what do law students think about skadden Forum

[Anonymous User]

to OP's rather narrow (and sort of meaningless, but whatever) question: I think the top law students from top schools think of Skadden as "good" but a step below S&C and DPW, but when I've talked to law students from lower schools and we discuss various firms they've often like "I don't have the grades / whatever for Skadden". They end up at like, Dechert or whatever firms though.

Co-sign this. I transferred from a T50 school to a T6, and this is how students at both would talk. Firms that were seen as unattainably good at the lower-ranked school were kind of humdrum / middle-of-the-road at the higher-ranked one.

[Prudent_Jurist]

When you post about how humbled you are to receive your offer from Skadden on LinkedIn, your law school friends will maybe be mildly impressed.

[veers]

I will say that during OCI the Latham partner came across as "bro-ey" and casual, don't think he was wearing a jacket, and was kind of a jerk. From what I heard Skadden partners can come across similarly.

Definitely significant cultural differences between that and DPW/Debevoise or S&C.

[Anonymous User]

to OP's rather narrow (and sort of meaningless, but whatever) question: I think the top law students from top schools think of Skadden as "good" but a step below S&C and DPW, but when I've talked to law students from lower schools and we discuss various firms they've often like "I don't have the grades / whatever for Skadden". They end up at like, Dechert or whatever firms though.

When I talk to Skadden associates, I think they (unless they work in M&A) very much think Skadden is a top-tier but not top-top-tier firm in whatever they do (like, cap markets folks are like "DPW is better but we are good," etc etc --- there's always someone better, but no one thinks Skadden is like awful).

When I talk to Skadden partners, they think it's 1994 and Skadden is a name that strikes terror the opposition's heart. Boomers, man.

Levelheaded take. As you briefly mentioned though, Skadden is likely elite and on par with CSM/S&C for M&A and likely even a step ahead of DPW M&A.

Skadden's public M&A practice is definitely on par with CSM's/S&C's and Skadden's PE practice outpaces CSM's/S&C's (bc neither really have noteworthy PE practices). I think you're right that it's safe to say that Skadden is a peer (and arguably a smidge ahead) of those two.

I think you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that wholesale Skadden > CSM/S&C haha

oh I agree, I'm not arguing wholesale. just re M&A practices

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Doesn't STB have an elite Credit team too and a near equivalent CapM team? Think the white-shoe firm model gives it an edge in prestige anyway - smaller size meaning more selectivity and less of a need to dip in order to fill out offices. AFAIK most at the top T14's don't see the non-white shoes as very prestigious.

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Doesn't STB have an elite Credit team too and a near equivalent CapM team? Think the white-shoe firm model gives it an edge in prestige anyway - smaller size meaning more selectivity and less of a need to dip in order to fill out offices. AFAIK most at the top T14's don't see the non-white shoes as very prestigious.

Yeah STB Credit is definitely elite though Skadden's Banking team is no slouch either. I also don't think that the quality of a firm should be judged by their willingness to dip to median nor the views of students in the T14.

I think one of the things that Skadden does better than other firms is having a wider variety of work. STB under Richard Beattie takes in a large amount of BX/KKR work but they don't have the wide variety of clientele that Skadden has. Coupled with Skadden's international presence I really do believe that ignoring outdated notions of prestige, Skadden is viewed as a better firm by a lot of people. This is affirmed by Law360 surveys of GC's and the Vault rankings.

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

Before TLS ppl rail you out for this, I want to say this is an accurate reflection of the way delusional law students (so: most of them) think. Which *is* what OP asked about.

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

Before TLS ppl rail you out for this, I want to say this is an accurate reflection of the way delusional law students (so: most of them) think. Which *is* what OP asked about.

Co-sign this.

If anything, I think Skadden and others intl footprint and wider presence counsels against prestige. They are playing a different numbers game so no wonder more GC’s/etc. hype them up. Rather, firms truly at the top are only doing the biggest/best deals.

[ExpOriental]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

I just want to go on record that my above comment mentioning "it" factor was a joke, and I was making fun of the last time an anon law student started spouting off about how [fungible biglaw firms] lacked "it" factor. And by extension, was also preemptively mocking the quoted anon.

To be clear - this really isn't a thing. At least, not in any way that matters. What uninformed 2Ls think about a firm is not a "way that matters".

The only firm in this discussion that has any meaningful "it" factor is Wachtell. The rest are interchangeable, and it may come as a surprise to hear that the interminable hair-splitting between them does not actually make you sound well informed.

If you want to compare actual practice groups, that's a discussion worth having. But the current conversation is about as productive as squabbling over Charmin Ultra-soft vs. Ultra-strong.

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

Before TLS ppl rail you out for this, I want to say this is an accurate reflection of the way delusional law students (so: most of them) think. Which *is* what OP asked about.

Co-sign this.

