Is Cravath good? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to Bill Simmons-ize this question.

So I get the V ranking, the somewhat grade-selectiveness, the air of prestige and all that. But it seems like, even within NY, it seems like people might prefer other less "haloed" firms for corporate (e.g. DPW) or lit (e.g. PW). Tbf not sure this is borne out by yield #'s. Rotation system seems like it sucks, culture seems eh.

So why does CSM carry such an "air" among law students as they recruit?

[Anonymous User]

While admittedly it is a smaller sample size, at my T30, all 6 or 7 offers made by Cravath during my OCI cycle were rejected for alternatives. My friends who declined just didn't seem to be interested in the rotation system. There is no questioning the firm's prestige, but I'm not really sure that it does carry such an "air" relative to the alternatives at all law schools.

Sorry to Bill Simmons-ize this question.

So I get the V ranking, the somewhat grade-selectiveness, the air of prestige and all that. But it seems like, even within NY, it seems like people might prefer other less "haloed" firms for corporate (e.g. DPW) or lit (e.g. PW). Tbf not sure this is borne out by yield #'s. Rotation system seems like it sucks, culture seems eh.

So why does CSM carry such an "air" among law students as they recruit?

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to Bill Simmons-ize this question.

So I get the V ranking, the somewhat grade-selectiveness, the air of prestige and all that. But it seems like, even within NY, it seems like people might prefer other less "haloed" firms for corporate (e.g. DPW) or lit (e.g. PW). Tbf not sure this is borne out by yield #'s. Rotation system seems like it sucks, culture seems eh.

So why does CSM carry such an "air" among law students as they recruit?

At my HYS, also a lot of people turn it down, and I know of some who went to PW and GDC for better lit fits. What *is* the culture like? Everyone's just working a lot?

[UnfrozenCaveman]

CSM so good it made Midtown West cool again.

[Anonymous User]

+1 Really curious about this too! Would love to hear more about Cravath’s culture/office environment/etc. since a lot of people (at my school and on TLS) seem to dismiss Cravath as a good place to work, either half-jokingly or even seriously. I personally feel like there is a bit of cognitive dissonance between those comments and the firm’s ranking and obvious “prestige,” so any “real” info/anecdotes would be appreciated!

[Anonymous User]

Working at Cravath means working Wachtell hours while making Milbank pay. You won't make an incorrect choice working at Cravath as they have a swath of elite departments. But many of the V10 offer the same prestige benefits at least in the legal world, the BL pay scale, and marginally fewer hours.

Cravath's name used to signal competence and prestige above that of other firms, but the playing field has been largely equalized between Cravath and the rest of the V10.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is absolutely not considered more prestigious than DPW or PW at my T6. S&C and Wachtell are both more selective.

[Anonymous User]

So why does CSM carry such an "air" among law students as they recruit?

Largely the inertia of prestige from 50-100 years ago, when CSM actually was materially head-and-shoulders above other NY firms — and that residue has been preserved and perpetuated by Boomer partners/professors. Also, 1Ls/2Ls/3Ls contribute to the special CSM aura in threads like this one that are supposedly debunking it.

I recently chose DPW over CSM, the main factors for me being: (i) CSM's rotation system and (ii) CSM having a relatively narrow scope (e.g., not having a RX practice). At least on the corporate side, CSM is sort of like a diluted WLRK -- very good at what it does (principally, public co. M&A), and content to exclude whole other practice areas. Unlike WLRK, though, CSM is basically on the same (or slightly worse) financial footing than firms like S&C, etc., as measured by PPP.

IMO the firm's relatively narrow scope and its strict adherence to lockstep will be headwinds in the years to come. (N.B. they are increasingly taking in non-CSM lateral partners, most recently a guy from Deb, which is a sign that the firm no longer has full confidence in the sacred "Cravath model.")

[Anonymous User]

Agreed with all of the above. CSM is obviously still a top firm, it's just that the field has leveled out in the past decades with the rest of the V7ish (with the exception of Wachtell, which is a cut above the rest).

E.g.,
-Kirkland's profits trounce Cravath's, even if Kirkland maybe lags behind a bit in other aspects of prestige
-Skadden has an equally robust corporate practice (it can also be argued that the breadth of Skadden's corporate practices is greater too. And Skadden's cap markets group is now pretty beefy and almost on par with DPW's)
-S&C is still more grade selective and better regarded in certain regulatory practices
-DPW/STB all are basically equally strong in many groups and DPW is still the cap markets king/STB is still the PE king (though Kirkland is nipping at its heals)
-PW is still considered a better lit shop, and the lit groups at Skadden, S&C, etc. are just as good as Cravath's

etc etc. Cravath doesn't really differentiate itself anymore from firms like these

[Anonymous User]

So why does CSM carry such an "air" among law students as they recruit?

