Cravath ECB (NY) vs. WSGR Tax (SV) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Grateful to have received offers from both. I'm interested in hearing how others would analyze this decision, as I am struggling. I'll leave out the personal factors of my calculus, unless specifically asked. Thank you in advance!

[20181989]

Isn't this primarily a CA v. NY discussion?

[2013]

You can go from Tax to Exec Comp. It’ll be much harder to go from Exec Comp to Tax, even if it’s Cravath.

Going to SV to NY isn’t going to be hard. Also, if you want to be in NY, why not reach out to other firms’ tax groups? If you can get Cravath Exec Comp, I’m sure you could snag a V10 tax position.

[legalpotato]

WSGR tax and it’s not even close. ECB is too niche and your exits are basically just smaller firm ECB.

[ghostoftraynor]

I'd check with some associates at Cravath. If Cravath's ECB group is in the rotation system, not sure the ECB/tax distinction is terribly relevant, but don't know that level of nuance on how it works there.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath's ECB department is standalone; it does not have official rotations with other departments. I'm not sure how common switching practice groups at Cravath is, but I bet it is low.

[Anonymous User]

i made a similar choice last year—Cravath ECB v general tax elsewhere. I chose the general tax position and so far, I’m happy. I didn’t have a WSGR offer though—and I’ve heard the culture there is a little rough. If you liked the people and know you want to do tax, take the offer. You must be a pretty decent candidate, however, so you can probably land a tax job at another similarly ranked firm that’s got a more relaxed culture. It’s also true that you need to give the NYC v SV decision some thought.

[Anonymous User]

I was offered the Cravath ECB position a couple months ago, and I turned it down for another ECB position at the #1 firm in my market (DC/Chi/LA). I have no regrets. I would have probably accepted any top 3 firm offers in my market in ECB. Cravath is a great name, but if you're dead set on staying in your market then I just don't think it's worth it (unless your market is NYC of course and, still, there are other defensible options there).

Even if you aren't dead set on youor market, I know COL in SV is bad, but at least you get nice weather.

Market preference aside, I turned down Cravath because I'd essentially only get to do ECB work on public M&A. That's cool and Cravath has sexy clients, but so do a lot of the other top firms. Except, at the other top firms, depending on where you land, you have the chance of getting ECB private M&A, PE, and BK. While a lot of the work is the same, it's not unusual for partners to be brought in at certain shops that do ECB on almost exclusively that type of deal. So, if you're trying to stay in this for the long haul, that could be somewhat limiting.

Cravath also just isn't particularly well known for great ECB work. Most of the firms prestige comes from M&A >> Lit >>> Tax these days. The ECB and T&E groups are there for historic purposes/necessity.

Finally, I'm someone who has a background in ECB, so I knew that's what I wanted to do. If you're someone interested in general tax, I'd never take an ECB position if I had a tax offer from a good firm like WSGR. They have some overlap in skills, but your day to day will be wildly different in terms of pace (ECB groups are frequently some of the highest billing groups) and substantive work (ECB also has to deal with securities and corporate governance issues that tax doesn't touch). Tax lifestyle is way better (generally), and it is substantively much more focused on a particular type of work.

Generally, ECB also has a TERRIBLE in-house market, unlike tax. At the top level of ECB, you're doing very niche things (i.e. exclusively executive comp work, no benefits) that companies need very rarely. Most in-house needs in the ECB world are with benefits work. While benefits is in the title of the group, at massive M&A firms, there is next to zero benefits work done. It's too low margin and is dominated by lower V100 firms and a few V50s. You would get zero experience in the sort of benefits work that in-house jobs actually hire for. A tax attorney can cover a much broader array of in house needs, because the tax law that governs corporations is just a million times larger and more prevalent on a daily basis than the ECB work you'd get at Cravath.

Oh, also, their elevators were ass, and I wasn't going to wait until they moved into HY in like 4 years to make the switch.

The practice group head tried to sell me on the fact that there is room for another partner based on group leverage, but you can't count on that eight years down the line. Probably half the current associates want to make partner. It's much more likely that you end up pushed out or as a "senior attorney" or whatever they call it, which is essentially a counsel position. Because the firm has lockstep partner compensation and specialists aren't really rainmakers with independent business, there is a larger incentive to not make more partners in ECB than in other groups. You're much more likely to make partner at an eat what you kill firm, because they have non-equity tiers AND the cost of having you as an equity partner is far lower.

Happy to chat more about it.

[Anonymous User]

I was offered the Cravath ECB position a couple months ago . . . .

Congratulations to you both. Lateral opening? How much experience were they looking for?

[Anonymous User]

The poster above (with the long post) is right re: exit options. I work in a general benefits firm and I have a friend who works at Kirkland/Skadden/Latham (huge deal firm with a larger exec comp practice).

Those associates are just M&A associates that work on severance, consulting, change in control, etc. My friend does almost no ERISA work, which is the “highly sought after” experience many many in-house positions are looking for.

My firm was hiring another benefits attorney but it was difficult to find one because the partners don’t even consider ECB attorneys from most V50 firms because “they’re not real employee benefits and executive compensation associates.” So, even lateraling into a general benefits practice is going to be difficult with your experience from an ECB practice at a large transactional firm.

Lastly, like corporate/M&A, these practices are generally highly-leveraged (5 associates to 1 partner probably), so that’s something to consider.

If you like ECB, then I’d definitely say Cravath. But I’d suggest lateraling to a firm like Morgan Lewis or McDermott after a couple years in order to learn more ERISA/traditional benefits.

[Anonymous User]

i made a similar choice last year—Cravath ECB v general tax elsewhere. I chose the general tax position and so far, I’m happy. I didn’t have a WSGR offer though—and I’ve heard the culture there is a little rough. If you liked the people and know you want to do tax, take the offer. You must be a pretty decent candidate, however, so you can probably land a tax job at another similarly ranked firm that’s got a more relaxed culture. It’s also true that you need to give the NYC v SV decision some thought.

past summer at wsgr so I guess maybe take this with a grain of salt, but I'd push back really hard on the culture point. Idk where this reputation came from really, but I sat with tax and they're all quite nice, pretty chill, and don't seem like they're having a bad time. I think you might be hard pressed to find a more relaxed place than WSGR that still pays market

[Anonymous User]

I was offered the Cravath ECB position a couple months ago . . . .

Congratulations to you both. Lateral opening? How much experience were they looking for?

Person who wrote the long post here. No, it was for a 1st year associate opening. While Cravath will hire laterals in ECB, it generally avoids doing so, as the firm is hostile to lateral hiring more generally. I can't speak to what experience they're looking for, but I'd guess (1) ECB experience elsewhere, (2) tax, or (3) another corporate specialty followed by a tax LLM to indicate a transition.

[RedGiant]

I'm probably one of the only people on these boards who has worked at both firms, in the locations noted (but corporate in both instances).

I promise you, that if you want to work in ECB in SV after doing tax at WSGR, you will be able to do so. WSGR's culture is certainly not rougher than CS&M's. Exit opportunities in the Valley (and the opportunity to retool to ECB) are legion in the Valley. Move to CA, do not look back. The special magic dust of CSM does not apply to their specialist groups. WSGR's tax group works closely with ECB--a lot of ECB issues are tax issues.

Funny, in all the years I worked at CSM, the only notable thing about the elevators was the furiousness with which people awkwardly focused on their phones instead of making small talk!

Godspeed. Head West, young lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - WSGR tax it is. Thank you!!