If anything, I think Skadden and others intl footprint and wider presence counsels against prestige. They are playing a different numbers game so no wonder more GC’s/etc. hype them up. Rather, firms truly at the top are only doing the biggest/best deals.

lol you do know that Skadden's deal slate competes with those of the very best, right? Latham's and K&E's aren't too shabby either

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

Before TLS ppl rail you out for this, I want to say this is an accurate reflection of the way delusional law students (so: most of them) think. Which *is* what OP asked about.

Co-sign this.

If anything, I think Skadden and others intl footprint and wider presence counsels against prestige. They are playing a different numbers game so no wonder more GC’s/etc. hype them up. Rather, firms truly at the top are only doing the biggest/best deals.

lol you do know that Skadden's deal slate competes with those of the very best, right? Latham's and K&E's aren't too shabby either

Sure… but think where you’re more likely to get staffed churning middle market deals

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the insecure STB associates in this thread who think their firm could ever compete with S&C/DPW/CSM. Sorry you go to a vTTTTTTTen, but it's reality: you're only in the "kirkland" tier . Please remember life is worth living anyway. See you at cosTTTTTTTco.

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the insecure STB associates in this thread who think their firm could ever compete with S&C/DPW/CSM. Sorry you go to a vTTTTTTTen, but it's reality: you're only in the "kirkland" tier . Please remember life is worth living anyway. See you at cosTTTTTTTco.

lolz at the KE associates who even think they are on the Skadden's level of "mega-firm"

[12YrsAnAssociate]

I always thought of Skadden as the evil firm. It's been a number of years, but I think I got the idea from the movie Barbarians at the Gate, so basically thoroughly researched and well thought out take here.

[parkslope]

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

Before TLS ppl rail you out for this, I want to say this is an accurate reflection of the way delusional law students (so: most of them) think. Which *is* what OP asked about.

Co-sign this.

If anything, I think Skadden and others intl footprint and wider presence counsels against prestige. They are playing a different numbers game so no wonder more GC’s/etc. hype them up. Rather, firms truly at the top are only doing the biggest/best deals.

lol you do know that Skadden's deal slate competes with those of the very best, right? Latham's and K&E's aren't too shabby either

Sure… but think where you’re more likely to get staffed churning middle market deals

According to Mergermarket, in 2020, STB did 139 deals ($269b value) for an average of $1.9b and Skadden did 197 deals ($330b value) for an average of $1.67b. Is that really a meaningful difference? I don't think anyone really thinks that STB is "doing the biggest/best deals" in a way that Skadden and other V10s are not. Is this a troll?

[Anonymous User]

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

Before TLS ppl rail you out for this, I want to say this is an accurate reflection of the way delusional law students (so: most of them) think. Which *is* what OP asked about.

Co-sign this.

If anything, I think Skadden and others intl footprint and wider presence counsels against prestige. They are playing a different numbers game so no wonder more GC’s/etc. hype them up. Rather, firms truly at the top are only doing the biggest/best deals.

lol you do know that Skadden's deal slate competes with those of the very best, right? Latham's and K&E's aren't too shabby either

Sure… but think where you’re more likely to get staffed churning middle market deals

According to Mergermarket, in 2020, STB did 139 deals ($269b value) for an average of $1.9b and Skadden did 197 deals ($330b value) for an average of $1.67b. Is that really a meaningful difference? I don't think anyone really thinks that STB is "doing the biggest/best deals" in a way that Skadden and other V10s are not. Is this a troll?

I don't think it was a shot at Skadden so much as at some the stuff KE/LW take on

[Anonymous User]

Regardless of STB vs. CSM/DPW/SC, STB > Skadden/LW/KE. Real question is if you also throw PW ahead of the “mega firms”

Feel like this is a bad take held onto by boomers. What exactly is STB better than Skadden at besides being a white shoe law firm? Skadden has elite CapM, PubCo M&A, and tax groups. Skadden's litigation group is far superior to STB. Besides Funds and PE M&A STB lags behind Skadden. Feels like that's not enough to call STB a better overall firm than Skadden.

Second that and think the logic would extend to LW and K&E. All three "megafirms" have really strong practice groups across the board.

No question that all the v10 (heck even a lot of the v15/20) have great groups almost across the board. It's a question of prestige and "it" factor at the top - something I don't think a "mega firm" can quite claim...

Before TLS ppl rail you out for this, I want to say this is an accurate reflection of the way delusional law students (so: most of them) think. Which *is* what OP asked about.

Co-sign this.

If anything, I think Skadden and others intl footprint and wider presence counsels against prestige. They are playing a different numbers game so no wonder more GC’s/etc. hype them up. Rather, firms truly at the top are only doing the biggest/best deals.

lol you do know that Skadden's deal slate competes with those of the very best, right? Latham's and K&E's aren't too shabby either

As per mergermarket, sure seems like K&E and LW are more on the churning quantity of deals (LW: 332 deals/1.082b avg; K&E: 559 deals/528m avg). Skadden feels more comparable to the white shoes (155 deals/1.720b).

That being said, is there a marked difference between the actual work that gets funneled through S&C and their peers. It strikes me as odd S&C averages almost 1b more per deal than any of the other white shoes/Skadden (next closest being DPW, which it only has by 600m).

