Simpson vs Debevoise vs Ropes vs White & Case for corporate Forum

[Anonymous User]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

[Anonymous User]

At Ropes in corporate, so vested interest here.

Really depends on what you want to do in the corporate bucket. You're going to work hard at all four, hours requirement or no (R&G is 1900, which feels akin to not having a requirement). If you want to do public company M&A, Simpson is probably the place to go. However you want to do buy-side PE? That's where Ropes shines, we have a huge group that's at the top of the industry with a great group culture to boot. You want to do something with pharma/life sciences or health care? Ropes is far and away the best shop for that anywhere.

You should pick whatever firm you felt you clicked with the most. Biglaw is brutal, and if you don't fit with the mentality of the group you're in, you'll be layering stress on top of the already stressful biglaw environment. Within the top tier of law firms, you'll do better/get better exit opportunities at a firm where you fit in and can do your best work instead of hating every minute of it and just trying to suck it up until you can escape. All four of your options would be good places to land, so you just have to figure out what works for you personally.

Honestly, not envious of your position. It was hard enough finding the right fit when we could go in person and try to get a feel for the group, I can't imagine doing it all via Zoom. Best of luck, this is not an easy time to be making this kind of decision, but congrats on the offers, it seems like you've done quite well for yourself.

[DoveBodyWash]

Depends on the kind of corporate. If you don’t know then STB is safe default choice given rotations plus no hours minimum. Hours req and culture aside, I would put Ropes ahead of Deb for most “typical” practices that law students would be interested in - Ropes has a stronger sponsor practice

[Iowahawk]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

Not my market, but the focus on the hours requirements here makes me think this was probably written by a law student and should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal hours requirements don't matter that much, in NYC M&A you're going to work hard.

[lolwutpar]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

Not my market, but the focus on the hours requirements here makes me think this was probably written by a law student and should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal hours requirements don't matter that much, in NYC M&A you're going to work hard.

They absolutely matter. I went from a firm with no hours requirement to one with an hours requirement and I regret it. I also thought it wouldn't be a big deal, but it totally is. Never needing to worry or think about hours is, quite frankly, amazing. It takes away an entire element of stress in biglaw. And, come bonus season, you knew you were getting a bonus. Literally everyone got a bonus, no matter how much they billed. It's fantastic.

Yes, you'll work a lot, but you can't predict the market or your workflow. A couple slow months means you're fucked, can't take vacation, etc. You'll likely be working through the holidays anyway, but knowing you won't be forced to if you want a bonus feels great.

Honestly, unless you've worked at a firm with and without an hours requirement, I don't think you can fully appreciate not having a requirement.

[sms18]

At Ropes in corporate, so vested interest here.

Really depends on what you want to do in the corporate bucket. You're going to work hard at all four, hours requirement or no (R&G is 1900, which feels akin to not having a requirement). If you want to do public company M&A, Simpson is probably the place to go. However you want to do buy-side PE? That's where Ropes shines, we have a huge group that's at the top of the industry with a great group culture to boot. You want to do something with pharma/life sciences or health care? Ropes is far and away the best shop for that anywhere.

You should pick whatever firm you felt you clicked with the most. Biglaw is brutal, and if you don't fit with the mentality of the group you're in, you'll be layering stress on top of the already stressful biglaw environment. Within the top tier of law firms, you'll do better/get better exit opportunities at a firm where you fit in and can do your best work instead of hating every minute of it and just trying to suck it up until you can escape. All four of your options would be good places to land, so you just have to figure out what works for you personally.

Honestly, not envious of your position. It was hard enough finding the right fit when we could go in person and try to get a feel for the group, I can't imagine doing it all via Zoom. Best of luck, this is not an easy time to be making this kind of decision, but congrats on the offers, it seems like you've done quite well for yourself.

