Why are profits at Cravath consistently lower than peer firms? Forum

[happyday]

Question in the title. WLRK/S&C/STB/DPW and a couple other firms perennially post higher profits per [equity] partner. I’m just curious if this means Cravath has super nice benefits/amenities/etc. for associates (and partners, I guess) that drive up its expenses…or if something else is at play lol.

[Anonymous User]

Question in the title. WLRK/S&C/STB/DPW and a couple other firms perennially post higher profits per [equity] partner. I’m just curious if this means Cravath has super nice benefits/amenities/etc. for associates (and partners, I guess) that drive up its expenses…or if something else is at play lol.

Cravath's dominance at the top of vault is baffling to just about anyone that works in NYC biglaw. I really can't explain it with anything besides "precedence" - they've always held the spot.

In almost every meaningful metric, they lag behind their peers. At least back in the day, they could claim to set the industry standard on pay. However, they haven't been the first-mover for compensation in the past several rounds. On top of that, they pay associates less than K&E/L&W, and partners significantly less than all of their peer firms.

To my knowledge, there's no meaningful benefits/amenities/etc. that they offer vs. their peer firms, but I'd love to hear from Cravath associates if they disagree.

[Buglaw]

Agree it's legacy, but it's also not super crazy. Profits aren't the only measure of prestige. They have a very small office, it's hard to get hired there, they do almost universally sophisticated work, they created the model for big law firms, they were the compensation leader for decades and their numbers aren't really behind STB or DPW. They are less, but more like peer numbers, not a step below. That being said, their time as the dominant factor with it being Wachtell and Cravath head and shoulders above everyone else has clearly come to an end. They are more peers with STB and DPW now.

K&E and LW aren't really peers. They are a bit of a different type of firm. I don't think it's fair to make a comparison between the two (just like comparing Sussman to Cravath doesn't really make sense).

[Anonymous User]

Not sure I agree with the premise of this question . . . particularly the use of "consistently" or "perennially" [lower profits]. See chart below. Sometimes Cravath is on the higher end of its peer group, sometimes it is on the lower end.




As to why Cravath didn't have the record-shattering year in 2020 that peer firms did, IDK? Probably has something to do with practice group mix? My sense is that Cravath is more reliant on pub. co. M&A than the other firms, which might have resulted in lackluster COVID performance.

However, I do agree that from a financial metrics perspective, Cravath is no longer materially different from other top NYC shops (excluding Wachtell, obviously).

[Anonymous User]

Question in the title. WLRK/S&C/STB/DPW and a couple other firms perennially post higher profits per [equity] partner. I’m just curious if this means Cravath has super nice benefits/amenities/etc. for associates (and partners, I guess) that drive up its expenses…or if something else is at play lol.

The Cravath System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravath_System, which was invented by Paul Cravath himself) and Cravath Scale (which Cravath led the industry in salary increases for almost a century) have situated Cravath in the legal consciousness as the very top firm in the 20th century. It becomes and remains #1 when every other firm wants to copy Cravath and what it does. If Milbank keeps doing what it is doing with respect to salary increases every few years, it may be able to unseat Cravath in a few generations.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath also has a very high end pension plan for its partners which, if you factor in, leaves PPP basically in line with S&C/STB for 2020:

Cravath continues to maintain an expensive pension program for partners through an unfunded retirement plan. For instance, without payments to retired partners, the firm’s average profits per partner would be $5 million.

Source: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2021 ... celerates/

[Anonymous User]

Also, just to be fair here, they can't crank up associate billables by hiring more laterals...

[Anonymous User]

Cravath also has a very high end pension plan for its partners which, if you factor in, leaves PPP basically in line with S&C/STB for 2020:

Not sure about S&C and STB in particular, but there are several other V20ish firms that I know have similar pension obligations to retired partners. Cravath is not unique in that respect.

Also, just to be fair here, they can't crank up associate billables by hiring more laterals...

True**; that's why they over-hire 2Ls (relatively speaking). In any event, Cravath is not uniquely under- or over-leveraged. Cravath and DPW are around 5x, whereas S&C and STB are closer to 4x (with S&C consistently the lowest leverage of the bunch).

