Top Law Schools

Is it super easy to lateral to HK or SG from WLRK or CSM? That is, will I be seen as a Messi or Ronaldo of the legal world?

Wachtell=Messi, Cravath=Frank Lampard.

Cravath is more like Jesse Lingard these days

Both are kind of bad for Asian lateral move. Besides didn’t Cravath open an office in HK, totally flopped, so they had to shut it down?

Why not try to go to a firm with a stronger Asian footprint, assuming you’re trying to do M and A here... say Skadden? If it’s just really between these two, go to Wachtell, make a lot of money, and lateral. I don’t know if people in Asia will have any idea what either of these firms mean for the “legal world”.

For an Asia lateral move, def agree that Skadden and maybe Cleary are much better choices. They have real presences there. Solely for comp purposes, obvi go to Wachtell.

Disagree with the posts above. Worked in Hong Kong legal market before. At least in HK, Cravath and Wachtell are known by the firms. If you are a U.S. JD, you are not going to local HK firms anyways (they pay way less), the best international shops in HK (magic circle + v10) obvs know all about wachtell and cravath. I would be more concerned about relevant experience, corporate wise, capital market and PE work are easier to transfer to the HK market, if it's irrelevant experience, your seniority might be discounted.

Not sure about SG, but I would guess it's a similar situation.

esther0123 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:20 pm

Both are kind of bad for Asian lateral move. Besides didn’t Cravath open an office in HK, totally flopped, so they had to shut it down?

Why not try to go to a firm with a stronger Asian footprint, assuming you’re trying to do M and A here... say Skadden? If it’s just really between these two, go to Wachtell, make a lot of money, and lateral. I don’t know if people in Asia will have any idea what either of these firms mean for the “legal world”.

Gross mischaracterization. The firm closed the office during a banner year and specifically said that it was committed to its London and N.Y. clients and didn't think it was necessary to have a HK office. In case you don't know, Cravath is one of the wealthiest firms, with an international brand (despite its limited number of offices), and could afford to keep its doors open.

Currently working in Asia. As long as you are from V10 (or even V20) and graduated from T14, what matters more is your language skill.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:41 pm

Currently working in Asia. As long as you are from V10 (or even V20) and graduated from T14, what matters more is your language skill.

Do you have thoughts on V100 and T-30? Is it like an automatic no at the screener stage or something that you can overcome with relevant work experience?

So is the consensus basically that biglaw in Asia (UK and US firms) won't put out a red carpet for you just because you worked at Wachtell or Cravath?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:21 am

So is the consensus basically that biglaw in Asia (UK and US firms) won't put out a red carpet for you just because you worked at Wachtell or Cravath?

Yes. They would understand you have great credentials, but whether or not you are gonna be a fit (whether to hire you) for their office depends on your experiences and practice areas.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:45 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:21 am

So is the consensus basically that biglaw in Asia (UK and US firms) won't put out a red carpet for you just because you worked at Wachtell or Cravath?

Yes. They would understand you have great credentials, but whether or not you are gonna be a fit (whether to hire you) for their office depends on your experiences and practice areas.

+1

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:27 pm

Gross mischaracterization. The firm closed the office during a banner year and specifically said that it was committed to its London and N.Y. clients and didn't think it was necessary to have a HK office.

The firm "specifically said" something so it must be true. Just like you can ask partners as many questions as you want, no worries, and unlimited vacation is so the associates feel more flexible and take off all the time they need.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:27 pm

esther0123 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:20 pm

Both are kind of bad for Asian lateral move. Besides didn’t Cravath open an office in HK, totally flopped, so they had to shut it down?

Why not try to go to a firm with a stronger Asian footprint, assuming you’re trying to do M and A here... say Skadden? If it’s just really between these two, go to Wachtell, make a lot of money, and lateral. I don’t know if people in Asia will have any idea what either of these firms mean for the “legal world”.

Gross mischaracterization. The firm closed the office during a banner year and specifically said that it was committed to its London and N.Y. clients and didn't think it was necessary to have a HK office. In case you don't know, Cravath is one of the wealthiest firms, with an international brand (despite its limited number of offices), and could afford to keep its doors open.

Yes, Cravath will totally, and always, admit to flopping and closing down the office, if that were true. If the firm said they had a banner year, then they had a banner year. Also, closing down an office during a banner year means that means their Hong Kong office wasn't a flop. Since they didn't say that their Hong Kong office was a flop, and because they said they wanted to focus on their London and New York clients, that must mean that they did NOT flop in Hong Kong. I agree.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:27 pm

esther0123 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:20 pm

Both are kind of bad for Asian lateral move. Besides didn’t Cravath open an office in HK, totally flopped, so they had to shut it down?

Why not try to go to a firm with a stronger Asian footprint, assuming you’re trying to do M and A here... say Skadden? If it’s just really between these two, go to Wachtell, make a lot of money, and lateral. I don’t know if people in Asia will have any idea what either of these firms mean for the “legal world”.

Gross mischaracterization. The firm closed the office during a banner year and specifically said that it was committed to its London and N.Y. clients and didn't think it was necessary to have a HK office. In case you don't know, Cravath is one of the wealthiest firms, with an international brand (despite its limited number of offices), and could afford to keep its doors open.

Having never heard about this office and closure before in my life, after reading this I'm convinced that it was a flop.

There is a lot of not that great advice in this thread.

Wachtell is the clear winner here. Cravath has zero presence in Asia and you won't be put on a pedestal. Also, the array of practice areas abroad in Asia is far smaller than in the USA, so if you go to Cravath you might be put on a bad rotation and get close to zero relevant work experience, which would actually make you far less competitive than other candidates for an Asia lateral move.

Wachtell will make it much easier to lateral because at the lateral stage you are essentially just trying to prove that you aren't a dud. If you are lateralling from Wachtell, you have the easiest "why Asia" answer: because Wachtell doesn't have any Asia offices. And you get the boosted signaling value from actually going to Wachtell. And you earn hundreds of thousands more $$$.

It really is not even close.