I don't work at STB so don't have any vested interest, but wanted to point out that Simpson doesn't fall behind Ropes when it comes to buyside PE deals. Although Ropes does have a big PE group and has some significant PE clients (like Bain and TPG), Simpson is the main deal counsel for top PE funds like Blackstone and KKR. If you're leaning towards becoming a PE M&A associate in NY, Simpson may make more sense compared to any of the other choices here. If OP isn't sure about PE and wants to try out other stuff in the corporate practice (like life science/healthcare, in which Ropes has a definite advantage due to its footprint in MA/Cambridge) Ropes might be a sensible choice.

[dyemond]

At Ropes in corporate, so vested interest here.

Really depends on what you want to do in the corporate bucket. You're going to work hard at all four, hours requirement or no (R&G is 1900, which feels akin to not having a requirement). If you want to do public company M&A, Simpson is probably the place to go. However you want to do buy-side PE? That's where Ropes shines, we have a huge group that's at the top of the industry with a great group culture to boot. You want to do something with pharma/life sciences or health care? Ropes is far and away the best shop for that anywhere.

You should pick whatever firm you felt you clicked with the most. Biglaw is brutal, and if you don't fit with the mentality of the group you're in, you'll be layering stress on top of the already stressful biglaw environment. Within the top tier of law firms, you'll do better/get better exit opportunities at a firm where you fit in and can do your best work instead of hating every minute of it and just trying to suck it up until you can escape. All four of your options would be good places to land, so you just have to figure out what works for you personally.

Honestly, not envious of your position. It was hard enough finding the right fit when we could go in person and try to get a feel for the group, I can't imagine doing it all via Zoom. Best of luck, this is not an easy time to be making this kind of decision, but congrats on the offers, it seems like you've done quite well for yourself.

I don't work at STB so don't have any vested interest, but wanted to point out that Simpson doesn't fall behind Ropes when it comes to buyside PE deals. Although Ropes does have a big PE group and has some significant PE clients (like Bain and TPG), Simpson is the main deal counsel for top PE funds like Blackstone and KKR. If you're leaning towards becoming a PE M&A associate in NY, Simpson may make more sense compared to any of the other choices here. If OP isn't sure about PE and wants to try out other stuff in the corporate practice (like life science/healthcare, in which Ropes has a definite advantage due to its footprint in MA/Cambridge) Ropes might be a sensible choice.

TITCR. The notion that Ropes has any appreciable edge over STB in PE is strange -- Ropes does good work and has a great stable of top PE clients, but, outside looking in, I would've given STB a slight edge, but they're pretty much peers, just depends whether you want to do Bain/TPG work or KKR/Blackstone work. If it's in NY, I'd probably lean STB, but they're both good shops.

W&C should not be in this conversation unless you want to do lateral to an office in England, Italy, etc.

[Elston Gunn]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

Not my market, but the focus on the hours requirements here makes me think this was probably written by a law student and should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal hours requirements don't matter that much, in NYC M&A you're going to work hard.

From someone who spent 5 years in Biglaw, strongly disagree. It matters a lot.

[Anonymous User]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

Not my market, but the focus on the hours requirements here makes me think this was probably written by a law student and should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal hours requirements don't matter that much, in NYC M&A you're going to work hard.

From someone who spent 5 years in Biglaw, strongly disagree. It matters a lot.

Stub here so this won't matter for me until January, but wondering whether formal hours requirements matter for anything other than bonuses. I'm at a firm with a 1900 hour requirement, and I'm assuming it's frowned upon to be substantially below that, even if you've personally made peace with not getting a bonus. So not only does that number represent what you need to hit to get a bonus, but also informally what the firm expects you to be billing. Do firms without hours requirements just not care about your hours at all? I've always assumed that whether you go to a firm with an hours requirement or not, there's probably still some informal number you need to hit if you want to stick around longer than a couple of years. Or are firms without hours requirements more likely to let low billers stick around longer? Just trying to figure out how much of this is solely tied to bonuses versus the firm's general attitude towards low hours.

[Elston Gunn]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

Not my market, but the focus on the hours requirements here makes me think this was probably written by a law student and should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal hours requirements don't matter that much, in NYC M&A you're going to work hard.

