White & Case (NY) vs. Williams & Connolly Forum

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate and humbled to have these wonderful options! Where should I go if I'm interested in both litigation and corporate, with an international bent?

[jackshunger]

The cream goes to White & Case

[Anonymous User]

The cream goes to White & Case

This is exactly what I've been hearing from my classmates at HYS

[Anonymous User]

nice try LOL

[aegor]

I suggest W&C.

[Anonymous User]

I guess you weren't good enough to get Cravath? See other thread.

[Anonymous User]

Fortunate and humbled to have these wonderful options! Where should I go if I'm interested in both litigation and corporate, with an international bent?

I think I'm at great risk of having been trolled, but to give you a serious answer, if you truly want to do corporate work like M&A involving large companies, you probably should not come to Williams & Connolly. We do book deals; compensation/contract negotiation for athletes, executives, and media people; and the occasional corporate financing/bankruptcy for smaller local companies and longtime clients, but that's pretty much it.

If you want to do litigation, including international arbitration or FCPA work (which we do plenty of), I think we are an easy choice, unless you desperately want to live in New York.

(Anon b/c I work at W&C

[Anonymous User]

I guess you weren't good enough to get Cravath? See other thread.

I haven’t seen many jokes on this site but this is possibly the lowest-effort one of them all

[Anonymous User]

You can't blame the OP though. TLS does make the two W&C seem like the ultimate rivals.

[avenuem]

The cream goes to White & Case

This is exactly what I've been hearing from my classmates at HYS

I hope you know that the "cream [sic]" going to White & Case is a meme, a relic of sorts.

Williams & Connolly pays above White & Case/market and is a litigation powerhouse.

If we're talking about crème de la crème, the crème at White & Case is like the crème on a McDonalds frappe, whereas the crème at Williams & Connolly is like the crème on, say, a pret a manger or even more upscale coffee.

[Anonymous User]

The cream goes to White & Case

This is exactly what I've been hearing from my classmates at HYS

I hope you know that the "cream [sic]" going to White & Case is a meme, a relic of sorts.

Williams & Connolly pays above White & Case/market and is a litigation powerhouse.

If we're talking about crème de la crème, the crème at White & Case is like the crème on a McDonalds frappe, whereas the crème at Williams & Connolly is like the crème on, say, a pret a manger or even more upscale coffee.

Williams & Connolly is well know for paying below market. Not sure where you are getting the idea they pay above market.

Williams & Connolly doesn't pay bonuses and vault has their salary (although this might be slightly out of date): 1st year $200 (205/212.5 market); 2nd year 200 (225/235); 3rd 230 (270/290); 4th 260 (320/347); 5th 285 (360/392); 6th 310 (395/432); 7th 330 (425/465); 8th 345 (440/480).

You are going to make way less at Williams & Connolly than at White & Case. Certainly way less than at actually comparable firms (Gibson DC, Kellogg, MTO, Susman, Keker, WLRK).

[Anonymous User]

The cream goes to White & Case

This is exactly what I've been hearing from my classmates at HYS

I hope you know that the "cream [sic]" going to White & Case is a meme, a relic of sorts.

Williams & Connolly pays above White & Case/market and is a litigation powerhouse.

If we're talking about crème de la crème, the crème at White & Case is like the crème on a McDonalds frappe, whereas the crème at Williams & Connolly is like the crème on, say, a pret a manger or even more upscale coffee.

Williams & Connolly is well know for paying below market. Not sure where you are getting the idea they pay above market.

Williams & Connolly doesn't pay bonuses and vault has their salary (although this might be slightly out of date): 1st year $200 (205/212.5 market); 2nd year 200 (225/235); 3rd 230 (270/290); 4th 260 (320/347); 5th 285 (360/392); 6th 310 (395/432); 7th 330 (425/465); 8th 345 (440/480).

You are going to make way less at Williams & Connolly than at White & Case. Certainly way less than at actually comparable firms (Gibson DC, Kellogg, MTO, Susman, Keker, WLRK).

It's true that W&C pays below market starting 3rd/4th year. Some people still have the impression that we're above market from the years following the crash when it was true and we were ranked that way by Vault. (Because we don't pay bonuses and have never lowered pay, we made well above market for a few years there while bonuses were low. As bonuses have increased, we've gone under market.)

But the numbers above are wrong. I don't have the full scale in front of me, but first years (along with summers and stubs, pro-rata) make $205k, 2nd years $235k, and 3rd years 270k. The gap widens from there, especially with the covid special bonuses this year.

[Anonymous User]

The cream goes to White & Case

This is exactly what I've been hearing from my classmates at HYS

I hope you know that the "cream [sic]" going to White & Case is a meme, a relic of sorts.