Largely the inertia of prestige from 50-100 years ago, when CSM actually was materially head-and-shoulders above other NY firms — and that residue has been preserved and perpetuated by Boomer partners/professors. Also, 1Ls/2Ls/3Ls contribute to the special CSM aura in threads like this one that are supposedly debunking it.

I recently chose DPW over CSM, the main factors for me being: (i) CSM's rotation system and (ii) CSM having a relatively narrow scope (e.g., not having a RX practice). At least on the corporate side, CSM is sort of like a diluted WLRK -- very good at what it does (principally, public co. M&A), and content to exclude whole other practice areas. Unlike WLRK, though, CSM is basically on the same (or slightly worse) financial footing than firms like S&C, etc., as measured by PPP.

IMO the firm's relatively narrow scope and its strict adherence to lockstep will be headwinds in the years to come. (N.B. they are increasingly taking in non-CSM lateral partners, most recently a guy from Deb, which is a sign that the firm no longer has full confidence in the sacred "Cravath model.")

Thanks for the insight! Following up on what you said about CSM being a "diluted WLRK" - I've always been kind of curious as to why Cravath can't be more like WLRK...As in, can't it hire maybe 50-60 new associates each year instead of the roughly 100 and just work those associates extra hard? I'm sure the perfectionist Type As that end up choosing Cravath would be willing to do that It could give out [slightly] higher bonuses (obviously not massive WLRK ones) but at least I'm sure that would boost PPP, right? I just never understood why Cravath needs the massive associate classes, esp. given its relatively tiny size.

Also, you mentioned you recently chose DPW over CSM. If you don't mind sharing, did you get a vibe or culture from Cravath that gave you second thoughts (putting aside the practice area/rotation system concerns you had)? Is there a specific type of personality that would consistently choose CSM over similar firms? Thanks again!

[eastcoast_iub]

STB is still the PE king (though Kirkland is nipping at its heals)

huh? by what metric?

[Anon-non-anon]

I'm surprised to hear S&C is considered above CSM at some schools. The feeling at my T25 from S&C was they took everyone above a certain threshold as long as you didn't suck in the screener (and callbacks almost always resulted in offers). I thought that also applied to higher ranked schools with a lower threshold.

Maybe that grade floor was a little higher than CSM, but CSM seemed more selective about who they invited for callbacks and gave offers to. Maybe i'm extrapolating too much from receiving an offer from S&C but not getting a callaback at CSM despite feeling like the interview went well. Don't think i would have taken the offer but still... woulda been nice to be invited lol.

On the culture questions, CSM can be great if you're in a an awesome partner's group, and it can be hell if you're in a shitty partner's group. It's hard to hide compared to other firms. From friends there, it does seem like they get a bit more hands on experience than other top big law firms, at least in lit.

[Anonymous User]

I'm surprised to hear S&C is considered above CSM at some schools. The feeling at my T25 from S&C was they took everyone above a certain threshold as long as you didn't suck in the screener (and callbacks almost always resulted in offers). I thought that also applied to higher ranked schools with a lower threshold.

That automatically makes S&C more selective, though. You are automatically out of contention if not in the top 25-30% of your class. Cravath absolutely dips deeper into my school's pool. I do not view mere "fit" per se as really an indication of selectivity.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the insight! Following up on what you said about CSM being a "diluted WLRK" - I've always been kind of curious as to why Cravath can't be more like WLRK...

It's not just that WLRK associates work longer and harder hours than associates at other top firms (although they do), it's that WLRK has an entirely different revenue model than CSM and CSM's peers. WLRK is paid like an investment bank — not on the basis of billable hours, but by taking small cuts of mega deals. The average WLRK engagement is bringing in much, much more than a comparable deal team operating at CSM. As a result of this, and clients' higher willingness to pay for WLRK's "premium" services, WLRK takes in far more revenue per lawyer than CSM. That's the structural reason behind why Cravath (or really, any other firm) "can't be more like WLRK," can't afford to pay WLRK comp (without eating into partners' profits), and so on.

I just never understood why Cravath needs the massive associate classes, esp. given its relatively tiny size.

The standard explanation is twofold. First, CSM supposedly(?) has higher attrition than peer firms — you could chalk it up to better and earlier exit opps, or you could say that associates burn out from the higher workload more quickly — so the firm overcompensates by hiring larger associate classes to start. (Whether or not there actually is higher attrition at CSM is an empirical question I don't know the answer to.) Second, CSM famously doesn't take lateral associates, so it needs to overstuff its coffers a little bit to ensure it has coverage whereas a peer firm would just look for a lateral to fill the gap. You could also speculate about CSM being stricter vs. peer firms on enforcing 'up-or-out' (particularly at the counsel level?), meaning CSM can take on more associates to start, with the knowledge they will be slashed later.

