S&S vs. Fried Frank vs. Ropes & Gray vs. Dechert (NY) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Wondering which firm is better in New York: for (1) big-ticket M&A (2) prestige (I know its arbitrary) and (3) exit opportunities esp into IB and management consulting; (4) culture (again, very arbitrary). Mostly concerned about (1) - (3).

Thanks!

OP Edit: including Dechert in NY

[Anonymous User]

Ropes has great PE M&A clients. Fried frank has great RE and RE PE clients, and also has a pretty solid M&A track record. Idk much about what shearman does these days. None of these firms provide a meaningful chance of exiting into IB or Consulting. Those exits do occur, albeit rarely, from law firms, but when pulled off they’re more a function of outside qualifications/experience, preparation, and networking. I don’t see any reason one of these firms would offer a better chance at making that move than another on this list. In terms of prestige, I don’t think the difference in NY is meaningful.

[Anonymous User]

My understanding from the prestige perspective (in terms of traditional old Wall St elite) is S&S > FF > R&G. But I wouldn't take 'prestige' seriously, even Vault100 has R&G way ahead of FF and S&S.

[Wild Card]

https://data.bloomberglp.com/profession ... Y-2017.pdf

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/128 ... torial/5/1

Shearman is better than Fried Frank, and both are considerably better than Ropes, for M&A.

[Anonymous User]

https://data.bloomberglp.com/profession ... Y-2017.pdf

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/128 ... torial/5/1

Shearman is better than Fried Frank, and both are considerably better than Ropes, for M&A.

The second link above lists both Fried Frank and Shearman as both Band 4. How is it better unless you are relying solely on deal value rankings?

[Anonymous User]

https://data.bloomberglp.com/profession ... Y-2017.pdf

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/128 ... torial/5/1

Shearman is better than Fried Frank, and both are considerably better than Ropes, for M&A.

The second link above lists both Fried Frank and Shearman as both Band 4. How is it better unless you are relying solely on deal value rankings?

I think this year is the first year in which FF and Shearman are in the same band for M&A. FF used to be one or two bands lower. PW, Latham and Shearman had been in the same band for some years until two years ago.

For M&A, SS and FF are clearly more recognized than the other two.

[Wild Card]

https://data.bloomberglp.com/profession ... Y-2017.pdf

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/128 ... torial/5/1

Shearman is better than Fried Frank, and both are considerably better than Ropes, for M&A.

The second link above lists both Fried Frank and Shearman as both Band 4. How is it better unless you are relying solely on deal value rankings?

I don't understand what you want to say. Why are you posting anonymously?

[Anonymous User]

I would go to FF on culture alone. But Shearman is a firm on the decline. FF has been rising fast lately.Both FF and Shearman are far superior to Ropes in NY

[Anonymous User]

I would go to FF on culture alone. But Shearman is a firm on the decline. FF has been rising fast lately. Both FF and Shearman are far superior to Ropes in NY

OP here: could you elaborate on FF's culture? Could you also elaborate on Shearman's decline? Another user mentioned above that it use to have higher rankings in M&A but now Band 4 in Chambers. Any other indicators? Key partners leaving, lost mandates and clients going to other firms? Thanks man!

[Anonymous User]

I would go to FF on culture alone. But Shearman is a firm on the decline. FF has been rising fast lately. Both FF and Shearman are far superior to Ropes in NY

OP here: could you elaborate on FF's culture? Could you also elaborate on Shearman's decline? Another user mentioned above that it use to have higher rankings in M&A but now Band 4 in Chambers. Any other indicators? Key partners leaving, lost mandates and clients going to other firms? Thanks man!

Things changed for Shearman over the years. Their M&A practice was in Band 2 in 2011.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8&start=25

[Anonymous User]

Deleted

[Anonymous User]

I would go to FF on culture alone. But Shearman is a firm on the decline. FF has been rising fast lately. Both FF and Shearman are far superior to Ropes in NY

OP here: could you elaborate on FF's culture? Could you also elaborate on Shearman's decline? Another user mentioned above that it use to have higher rankings in M&A but now Band 4 in Chambers. Any other indicators? Key partners leaving, lost mandates and clients going to other firms? Thanks man!

Things changed for Shearman over the years. Their M&A practice was in Band 2 in 2011.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8&start=25

This pretty much. But Chambers lags a little bit behind what reality is. In the 90s Shearman was an amazing firm. Then in the 2000s Shearman made a lot of bad business decisions and began to see some of their big name partners leave. In the last few years Shearman has demoted partners to non-equity status to artificially increase their PPP. If I'm not mistaken, Shearman's overall attorney headcount also isn't nearly as large as it used to be. Time will tell if Shearman can recover but they will likely never regain the prestige they once had.

FF is just supposed to be a great place to work. People seem to enjoy themselves there (as much as possible in biglaw at least). Culture is obviously all specific to different groups and partners, but FF has the reputation of being a better place to work.

[Anonymous User]

I would go to FF on culture alone. But Shearman is a firm on the decline. FF has been rising fast lately. Both FF and Shearman are far superior to Ropes in NY

OP here: could you elaborate on FF's culture? Could you also elaborate on Shearman's decline? Another user mentioned above that it use to have higher rankings in M&A but now Band 4 in Chambers. Any other indicators? Key partners leaving, lost mandates and clients going to other firms? Thanks man!

Things changed for Shearman over the years. Their M&A practice was in Band 2 in 2011.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8&start=25

This pretty much. But Chambers lags a little bit behind what reality is. In the 90s Shearman was an amazing firm. Then in the 2000s Shearman made a lot of bad business decisions and began to see some of their big name partners leave. In the last few years Shearman has demoted partners to non-equity status to artificially increase their PPP. If I'm not mistaken, Shearman's overall attorney headcount also isn't nearly as large as it used to be. Time will tell if Shearman can recover but they will likely never regain the prestige they once had.

FF is just supposed to be a great place to work. People seem to enjoy themselves there (as much as possible in biglaw at least). Culture is obviously all specific to different groups and partners, but FF has the reputation of being a better place to work.

I read somewhere that Shearman's decline started from the burst of the dotcom bubble. It used to be as prestigious as firms like STB/DPW/Cleary until early 2000s.

The demotion of certain partners to non-equity status happened in late 2016. There were some articles about that in late 2016.

The headcount actually has been increasing over the last few years. https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?i ... erling-LLP

[Anonymous User]

Both FF and S+S are in the same general prestige tier in NYC. I'd say Shearman has a slight edge in M+A. From what I understand about firm finances/health whatever problems Shearman had they've stabilized. But I don't think the prestige or exit ops difference between Shearman and FF is worth picking Shearman if you like FF better.

Exit ops to IB or management consulting should not even be a consideration at this point. If that is what you want you should not be trying to get an associate job at a law firm.