**Not necessarily true anymore, since Cravath is supposedly starting to up its lateral intake.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath also has a very high end pension plan for its partners which, if you factor in, leaves PPP basically in line with S&C/STB for 2020:

Not sure about S&C and STB in particular, but there are several other V20ish firms that I know have similar pension obligations to retired partners. Cravath is not unique in that respect.

Also, just to be fair here, they can't crank up associate billables by hiring more laterals...

True**; that's why they over-hire 2Ls (relatively speaking). In any event, Cravath is not uniquely under- or over-leveraged. Cravath and DPW are around 5x, whereas S&C and STB are closer to 4x (with S&C consistently the lowest leverage of the bunch).

**Not necessarily true anymore, since Cravath is supposedly starting to up its lateral intake.

Pardon my ignorance, but are we talking about financial leverage here? If not, what’s the significance of low leverage?

[Anonymous User]

True**; that's why they over-hire 2Ls (relatively speaking). In any event, Cravath is not uniquely under- or over-leveraged. Cravath and DPW are around 5x, whereas S&C and STB are closer to 4x (with S&C consistently the lowest leverage of the bunch).

**Not necessarily true anymore, since Cravath is supposedly starting to up its lateral intake.

They take laterals for Tax, ECB, and specialty groups generally. I'm not aware of it for anyone in general Corporate/Litigation other than one banking-focused associate that came with a specialist lateral partner hire.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry for the stupid question but is it easier or harder to make partner at Cravath v peer firms?

Also do frmr Cravath associates have stronger lateral prospects?

Both possible factors for prestige. But tbh the most likely answer is that associates in other firms filling out the annual vault firm remember the name Cravath more than other firms.

[Anonymous User]

Pardon my ignorance, but are we talking about financial leverage here? If not, what’s the significance of low leverage?

No, not financial leverage. Leverage is the ratio of lawyers overall (or sometimes just non-partners) to equity partners. It's often discussed in the context of profitability, because PPEP (profit per equity partner) = leverage X PPL (profit per lawyer).

Controlling or "correcting" for leverage makes it possible to compare the profitability of firms while abstracting away from the structure of those firms. In any case, Cravath is not a particular outlier when it comes to leverage, unlike (e.g.) WLRK which is much closer to 1:1::associates:partners.

They take laterals for Tax, ECB, and specialty groups generally. I'm not aware of it for anyone in general Corporate/Litigation other than one banking-focused associate that came with a specialist lateral partner hire.

Gotcha, it sounds like you have more insider knowledge than I do. I was referring to the news reports from a few weeks ago (https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/did-the ... th-system/), that were speculating about Cravath starting to open up to laterals more broadly.

[Anonymous User]

Pardon my ignorance, but are we talking about financial leverage here? If not, what’s the significance of low leverage?

No, not financial leverage. Leverage is the ratio of lawyers overall (or sometimes just non-partners) to equity partners. It's often discussed in the context of profitability, because PPEP (profit per equity partner) = leverage X PPL (profit per lawyer).

Controlling or "correcting" for leverage makes it possible to compare the profitability of firms while abstracting away from the structure of those firms. In any case, Cravath is not a particular outlier when it comes to leverage, unlike (e.g.) WLRK which is much closer to 1:1::associates:partners.

They take laterals for Tax, ECB, and specialty groups generally. I'm not aware of it for anyone in general Corporate/Litigation other than one banking-focused associate that came with a specialist lateral partner hire.

Gotcha, it sounds like you have more insider knowledge than I do. I was referring to the news reports from a few weeks ago (https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/did-the ... th-system/), that were speculating about Cravath starting to open up to laterals more broadly.

I just looked at Nalp, and it seems like Wachtell has 1:2, S&C has 1:3, Cravath has 1:5 (excluding of counsels). Does this mean that 1 out of 2 associates at Wacthell has a shot at making partner and so on?

[Anonymous User]

I just looked at Nalp, and it seems like Wachtell has 1:2, S&C has 1:3, Cravath has 1:5 (excluding of counsels). Does this mean that 1 out of 2 associates at Wacthell has a shot at making partner and so on?

I mean, yes and no. Yes in the sense that lower leverage is indicative of a better shot a partnership. No in the sense that 1/2 (50%) odds are insanely off. I mean, if half of each associate class were made partner each year...the partnership would grow super quickly (which is not at all desirable to preexisting WLRK partners).