From someone who spent 5 years in Biglaw, strongly disagree. It matters a lot.

Stub here so this won't matter for me until January, but wondering whether formal hours requirements matter for anything other than bonuses. I'm at a firm with a 1900 hour requirement, and I'm assuming it's frowned upon to be substantially below that, even if you've personally made peace with not getting a bonus. So not only does that number represent what you need to hit to get a bonus, but also informally what the firm expects you to be billing. Do firms without hours requirements just not care about your hours at all? I've always assumed that whether you go to a firm with an hours requirement or not, there's probably still some informal number you need to hit if you want to stick around longer than a couple of years. Or are firms without hours requirements more likely to let low billers stick around longer? Just trying to figure out how much of this is solely tied to bonuses versus the firm's general attitude towards low hours.

It’s mostly just about the bonus. I don’t think there’s much correlation between no hours requirement and firms that are willing to keep around low-billing associates long term (Though it’s possible—it’s hard to assess that from the outside.)

That said, I would not stress that much about billing like 1700 hours as a first year. If you’re consistently below the target, and there isn’t an obvious good reason why, then you should probably think about lateraling. It’s not so much that the hours directly tell the story, but if you aren’t getting much work for a few years, there’s something awry.

[Anonymous User]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

Not my market, but the focus on the hours requirements here makes me think this was probably written by a law student and should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal hours requirements don't matter that much, in NYC M&A you're going to work hard.

From someone who spent 5 years in Biglaw, strongly disagree. It matters a lot.

Stub here so this won't matter for me until January, but wondering whether formal hours requirements matter for anything other than bonuses. I'm at a firm with a 1900 hour requirement, and I'm assuming it's frowned upon to be substantially below that, even if you've personally made peace with not getting a bonus. So not only does that number represent what you need to hit to get a bonus, but also informally what the firm expects you to be billing. Do firms without hours requirements just not care about your hours at all? I've always assumed that whether you go to a firm with an hours requirement or not, there's probably still some informal number you need to hit if you want to stick around longer than a couple of years. Or are firms without hours requirements more likely to let low billers stick around longer? Just trying to figure out how much of this is solely tied to bonuses versus the firm's general attitude towards low hours.

It’s mostly just about the bonus. I don’t think there’s much correlation between no hours requirement and firms that are willing to keep around low-billing associates long term (Though it’s possible—it’s hard to assess that from the outside.)

That said, I would not stress that much about billing like 1700 hours as a first year. If you’re consistently below the target, and there isn’t an obvious good reason why, then you should probably think about lateraling. It’s not so much that the hours directly tell the story, but if you aren’t getting much work for a few years, there’s something awry.

Understood. Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

Are we talking NY for all of these firms? If so, I find it very bizarre that people ITT are saying Ropes is better than STB (albeit only one admittedly biased user) or that STB only has a "slight" edge over Ropes at buy side PE. STB's PE practice is leagues ahead of Ropes NY's and I don't think it's ever not been that way. If we're talking about Ropes Boston vs. STB NY, OP's decision 100% needs to be made based on where he wants to live, and that would be the case even if their practices were even more divergent in quality than they are.

FWIW I work at another PE heavy shop in NY and have come across some hilariously bad lawyers at Ropes NY. So maybe I'M biased...

[Anonymous User]

Are we talking NY for all of these firms? If so, I find it very bizarre that people ITT are saying Ropes is better than STB (albeit only one admittedly biased user) or that STB only has a "slight" edge over Ropes at buy side PE. STB's PE practice is leagues ahead of Ropes NY's and I don't think it's ever not been that way. If we're talking about Ropes Boston vs. STB NY, OP's decision 100% needs to be made based on where he wants to live, and that would be the case even if their practices were even more divergent in quality than they are.

FWIW I work at another PE heavy shop in NY and have come across some hilariously bad lawyers at Ropes NY. So maybe I'M biased...

Agree. Absurd to see someone ranking R&G’s PE anywhere close to STB PE.

