WLRK vs. Lit Boutiques Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know # of hours is pretty close between Kellogg/Susman vs. WLRK, and you get potentially more stand-up experience at boutiques. Comp seems good enough at both.

I'm specifically curious about long-term career aspects.

Is someone more likely to make partner at Susman/Kellogg in lit than at WLRK?
Are the exit opportunities better, worse, or about the same?

[Anonymous User]

As far as partnership, the likelihood is probably: Susman > Kellogg > WLRK.

At Susman, they've made all ~6 associates in a given class partners in recent years and it's quite rare not to make partner. Some associates choose to leave along the way but to do something different, like gov't or public interest. Of these three firms, I believe that Susman is the one where most associates enter with the intention of staying. The firm has capacity because partnership comp is eat what you kill.

At Kellogg, making partner is rarer but seems like you have a decent shot if you stick it out. Many associates plan to exit. (Especially after that $175k clerkship bonus is paid out over 2 years.) Hence, you see many of their alumni in gov't, in-house, sometimes academia or judiciary. Partners tend to develop their own business/clients, which they focus on.

At WLRK, I have heard that the likelihood of making partner varies by practice group, and it is harder in their core corporate and lit groups. I get the strong sense that WLRK is a place where most associates choose to leave to lead a less intense life (the intensity due to the hours plus intense face-time culture). Partners are paid pure lockstep.

I think exit options from all three are quite good and arguably on par. If you work at any of these firms, you're likely very well-credentialed, and qualified to get many strong jobs. Anecdotally, I know of people from WLRK who went into the U.S. Attorney's Office, smaller law firms, investment firms, in-house. Kellogg options, I mentioned above. Susman has less of a track record, but because fewer of its associates leave.

ETA: the real differentiator for making a decision is probably culture, money, and type of work. WLRK pays the most probably, then Susman, then Kellogg.

[Anonymous User]

Given that Susman has partnership capacity because it's eat what you kill, is making partner not all that it's cracked up to be? Any sense of what young partners who earn below median make? 1 mil? 700k? 300K?

[Iowahawk]

I believe these firms have substantially different litigation emphases--Susman does a lot of plaintiff-side/contingency and no criminal work, WLRK is best known for securities and corporate governance lit but also does white collar, complex commercial, and restructuring, Kellogg was originally a telecoms boutique and also has a high-end appellate practice. I believe that it's very difficult to make partner in litigation at WLRK. Caveat that I have worked at none of them.

[Anonymous User]

I have not heard numbers. As a Susman AMA explained, partners are paid based both on how much work they do (and there's plenty) and their own business generation, so it's not pure eat what you kill. As a result, partner comp is very remunerative, assuming the partner doesn't choose to slow down.

[ambrau90]

I've always gotten the sense that people stay at Susman far longer than at WLRK or Kellogg. Is that purely because of partnership prospects? Or does Susman have higher retention for other reasons?

[Anonymous User]

I've always gotten the sense that people stay at Susman far longer than at WLRK or Kellogg. Is that purely because of partnership prospects? Or does Susman have higher retention for other reasons?

It's probably largely the partnership prospects? Plus, I think there's self-selection - from the clerkship letter Susman sends, it screens people based on whether they want to and have the potential to stay. People who accept the offer probably have that same mentality. And you probably do need a certain personality to decide that's the path you want.

FWIW, the Vault associate surveys for the three firms suggest three distinct cultures, which might affect retention. Of the three, Kellogg sounds like it has the least cohesive culture, as it's more introverted and the expectation is that associates pass through for a few years and then exit. By contrast, WLRK and Susman sound as though they have very pronounced and cohesive cultures, because they create a lot of opportunities for everyone to interact (for better or worse). How much you feel a part of a place could affect retention possibly.

[Anonymous User]

I've always gotten the sense that people stay at Susman far longer than at WLRK or Kellogg. Is that purely because of partnership prospects? Or does Susman have higher retention for other reasons?

It's probably largely the partnership prospects? Plus, I think there's self-selection - from the clerkship letter Susman sends, it screens people based on whether they want to and have the potential to stay. People who accept the offer probably have that same mentality. And you probably do need a certain personality to decide that's the path you want.

FWIW, the Vault associate surveys for the three firms suggest three distinct cultures, which might affect retention. Of the three, Kellogg sounds like it has the least cohesive culture, as it's more introverted and the expectation is that associates pass through for a few years and then exit. By contrast, WLRK and Susman sound as though they have very pronounced and cohesive cultures, because they create a lot of opportunities for everyone to interact (for better or worse). How much you feel a part of a place could affect retention possibly.

Current SG associate here. This is generally right: we self-select pretty heavily. In interviews, for example, I am fairly candid with applicants about both the advantages and disadvantages of working at SG vs. other firms. We've lost some objectively great candidates because they've decided that other firms are a better fit. But that's the model, and it means that a higher percentage of the people we do hire end up as lifers.

[Anonymous User]

I've always gotten the sense that people stay at Susman far longer than at WLRK or Kellogg. Is that purely because of partnership prospects? Or does Susman have higher retention for other reasons?

