on the other hand, no one would think you were crazy for choosing a firm from the latter group, even if Cravath is ever so slightly more prestigious. Fit would absolutely outweigh whatever tiny distinction there is in prestige between Cravath and one of those firms.

Latham, however, is not in the same category as S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/Skadden. We generally assume that if you can obtain an offer from CSM that you should also have an offer (or multiple offers) from those other firms, and if you don't that you would simply take Cravath. Assuming this is indeed not a flame and you're considering Latham due to practice offerings, to what degree do you have experience in those expressed practice areas? Many, many, many people go into firms thinking they want X practice group and either hate it or end up liking something else much more. Deciding on Latham over Cravath based on a mere hunch that you might like a practice group may end up being a mistake.

At the end of the day, you certainly aren't dooming your career by choosing Latham. It's a very good firm and you can absolutely procure eccellent exit options there. But it's just not in the same league as the above-mentioned firms in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

I’d like to get some detailed input on this decision rather than unhelpful comments telling me to just go to Cravath. I’m interested in corporate, and leaning towards M&A, but I’m interested in getting exposure to private equity clients and LatAm deals rather than solely strategic domestic deals. I really like the people at Latham, including partners I met that I would specifically like to work with.

While my heart is telling me to go to Latham, I’m concerned whether I’ll be leaving anything on the table by not going to Cravath. I understand that the rotation system can lead to amazing training as a young attorney and I recognize that the Cravath name carries some weight. However, I’d like to get more concrete input on what I’d be missing out on if I picked Latham over Cravath.

As for why I prefer Latham, I am a particularly social and more laid back person so I feel like I’d feel much more comfortable fitting in at Latham than I would at Cravath. I know I’d have to put up more of a front if I picked Cravath. As mentioned above, I’m also interested in some of the work Latham does that Cravath doesn’t, and like some of the partners that do that work. I appreciate any help on this decision.

Similar choice as you way back when and chose Latham, non NYC though. Don’t regret it for a second. Didn’t want to burn out working a Cravath style pace and glad I chose that. Though Latham is still biglaw and requires a lot of work, I certainly bill less than my peers who went to Cravath.

The biggest reason I’m glad of my decision is somewhat opposite of you. I didn’t really know what I wanted to do, but knew I didn’t want lit. I’m now in a specialist practice I totally love only because of the free market system at Latham. I don’t know much about the rotation system at Cravath, but doubt I would have the same opportunity there.

[dabigchina]

Is this a joke? Do you work for Latham, in its recruiting department?

Not a joke at all, not everyone here is as obsessed with Cravath as you are apparently

Edit: Also, your comment is the exact thing that I’ve found to be of no help whatsoever. I’d like to hear more concrete reasons rather than the usual “Cravath lol”

The reason this poster (and many others) didn't take this thread seriously is because Latham is not a peer to Cravath. If you were choosing between Cravath, on the one hand, and S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/Skadden, on the other hand, no one would think you were crazy for choosing a firm from the latter group, even if Cravath is ever so slightly more prestigious. Fit would absolutely outweigh whatever tiny distinction there is in prestige between Cravath and one of those firms.

Latham, however, is not in the same category as S&C/DPW/STB/Cleary/Skadden. We generally assume that if you can obtain an offer from CSM that you should also have an offer (or multiple offers) from those other firms, and if you don't that you would simply take Cravath. Assuming this is indeed not a flame and you're considering Latham due to practice offerings, to what degree do you have experience in those expressed practice areas? Many, many, many people go into firms thinking they want X practice group and either hate it or end up liking something else much more. Deciding on Latham over Cravath based on a mere hunch that you might like a practice group may end up being a mistake.

At the end of the day, you certainly aren't dooming your career by choosing Latham. It's a very good firm and you can absolutely procure eccellent exit options there. But it's just not in the same league as the above-mentioned firms in NYC.

