Cravath vs Paul Weiss vs DPW vs KE (Lit) Forum

[Anonymous User]

i have offers at these firms in NY. Want to do litigation, looking for government exit opportunities. Not really all that interested in securities work, looking for some exposure to WCC/investigations but not exclusive. Have not gotten a great sense of fitting better with one or the other. Are any of these places notably worse or better in terms of hours as a litigator?

[Anonymous User]

I have some experience with two of these firms and friends at both of the others. (I'm not myself at any of them anymore, FWIW.) I recommend Cravath if you're comfortable with a much more rigid structure and hierarchy, less control over types of matters you're staffed on, and hours that are a little longer (for the same pay, of course). It's great training, and the Cravath name is shinier than all of these others, but you need to drink the Kool-Aid to do well there -- Cravath people take Cravath very seriously. Their rotation system just doesn't give you much breathing room.

DPW is a tiny step down in terms of prestige, but better QoL: a little more flexibility in your work, the people are genuinely more pleasant, and the exit ops are nearly as good. Their litigation practice is broad and deep, they do cutting-edge work, have a revolving door with high-end gov work, and a global presence. Firm culture/atmosphere also just counts for quite a lot when you're spending so much time in the office, and DPW is really good on that front. All things considered, I recommend DPW overall.

PW and KE are both a step below along multiple dimensions when it comes to lit. I'd recommend against both if only because you have Cravath and DPW as options.

[aliciacflorrick]

I’m very confused why you’ve lumped PW & KE together for lit. It’s common knowledge in the legal community that PW’s lit prestige/work is a bit better than what’s offered at KE’s NY office. Even a superficial look at Chambers will tell you that much.

I honestly would just make a fit-based decision between CSM/DPW/PW. I don’t think there’s a significant drop in lit prestige between them at all.

But if you’re very sold on white collar and an exit into government work, PW is the place to be.

Don’t decide between them based off anecdotal info about hours on here. You’re going to work very hard at any of them and the difference in hours will be negligible.

[Anonymous User]

2nd year at PW now and from what I've heard Cravath has lost its prestige edge, so you can take that point out, not sure if others agree.

[Anonymous User]

Former associate at one of these firms but wanted to weigh in candidly.

I don't think Cravath's prestige is meaningfully different from DPW/PW. That said, I don't think its prestige is any less than it has been either (i.e., it hasn't "lost its edge").

Cravath consistently does some insane bet-the-company litigation (e.g., the Qualcomm litigation, PG&E, others). Do I think those cases are great to work on? Not really. Will you get good training there? Absolutely, you're tied pretty closely to some pretty smart people as part of the rotation system, and you'll have to work with them frequently (no hiding when you're assigned to someone, right?). Will you have any agency over the cases you get, or even the broad types of cases? Absolutely none (and while there's a touch of white-collar work there, it's really pretty minimal to my knowledge, so don't necessarily count on it).

Like the other person said, if you're really curious about white collar work, look at DPW/PW. Both are going to have more former AUSAs and such and just have more of that work in general.

Fit is important.

[Anonymous User]

Spent 4 years at CSM: PW probably on par with CSM but DPW a slight notch below in terms of litigation. Others will concur on that.

[Anonymous User]

Spent 4 years at CSM: PW probably on par with CSM but DPW a slight notch below in terms of litigation. Others will concur on that.

Can't weigh in on relative strength between CSM and PW but am a former DPW associate. I wasn't litigation but it was pretty obvious that the lit associates didn't have much to do (at least in terms of the experience that aspiring litigators would want). Corporate folks would openly joke about how they were keeping litigation afloat and that litigation floors were busy if people left at 6:30 instead of 5. A friend tried switching into litigation from corporate and a partner told him that it wasn't possible because the associate ranks were already bloated, partly because natural attrition had slowed down.

There was a subset of associates who were "in" and got staffed on the good cases and everyone else would load up on pro bono while they waited to leave for a clerkship or a smaller firm/boutique, which many of my peers did once they cleared the first two years. Think you're better off going somewhere else if you actually want substantive experience as a junior/midlevel.

[Wild Card]

Spent 4 years at CSM: PW probably on par with CSM but DPW a slight notch below in terms of litigation. Others will concur on that.

Can't weigh in on relative strength between CSM and PW but am a former DPW associate. I wasn't litigation but it was pretty obvious that the lit associates didn't have much to do (at least in terms of the experience that aspiring litigators would want). Corporate folks would openly joke about how they were keeping litigation afloat and that litigation floors were busy if people left at 6:30 instead of 5. A friend tried switching into litigation from corporate and a partner told him that it wasn't possible because the associate ranks were already bloated, partly because natural attrition had slowed down.

There was a subset of associates who were "in" and got staffed on the good cases and everyone else would load up on pro bono while they waited to leave for a clerkship or a smaller firm/boutique, which many of my peers did once they cleared the first two years. Think you're better off going somewhere else if you actually want substantive experience as a junior/midlevel.

This is my dream.

[Anonymous User]

Spent 4 years at CSM: PW probably on par with CSM but DPW a slight notch below in terms of litigation. Others will concur on that.

Can't weigh in on relative strength between CSM and PW but am a former DPW associate. I wasn't litigation but it was pretty obvious that the lit associates didn't have much to do (at least in terms of the experience that aspiring litigators would want). Corporate folks would openly joke about how they were keeping litigation afloat and that litigation floors were busy if people left at 6:30 instead of 5. A friend tried switching into litigation from corporate and a partner told him that it wasn't possible because the associate ranks were already bloated, partly because natural attrition had slowed down.

There was a subset of associates who were "in" and got staffed on the good cases and everyone else would load up on pro bono while they waited to leave for a clerkship or a smaller firm/boutique, which many of my peers did once they cleared the first two years. Think you're better off going somewhere else if you actually want substantive experience as a junior/midlevel.

Former DPW associate here. My guess is that OP was at DPW around the time that litigation departments industry wide experienced serious slowdown. It's my understanding the slowdown was primarily due to a decline in government enforcement actions that occurred as the Trump administration was transitioning in.

DPW was likely hit particularly hard during this period for a couple of reasons. For one, its practice was heavily focused on white collar work. It also lost several of its most prominent partners during the transition (one joined the state department and another, since returned to the firm, joined the Mueller investigation). I would imagine that - if they're hiring new litigation associates - those challenges have now been addressed. I also think OP and his corporate friends might have misunderstood the face time requirements for the litigation groups. In my experience, almost all lit partners and senior associates left the office at COB and continued to work from home. With circumstances specific-exceptions, people who preferred to work in the office were the only ones to regularly stay there after hours, even when matters were busy.