Cravath vs Watchell Forum

[Anonymous User]

If someone is lucky enough to get offers from both which one should he/she choose?

I have heard that CSM is a bit more prestigious now days (higher ranking on vault, similar compensation but less work, etc). Most of my colleagues are telling me to choose CSM. Which one would you recommend? Do you think CSM is more prestigious?

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell's comp is much, much higher - "I'm 100% positive it's been 100% every year for at least the last four years, at all levels." - google that and see the quote from another thread talking about bonuses.

Wachtell has much better partner to associate ratio (look up the most recently published numbers). This ups the odds of getting interesting work and gives you more partner face time to learn, as well as increases your chance of making partner.

Look at the associate profiles of both and talk to people who had the choice. People are generally choosing WLRK.

[2013]

Wachtell is still ranked first in Vault NY, I think.

[PMan99]

There is no reason to pick Cravath, Wachtell wins hands down. The compensation at Wachtell is much better.

If you want better work/life balance, the choice shouldn't be Wachtell vs Cravath but Wachtell vs [any 3rd firm known for better balance than Cravath].

[Anonymous User]

I thought Watchtell comp was significantly higher -- which is why when I see Cravath higher in vault, I don't think they are a better firm, but that this is evidence of how terrible vault is as a ranking system.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK. The compensation and the hours are in line with the "rumors" out there. You are going to work your ass off at Cravath but you should try and see if you can handle the Wachtell hours because of the $$$. Normally the calculation is whether you want to work alot more (or, more pessimistically stated, if you are OK with the 100% guarantee of working of almost every waking hour almost every day) for ALOT more money, but CSM is supposedly a sweat shop even by NY standards which leads me to suggest trying wachtell. Plus, it's supposedly amazing experience if you want to do corp.

If you are set on lit I'd probably try to get a job at one of the above market boutiques since you'll get better experience there from what I can tell (and according to a WLRK insider I spoke to).

Lastly, the only people who don't see WLRK as "prestigious" are probably octogenerian anti-semites who are now retired partners at the WASPy old-school white-shoe firms.

[Sackboy]

As a corporate person, the only firm I'd leave my current firm for is Wachtell. I had an offer to start my career at Cravath and declined. IMO, Cravath's prestige is largely illusory and a phenomenon caused by law school students who are unaware of the actual market and older partners who haven't caught up with the times. I don't know too much about litigation, so the below is just re: transactional.

Unless you have a stick up your ass, Cravath isn't really any different than Skadden, DPW, Latham, Kirkland, STB, etc. any more, and I don't know why anyone would consider Cravath any more prestigious beyond the gimmicky "only Cravath associates make partner" (see below about senior attorneys/practice area attorneys being indefinite counsel hell). Once you land in the V10, if you're doing public M&A, you're doing massive industry-changing deals. At all of these firms, you're still billing by the hour, working absurd hours, and making roughly the same compensation. Cravath's PEP is 8th these days. Clearly not the uncontested top dog. Wachtell is 1st.

When I was in law school and presently, Cravath's callback GPAs were and are the same as the group of firms I listed above at my T14. They're kids who did really well during 1L but had a mixed A/A- average. Wachtell's callback GPA is a mixed A/A+ average, which is significantly harder to achieve. Wachtell didn't even show up for OCI. They weren't going to interview some 3.6 GPA that Cravath might give a callback. They just told career services to send them the creme of the crop.

As another user has noted, Wachtell's compensation blows all of the other V10 firms out of the water. Your all-in compensation is likely to be 2x your base salary. That's $390,000 - $700,000 from years 1-8.

At Wachtell, you're working on the same mega deals, except you're not billing by the hour. You just go in and grind endlessly. The hours are, from all accounts, more brutal, but at least you aren't keeping track of it. That's another tier of elite when the clients want your services so badly that they'll give you a % of the transaction.

With the partner-associate ratio, you're also given incredible responsibility, much more than you'd get at a place like Cravath or the other V10 who often keep 6-7 associates per equity partner compared to Wachtell's 1-2.