[Anonymous User]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

A few things:

1. Ropes is good for mid-market PE deals (sort of in the $100m - $500m range) in NY. They have some Bain work (although K&E gets the bigger deals there); a little of the TPG stuff; and they haven't covered themselves in glory this year with helping Advent renege on deals, although that was out of Boston. (Advent is to this downturn was what Apollo was to the last. Their conduct on Forescout was an abomination, and Ropes - not Weil or Kirkland - were their deal counsel. Not blaming them, of course.) Debevoise also plays in this area, but they don't have the stable of clients that STB or Ropes do. Clayton Dubilier & Rice has been their mainstay for a while

2. STB is better for pretty much everything else in corporate. There isn't the same volume of mid-market PE deals (although they come with follow-on acquisitions) as a Ropes may have - but if you're a BX/KKR/Apax looking to buy something for over a billion, you go to Simpson, Paul Weiss or Kirkland (and sometimes Cleary, Weil, or Freshfields now) - no-one else, really.

On public M&A there's a stable of people at STB who've been at the top of that game for a while. I think some of the partners they've made up over the last five years have been with an eye to focusing on that. They're maybe not at the same volumes/frequency of those deals as Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Skadden, DPW or certain people at Paul Weiss or Kirkland, but they have clients who wouldn't go anywhere else than to certain STB partners. (Look at all the Refinitiv work in recent years, the stuff they've done for Dell, the long relationship with Microsoft.)

Debevoise has some heavy hitters in that space, too. Michael Diz has done some big deals for Verizon. Sue Meng has as good a deal sheet as any partner under 40 in New York outside Wachtell.

As others have said, STB is also a player in several other areas. Debevoise used to have a funds practice that ran toe-to-toe with STB for certain bigger sponsors; I'm not sure if that's still the case after a big Kirkland defection a few years ago. I think STB is probably supreme in the fund formation space, much moreso than it is in M&A (where it's up there with a handful of firms for both public and private work). In capital markets and debt finance it does both bank and borrower/issuer-side work at significant levels and volumes - I think maybe only Davis Polk (and maybe Cravath, with its corporate clients) can boast the same.

3. Being *totally* honest, though, if I were in your position today I'd pick Debevoise. A law firm is about more than the work. At any of these places, once you pick a practice area that takes you (because if there isn't work, the group won't take you), you should get the supervision, volume and intensity to figure out what you're doing within two/three years (give or take a bit).

So why Debevoise?

First, I think the culture probably is a little more old-school and this appeals to me. It's one of the last three pure lockstep firms, now. They have a reputation for caring about intelligence and getting work "right", and for investing in the best people. (Simpson used to. In light of the number of partners in their recent announcements, many of whom are likely income partner track, and a bunch of other things that seem to have gone on recently, it appears that they've joined Kirkland and Latham in the race to the bottom, seeking to reward superstars while screwing everyone else. Of course STB has some loyal stalwarts who are traditional, too locked into their pensions to leave, and remember being at Dick Beattie's or Cyrus Vance's firm. They're rarely the most powerful.) While it might not seem like it, lockstep has good effects for associates who are interested in working at a collegial place and making sure their deals are done with the best people - less of a fight for resources and staffing, fewer worries that your partners hate each other, that kind of thing.

Second, in terms of the work they do, Debevoise is certainly a player in the public and private M&A spaces, at all levels and deal sizes. It also has a good finance practice. Personally, I like the idea of a law firm that invests in and has a good litigation and arbitration practice - even if the numbers aren't quite as profitable. STB has turned litigation into a specialist area to support corporate, in the main.

Third, it's probably harder to get into Debevoise as a lateral than it is to any of the other places you mention. It may be that you don't care about this and want to do a few years at a firm and go in-house - fine. But thinking about opportunity cost, if you work on good matters at Debevoise and are in a practice group where any of the other three firms you mention have a need, having been at Debevoise will certainly get you in the door. I don't think Debevoise takes on others as much. I also don't think Simpson would look at you all that seriously if you were doing anything other than funds at Ropes or anything at White & Case; not the case with Debevoise. (Not many people seem to leave Debevoise for other firms, either, which should tell you something. Again, not the case with any of the other firms you mention.)