It's probably largely the partnership prospects? Plus, I think there's self-selection - from the clerkship letter Susman sends, it screens people based on whether they want to and have the potential to stay. People who accept the offer probably have that same mentality. And you probably do need a certain personality to decide that's the path you want.

FWIW, the Vault associate surveys for the three firms suggest three distinct cultures, which might affect retention. Of the three, Kellogg sounds like it has the least cohesive culture, as it's more introverted and the expectation is that associates pass through for a few years and then exit. By contrast, WLRK and Susman sound as though they have very pronounced and cohesive cultures, because they create a lot of opportunities for everyone to interact (for better or worse). How much you feel a part of a place could affect retention possibly.

Current SG associate here. This is generally right: we self-select pretty heavily. In interviews, for example, I am fairly candid with applicants about both the advantages and disadvantages of working at SG vs. other firms. We've lost some objectively great candidates because they've decided that other firms are a better fit. But that's the model, and it means that a higher percentage of the people we do hire end up as lifers.

If you were to make it specific to this thread - what are the advantages and disadvantages of working at SG compared to WLRK?

[Anonymous User]

I've always gotten the sense that people stay at Susman far longer than at WLRK or Kellogg. Is that purely because of partnership prospects? Or does Susman have higher retention for other reasons?

It's probably largely the partnership prospects? Plus, I think there's self-selection - from the clerkship letter Susman sends, it screens people based on whether they want to and have the potential to stay. People who accept the offer probably have that same mentality. And you probably do need a certain personality to decide that's the path you want.

FWIW, the Vault associate surveys for the three firms suggest three distinct cultures, which might affect retention. Of the three, Kellogg sounds like it has the least cohesive culture, as it's more introverted and the expectation is that associates pass through for a few years and then exit. By contrast, WLRK and Susman sound as though they have very pronounced and cohesive cultures, because they create a lot of opportunities for everyone to interact (for better or worse). How much you feel a part of a place could affect retention possibly.

Current SG associate here. This is generally right: we self-select pretty heavily. In interviews, for example, I am fairly candid with applicants about both the advantages and disadvantages of working at SG vs. other firms. We've lost some objectively great candidates because they've decided that other firms are a better fit. But that's the model, and it means that a higher percentage of the people we do hire end up as lifers.

If you were to make it specific to this thread - what are the advantages and disadvantages of working at SG compared to WLRK?

Curious how PPP at boutiques compares, as well. This info is available for big law firms but hard to find for boutiques.

[Anonymous User]

You also have to remember that folks want to live places other than New York. Wachtell can't keep associates who ultimately want to live in Los Angeles or Texas. Susman has offices in a lot of major cities. I think that's what drives a lot of the laterals from WLRK to Susman.

[Anonymous User]

You also have to remember that folks want to live places other than New York. Wachtell can't keep associates who ultimately want to live in Los Angeles or Texas. Susman has offices in a lot of major cities. I think that's what drives a lot of the laterals from WLRK to Susman.

Assuming someone is looking at WLRK and Susman NY, anyone want to comment on why someone should choose one over the other? What if you think you want to be a trial lawyer but can't be sure because you've never done it?

[Anonymous User]

You also have to remember that folks want to live places other than New York. Wachtell can't keep associates who ultimately want to live in Los Angeles or Texas. Susman has offices in a lot of major cities. I think that's what drives a lot of the laterals from WLRK to Susman.

Susman almost never hires laterals from law firms. People would face the WLRK v. Susman question as they're coming out of clerkships and deciding where to spend the earlier years of practice and onward. Location probably factors in, but more significantly, the two firms have very different styles and practice focuses.

[Anonymous User]

You also have to remember that folks want to live places other than New York. Wachtell can't keep associates who ultimately want to live in Los Angeles or Texas. Susman has offices in a lot of major cities. I think that's what drives a lot of the laterals from WLRK to Susman.

Assuming someone is looking at WLRK and Susman NY, anyone want to comment on why someone should choose one over the other? What if you think you want to be a trial lawyer but can't be sure because you've never done it?

Also curious if anyone has insight.

[Anonymous User]

You also have to remember that folks want to live places other than New York. Wachtell can't keep associates who ultimately want to live in Los Angeles or Texas. Susman has offices in a lot of major cities. I think that's what drives a lot of the laterals from WLRK to Susman.

Susman almost never hires laterals from law firms. People would face the WLRK v. Susman question as they're coming out of clerkships and deciding where to spend the earlier years of practice and onward. Location probably factors in, but more significantly, the two firms have very different styles and practice focuses.

Maybe they almost never hire laterals but they hired multiple laterals from WLRK when I was there.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but was just curious about lateraling at Wachtell. To the extent anyone has anecdotal information on what schools/credentials/background/firms/practice areas they look for, as well as the # laterals per year, it would be great if you can share. Also, does Wachtell hire new associates - those who did NOT summer at the firm - directly out of clerkships (looking specifically at Delaware Chancery)? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but was just curious about lateraling at Wachtell. To the extent anyone has anecdotal information on what schools/credentials/background/firms/practice areas they look for, as well as the # laterals per year, it would be great if you can share. Also, does Wachtell hire new associates - those who did NOT summer at the firm - directly out of clerkships (looking specifically at Delaware Chancery)? Thanks!

