Milbank (NY) vs DPW (NY) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Friends -- would I be crazy to take Milbank over DPW? I'm leaning toward lit, but am excited to try out some other practice areas too and Milbank's project finance group sounds interesting. I loved everyone I talked to there (just seemed to 'click' better) and the office is gorgeous. Basically, are these good enough reasons to turn down a V10? Interested in eventually going into government or non-profit work if that makes a difference.

[almostperfectt]

Yes that would be crazy. You can always lateral from DPW to Milbank. Might be harder to go in the opposite direction

[Anonymous User]

i don't think it's crazy and i'd prob do the same. on paper, there's probably more reasons to choose dpw but i tend to think the prestige factor is overblown. milbank is a good firm and you'll have good options down the road. i don't really understand the 'you can always lateral down but not up' argument. one, i dont think that's actually true or maybe right now is a wrinkle in time where lots of firms up and down the v10 are taking laterals regardless of what v100 they were at previously but two, more importantly, why would you want to. ppl tend to lateral to a different firm bc they're burned out, not to try to get boned even harder by an even shittier sweatshop experience. maybe it's different in lit but i don't think corporate opportunities are materially better either just because you have dpw on your resume. it's your actual experience at the firm and in a lot of ways, that's on you.

[almostperfectt]

i don't think it's crazy and i'd prob do the same. on paper, there's probably more reasons to choose dpw but i tend to think the prestige factor is overblown. milbank is a good firm and you'll have good options down the road. i don't really understand the 'you can always lateral down but not up' argument. one, i dont think that's actually true or maybe right now is a wrinkle in time where lots of firms up and down the v10 are taking laterals regardless of what v100 they were at previously but two, more importantly, why would you want to. ppl tend to lateral to a different firm bc they're burned out, not to try to get boned even harder by an even shittier sweatshop experience. maybe it's different in lit but i don't think corporate opportunities are materially better either just because you have dpw on your resume. it's your actual experience at the firm and in a lot of ways, that's on you.

Are you at DPW or a peer firm of it? Because I find much of what are you're saying to be patently false. What are you even saying about why would you want to lateral down? People lateral down BECAUSE of the reasons you described

[Anonymous User]

i don't think it's crazy and i'd prob do the same. on paper, there's probably more reasons to choose dpw but i tend to think the prestige factor is overblown. milbank is a good firm and you'll have good options down the road. i don't really understand the 'you can always lateral down but not up' argument. one, i dont think that's actually true or maybe right now is a wrinkle in time where lots of firms up and down the v10 are taking laterals regardless of what v100 they were at previously but two, more importantly, why would you want to. ppl tend to lateral to a different firm bc they're burned out, not to try to get boned even harder by an even shittier sweatshop experience. maybe it's different in lit but i don't think corporate opportunities are materially better either just because you have dpw on your resume. it's your actual experience at the firm and in a lot of ways, that's on you.

Are you at DPW or a peer firm of it? Because I find much of what are you're saying to be patently false. What are you even saying about why would you want to lateral down? People lateral down BECAUSE of the reasons you described

…did you actually read what he wrote?

[almostperfectt]

i don't think it's crazy and i'd prob do the same. on paper, there's probably more reasons to choose dpw but i tend to think the prestige factor is overblown. milbank is a good firm and you'll have good options down the road. i don't really understand the 'you can always lateral down but not up' argument. one, i dont think that's actually true or maybe right now is a wrinkle in time where lots of firms up and down the v10 are taking laterals regardless of what v100 they were at previously but two, more importantly, why would you want to. ppl tend to lateral to a different firm bc they're burned out, not to try to get boned even harder by an even shittier sweatshop experience. maybe it's different in lit but i don't think corporate opportunities are materially better either just because you have dpw on your resume. it's your actual experience at the firm and in a lot of ways, that's on you.

Are you at DPW or a peer firm of it? Because I find much of what are you're saying to be patently false. What are you even saying about why would you want to lateral down? People lateral down BECAUSE of the reasons you described

…did you actually read what he wrote?