WLRK typically elects 2-3 partners a year. They hire about 35-40 associates each year. I trust you can do the math from here.

[Anonymous User]

Pardon my ignorance, but are we talking about financial leverage here? If not, what’s the significance of low leverage?

No, not financial leverage. Leverage is the ratio of lawyers overall (or sometimes just non-partners) to equity partners. It's often discussed in the context of profitability, because PPEP (profit per equity partner) = leverage X PPL (profit per lawyer).

Controlling or "correcting" for leverage makes it possible to compare the profitability of firms while abstracting away from the structure of those firms. In any case, Cravath is not a particular outlier when it comes to leverage, unlike (e.g.) WLRK which is much closer to 1:1::associates:partners.

They take laterals for Tax, ECB, and specialty groups generally. I'm not aware of it for anyone in general Corporate/Litigation other than one banking-focused associate that came with a specialist lateral partner hire.

Gotcha, it sounds like you have more insider knowledge than I do. I was referring to the news reports from a few weeks ago (https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/did-the ... th-system/), that were speculating about Cravath starting to open up to laterals more broadly.

I just looked at Nalp, and it seems like Wachtell has 1:2, S&C has 1:3, Cravath has 1:5 (excluding of counsels). Does this mean that 1 out of 2 associates at Wacthell has a shot at making partner and so on?

No. 50% shot at partnership would be a dream come true at any firm. Hell, even 20% would be a dream come true.

Associate leverage works in a similar way as financial leverage. When the firm is successful, it leads to outsized returns. When the firm is unsuccessful it leads to outsized costs.

If the firm is busy, all associates are at full capacity and bringing in money for the partners. The more associates at full capacity = more profits.

If the firm is slow, all associates are working below full capacity, yet the partners still have to pay your salary. You are costing them money because they are paying the same salary even though you are not driving up profits anymore. More mouths to feed with less revenue = less profits.

The chance of making partner at my V5 (very very questionable calculation of number of first year associates hired on average each year vs. number of partners made on average each year) is 3%. This is probably not a useful estimate as it doesn't take into account people who have no interest in partnership and self-select out or lateral hires that make partner. But, it helps demonstrate that partnership prospects are not in line with leverage ratios.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath's dominance at the top of vault is baffling to just about anyone that works in NYC biglaw. I really can't explain it with anything besides "precedence" - they've always held the spot.

In almost every meaningful metric, they lag behind their peers. At least back in the day, they could claim to set the industry standard on pay. However, they haven't been the first-mover for compensation in the past several rounds. On top of that, they pay associates less than K&E/L&W, and partners significantly less than all of their peer firms.

To my knowledge, there's no meaningful benefits/amenities/etc. that they offer vs. their peer firms, but I'd love to hear from Cravath associates if they disagree.

Have to weigh in here, because this post is baffling, and untrue. Reads like the take of a junior associate who is justifying the decision of choosing not to work there. Or thinks senior lawyers and clients judge firms based on how much money they are paying junior associates. Plenty of reasons to not work there, but this is just not the way partners and other attorneys view Cravath. Not at all.

It's hard to judge them on metrics like a single year of profits, since the corporate practice is much more narrow and boutique-like than other big NY firms. Compensation is lockstep among their associates and they couldn't care less - they are still attracting a higher concentration of top, type A talent than other NY big corporate firms. Everyone is trained in-house and there are no associate laterals. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be facing a lot of challenges and are constantly questioning their methods, but the firm has not experienced real decline whatsoever.

If you make partner there, you are on a lock-step system that guarantees extremely high comp. Most clients are institutional and you have less pressure to hit the pavement. You can make equity partner in 7/8 years without ever bringing in a client of your own, the shortest track I am aware of to making that much money. And once you are partner you constantly have top associate talent working your deals. If you love legal practice, and are willing to make sacrifices to do so, it is the perfect place for a certain personality type*.

*Used to work there, but it was not for me.

[Anonymous User]

they are still attracting a higher concentration of top, type A talent than other NY big corporate firms.