[LBJ's Hair]

I just want to go on record that my above comment mentioning "it" factor was a joke, and I was making fun of the last time an anon law student started spouting off about how [fungible biglaw firms] lacked "it" factor. And by extension, was also preemptively mocking the quoted anon.

I think you're referring to this, and I was as serious about the "it" factor as I was about having a "non-URM double Harvard GF"

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=310062&p=10477905#p10477905

personally, I make most of my life decisions based on what will impress rising 2Ls at NYU.

my GF is (non-URM) double-Harvard, I clerked COA, my friends all went to T6s, and I work at one of the most selective law firms in the United States. I'm out of the running for SCOTUS, unfortunately. it took me awhile to accept that; I was thinking about doing a second COA with one of the Trump judges. (I'm not conservative, BTW, but that seemed like the best path to SCOTUS -- it's a 6-3 court!)

ultimately, I decided against that. I didn't want to clerk in a shitty flyover state, and my GF was upset when I told her about my plan. (she didn't clerk SCOTUS either, BTW, it bothers her too.) I had to unsubscribe from OSCAR for awhile, because it made me so upset to see emails with feeder openings and think about my classmates getting those clerkships and not me.

anyway, it's funny that people even pay attention to these compensation moves. everyone's gonna match. what matters is prestige. Cravath has it. DPW has it. S&C has it. And Milbank doesn't. Kirkland doesn't have it. (Except for their appeals group, with Paul Clement -- he's a great lawyer.) Skadden doesn't have it either, even though they think they do. that's probably what Kirkland will look like in a few years -- a has been, hiring some T6 students, and a lot of students from places like Fordham. (ew)

if you work at a not-prestigious firm and went to Vanderbilt, that's fine. maybe you get your 1.2x market bonus. maybe you do some big deals.

but when you go back to OCI at NYU and Columbia, remember: those law students, they wanna work at my law firm, not yours. they feel sorry for you. they're impressed with me. and that's what counts.

/s

[ExpOriental]

I just want to go on record that my above comment mentioning "it" factor was a joke, and I was making fun of the last time an anon law student started spouting off about how [fungible biglaw firms] lacked "it" factor. And by extension, was also preemptively mocking the quoted anon.

I think you're referring to this, and I was as serious about the "it" factor as I was about having a "non-URM double Harvard GF"

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=310062&p=10477905#p10477905

personally, I make most of my life decisions based on what will impress rising 2Ls at NYU.

my GF is (non-URM) double-Harvard, I clerked COA, my friends all went to T6s, and I work at one of the most selective law firms in the United States. I'm out of the running for SCOTUS, unfortunately. it took me awhile to accept that; I was thinking about doing a second COA with one of the Trump judges. (I'm not conservative, BTW, but that seemed like the best path to SCOTUS -- it's a 6-3 court!)

ultimately, I decided against that. I didn't want to clerk in a shitty flyover state, and my GF was upset when I told her about my plan. (she didn't clerk SCOTUS either, BTW, it bothers her too.) I had to unsubscribe from OSCAR for awhile, because it made me so upset to see emails with feeder openings and think about my classmates getting those clerkships and not me.

anyway, it's funny that people even pay attention to these compensation moves. everyone's gonna match. what matters is prestige. Cravath has it. DPW has it. S&C has it. And Milbank doesn't. Kirkland doesn't have it. (Except for their appeals group, with Paul Clement -- he's a great lawyer.) Skadden doesn't have it either, even though they think they do. that's probably what Kirkland will look like in a few years -- a has been, hiring some T6 students, and a lot of students from places like Fordham. (ew)

if you work at a not-prestigious firm and went to Vanderbilt, that's fine. maybe you get your 1.2x market bonus. maybe you do some big deals.

but when you go back to OCI at NYU and Columbia, remember: those law students, they wanna work at my law firm, not yours. they feel sorry for you. they're impressed with me. and that's what counts.

/s

Nah, I was referring to this exchange:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=310062&p=10478030#p10478020

In which anon struggles to square their impression of Latham's lack of "it" factor with the all-important Vault rankings.

Though your post, despite being obvious satire, may have actually been taken seriously by some remarkably credulous anons.

[Anonymous User]

Despite the satire, and perhaps slightly diff than described, “it” factor definitely exists among law students and many associates (for better or worse)

The merger market stats, non white-shoe history, Lathaming, candidate stats, etc. all contribute. We can act like “it” doesn’t matter (bc it might not), but not that it doesn’t exist…

[12YrsAnAssociate]

Despite the satire, and perhaps slightly diff than described, “it” factor definitely exists among law students and many associates (for better or worse)

The merger market stats, non white-shoe history, Lathaming, candidate stats, etc. all contribute. We can act like “it” doesn’t matter (bc it might not), but not that it doesn’t exist…

The issue is that referring to those problems as "it" sounds absurd. "Latham fired a bunch of people, which makes it seem like a shitty place to work" is a great reason to avoid a firm. "I'm going to turn down Latham because it lacks the 'it' factor" sounds like something someone in Zoolander would say.