Cleary and skadden are not peers with the rest of that list.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

So ultimately I decided to accept my offer at Latham. I know some people on TLS may think that outcome is ridiculous over Cravath but right now I'm quite happy with my decision. I had no desire to go to Cravath other than seeking prestige and I know that I just would not have felt comfortable in that environment. The more I thought about it, I realized I would be going into the firm with an eye on the door, unlike how I feel with the decision to go to Latham. I don't think that's the right mentality to go into a firm with, so I know it would have negatively affected me at least mentally.

While people think that Latham is not a peer to some of the traditional top firms listed above, I had many associates (and former ones) at STB/DPW/Skadden say that Latham was a peer and that I should choose based on personality and fit among those. Maybe they're wrong and the wisdom of TLS reigns, but I did have offers at many of the firms listed above and felt that Latham would be the best choice for me ultimately.

Maybe someday I can come back and report on how I feel about the decision haha. Thanks for all the input!

FWIW you're not alone - I turned down STB and Skadden to go to Latham. Just seemed like a better fit for me. TLS can complain all they want but your career is up to you.

[Anonymous User]

Wow. Latham seems to have a vigorous marketing/recruiting team. Cringy tbh.

[thesilentzone]

So ultimately I decided to accept my offer at Latham. I know some people on TLS may think that outcome is ridiculous over Cravath but right now I'm quite happy with my decision. I had no desire to go to Cravath other than seeking prestige and I know that I just would not have felt comfortable in that environment. The more I thought about it, I realized I would be going into the firm with an eye on the door, unlike how I feel with the decision to go to Latham. I don't think that's the right mentality to go into a firm with, so I know it would have negatively affected me at least mentally.

While people think that Latham is not a peer to some of the traditional top firms listed above, I had many associates (and former ones) at STB/DPW/Skadden say that Latham was a peer and that I should choose based on personality and fit among those. Maybe they're wrong and the wisdom of TLS reigns, but I did have offers at many of the firms listed above and felt that Latham would be the best choice for me ultimately.

Maybe someday I can come back and report on how I feel about the decision haha. Thanks for all the input!

FWIW you're not alone - I turned down STB and Skadden to go to Latham. Just seemed like a better fit for me. TLS can complain all they want but your career is up to you.

I chose Latham over STB and Skadden as well. I plan to stay at least 5 years at the first firm so it didn't seem like a silly decision to pick a place that I would feel more comfortable at. See you next summer!

[Anonymous User]

Wow. Latham seems to have a vigorous marketing/recruiting team. Cringy tbh.

Was thinking the same thing.

Congrats to the future Latham summers who anonymously claim to have chosen Latham over superior firms. You will be surrounded by summers who would have killed for offers at the aforementioned firms and would switch at the drop of a hat if given the choice.

FWIW, I work at one of the firms mentioned above, and if I ever suggested to other associates at my firm that Latham was a peer, I'd be laughed out of the room.

[thesilentzone]

Wow. Latham seems to have a vigorous marketing/recruiting team. Cringy tbh.

Was thinking the same thing.

Congrats to the future Latham summers who anonymously claim to have chosen Latham over superior firms. You will be surrounded by summers who would have killed for offers at the aforementioned firms and would switch at the drop of a hat if given the choice.

FWIW, I work at one of the firms mentioned above, and if I ever suggested to other associates at my firm that Latham was a peer, I'd be laughed out of the room.

This is the trade off: We may not get to brag about being at a more prestigious firm like you, but we get to work with people we like. Congrats on your success.

[Anonymous User]

The contrivances and opinions in this thread make up some of the body representing why people dislike law students/lawyers. But I'll admit it's entertaining to discuss!

[lavarman84]

Latham sells itself well when you interview with them. It definitely presents itself as a social firm (and I'm sure lives up to it for those who want that lifestyle). While I know it's too late, I caution you against assuming that interviewers are indicative of the people you will ultimately work with at the firm.