Wachtell has two major downsides that aren't as present at Cravath. (1) Wachtell is truly up or out. Cravath keeps all of these "Senior Attorneys" and "Practice Area Attorneys" on staff who are all basically associates who won't make partner. They're the equivalent of "Counsel" at many firms, though I know some of special part-time/work from home type arrangements that aren't necessarily typical of "Counsel." I'm sure Cravath dangles the "you might make partner" carrot like many of the V10. Wachtell just tells you if you've made it or not at year 8 and whether you should pack your bags. Personally, I prefer the certainty, even if it's not the answer I want. (2) Wachtell is the closest equivalent to a law firm cult. From what I've seen from some of my Wachtell counterparts, the law is their life, even more so than you'd expect from a V10 equity partner.

Pick Cravath if you want prestige, the typical V10 experience, and then some cushy exit.

Pick Wachtell if you're soulless and want to grind away 3,000hrs/yr. for the rest of your life for that $6M/yr. PEP or you can justify the 3,000hrs/yr. in the short-term to walk away with some big bags of cash before your cushy exit.

[Anonymous User]

For corp, there is no question WLRK is better. Would you rather work 3000 hours per year for 2X or 2500 hours for the same pay as your friends at "lesser" firms.

Now, for lit, there are other options than WLRK - not Cravath (see MTO, Susman, W&C, Kellogg, Wilkinson, - all of which pay less than WLRK, even Susman) - but have more lit/more varied lit/more appellate lit.

[Joachim2017]

I'd be curious to know if anyone ever actually turns down WLRK if they have the offer. I can see that happening MAYBE if you're absolutely set on litigation and have an offer from a place like Susman or Kellogg Hansen. But other than that...it's really a no-brainer, right? (I can't imagine that getting to go home at 10pm instead of 1130pm > the difference in comp that that represents, especially short-term.)

[Buglaw]

Definitely Wachtell. In addition to the rationales offered above, I recently interviewed a Wachtell lateral who was pretty senior. He ended up going in house, at a huge name company in a role that was, at least in my view, about as good as the role I saw a partner from my old V5 go in house for. The Wachtell person was an associate. To me, Wachtell is like Yale, you should say yes and pretty much everyone should say yes absent compelling reasons.
You can always find a different job if you don't like it .

Don't do their bankruptcy/finance/whatever else they throw in to that group. I have been across from them several times, and at least in my experience, they just aren't as good as the powerhouses in the finance or bankruptcy space. I think its because their associates do finance and bankruptcy and, I think, some other stuff, ibstead of just focusing on one practice area. Also exits suck from those types of groups.

[Anonymous User]

I can take a crack from the litigation perspective. Like others said, Cravath’s prestige is also illusory on this end and really carried on only by boomer partners who don’t keep up with the market. Cravath no longer gets much referral work from marquee clients like before (for whatever reason), but instead has to compete for the same set of businesses like any other V10-20. Associate experience is not much different than other big law firms too because of the nature of the work — large staffing, smaller cases, etc. As someone else mentioned, Cravath also slowly got rid of all-equity partner model, retaining many senior associates in some counsel-esque position for years on end. Their compensation appears off track and unknown. If you have a Wachtell offer, absolutely take Wachtell. There are also other shops in New York that offer better or similar experience in litigation — elite boutiques obviously, but also PW, S and C, Gibson, Covington , Kirkland, etc.

[anonbanker]

what is this silly flame thread

[Sackboy]

what is this silly flame thread

It's not really a silly flame thread when everything that has been said so far is true. Here is a short list of what I've seen stated and find to be pretty accurate:

Despite Vault's general ranking, WLRK is more prestigious/impressive than Cravath.
WLRK is the public M&A king.
Cravath now has many peers in the public M&A space.
Cravath also has largely abandoned "up or out" and looks much more similar to a typical V10.
WLRK has far better partner:associate ratios.
There are many big firms and litigation boutiques that rival or surpass WLRK/Cravath in litigation strength.
WLRK will work you harder.
WLRK will pay you substantially better.
WLRK BK/Finance isn't quite on the same level as places like Kirkland/Weil.