4. All that said, each person's drivers, personality, interests, and ambitions are different. If you want to make as much money as quickly as possible, a place with an hours requirement may make more sense. If you're worried about a firm's financial health, STB is probably more robust. (That doesn't mean they don't get rid of people fairly arbitrarily. They do.) If you want an exit to JPMorgan or Blackstone in-house legal, or to maximise your chances of being busy all the time, STB has obvious attractions. And if you want a more international career or have an interest in bank finance or oil and gas work, W&C certainly has a lot to commend it.

5. Final caveats. The first is that we can only talk/decide at certain snapshots in time. All of these firms were different places ten years ago. Partners who started in the 80s thought Shearman and White & Case were superior corporate practices to Simpson or Skadden, and that's changed too. The second is that, even at a lockstep firm, a good mentor or rabbi who's willing to go into bat for you is worth 100 really big transactions - and gets you over a lot of humps and through many bad times. If there's anyone at any place who's doing really good work, has a title, and obviously clicks with you, that should be a significant consideration.

Good luck, and congratulations on these options.

[thelawyler]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

Not my market, but the focus on the hours requirements here makes me think this was probably written by a law student and should be taken with a grain of salt. Formal hours requirements don't matter that much, in NYC M&A you're going to work hard.

From someone who spent 5 years in Biglaw, strongly disagree. It matters a lot.

I agree with this and I've spent time at places with both.

[thelawyler]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

A few things:

1. Ropes is good for mid-market PE deals (sort of in the $100m - $500m range) in NY. They have some Bain work (although K&E gets the bigger deals there); a little of the TPG stuff; and they haven't covered themselves in glory this year with helping Advent renege on deals, although that was out of Boston. (Advent is to this downturn was what Apollo was to the last. Their conduct on Forescout was an abomination, and Ropes - not Weil or Kirkland - were their deal counsel. Not blaming them, of course.) Debevoise also plays in this area, but they don't have the stable of clients that STB or Ropes do. Clayton Dubilier & Rice has been their mainstay for a while

2. STB is better for pretty much everything else in corporate. There isn't the same volume of mid-market PE deals (although they come with follow-on acquisitions) as a Ropes may have - but if you're a BX/KKR/Apax looking to buy something for over a billion, you go to Simpson, Paul Weiss or Kirkland (and sometimes Cleary, Weil, or Freshfields now) - no-one else, really.

On public M&A there's a stable of people at STB who've been at the top of that game for a while. I think some of the partners they've made up over the last five years have been with an eye to focusing on that. They're maybe not at the same volumes/frequency of those deals as Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Skadden, DPW or certain people at Paul Weiss or Kirkland, but they have clients who wouldn't go anywhere else than to certain STB partners. (Look at all the Refinitiv work in recent years, the stuff they've done for Dell, the long relationship with Microsoft.)

Debevoise has some heavy hitters in that space, too. Michael Diz has done some big deals for Verizon. Sue Meng has as good a deal sheet as any partner under 40 in New York outside Wachtell.

As others have said, STB is also a player in several other areas. Debevoise used to have a funds practice that ran toe-to-toe with STB for certain bigger sponsors; I'm not sure if that's still the case after a big Kirkland defection a few years ago. I think STB is probably supreme in the fund formation space, much moreso than it is in M&A (where it's up there with a handful of firms for both public and private work). In capital markets and debt finance it does both bank and borrower/issuer-side work at significant levels and volumes - I think maybe only Davis Polk (and maybe Cravath, with its corporate clients) can boast the same.

3. Being *totally* honest, though, if I were in your position today I'd pick Debevoise. A law firm is about more than the work. At any of these places, once you pick a practice area that takes you (because if there isn't work, the group won't take you), you should get the supervision, volume and intensity to figure out what you're doing within two/three years (give or take a bit).