If you don't mind sharing, did you get a vibe or culture from Cravath that gave you second thoughts (putting aside the practice area/rotation system concerns you had)? Is there a specific type of personality that would consistently choose CSM over similar firms? Thanks again!

I think there's a kernel of truth in CSM selecting for (and 2Ls self-selecting into) a more 'Type A' / intense personality and culture. It's not off-putting, but it's there. That said, it's very easy to overstate the differences: there's of course nerdy-withdrawn types at CSM and intense-brash types at DPW, etc. Culture and fit should be part of the equation when you choose a firm, but IMO it should take a backseat to the more tangible things like assignment/staffing systems, practice areas, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Looking at the data from my T6, CSM and DPW both have callback-to-offer percentages around 50%, whereas S&C is more like 80-90%. So I think that validates the "fit selective" versus "grade selective" thing, to a certain extent. CSM does have one of the higher offer-to-acceptance yields (~50%), which shows either that the firm is better able to "match" (pick candidates who will pick them back) or else just has higher prestige/allure to students.

Anyways, I'm not sure if this data or discussion of selectivity has any bearing on whether Cravath is "good" or not. (It's obviously very good.)

[Anonymous User]

In Ny, for corporate its WLRK --→ Skadden/S&C/CSM/DPW →STP/KE/LW. For lit, its S&C/CSM/PW/GDC/WLRK (for securities) + lit boutiques. These are for the most part completely interchangable firms except WLRK will pay you a lot more. Taking CSM if you don't like rotation system or fit over like a DPW/S&C/PW makes 0 sense. Exit opps will be identical for the most part, with the caveat that certain partners will have more sway in certain areas that could help you down the line. In short, CSM is ultra elite as with the others listed - Don't worry too much lol

[Anonymous User]

I'm surprised to hear S&C is considered above CSM at some schools. The feeling at my T25 from S&C was they took everyone above a certain threshold as long as you didn't suck in the screener (and callbacks almost always resulted in offers). I thought that also applied to higher ranked schools with a lower threshold.

That automatically makes S&C more selective, though. You are automatically out of contention if not in the top 25-30% of your class. Cravath absolutely dips deeper into my school's pool. I do not view mere "fit" per se as really an indication of selectivity.

Taking 10% but dipping into the top 35% who will be a better fit based on a comprehensive review is by definition more selective than taking everyone within the 25-30% threshold.

At my school you were basically guaranteed a CB for both csm and s&c if you were top 40-50%; skadden was weirdly selective in that they would say top 10% was required but then you'd hear about people with top 15-20% but hardcore military experience or being legislative aides receiving CBs. Absolutely felt harder to get offers with Skadden, LW, KE and PW at my school than with SC/CSM because the CB was a real callback rather than a formality.

[Anonymous User]

I'm surprised to hear S&C is considered above CSM at some schools. The feeling at my T25 from S&C was they took everyone above a certain threshold as long as you didn't suck in the screener (and callbacks almost always resulted in offers). I thought that also applied to higher ranked schools with a lower threshold.

That automatically makes S&C more selective, though. You are automatically out of contention if not in the top 25-30% of your class. Cravath absolutely dips deeper into my school's pool. I do not view mere "fit" per se as really an indication of selectivity.

Taking 10% but dipping into the top 35% who will be a better fit based on a comprehensive review is by definition more selective than taking everyone within the 25-30% threshold.

At my school you were basically guaranteed a CB for both csm and s&c if you were top 40-50%; skadden was weirdly selective in that they would say top 10% was required but then you'd hear about people with top 15-20% but hardcore military experience or being legislative aides receiving CBs. Absolutely felt harder to get offers with Skadden, LW, KE and PW at my school than with SC/CSM because the CB was a real callback rather than a formality.

Interesting. At my CCN, people with highest grades doing NY generally go WLRK (3-4 people), S&C, CSM, or DPW or to lit boutiques. However, some of the screener to offer #s are thrown off bc some people don't even go for these firms by not bidding due to expectation grades will fall off. S&C/CSM were 100% more hard to get than non-WLRK firms but its def differnet school to school. Also, for some reason, my friend at YLS says kids doing biglaw seem to flock to S&C, IDK why.

[Anonymous User]

Is it even that prestigious, though? Maybe among the NYC corporate crowd, but at least for litigation, the smartest students go to top appellate practices in DC or elite boutiques. Using circuit clerkships as a rough (and flawed) measure of talent and prestige, the Cravath lit associate roster falls way behind these other shops. Like no one at Susman or Kellogg will be remotely impressed just because someone worked at Cravath.

