Paul Weiss vs White & Case vs DPW - Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

Says it all in the title. All NYC. I haven't heard back from every firm yet, so I might not have weigh all these choices. I know I'm interested in lit for sure, so I'd love some feedback on which might be best.

[Anonymous User]

Your choice should be DPW or PW for literally anything over White & Case. I’d say those two firms are indistinguishable for lit in terms of prestige and work. PW is definitely more lit-focused and DPW is a bit better for corporate work.

Anon because I am at one of these firms.

[Anonymous User]

Your choice should be DPW or PW for literally anything over White & Case. I’d say those two firms are indistinguishable for lit in terms of prestige and work. PW is definitely more lit-focused and DPW is a bit better for corporate work.

Anon because I am at one of these firms.

I'm a former associate at Davis Polk. I can't speak to which of PW/DPW is better because I wasn't a litigator, but I can confirm that White & Case wouldn't even part of the conversation when discussing peer firms. Both are far more likely to set you up for long-term success and are on much sounder financial footing.

[moxcoal]

Agreed with all of the above. However, I will give White and Case some points for international arbitration. If between DPW and PW, go with your gut impression of the team/culture.

[Anonymous User]

I have a friend who used to be staff for White & Case NY litigation who strongly recommended not working for them. So just adding another reason to what everyone else has said. For generic lit I don't think W&C is a top tier firm in any market, including even Miami, and DPW and PW are great options.

[ChickenSalad]

Your choice should be DPW or PW for literally anything over White & Case. I’d say those two firms are indistinguishable for lit in terms of prestige and work. PW is definitely more lit-focused and DPW is a bit better for corporate work.

Anon because I am at one of these firms.

I'm a former associate at Davis Polk. I can't speak to which of PW/DPW is better because I wasn't a litigator, but I can confirm that White & Case wouldn't even part of the conversation when discussing peer firms. Both are far more likely to set you up for long-term success and are on much sounder financial footing.

What is this based on?

[Anonymous User]

Thank you all. I do think I've narrowed it down to PW vs DPW, and I'm now struggling with that. From what I understand PW is lit focused, but the lit dpt at DPW is quite strong anyway. It's a tough call.

[jackshunger]

Thank you all. I do think I've narrowed it down to PW vs DPW, and I'm now struggling with that. From what I understand PW is lit focused, but the lit dpt at DPW is quite strong anyway. It's a tough call.

Just ask for second looks at the firms

[Anonymous User]

Thank you all. I do think I've narrowed it down to PW vs DPW, and I'm now struggling with that. From what I understand PW is lit focused, but the lit dpt at DPW is quite strong anyway. It's a tough call.

2 points. First PW is no longer a lit focused firm. Corporate is larger than lit now, though lit is still a huge part of the firm of course. Second, DPW hires PW to defend it in litigation. That’s all you need to know. Choose PW unless there’s something about DPW that’s a special draw.

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 ... rformance/

[Anonymous User]

PW associate here. Unsure what anon above means when they say we're not a lit firm. PW takes lit seriously -- our chair is a litigator, we recently hired a bunch of litigators, etc. Commercial litigation is a profit center for us and a place where we seem to want to grow, which is not the case at peer shops outside CSM and S&C. (Agree that we are no longer a litigation shop that happens to do a tiny bit of corporate work, though.)

Re DPW: PW and DPW are peer white collar shops, and if that's your goal there's a case to be made for DPW. IMO PW > DPW for commercial litigation, it's more of a focus for us.

Also re DPW hiring PW 1.) nobody defends themselves, obviously and 2.) the chairs of the two firms are quite close. I wouldn't take that as a mark of our quality.

[Anonymous User]

Your choice should be DPW or PW for literally anything over White & Case. I’d say those two firms are indistinguishable for lit in terms of prestige and work. PW is definitely more lit-focused and DPW is a bit better for corporate work.

Anon because I am at one of these firms.