Williams & Connolly pays above White & Case/market and is a litigation powerhouse.

If we're talking about crème de la crème, the crème at White & Case is like the crème on a McDonalds frappe, whereas the crème at Williams & Connolly is like the crème on, say, a pret a manger or even more upscale coffee.

Williams & Connolly is well know for paying below market. Not sure where you are getting the idea they pay above market.

Williams & Connolly doesn't pay bonuses and vault has their salary (although this might be slightly out of date): 1st year $200 (205/212.5 market); 2nd year 200 (225/235); 3rd 230 (270/290); 4th 260 (320/347); 5th 285 (360/392); 6th 310 (395/432); 7th 330 (425/465); 8th 345 (440/480).

You are going to make way less at Williams & Connolly than at White & Case. Certainly way less than at actually comparable firms (Gibson DC, Kellogg, MTO, Susman, Keker, WLRK).

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

[Anonymous User]

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

I think there's difference between (1) a "black box" firm that implies or suggests it's paying market or above-market compensation in order to obfuscate from the fact that the vast majority of its associates are getting paid below market and (2) a firm like W&C that has a very transparent salary scale paid to every associate.

There should be no way someone gets through the W&C hiring process without learning that you'll make less than market starting around year 3 or 4 (barring another recession bringing the market down).

Basically, W&C pays midlevels and seniors less than market, but everyone knows about it. Jones Day pays most (nearly all?) midlevels and seniors less than market but implies that's not true. (Also, associates have far, far higher chance of making partner at W&C, which is meant to compensate to some extent.)

It maybe deserves a different sort of criticism but not the same shaming that Jones Day deserves.

(Anon b/c I work at W&C and can attest that we all have access to our salary scale on the intranet.)

[Anonymous User]

If you consider partnership prospects to be a form of compensation, or at least a factor in decision-making alongside comp, then Williams & Connolly comes out ahead. There is no firm of similar stature where the partnership odds of a fresh 1st year will be better.

If you think you might want to spend your career in biglaw and make partner, go to DC. If not, pick the city you like more. All things being equal otherwise, go to Williams & Connolly. Get an apartment at The Wharf and you can walk to work every day among some nice restaurants and coffee shops. Not a bad life.

[ExpOriental]

The cream goes to White & Case

This is exactly what I've been hearing from my classmates at HYS

I hope you know that the "cream [sic]" going to White & Case is a meme, a relic of sorts.

Williams & Connolly pays above White & Case/market and is a litigation powerhouse.

If we're talking about crème de la crème, the crème at White & Case is like the crème on a McDonalds frappe, whereas the crème at Williams & Connolly is like the crème on, say, a pret a manger or even more upscale coffee.

Williams & Connolly is well know for paying below market. Not sure where you are getting the idea they pay above market.

Williams & Connolly doesn't pay bonuses and vault has their salary (although this might be slightly out of date): 1st year $200 (205/212.5 market); 2nd year 200 (225/235); 3rd 230 (270/290); 4th 260 (320/347); 5th 285 (360/392); 6th 310 (395/432); 7th 330 (425/465); 8th 345 (440/480).

You are going to make way less at Williams & Connolly than at White & Case. Certainly way less than at actually comparable firms (Gibson DC, Kellogg, MTO, Susman, Keker, WLRK).

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

Because it's transparent, and anyone who goes there knows they're trading comp for clout. Whether it's worth it or not is debatable and case-specific, but it's not like anyone is being misled. To that end, no one at Williams & Connolly is being "underpaid," and anyone that feels they are could easily lateral to a market firm.

That's not at all comparable to black-box comp that uses the lure of discretionary bonuses or whatever as cover for lower comp in the aggregate.

(That said, I assume most people at black-box firms know this and either didn't have a better choice or aren't perturbed by it)

[Anonymous User]

If you consider partnership prospects to be a form of compensation, or at least a factor in decision-making alongside comp, then Williams & Connolly comes out ahead. There is no firm of similar stature where the partnership odds of a fresh 1st year will be better.

If you think you might want to spend your career in biglaw and make partner, go to DC. If not, pick the city you like more. All things being equal otherwise, go to Williams & Connolly. Get an apartment at The Wharf and you can walk to work every day among some nice restaurants and coffee shops. Not a bad life.

Sorry but that just isn't true. Partnership prospects are only slightly worse at Kellogg, just as good at MTO, and better at Susman.

[Anonymous User]

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

I think there's difference between (1) a "black box" firm that implies or suggests it's paying market or above-market compensation in order to obfuscate from the fact that the vast majority of its associates are getting paid below market and (2) a firm like W&C that has a very transparent salary scale paid to every associate.