So why Debevoise?

First, I think the culture probably is a little more old-school and this appeals to me. It's one of the last three pure lockstep firms, now. They have a reputation for caring about intelligence and getting work "right", and for investing in the best people. (Simpson used to. In light of the number of partners in their recent announcements, many of whom are likely income partner track, and a bunch of other things that seem to have gone on recently, it appears that they've joined Kirkland and Latham in the race to the bottom, seeking to reward superstars while screwing everyone else. Of course STB has some loyal stalwarts who are traditional, too locked into their pensions to leave, and remember being at Dick Beattie's or Cyrus Vance's firm. They're rarely the most powerful.) While it might not seem like it, lockstep has good effects for associates who are interested in working at a collegial place and making sure their deals are done with the best people - less of a fight for resources and staffing, fewer worries that your partners hate each other, that kind of thing.

Second, in terms of the work they do, Debevoise is certainly a player in the public and private M&A spaces, at all levels and deal sizes. It also has a good finance practice. Personally, I like the idea of a law firm that invests in and has a good litigation and arbitration practice - even if the numbers aren't quite as profitable. STB has turned litigation into a specialist area to support corporate, in the main.

Third, it's probably harder to get into Debevoise as a lateral than it is to any of the other places you mention. It may be that you don't care about this and want to do a few years at a firm and go in-house - fine. But thinking about opportunity cost, if you work on good matters at Debevoise and are in a practice group where any of the other three firms you mention have a need, having been at Debevoise will certainly get you in the door. I don't think Debevoise takes on others as much. I also don't think Simpson would look at you all that seriously if you were doing anything other than funds at Ropes or anything at White & Case; not the case with Debevoise. (Not many people seem to leave Debevoise for other firms, either, which should tell you something. Again, not the case with any of the other firms you mention.)

4. All that said, each person's drivers, personality, interests, and ambitions are different. If you want to make as much money as quickly as possible, a place with an hours requirement may make more sense. If you're worried about a firm's financial health, STB is probably more robust. (That doesn't mean they don't get rid of people fairly arbitrarily. They do.) If you want an exit to JPMorgan or Blackstone in-house legal, or to maximise your chances of being busy all the time, STB has obvious attractions. And if you want a more international career or have an interest in bank finance or oil and gas work, W&C certainly has a lot to commend it.

5. Final caveats. The first is that we can only talk/decide at certain snapshots in time. All of these firms were different places ten years ago. Partners who started in the 80s thought Shearman and White & Case were superior corporate practices to Simpson or Skadden, and that's changed too. The second is that, even at a lockstep firm, a good mentor or rabbi who's willing to go into bat for you is worth 100 really big transactions - and gets you over a lot of humps and through many bad times. If there's anyone at any place who's doing really good work, has a title, and obviously clicks with you, that should be a significant consideration.

Good luck, and congratulations on these options.

This was amazing review and I agree with much of it (having been at a few firms and with friends at all of them).

[Anonymous User]

All else being equal, I'd think Simpson by a healthy margin. Strongest corporate practice, no hours requirement, and probably the best exit opportunities. Between W&C and Deb, it's a bit closer. I'd consider them basically peers in corporate, but quite different culturally. Obviously, the main objective factor In Deb's favor is the lack of a billables target. I know less about Ropes, but I can't see a good reason to go there over W&C or Deb, much less Simpson.

A few things:

1. Ropes is good for mid-market PE deals (sort of in the $100m - $500m range) in NY. They have some Bain work (although K&E gets the bigger deals there); a little of the TPG stuff; and they haven't covered themselves in glory this year with helping Advent renege on deals, although that was out of Boston. (Advent is to this downturn was what Apollo was to the last. Their conduct on Forescout was an abomination, and Ropes - not Weil or Kirkland - were their deal counsel. Not blaming them, of course.) Debevoise also plays in this area, but they don't have the stable of clients that STB or Ropes do. Clayton Dubilier & Rice has been their mainstay for a while

2. STB is better for pretty much everything else in corporate. There isn't the same volume of mid-market PE deals (although they come with follow-on acquisitions) as a Ropes may have - but if you're a BX/KKR/Apax looking to buy something for over a billion, you go to Simpson, Paul Weiss or Kirkland (and sometimes Cleary, Weil, or Freshfields now) - no-one else, really.