This was my post and I should clarify that I don’t consider PW weak in corporate work. All I meant was that, although they are much better regarded in corporate work today, that is only a recent development. They’re still not ranked as band 1/elite for NYC corporate work on Chambers, either.

[Anonymous User]

PW associate here. Unsure what anon above means when they say we're not a lit firm. PW takes lit seriously -- our chair is a litigator, we recently hired a bunch of litigators, etc. Commercial litigation is a profit center for us and a place where we seem to want to grow, which is not the case at peer shops outside CSM and S&C. (Agree that we are no longer a litigation shop that happens to do a tiny bit of corporate work, though.)

Re DPW: PW and DPW are peer white collar shops, and if that's your goal there's a case to be made for DPW. IMO PW > DPW for commercial litigation, it's more of a focus for us.

Also re DPW hiring PW 1.) nobody defends themselves, obviously and 2.) the chairs of the two firms are quite close. I wouldn't take that as a mark of our quality.

anon from above. your first point above isn't right. PW (almost?) always defends itself. it's a point Brad has made many times and is a point of pride for the firm - it doesn't think there's anyone better for litigation. That's all I meant. Maybe that's misguided, I don't know, probably.

PS - look at revenues and billable input of the transactional practice v. lit over the last 5 years. question isn't whether the litigation department is excellent, it was whether the firm is lit focused. Corporate is more profitable because of how fees are billed out. Hiring at the transactional partner level has been expansion focused for about the last 5-7+ years, versus (except for the recent ex-Boies hires, which were probably mostly a result of Boies falling apart matching in timing with PW's desire to open in CA) at the litigation partner level, replacing people that have left (especially trial partners to replace Beth, Roberta, etc. who started their own firms). Pretty clear that the focus has been on the transactional practices for awhile, while the lit practice, which isn't growing across biglaw in the aggregate of late, hasn't been.

[Anonymous User]

Re DPW: PW and DPW are peer white collar shops, and if that's your goal there's a case to be made for DPW. IMO PW > DPW for commercial litigation, it's more of a focus for us.

Could you make the case for DPW over PW or at least highlight the pros/cons of the two white collar shops? You say com lit is more of a focus, but just perusing PW's website, your white collar team is double the size of DPWs and has more former AUSAs (although I guess DPWs entire lit team is half the size as yours so its roughly proportional). I'm deciding between the two and am mostly interested in white collar. Your insight would be super helpful and appreciated.

[dyemond]

Re DPW: PW and DPW are peer white collar shops, and if that's your goal there's a case to be made for DPW. IMO PW > DPW for commercial litigation, it's more of a focus for us.

Could you make the case for DPW over PW or at least highlight the pros/cons of the two white collar shops? You say com lit is more of a focus, but just perusing PW's website, your white collar team is double the size of DPWs and has more former AUSAs (although I guess DPWs entire lit team is half the size as yours so its roughly proportional). I'm deciding between the two and am mostly interested in white collar. Your insight would be super helpful and appreciated.

These places are peer shops in this practice. PW maybe a bit more for general commercial lit but DPW is no slouch for lit and they're indistinguishable in this regard. Pick based on fit and move on.

[Anonymous User]

I used to work at W&C. There are some good reasons, as a general matter, to keep it in the conversation. Obviously -- fit, culture, a few excellent practice groups. It's among the most -- if not the most -- 'international' firm in NY and they are very generous when it comes to immigration matters for non-US associates. Striking a similar note, W&C is well-regarded in essentially every legal market; PW and DPW have an edge only in the US. Finally, and entirely anecdotally, and I think junior associates were relatively happy, by Big Law standards. (I, uh, can't say the same for DPW, which always sounded like a very prestigious sweatshop to me. Heard good things about PW, though.)

But I agree with the conclusion of other posters in the thread, with those caveats, in your case: W&C isn't really in the conversation if you have no interest in working outside the States and are interested primarily in white collar. I think the no-billables requirement at the other two firms is borderline decisive, in any case.