Huh, what's your basis for this? Especially versus S&C, DPW, STB, etc.? I'm not the person you replied to, but this doesn't jibe with my recent experience coming out of a T6 school. Admittedly this is my perspective as one person (apparently) justifying his decision to choose one of those other firms over Cravath.

On the other hand, I will say the persistence of these "is Cravath special"-type threads is maybe evidence of some continuing specialness.

[Buglaw]

Cravath's dominance at the top of vault is baffling to just about anyone that works in NYC biglaw. I really can't explain it with anything besides "precedence" - they've always held the spot.

In almost every meaningful metric, they lag behind their peers. At least back in the day, they could claim to set the industry standard on pay. However, they haven't been the first-mover for compensation in the past several rounds. On top of that, they pay associates less than K&E/L&W, and partners significantly less than all of their peer firms.

To my knowledge, there's no meaningful benefits/amenities/etc. that they offer vs. their peer firms, but I'd love to hear from Cravath associates if they disagree.

Have to weigh in here, because this post is baffling, and untrue. Reads like the take of a junior associate who is justifying the decision of choosing not to work there. Or thinks senior lawyers and clients judge firms based on how much money they are paying junior associates. Plenty of reasons to not work there, but this is just not the way partners and other attorneys view Cravath. Not at all.

It's hard to judge them on metrics like a single year of profits, since the corporate practice is much more narrow and boutique-like than other big NY firms. Compensation is lockstep among their associates and they couldn't care less - they are still attracting a higher concentration of top, type A talent than other NY big corporate firms. Everyone is trained in-house and there are no associate laterals. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be facing a lot of challenges and are constantly questioning their methods, but the firm has not experienced real decline whatsoever.

If you make partner there, you are on a lock-step system that guarantees extremely high comp. Most clients are institutional and you have less pressure to hit the pavement. You can make equity partner in 7/8 years without ever bringing in a client of your own, the shortest track I am aware of to making that much money. And once you are partner you constantly have top associate talent working your deals. If you love legal practice, and are willing to make sacrifices to do so, it is the perfect place for a certain personality type*.

*Used to work there, but it was not for me.

I hear you, but it's not the shop it once was. Is anyone out there claiming Cravath is on a different level than S&C/DPW or Skadden NYC (for corporate). They aren't really anymore, and that's a change. They are still a phenomenal firm, but it used to be Cravath/Wachtell, and Wachtell is pretty clearly in a category of its own which does not include Cravath.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath's dominance at the top of vault is baffling to just about anyone that works in NYC biglaw. I really can't explain it with anything besides "precedence" - they've always held the spot.

In almost every meaningful metric, they lag behind their peers. At least back in the day, they could claim to set the industry standard on pay. However, they haven't been the first-mover for compensation in the past several rounds. On top of that, they pay associates less than K&E/L&W, and partners significantly less than all of their peer firms.

To my knowledge, there's no meaningful benefits/amenities/etc. that they offer vs. their peer firms, but I'd love to hear from Cravath associates if they disagree.

Have to weigh in here, because this post is baffling, and untrue. Reads like the take of a junior associate who is justifying the decision of choosing not to work there. Or thinks senior lawyers and clients judge firms based on how much money they are paying junior associates. Plenty of reasons to not work there, but this is just not the way partners and other attorneys view Cravath. Not at all.

It's hard to judge them on metrics like a single year of profits, since the corporate practice is much more narrow and boutique-like than other big NY firms. Compensation is lockstep among their associates and they couldn't care less - they are still attracting a higher concentration of top, type A talent than other NY big corporate firms. Everyone is trained in-house and there are no associate laterals. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be facing a lot of challenges and are constantly questioning their methods, but the firm has not experienced real decline whatsoever.

If you make partner there, you are on a lock-step system that guarantees extremely high comp. Most clients are institutional and you have less pressure to hit the pavement. You can make equity partner in 7/8 years without ever bringing in a client of your own, the shortest track I am aware of to making that much money. And once you are partner you constantly have top associate talent working your deals. If you love legal practice, and are willing to make sacrifices to do so, it is the perfect place for a certain personality type*.

*Used to work there, but it was not for me.

I hear you, but it's not the shop it once was. Is anyone out there claiming Cravath is on a different level than S&C/DPW or Skadden NYC (for corporate). They aren't really anymore, and that's a change. They are still a phenomenal firm, but it used to be Cravath/Wachtell, and Wachtell is pretty clearly in a category of its own which does not include Cravath.