There should be no way someone gets through the W&C hiring process without learning that you'll make less than market starting around year 3 or 4 (barring another recession bringing the market down).

Basically, W&C pays midlevels and seniors less than market, but everyone knows about it. Jones Day pays most (nearly all?) midlevels and seniors less than market but implies that's not true. (Also, associates have far, far higher chance of making partner at W&C, which is meant to compensate to some extent.)

It maybe deserves a different sort of criticism but not the same shaming that Jones Day deserves.

(Anon b/c I work at W&C and can attest that we all have access to our salary scale on the intranet.)

I don't know of any objective pay data for Jones Day - some associates make less than market, others make more (like the 6th year associate who made $800,000). Who knows how many there are of each. Maybe some first years misunderstand how the black box works, but I don't see how maybe getting less than market is any better than definitely getting less than market. Other law firms provide equal or better partnership chances without cutting corners on pay.

[Anonymous User]

If you consider partnership prospects to be a form of compensation, or at least a factor in decision-making alongside comp, then Williams & Connolly comes out ahead. There is no firm of similar stature where the partnership odds of a fresh 1st year will be better.

If you think you might want to spend your career in biglaw and make partner, go to DC. If not, pick the city you like more. All things being equal otherwise, go to Williams & Connolly. Get an apartment at The Wharf and you can walk to work every day among some nice restaurants and coffee shops. Not a bad life.

I believe essentially every associate makes partner at Bartlit Beck, but it’s much more selective than W&C so you might not consider it as the same stature.

[jackshunger]

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

I think there's difference between (1) a "black box" firm that implies or suggests it's paying market or above-market compensation in order to obfuscate from the fact that the vast majority of its associates are getting paid below market and (2) a firm like W&C that has a very transparent salary scale paid to every associate.

There should be no way someone gets through the W&C hiring process without learning that you'll make less than market starting around year 3 or 4 (barring another recession bringing the market down).

Basically, W&C pays midlevels and seniors less than market, but everyone knows about it. Jones Day pays most (nearly all?) midlevels and seniors less than market but implies that's not true. (Also, associates have far, far higher chance of making partner at W&C, which is meant to compensate to some extent.)

It maybe deserves a different sort of criticism but not the same shaming that Jones Day deserves.

(Anon b/c I work at W&C and can attest that we all have access to our salary scale on the intranet.)

I don't know of any objective pay data for Jones Day - some associates make less than market, others make more (like the 6th year associate who made $800,000). Who knows how many there are of each. Maybe some first years misunderstand how the black box works, but I don't see how maybe getting less than market is any better than definitely getting less than market. Other law firms provide equal or better partnership chances without cutting corners on pay.

I'll quote myself from the Jones Day compensation thread: "You are discussing James Burnham, and he is hardly emblematic of anything. He's extremely well connected, was in the running for a 9th Circuit judge spot, and Gorsuch just hired him to be a SCOTUS clerk...I'm not a fan of the black box system, but pointing to him as an example of anything replicable or ordinary at JD isn't a good idea. He's a SCOTUS clerk and superstar on the rainmaker partner track."

Being an average associate at Williams & Connolly will always be smarter than praying you are going to be someone special at a black box firm.

[2013]

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

I think there's difference between (1) a "black box" firm that implies or suggests it's paying market or above-market compensation in order to obfuscate from the fact that the vast majority of its associates are getting paid below market and (2) a firm like W&C that has a very transparent salary scale paid to every associate.

There should be no way someone gets through the W&C hiring process without learning that you'll make less than market starting around year 3 or 4 (barring another recession bringing the market down).

Basically, W&C pays midlevels and seniors less than market, but everyone knows about it. Jones Day pays most (nearly all?) midlevels and seniors less than market but implies that's not true. (Also, associates have far, far higher chance of making partner at W&C, which is meant to compensate to some extent.)

It maybe deserves a different sort of criticism but not the same shaming that Jones Day deserves.

(Anon b/c I work at W&C and can attest that we all have access to our salary scale on the intranet.)

I don't know of any objective pay data for Jones Day - some associates make less than market, others make more (like the 6th year associate who made $800,000). Who knows how many there are of each. Maybe some first years misunderstand how the black box works, but I don't see how maybe getting less than market is any better than definitely getting less than market. Other law firms provide equal or better partnership chances without cutting corners on pay.

In that lawsuit against JD, didn’t a senior associate in a major market state that she was paid $220k or something? I think a guarantee of a slightly lower-than-market salary is better than that.

Also, that JD associate making $800k was well-connected and I think related to one of the heads of their offices(father-in-law).