Re: poster wondering about who turns down Wachtell. The only person I know personally who has done so had SCOTUS-level credentials and pursued a Kellogg-type firm instead. I think it made sense for my friend, because my friend had no interest in living in NY after giving it a try.

Also, this is a bit of flame, but Cravath celebrated their bicentennial last year (or maybe it was this year? 2020 has been long), and their promo materials were hilarious. It starts with them arguing groundbreaking cases in front of the Supreme Court that I remember reading in law school. As their timeline progresses, everything remotely interesting disappears, and it becomes represented [insert large corporation] in [insert commercial suit] for [insert large monetary value]. I don't even think they are in the top 10 firms arguing in front of the Supreme Court by volume anymore.

[esther0123]

what is this silly flame thread

It's not really a silly flame thread when everything that has been said so far is true. Here is a short list of what I've seen stated and find to be pretty accurate:

Despite Vault's general ranking, WLRK is more prestigious/impressive than Cravath.
WLRK is the public M&A king.
Cravath now has many peers in the public M&A space.
Cravath also has largely abandoned "up or out" and looks much more similar to a typical V10.
WLRK has far better partner:associate ratios.
There are many big firms and litigation boutiques that rival or surpass WLRK/Cravath in litigation strength.
WLRK will work you harder.
WLRK will pay you substantially better.
WLRK BK/Finance isn't quite on the same level as places like Kirkland/Weil.

Re: poster wondering about who turns down Wachtell. The only person I know personally who has done so had SCOTUS-level credentials and pursued a Kellogg-type firm instead. I think it made sense for my friend, because my friend had no interest in living in NY after giving it a try.

Also, this is a bit of flame, but Cravath celebrated their bicentennial last year (or maybe it was this year? 2020 has been long), and their promo materials were hilarious. It starts with them arguing groundbreaking cases in front of the Supreme Court that I remember reading in law school. As their timeline progresses, everything remotely interesting disappears, and it becomes represented [insert large corporation] in [insert commercial suit] for [insert large monetary value]. I don't even think they are in the top 10 firms arguing in front of the Supreme Court by volume anymore.

Very true.

[Anonymous User]

[...]
WLRK has far better partner:associate ratios.
[...]

Higher partner/associate ratio, which is generally a positive but has its downsides as well, especially in the realm of work-life balance. It's no fun to be the only junior associate on a deal, or the only senior associate in your entire practice group.

[chingwoo]

I'd be curious to know if anyone ever actually turns down WLRK if they have the offer. I can see that happening MAYBE if you're absolutely set on litigation and have an offer from a place like Susman or Kellogg Hansen. But other than that...it's really a no-brainer, right? (I can't imagine that getting to go home at 10pm instead of 1130pm > the difference in comp that that represents, especially short-term.)

I've seen a few LinkedIn profiles of people who clearly had offers at WLRK corporate and turned them down for . . . UMM /MF PE roles.

On a side note I swear that TLS's new owners drop shill convos like this to increase "engagement".

[Anonymous User]

I'd be curious to know if anyone ever actually turns down WLRK if they have the offer. I can see that happening MAYBE if you're absolutely set on litigation and have an offer from a place like Susman or Kellogg Hansen. But other than that...it's really a no-brainer, right? (I can't imagine that getting to go home at 10pm instead of 1130pm > the difference in comp that that represents, especially short-term.)

I turned down WLRK.

[Anonymous User]

I'd be curious to know if anyone ever actually turns down WLRK if they have the offer. I can see that happening MAYBE if you're absolutely set on litigation and have an offer from a place like Susman or Kellogg Hansen. But other than that...it's really a no-brainer, right? (I can't imagine that getting to go home at 10pm instead of 1130pm > the difference in comp that that represents, especially short-term.)

I turned down WLRK.

If you are set on "corporate work in NY," WLRK should be an automatic yes. But speaking from experience, if you don't really want to work in NY, or really highly value work-life balance, or are at least somewhat indifferent to money, it may make sense to say no. But I know people who have turned down WLRK to do M&A or whatever at another V10, and that just seems like a mistake to me. Worst case you lateral to a V10 after a couple of years and still have Wachtell on your resume.

