Wachtell vs. Williams & Connolly vs. Cravath for Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have offers at these 3 firms and I am struggling to make a decision. I am 100% interested in litigation, and I have no desire to sample corporate work. I want to do both a district court and an appellate clerkship. I want to keep the door open for government opps, especially AUSA, down the road. I have strong ties to both cities, but I slightly prefer New York. I am young and do not have a family/any dependents, so I am not too concerned about working long hours, though of course I do want to see the light of day every now and again. I felt that I clicked the most with the people at W&C. I have second looks planned for all 3 firms.

Any and all commentary is appreciated.

And no, I'm not trolling--just someone who is very confused and in need of advice.

[Anonymous User]

(This is from an uninformed person who got callbacks these firms and offers at none, so take this with a fistful of salt. Also anonymous for that reason.)

You should cross Cravath off your list. For litigation, there's no difference between Cravath and DPW or SullCrom or any other major NYC firm. I don't see any reason why you should keep them in contention.

As far as Wachtell v. W&C, I say pick the city you want to live in and go from there. The above-market pay at Wachtell is great, but W&C may be better for your preferences and goals. So, trust your gut!

[papercutter]

I would pick either W&C or Cravath, depending on which city you want to live in, what kind of practice you think is more interesting, and where you feel like there's a better fit. You can't go wrong: both firms have great lawyers, do interesting work, and will open the doors you want via their alumni networks and pedigree stamps. W&C has more white collar work (along with general commercial lit) and is almost a pure litigation shop; CSM has more securities/finance/M&A-related work (along with general lit) and does both lit and transactional. But they're both great places to start your career.

The only reason I'd put Wachtell in a different category is that they are and always will be principally an M&A/corporate firm that also does some litigation. They're in the top tier for lit work that relates to their core transactional law business but don't have the same kind of breadth as the other two firms.

[Elston Gunn]

Definitely cross off Cravath. W&C will probably be more humane hours-wise, will give you a bigger variety of types of work, and all things considered is probably ever so slightly the better credential. (That last point is debatable.) Wachtell will pay you a *lot* more, and I believe send tons of people to USAOs too. Their practice may focus heavily on stuff related to the corporate practice, but they have a top notch white collar practice too. I think the work skews heavily toward financial services though someone more knowledgeable should correct me.

I think between city, hours, money, and subject matter, you have enough info and need to make the choice yourself.

ETA: I don’t agree with the above poster re: Wachtell. They may have a reasonably narrow lit practice, but I’ve never heard anyone doubt they are elite at what they do.

[Anonymous User]

I would pick either W&C or Cravath, depending on which city you want to live in, what kind of practice you think is more interesting, and where you feel like there's a better fit. You can't go wrong: both firms have great lawyers, do interesting work, and will open the doors you want via their alumni networks and pedigree stamps. W&C has more white collar work (along with general commercial lit) and is almost a pure litigation shop; CSM has more securities/finance/M&A-related work (along with general lit) and does both lit and transactional. But they're both great places to start your career.

The only reason I'd put Wachtell in a different category is that they are and always will be principally an M&A/corporate firm that also does some litigation. They're in the top tier for lit work that relates to their core transactional law business but don't have the same kind of breadth as the other two firms.

I am a WLRK alum (so anon), and I can tell you this is a common, but inaccurate perception. Wachtell does much more than just merger lit or lit arising from their transactional practices. Wachtell has a great white collar practice and many lit associates have left to become AUSAs at SDNY, EDNY, EDVA, Main Justice, etc. At WLRK, you're also not (generally) pigeon-holed into one lit practice, so you'll end up working on securities lit, commercial lit, and derivative lit. Of course, their M&A practice is so dominant that superior lit work can go unrecognized, but the firm has almost as many litigators and corporate associates and partners.

A consideration if you're looking to go into government work is that none of the three are likely to rehire you after your stint in government as a partner or even counsel. These three firms basically hire from law school (each very rarely takes laterals) and promote from within that group. Leaving the nest for non-clerkship government is generally goodbye forever (with some exceptions).

As for what you should pick: Only you can decide, but based on your initial post, I think you should pick Williams and Connolly since you click with people the most there. It's plenty prestigious, provides good substantive work early, good partnership prospects, and has great exit options to government. Wachtell and CSM are great, but if you're going to spend a significant amount of your life with people, clicking with them is actually pretty important and signals a larger cultural fit.

Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

I have offers at these 3 firms and I am struggling to make a decision. I am 100% interested in litigation, and I have no desire to sample corporate work. I want to do both a district court and an appellate clerkship. I want to keep the door open for government opps, especially AUSA, down the road. I have strong ties to both cities, but I slightly prefer New York. I am young and do not have a family/any dependents, so I am not too concerned about working long hours, though of course I do want to see the light of day every now and again. I felt that I clicked the most with the people at W&C. I have second looks planned for all 3 firms.

Any and all commentary is appreciated.

And no, I'm not trolling--just someone who is very confused and in need of advice.

I went through a similar decision. If it's true that you're "100% interested in litigation" and "have no desire to sample corporate work," than I think W&C is the way to go here. Even in lit, at WLRK you're dealing with a lot of service work for corporate (the above poster who worked there is correct that it's not *all* lit stemming from their corporate M&A, but a lot of it is; I've been told firsthand by WLRK partners that their white-collar practice is just not as big, even though Savarese is a top guy in that area in NY.) And if you're lit 100%, W&C is just better substantive work earlier on than CSM. Go to W&C and don't look back.