[Anonymous User]

Is it even that prestigious, though? Maybe among the NYC corporate crowd, but at least for litigation, the smartest students go to top appellate practices in DC or elite boutiques. Using circuit clerkships as a rough (and flawed) measure of talent and prestige, the Cravath lit associate roster falls way behind these other shops. Like no one at Susman or Kellogg will be remotely impressed just because someone worked at Cravath.

this is veering quite far into hair-splitting territory imo. there are always going to be more prestigious positions. is Cravath the MOST tippy top prestigious? no. is it good? yeah lol

[Anonymous User]

Is it even that prestigious, though? Maybe among the NYC corporate crowd, but at least for litigation, the smartest students go to top appellate practices in DC or elite boutiques. Using circuit clerkships as a rough (and flawed) measure of talent and prestige, the Cravath lit associate roster falls way behind these other shops. Like no one at Susman or Kellogg will be remotely impressed just because someone worked at Cravath.

this is veering quite far into hair-splitting territory imo. there are always going to be more prestigious positions. is Cravath the MOST tippy top prestigious? no. is it good? yeah lol

I don't disagree, but I guess I was referring to OP's talk about "an air" around Cravath. Among the prestige-hogging circuit clerk world, Cravath carries no such air. By the way, I think the prestige-hogging circuit clerk world is insufferable, but that's a different discussion. But is Cravath a "good" firm? Of course, it's a great firm.

Also not sure this is really hair-splitting. Cravath's a good firm but it doesn't really carry any wow factor among the circuit clerk class. Again, not defending the circuit clerk/feeder chasing class, they're pretty annoying if anything.

[Anonymous User]

Delete.

[Anonymous User]

Is it even that prestigious, though? Maybe among the NYC corporate crowd, but at least for litigation, the smartest students go to top appellate practices in DC or elite boutiques. Using circuit clerkships as a rough (and flawed) measure of talent and prestige, the Cravath lit associate roster falls way behind these other shops. Like no one at Susman or Kellogg will be remotely impressed just because someone worked at Cravath.

this is veering quite far into hair-splitting territory imo. there are always going to be more prestigious positions. is Cravath the MOST tippy top prestigious? no. is it good? yeah lol

I don't disagree, but I guess I was referring to OP's talk about "an air" around Cravath. Among the prestige-hogging circuit clerk world, Cravath carries no such air. By the way, I think the prestige-hogging circuit clerk world is insufferable, but that's a different discussion. But is Cravath a "good" firm? Of course, it's a great firm.

Also not sure this is really hair-splitting. Cravath's a good firm but it doesn't really carry any wow factor among the circuit clerk class. Again, not defending the circuit clerk/feeder chasing class, they're pretty annoying if anything.

Well no NYC biglaw firm really has a "wow factor" among circuit clerk-caliber litigation students except maybe WLRK, top litigation students generally prefer boutiques and/or non-NY markets to NYC biglaw, it's not unique to Cravath

[Anonymous User]

Is it even that prestigious, though? Maybe among the NYC corporate crowd, but at least for litigation, the smartest students go to top appellate practices in DC or elite boutiques. Using circuit clerkships as a rough (and flawed) measure of talent and prestige, the Cravath lit associate roster falls way behind these other shops. Like no one at Susman or Kellogg will be remotely impressed just because someone worked at Cravath.

this is veering quite far into hair-splitting territory imo. there are always going to be more prestigious positions. is Cravath the MOST tippy top prestigious? no. is it good? yeah lol

I don't disagree, but I guess I was referring to OP's talk about "an air" around Cravath. Among the prestige-hogging circuit clerk world, Cravath carries no such air. By the way, I think the prestige-hogging circuit clerk world is insufferable, but that's a different discussion. But is Cravath a "good" firm? Of course, it's a great firm.

Also not sure this is really hair-splitting. Cravath's a good firm but it doesn't really carry any wow factor among the circuit clerk class. Again, not defending the circuit clerk/feeder chasing class, they're pretty annoying if anything.

agreed, all good points! hair-splitting was probably not the right term there, just think it's important to keep things in perspective and call out that beyond a certain point it becomes a question of like... who are you really trying to impress? but yes, agreed.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a fine firm, just like a bunch of other firms in NYC. Maybe they were a head above others 50-100 years ago, but those days are long gone. They also lost a whole bunch of partners and then hired a lateral partner too. Cravath litigators generally have been pretty disappointing, imo, but so have many "top firms" litigators too. It's very case by case now.