On public M&A there's a stable of people at STB who've been at the top of that game for a while. I think some of the partners they've made up over the last five years have been with an eye to focusing on that. They're maybe not at the same volumes/frequency of those deals as Wachtell, Cravath, S&C, Skadden, DPW or certain people at Paul Weiss or Kirkland, but they have clients who wouldn't go anywhere else than to certain STB partners. (Look at all the Refinitiv work in recent years, the stuff they've done for Dell, the long relationship with Microsoft.)

Debevoise has some heavy hitters in that space, too. Michael Diz has done some big deals for Verizon. Sue Meng has as good a deal sheet as any partner under 40 in New York outside Wachtell.

As others have said, STB is also a player in several other areas. Debevoise used to have a funds practice that ran toe-to-toe with STB for certain bigger sponsors; I'm not sure if that's still the case after a big Kirkland defection a few years ago. I think STB is probably supreme in the fund formation space, much moreso than it is in M&A (where it's up there with a handful of firms for both public and private work). In capital markets and debt finance it does both bank and borrower/issuer-side work at significant levels and volumes - I think maybe only Davis Polk (and maybe Cravath, with its corporate clients) can boast the same.

3. Being *totally* honest, though, if I were in your position today I'd pick Debevoise. A law firm is about more than the work. At any of these places, once you pick a practice area that takes you (because if there isn't work, the group won't take you), you should get the supervision, volume and intensity to figure out what you're doing within two/three years (give or take a bit).

So why Debevoise?

First, I think the culture probably is a little more old-school and this appeals to me. It's one of the last three pure lockstep firms, now. They have a reputation for caring about intelligence and getting work "right", and for investing in the best people. (Simpson used to. In light of the number of partners in their recent announcements, many of whom are likely income partner track, and a bunch of other things that seem to have gone on recently, it appears that they've joined Kirkland and Latham in the race to the bottom, seeking to reward superstars while screwing everyone else. Of course STB has some loyal stalwarts who are traditional, too locked into their pensions to leave, and remember being at Dick Beattie's or Cyrus Vance's firm. They're rarely the most powerful.) While it might not seem like it, lockstep has good effects for associates who are interested in working at a collegial place and making sure their deals are done with the best people - less of a fight for resources and staffing, fewer worries that your partners hate each other, that kind of thing.

Second, in terms of the work they do, Debevoise is certainly a player in the public and private M&A spaces, at all levels and deal sizes. It also has a good finance practice. Personally, I like the idea of a law firm that invests in and has a good litigation and arbitration practice - even if the numbers aren't quite as profitable. STB has turned litigation into a specialist area to support corporate, in the main.

Third, it's probably harder to get into Debevoise as a lateral than it is to any of the other places you mention. It may be that you don't care about this and want to do a few years at a firm and go in-house - fine. But thinking about opportunity cost, if you work on good matters at Debevoise and are in a practice group where any of the other three firms you mention have a need, having been at Debevoise will certainly get you in the door. I don't think Debevoise takes on others as much. I also don't think Simpson would look at you all that seriously if you were doing anything other than funds at Ropes or anything at White & Case; not the case with Debevoise. (Not many people seem to leave Debevoise for other firms, either, which should tell you something. Again, not the case with any of the other firms you mention.)

4. All that said, each person's drivers, personality, interests, and ambitions are different. If you want to make as much money as quickly as possible, a place with an hours requirement may make more sense. If you're worried about a firm's financial health, STB is probably more robust. (That doesn't mean they don't get rid of people fairly arbitrarily. They do.) If you want an exit to JPMorgan or Blackstone in-house legal, or to maximise your chances of being busy all the time, STB has obvious attractions. And if you want a more international career or have an interest in bank finance or oil and gas work, W&C certainly has a lot to commend it.