[Anonymous User]

I'd be curious to know if anyone ever actually turns down WLRK if they have the offer. I can see that happening MAYBE if you're absolutely set on litigation and have an offer from a place like Susman or Kellogg Hansen. But other than that...it's really a no-brainer, right? (I can't imagine that getting to go home at 10pm instead of 1130pm > the difference in comp that that represents, especially short-term.)

I turned down WLRK.

If you are set on "corporate work in NY," WLRK should be an automatic yes. But speaking from experience, if you don't really want to work in NY, or really highly value work-life balance, or are at least somewhat indifferent to money, it may make sense to say no. But I know people who have turned down WLRK to do M&A or whatever at another V10, and that just seems like a mistake to me. Worst case you lateral to a V10 after a couple of years and still have Wachtell on your resume.

I went to HLS during the early part of last decade and IIRC the WLRK acceptance rate was about ~50% 7-8 years ago, and was consistently at that rate the year or two before as well. So it isn't unheard of at all. There are always going to be people who go somewhere else for (1) location reasons, (2) lifestyle reasons (firm or more commonly government), (3) better practice at a different firm (usually lit at a top boutique) or (4) just really like somewhere else better. But overall, if the question is Wachtell vs NY office of large firm, the answer should always be Wachtell.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a V20 m&a midlevel, and Wachtell is the only firm I would turn back time to my law school days for. Regarding selectivity, the people that work there clearly were some of the brightest minds in their law school days. I just cannot say the same for other firms like Cravath. Many people with grades similar to mine (a bit above median) at HLS got offers from Cravath presumably because they were much better interviewers. However, only those that I knew had the absolute best grades in my class got offers from Wachtell. Of course, there are other things to think about. But in terms of prestige, Wachtell is much better than Cravath.

[Anonymous User]

I'd be curious to know if anyone ever actually turns down WLRK if they have the offer. I can see that happening MAYBE if you're absolutely set on litigation and have an offer from a place like Susman or Kellogg Hansen. But other than that...it's really a no-brainer, right? (I can't imagine that getting to go home at 10pm instead of 1130pm > the difference in comp that that represents, especially short-term.)

I turned down WLRK.

If you are set on "corporate work in NY," WLRK should be an automatic yes. But speaking from experience, if you don't really want to work in NY, or really highly value work-life balance, or are at least somewhat indifferent to money, it may make sense to say no. But I know people who have turned down WLRK to do M&A or whatever at another V10, and that just seems like a mistake to me. Worst case you lateral to a V10 after a couple of years and still have Wachtell on your resume.

I went to HLS during the early part of last decade and IIRC the WLRK acceptance rate was about ~50% 7-8 years ago, and was consistently at that rate the year or two before as well. So it isn't unheard of at all. There are always going to be people who go somewhere else for (1) location reasons, (2) lifestyle reasons (firm or more commonly government), (3) better practice at a different firm (usually lit at a top boutique) or (4) just really like somewhere else better. But overall, if the question is Wachtell vs NY office of large firm, the answer should always be Wachtell.

I also went to HLS in the early part of the last decade, and I know plenty of people who turned down Wachtell (for Munger, Williams & Connolly, Susman Godfrey, Ropes Boston, a couple other places as well). I know no one who turned it down for another NY firm to do transactional work.

[dabigchina]

On a side note I swear that TLS's new owners drop shill convos like this to increase "engagement".

I have the same impression. They also mine these threads as a crude form of market research to create content for their newsletter.

[Anonymous User]

I'd be curious to know if anyone ever actually turns down WLRK if they have the offer. I can see that happening MAYBE if you're absolutely set on litigation and have an offer from a place like Susman or Kellogg Hansen. But other than that...it's really a no-brainer, right? (I can't imagine that getting to go home at 10pm instead of 1130pm > the difference in comp that that represents, especially short-term.)

I turned down WLRK.

