Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:24 pm
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.