I’d actually say for public m&a specifically, it’s Wachtell > S&C > Cravath/Skadden > DPW.

[Anonymous User]

Question in the title. WLRK/S&C/STB/DPW and a couple other firms perennially post higher profits per [equity] partner. I’m just curious if this means Cravath has super nice benefits/amenities/etc. for associates (and partners, I guess) that drive up its expenses…or if something else is at play lol.

The Cravath System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravath_System, which was invented by Paul Cravath himself) and Cravath Scale (which Cravath led the industry in salary increases for almost a century) have situated Cravath in the legal consciousness as the very top firm in the 20th century. It becomes and remains #1 when every other firm wants to copy Cravath and what it does. If Milbank keeps doing what it is doing with respect to salary increases every few years, it may be able to unseat Cravath in a few generations.

Yeah. Milbank is the next Cravath.

....

[Anonymous User]

Question in the title. WLRK/S&C/STB/DPW and a couple other firms perennially post higher profits per [equity] partner. I’m just curious if this means Cravath has super nice benefits/amenities/etc. for associates (and partners, I guess) that drive up its expenses…or if something else is at play lol.

The Cravath System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravath_System, which was invented by Paul Cravath himself) and Cravath Scale (which Cravath led the industry in salary increases for almost a century) have situated Cravath in the legal consciousness as the very top firm in the 20th century. It becomes and remains #1 when every other firm wants to copy Cravath and what it does. If Milbank keeps doing what it is doing with respect to salary increases every few years, it may be able to unseat Cravath in a few generations.

Yeah. Milbank is the next Cravath.

....

Ya never know.

[Buglaw]

Question in the title. WLRK/S&C/STB/DPW and a couple other firms perennially post higher profits per [equity] partner. I’m just curious if this means Cravath has super nice benefits/amenities/etc. for associates (and partners, I guess) that drive up its expenses…or if something else is at play lol.

The Cravath System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravath_System, which was invented by Paul Cravath himself) and Cravath Scale (which Cravath led the industry in salary increases for almost a century) have situated Cravath in the legal consciousness as the very top firm in the 20th century. It becomes and remains #1 when every other firm wants to copy Cravath and what it does. If Milbank keeps doing what it is doing with respect to salary increases every few years, it may be able to unseat Cravath in a few generations.

Yeah. Milbank is the next Cravath.

....

Ya never know.

Milbank and DPW are the only two firms I give top vault rankings to in the survey each year, solely because of their approach to salary. All the other firms (mine included) get lower rankings. I highly encourage everyone else to do the same.

[Anonymous User]

^ TCR. If cravath partners want to be top dog again, they have to pay for the privilege.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath's dominance at the top of vault is baffling to just about anyone that works in NYC biglaw. I really can't explain it with anything besides "precedence" - they've always held the spot.

In almost every meaningful metric, they lag behind their peers. At least back in the day, they could claim to set the industry standard on pay. However, they haven't been the first-mover for compensation in the past several rounds. On top of that, they pay associates less than K&E/L&W, and partners significantly less than all of their peer firms.

To my knowledge, there's no meaningful benefits/amenities/etc. that they offer vs. their peer firms, but I'd love to hear from Cravath associates if they disagree.

Have to weigh in here, because this post is baffling, and untrue. Reads like the take of a junior associate who is justifying the decision of choosing not to work there. Or thinks senior lawyers and clients judge firms based on how much money they are paying junior associates. Plenty of reasons to not work there, but this is just not the way partners and other attorneys view Cravath. Not at all.

It's hard to judge them on metrics like a single year of profits, since the corporate practice is much more narrow and boutique-like than other big NY firms. Compensation is lockstep among their associates and they couldn't care less - they are still attracting a higher concentration of top, type A talent than other NY big corporate firms. Everyone is trained in-house and there are no associate laterals. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be facing a lot of challenges and are constantly questioning their methods, but the firm has not experienced real decline whatsoever.