I did but I didn't think I needed to explain why people lateral up. I understand if someone isn't in the industry yet and has questions about it but if that's the case don't post inane opinions when someone is asking for career advice.

ETA: And why abuse anon

[Anonymous User]

OP here, and your responses all mirror what's been going through my mind lol. I don't want to dox myself but the offer from Milbank came with some extra financial incentives which is making the decision all the more difficult. Talking to career services tomorrow though so hopefully they can help me think through the pros and cons!

[Anonymous User]

i don't think it's crazy and i'd prob do the same. on paper, there's probably more reasons to choose dpw but i tend to think the prestige factor is overblown. milbank is a good firm and you'll have good options down the road. i don't really understand the 'you can always lateral down but not up' argument. one, i dont think that's actually true or maybe right now is a wrinkle in time where lots of firms up and down the v10 are taking laterals regardless of what v100 they were at previously but two, more importantly, why would you want to. ppl tend to lateral to a different firm bc they're burned out, not to try to get boned even harder by an even shittier sweatshop experience. maybe it's different in lit but i don't think corporate opportunities are materially better either just because you have dpw on your resume. it's your actual experience at the firm and in a lot of ways, that's on you.

Are you at DPW or a peer firm of it? Because I find much of what are you're saying to be patently false. What are you even saying about why would you want to lateral down? People lateral down BECAUSE of the reasons you described

…did you actually read what he wrote?

I did but I didn't think I needed to explain why people lateral up. I understand if someone isn't in the industry yet and has questions about it but if that's the case don't post inane opinions when someone is asking for career advice.

ETA: And why abuse anon

lol kind of a curious reaction. i said a handful of things, none of which i think are false but im open to being persuaded otherwise. presumably you're not disputing that milbank is a good firm. is your contention that v10s hire laterals exclusively from other v10s/deign to drop down to v20s? all firms are bleeding midlevels right now, and across the board generally. i had offers and know plenty of others who have gotten offers to 'lateral to up'. as much as it seems like you would like to believe this, v10s are not throwing out lateral resumes just because a candidate is coming from a v30 or something.. lol. i also never asked why you would want to lateral down - that part was clear from my post so i'll chalk that up to a reading comp fail like the prior anon noted. i am genuinely curious though as to why some1, say a milbank associate like the op potentially might be, would want to 'lateral up' to dpw down the road. if he/she is well liked and learns enough there, why would he/she want to give up all the built up good will just to start over, especially if it likely involves a heavier workload? lateraling down does not necessarily = lighter workload but i can guarantee you lateraling up to dpw = just as difficult/heavier workload. sure, you could be a gunner star associate and just want the name value but you likely would have had an offer from a v10 to begin with then and started your career there. corp opportunities to go in house are based on your actual know how. plenty of juniors stay diligence monkeys irrespective of what vault firm they're at. name brand recognition will only get you so far. i also explicitly confined my comments to transactional work and left the floor open to others knowledgeable on lit bc outcomes might actually be materially different there. so yea... not sure what about anything i said made you rage that hard. for your sake, hopefully you're not just a salty v10 associate trying to justify your miserable existence.

[Anonymous User]

It’s less crazy than it was a decade ago. A lot of TLS (and law school generally) learnings crystallized in a recession and immediately post-recession mindset, when (a) getting a Biglaw job and (b) clinging to vault (so you can lateral down when you’re up and out) dominated the discourse because everyone was professionally risk averse. Even five years ago when I graduated from law school, there was a lingering sense that V10s offered more job security (Lathaming aside). Partners pitched that their firm didn’t do layoffs (publicly) during the recession, and that was only true of a few at the top. In today’s economy, with the lateral market red hot, I’m really not sure it matters as much whether you start at Milbank or Davis Polk.

[almostperfectt]

Justifying my miserable existence? That's basically my second job.

Anons are mentioning a "red hot lateral market right now [for midlevels]" but this person is choosing between firms in 2021, so will be starting in 2023ish, and statistically won't lateral until 2026+. If you think you think current market trends will last that long (and aren't simply caused by COVID peculiarities) then sure turn down the v10 but if you're wrong you might regret it. On the converse, if you start at DPW, you pretty much have smooth sailing when it comes to lateraling/exiting in just about any market condition.