If you are set on "corporate work in NY," WLRK should be an automatic yes. But speaking from experience, if you don't really want to work in NY, or really highly value work-life balance, or are at least somewhat indifferent to money, it may make sense to say no. But I know people who have turned down WLRK to do M&A or whatever at another V10, and that just seems like a mistake to me. Worst case you lateral to a V10 after a couple of years and still have Wachtell on your resume.

I went to HLS during the early part of last decade and IIRC the WLRK acceptance rate was about ~50% 7-8 years ago, and was consistently at that rate the year or two before as well. So it isn't unheard of at all. There are always going to be people who go somewhere else for (1) location reasons, (2) lifestyle reasons (firm or more commonly government), (3) better practice at a different firm (usually lit at a top boutique) or (4) just really like somewhere else better. But overall, if the question is Wachtell vs NY office of large firm, the answer should always be Wachtell.

I also went to HLS in the early part of the last decade, and I know plenty of people who turned down Wachtell (for Munger, Williams & Connolly, Susman Godfrey, Ropes Boston, a couple other places as well). I know no one who turned it down for another NY firm to do transactional work.

think a lot of the opinions in this thread have been a bit too extreme.

it's been a while since I left law school, but I do know people who turned down wlrk over the years to do transactional work. Generally speaking I think you should go to wlrk if you have the offer, but I don't think it's as simple as saying "take that 100% bonus and don't look back"

there are folks who know exactly what they want to do, and if what they want to do is not m&a or does not fall into one of wlrk's other strengths/practices, then it makes sense for them to go to another firm. but yeah between csm and wlrk, wlrk any time of the day unless you like rotating for some reason lol.

[nealric]

I don't think very many people would pick Cravath over WLRK, and it would be unusual to get an WLRK offer but not a Cravath offer. As others have said, WLRK is in its own rarified tier. I've worked on deals with Cravath that were pretty humdrum day to day deals for a F500. I've never worked with WLRK likely because I've never worked on a deal of the size that is their stock and trade (i.e. household name public company merger type stuff).

But I can certainly see why someone would pick something else over the WLRK offer. It may pay well, but the hours you pull at any NYC v10 M&A basically mean those jobs become your entire life. There are plenty of people who are plenty smart and hardworking, but aren't ready to give up all non-work social interaction or personal pursuits. Others may be all-in on their career in a similar fashion, but would rather be a bookoo bucks trial lawyer, master of the universe financier, startup founder, high ranking government official, or SCOTUS advocate. Even if it's all about the money, the ceiling at a place like WLRK is nothing compared to some of those tracks.

[anonbanker]

what is this silly flame thread

It's not really a silly flame thread when everything that has been said so far is true. Here is a short list of what I've seen stated and find to be pretty accurate:

Despite Vault's general ranking, WLRK is more prestigious/impressive than Cravath.
WLRK is the public M&A king.
Cravath now has many peers in the public M&A space.
Cravath also has largely abandoned "up or out" and looks much more similar to a typical V10.
WLRK has far better partner:associate ratios.
There are many big firms and litigation boutiques that rival or surpass WLRK/Cravath in litigation strength.
WLRK will work you harder.
WLRK will pay you substantially better.
WLRK BK/Finance isn't quite on the same level as places like Kirkland/Weil.

Re: poster wondering about who turns down Wachtell. The only person I know personally who has done so had SCOTUS-level credentials and pursued a Kellogg-type firm instead. I think it made sense for my friend, because my friend had no interest in living in NY after giving it a try.

Also, this is a bit of flame, but Cravath celebrated their bicentennial last year (or maybe it was this year? 2020 has been long), and their promo materials were hilarious. It starts with them arguing groundbreaking cases in front of the Supreme Court that I remember reading in law school. As their timeline progresses, everything remotely interesting disappears, and it becomes represented [insert large corporation] in [insert commercial suit] for [insert large monetary value]. I don't even think they are in the top 10 firms arguing in front of the Supreme Court by volume anymore.

THE PARTNER IS DEAD, THE FIRM LIVES

THE PARTNER IS DEAD, THE FIRM LIVES