If you make partner there, you are on a lock-step system that guarantees extremely high comp. Most clients are institutional and you have less pressure to hit the pavement. You can make equity partner in 7/8 years without ever bringing in a client of your own, the shortest track I am aware of to making that much money. And once you are partner you constantly have top associate talent working your deals. If you love legal practice, and are willing to make sacrifices to do so, it is the perfect place for a certain personality type*.

*Used to work there, but it was not for me.

I'm the OP you are responding to, and here are my takes:

1. Cravath is not bringing in associate talent that is of higher quality than DPW/S&C/STB. I would argue S&C and DPW are more selective (or at least they were when I was in law school), and there are plenty of junior associates at both Skadden and STB that turned down offers from Cravath.

2. Associate talent is notoriously a complete crapshoot. What's the measurement here that Cravath brings in "top, type A talent" - the junior associate's law school ranking or LSAT score? I think we all agree that while those may be indicators of talent, they are hardly the be all, end all on good lawyering. I have not seen any material difference in the quality of lawyers between the top firms.

3. I'd also argue that the inflexibility to bring in lateral talent does more harm than good. Fresh ideas and exposure to new/different ways of doing things leads to better lawyers. Also, Cravath is handicapped by not being able to bring in talent to replace good associates leaving, which is a bad thing.

3. Fair enough on your point regarding short track to equity partner and no pressure to bring in clients. I can't speak to that having never worked at Cravath, but if true, I agree that is pretty unique and special about Cravath.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath's dominance at the top of vault is baffling to just about anyone that works in NYC biglaw. I really can't explain it with anything besides "precedence" - they've always held the spot.

In almost every meaningful metric, they lag behind their peers. At least back in the day, they could claim to set the industry standard on pay. However, they haven't been the first-mover for compensation in the past several rounds. On top of that, they pay associates less than K&E/L&W, and partners significantly less than all of their peer firms.

To my knowledge, there's no meaningful benefits/amenities/etc. that they offer vs. their peer firms, but I'd love to hear from Cravath associates if they disagree.

Have to weigh in here, because this post is baffling, and untrue. Reads like the take of a junior associate who is justifying the decision of choosing not to work there. Or thinks senior lawyers and clients judge firms based on how much money they are paying junior associates. Plenty of reasons to not work there, but this is just not the way partners and other attorneys view Cravath. Not at all.

It's hard to judge them on metrics like a single year of profits, since the corporate practice is much more narrow and boutique-like than other big NY firms. Compensation is lockstep among their associates and they couldn't care less - they are still attracting a higher concentration of top, type A talent than other NY big corporate firms. Everyone is trained in-house and there are no associate laterals. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be facing a lot of challenges and are constantly questioning their methods, but the firm has not experienced real decline whatsoever.

If you make partner there, you are on a lock-step system that guarantees extremely high comp. Most clients are institutional and you have less pressure to hit the pavement. You can make equity partner in 7/8 years without ever bringing in a client of your own, the shortest track I am aware of to making that much money. And once you are partner you constantly have top associate talent working your deals. If you love legal practice, and are willing to make sacrifices to do so, it is the perfect place for a certain personality type*.

*Used to work there, but it was not for me.

I'm the OP you are responding to, and here are my takes:

1. Cravath is not bringing in associate talent that is of higher quality than DPW/S&C/STB. I would argue S&C and DPW are more selective (or at least they were when I was in law school), and there are plenty of junior associates at both Skadden and STB that turned down offers from Cravath.

2. Associate talent is notoriously a complete crapshoot. What's the measurement here that Cravath brings in "top, type A talent" - the junior associate's law school ranking or LSAT score? I think we all agree that while those may be indicators of talent, they are hardly the be all, end all on good lawyering. I have not seen any material difference in the quality of lawyers between the top firms.

3. I'd also argue that the inflexibility to bring in lateral talent does more harm than good. Fresh ideas and exposure to new/different ways of doing things leads to better lawyers. Also, Cravath is handicapped by not being able to bring in talent to replace good associates leaving, which is a bad thing.

3. Fair enough on your point regarding short track to equity partner and no pressure to bring in clients. I can't speak to that having never worked at Cravath, but if true, I agree that is pretty unique and special about Cravath.

Agree with all your points except the second 3. This is actually the case for S&C/DPW/Simpson type of firms as well. So, this works in favor of your argument.