[Anonymous User]

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

I think there's difference between (1) a "black box" firm that implies or suggests it's paying market or above-market compensation in order to obfuscate from the fact that the vast majority of its associates are getting paid below market and (2) a firm like W&C that has a very transparent salary scale paid to every associate.

There should be no way someone gets through the W&C hiring process without learning that you'll make less than market starting around year 3 or 4 (barring another recession bringing the market down).

Basically, W&C pays midlevels and seniors less than market, but everyone knows about it. Jones Day pays most (nearly all?) midlevels and seniors less than market but implies that's not true. (Also, associates have far, far higher chance of making partner at W&C, which is meant to compensate to some extent.)

It maybe deserves a different sort of criticism but not the same shaming that Jones Day deserves.

(Anon b/c I work at W&C and can attest that we all have access to our salary scale on the intranet.)

I don't know of any objective pay data for Jones Day - some associates make less than market, others make more (like the 6th year associate who made $800,000). Who knows how many there are of each. Maybe some first years misunderstand how the black box works, but I don't see how maybe getting less than market is any better than definitely getting less than market. Other law firms provide equal or better partnership chances without cutting corners on pay.

I'll quote myself from the Jones Day compensation thread: "You are discussing James Burnham, and he is hardly emblematic of anything. He's extremely well connected, was in the running for a 9th Circuit judge spot, and Gorsuch just hired him to be a SCOTUS clerk...I'm not a fan of the black box system, but pointing to him as an example of anything replicable or ordinary at JD isn't a good idea. He's a SCOTUS clerk and superstar on the rainmaker partner track."

Being an average associate at Williams & Connolly will always be smarter than praying you are going to be someone special at a black box firm.

That is who I was remembering, but there are other examples - I think the married couple in the Jones Day maternity lawsuit made $500,000 each. Point is, without data, I doubt we can know exactly how many associates get overpaid / underpaid. And by the way, I'm not a fan of the black box system either. I just think it's weird to criticize black box law firms for paying some associates less than market when a much more selective firm pays all its associates less than market and generally gets praised on this forum.

[thepsychedelic]

Troll thread aside, this brings up an important point. Posters on this forum often criticize black box firms like Jones Day for underpaying some associates. Why does Williams & Connolly get a free pass for underpaying all of them?

I think there's difference between (1) a "black box" firm that implies or suggests it's paying market or above-market compensation in order to obfuscate from the fact that the vast majority of its associates are getting paid below market and (2) a firm like W&C that has a very transparent salary scale paid to every associate.

There should be no way someone gets through the W&C hiring process without learning that you'll make less than market starting around year 3 or 4 (barring another recession bringing the market down).

Basically, W&C pays midlevels and seniors less than market, but everyone knows about it. Jones Day pays most (nearly all?) midlevels and seniors less than market but implies that's not true. (Also, associates have far, far higher chance of making partner at W&C, which is meant to compensate to some extent.)

It maybe deserves a different sort of criticism but not the same shaming that Jones Day deserves.

(Anon b/c I work at W&C and can attest that we all have access to our salary scale on the intranet.)

I don't know of any objective pay data for Jones Day - some associates make less than market, others make more (like the 6th year associate who made $800,000). Who knows how many there are of each. Maybe some first years misunderstand how the black box works, but I don't see how maybe getting less than market is any better than definitely getting less than market. Other law firms provide equal or better partnership chances without cutting corners on pay.

I'll quote myself from the Jones Day compensation thread: "You are discussing James Burnham, and he is hardly emblematic of anything. He's extremely well connected, was in the running for a 9th Circuit judge spot, and Gorsuch just hired him to be a SCOTUS clerk...I'm not a fan of the black box system, but pointing to him as an example of anything replicable or ordinary at JD isn't a good idea. He's a SCOTUS clerk and superstar on the rainmaker partner track."

Being an average associate at Williams & Connolly will always be smarter than praying you are going to be someone special at a black box firm.

That is who I was remembering, but there are other examples - I think the married couple in the Jones Day maternity lawsuit made $500,000 each. Point is, without data, I doubt we can know exactly how many associates get overpaid / underpaid. And by the way, I'm not a fan of the black box system either. I just think it's weird to criticize black box law firms for paying some associates less than market when a much more selective firm pays all its associates less than market and generally gets praised on this forum.

the married couple in the JD lawsuit were also SCOTUS clerks, so not really on point either. I think the fact that W&C is completely transparent that they pay less than market makes it fine. No one is going into W&C not knowing how much they'll make.

[Anonymous User]

Can't believe the poll is even this close...

[seraph9]

Can't believe the poll is even this close...

Yeah, White & Case is a no brainer.