5. Final caveats. The first is that we can only talk/decide at certain snapshots in time. All of these firms were different places ten years ago. Partners who started in the 80s thought Shearman and White & Case were superior corporate practices to Simpson or Skadden, and that's changed too. The second is that, even at a lockstep firm, a good mentor or rabbi who's willing to go into bat for you is worth 100 really big transactions - and gets you over a lot of humps and through many bad times. If there's anyone at any place who's doing really good work, has a title, and obviously clicks with you, that should be a significant consideration.

Good luck, and congratulations on these options.

This is a very insightful post and I generally agree with the above re STB vs Debevoise vs Ropes. One thing I would add is that, although STB and Debevoise outrival Ropes in terms of private equity and M&A-type work, general consensus seems to be that Ropes has a broader corporate practice than either of these firms. In terms of funds practice, STB mostly advises PE sponsors and Debevoise's practice focuses mostly on private investment funds; Ropes' funds practice is broader in that in addition to private investment funds generally, they have a strong expertise in advising mutual funds and regulated investment companies (Ropes also does a lot of work for LP clients, while STB just seems to represent sponsors). Ropes also has a specialty in life science and health care-type work, mainly due to the fact that they've been advising Boston-based life science and pharma companies for a long time. Bottom line is that Ropes, which has strong presence in NY and Boston, is somewhat of a different creature compared to NY-based STB and Debevoise, which isn't a surprise given that the market in Boston is stronger in certain areas (eg mutual funds and life science/biotechs). Not sure if OP is interested in any of these areas, but wanted to make this point given that most posters seemed to be focusing on M&A and PE although OP may have a broader interest.

[2013]

Ropes is a great firm, but I would never recommend it over STB or Debevoise for a 2L who has only a general idea that they want to do corporate. This is even more true if it’s Ropes NY.

OP is clearly not that familiar with firms because he or she seems to see W&C and Debevoise as peer firms.

OP, take either STB or Debevoise. If you want to go into funds later, you will be able to lateral to a good funds practice from a top general corporate. I’ve seen this done time and time again.

[Anonymous User]

OP here - is there a way to private message someone? I would love to discuss in a bit more detail with many of you but don’t feel comfortable doing so publicly.

Thank you everyone for your advice. It’s down to STB vs Debevoise.

[FF2020]

I posted the long enumerated list above. Feel free to drop me a line.

[Anonymous User]

[/quote]

This is a very insightful post and I generally agree with the above re STB vs Debevoise vs Ropes. One thing I would add is that, although STB and Debevoise outrival Ropes in terms of private equity and M&A-type work, general consensus seems to be that Ropes has a broader corporate practice than either of these firms. In terms of funds practice, STB mostly advises PE sponsors and Debevoise's practice focuses mostly on private investment funds; Ropes' funds practice is broader in that in addition to private investment funds generally, they have a strong expertise in advising mutual funds and regulated investment companies (Ropes also does a lot of work for LP clients, while STB just seems to represent sponsors). Ropes also has a specialty in life science and health care-type work, mainly due to the fact that they've been advising Boston-based life science and pharma companies for a long time. Bottom line is that Ropes, which has strong presence in NY and Boston, is somewhat of a different creature compared to NY-based STB and Debevoise, which isn't a surprise given that the market in Boston is stronger in certain areas (eg mutual funds and life science/biotechs). Not sure if OP is interested in any of these areas, but wanted to make this point given that most posters seemed to be focusing on M&A and PE although OP may have a broader interest.
[/quote]


I think you nailed it. Go to Ropes if you are interested in Boston or you KNOW you want to do life sciences/IP licensing / health care transactions.... otherwise go with Simpson or Debevoise. Congrats!

[marginflex]

I posted the long enumerated list above. Feel free to drop me a line.

My account isn’t old enough to message you. Could you maybe pm me and I will see if it lets me reply? Thank you.