See viewtopic.php?p=10369742#p10369742

"Yes they take laterals, but it is extremely difficult to lateral to WLRK. When I was there all of the laterals came from Yale law and had worked at other elite firms. Even so, there were only 2 or so laterals per year."

[Anonymous User]

Responding directly to the message above on lateraling from a law firm, WLRK tends to only hire the rare lateral in the specialty practice groups they need some more support in, like executive comp and benefits. I've not really heard of laterals in the core groups, like lit.

Their NALP data (under the Recruitment & Hiring tab) shows how many associates started out of clerkships who weren't summers. In 2018, 3 out of 15 didn't summer. In 2019, 3 out of 4 didn't summer.

[Anonymous User]

You also have to remember that folks want to live places other than New York. Wachtell can't keep associates who ultimately want to live in Los Angeles or Texas. Susman has offices in a lot of major cities. I think that's what drives a lot of the laterals from WLRK to Susman.

Susman almost never hires laterals from law firms. People would face the WLRK v. Susman question as they're coming out of clerkships and deciding where to spend the earlier years of practice and onward. Location probably factors in, but more significantly, the two firms have very different styles and practice focuses.

Maybe they almost never hire laterals but they hired multiple laterals from WLRK when I was there.

Interesting - direct from WLRK? I know they hire many associates after clerkships who didn't summer at Susman but summered elsewhere (like WLRK), as well as summers who split with WLRK.

[Anonymous User]

You also have to remember that folks want to live places other than New York. Wachtell can't keep associates who ultimately want to live in Los Angeles or Texas. Susman has offices in a lot of major cities. I think that's what drives a lot of the laterals from WLRK to Susman.

Susman almost never hires laterals from law firms. People would face the WLRK v. Susman question as they're coming out of clerkships and deciding where to spend the earlier years of practice and onward. Location probably factors in, but more significantly, the two firms have very different styles and practice focuses.

Maybe they almost never hire laterals but they hired multiple laterals from WLRK when I was there.

Interesting - direct from WLRK? I know they hire many associates after clerkships who didn't summer at Susman but summered elsewhere (like WLRK), as well as summers who split with WLRK.

Separate person, but I'm only aware of people going from WLRK - Susman with clerking as the intermediary step.

[SamuelDanforth]

I believe Susman hired Vineet Bhatia as a lateral from WLRK many years ago.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone made this decision either way that can shed some light on their decisionmaking?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone made this decision either way that can shed some light on their decisionmaking?

The biggest (and maybe dispositive) difference is practice area. WLRK lit is idiosyncratic, focused on Delaware lit, plus some securities, white collar, all defense side. Susman has no white collar/criminal, only complex civil lit, mix of plaintiff/defense. Do a search of both firms on Law360 and see the kinds of cases they're handling recently.

Another difference is structure. Both places have lean teams and you'll get substantive responsibility. But WLRK is more traditionally hierarchical. So you'll have a bit more hand-holding/direction from a person senior to you that isn't a partner. Susman is more extreme, you'll be thrown in, without the support of an associate hierarchy. In either context, you will adjust - it's just a preference.

On money, you'll probably make more at WLRK, given the 100% base lockstep bonuses. That's not every year given the market, but it's the approximate norm.

On autonomy, you'll have more at Susman. WLRK has a facetime culture.

[Anonymous User]

Responding directly to the message above on lateraling from a law firm, WLRK tends to only hire the rare lateral in the specialty practice groups they need some more support in, like executive comp and benefits. I've not really heard of laterals in the core groups, like lit.

Their NALP data (under the Recruitment & Hiring tab) shows how many associates started out of clerkships who weren't summers. In 2018, 3 out of 15 didn't summer. In 2019, 3 out of 4 didn't summer.

yeah, this isn't true at all. WLRK definitely hires laterals in their core practice areas such as lit and corporate.

[Anonymous User]

Responding directly to the message above on lateraling from a law firm, WLRK tends to only hire the rare lateral in the specialty practice groups they need some more support in, like executive comp and benefits. I've not really heard of laterals in the core groups, like lit.

Their NALP data (under the Recruitment & Hiring tab) shows how many associates started out of clerkships who weren't summers. In 2018, 3 out of 15 didn't summer. In 2019, 3 out of 4 didn't summer.

yeah, this isn't true at all. WLRK definitely hires laterals in their core practice areas such as lit and corporate.

Anon in the first quote. To be clear, I was talking about laterals directly from firms, not those out of clerkships who summered elsewhere. Clerks often join the core practice groups.

But I've heard from folks at WLRK that it's rare that the firm takes laterals directly from other firms period, and recently those who've come join the speciality groups? Not saying it never happens, but it's unusual.