I rage because you gave short-sighted advice. In addition to the above, not everyone will be well-liked/good fit at their first firm and lateral opportunities and exit options are objectively better from a v10. We could get into debates about closer ranked firms and practice group specialties but saying that a v10 vs a v100 will land you a similar lateralling experience is silly. Also not understanding why someone would lateral up is even sillier. (I'll give you a hint for just one reason, $$$ if you stay the long haul)

[Anonymous User]

The firms pay the same, and no one here is making partner at Davis Polk or its peers. There is no categorical virtue to lateraling “up.”

Lateraling to a higher ranked vault firm can make sense for many people, of course, just as lateraling to a ‘lower ranked’ firm can be a good career move. If you have any idea of what you’re doing, by the time you’re a mid level, you’ll be more focused on the specific people and client industries you want to work with or strengths of particular groups than generic prestige. There are exceptions: if you started somewhere that is financially wobbly or bleeding partner talent or genuinely sub-par in your practice area, make the jump to a more stable platform when you have the chance. This is especially true if you’re still relatively junior (3rd year and below), and you get a good opportunity at a particular group at an elite shop. But Milbank isn’t any of those things.

In the abstract, normalizing across hundreds of associates, yes, it’s better to start your career at Davis Polk. But assuming OP has decent reasons, it’s not crazy to turn it down.

[ExpOriental]

The firms pay the same, and no one here is making partner at Davis Polk or its peers. There is no categorical virtue to lateraling “up.”

Lateraling to a higher ranked vault firm can make sense for many people, of course, just as lateraling to a ‘lower ranked’ firm can be a good career move. If you have any idea of what you’re doing, by the time you’re a mid level, you’ll be more focused on the specific people and client industries you want to work with or strengths of particular groups than generic prestige. There are exceptions: if you started somewhere that is financially wobbly or bleeding partner talent or genuinely sub-par in your practice area, make the jump to a more stable platform when you have the chance. This is especially true if you’re still relatively junior (3rd year and below), and you get a good opportunity at a particular group at an elite shop. But Milbank isn’t any of those things.

In the abstract, normalizing across hundreds of associates, yes, it’s better to start your career at Davis Polk. But assuming OP has decent reasons, it’s not crazy to turn it down.

Just want to second this for getting at a big problem with many of the posts in this thread so far, which is attaching unwarranted significance to Vault rank.

I encourage people to take a look at Laterally (if it ever works again) to get a clearer picture of who is generally lateraling where. In short, Vault rankings are not especially probative of lateral moves; there is a fairly equal mix of moves "up" or "down" or "sideways" in Vault ranking.

What you do see are strong trends in region, office size, and practice area. So you see a lot of e.g., Schulte, Cahill, and (gasp!) Shearman associates moving "up" to other large NYC offices. This might seem obvious and intuitive, yet we still have people apparently deferring to Vault rankings (which, if not clear already, I think are dumb and borderline worthless) instead of the much more useful "is this firm strong in this practice area in this city," and the even more important "am I personally going to develop into an attractive lateral candidate."

Also, as to the argument above suggesting that people lateraling "up" is merely a product of the current hot market, I'll point you towards the 15+ year old "logo facing out" copypasta for evidence that this phenomenon isn't even remotely new (this is also reflected on Laterally).

[albinododobird]

I picked Milbank for litigation over a couple of higher-ranked firms that are better-known for their litigation departments. It's too soon to tell if I should have picked otherwise, but what are the stakes, anyway? What options could you possibly have having started at DPW that you won't at Milbank? Are they options you are interested in? There's no real way of knowing, but it seems pretty unlikely that you'll be significantly worse off for having started your career at a marginally less elite law firm. When I was making my decision, I talked to a couple of recruiters who had volunteered to talk to students from my school, and they both told me that going with Milbank would make no difference for my career prospects down the line.

Anyway, go with your gut. The reputational difference between Milbank and DPW isn't significant enough to justify going with prestige over what feels right.