Simpson Thacher LA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have insight on STB's LA office for corporate?

[Anonymous User]

If its anything like their Palo Alto office, then probably not as good as local firms (Cooley, MoFo, etc.) except maybe funds (although LA is probably a very different market). But certainly behind Gibson and L&W.

[Anonymous User]

If its anything like their Palo Alto office, then probably not as good as local firms (Cooley, MoFo, etc.) except maybe funds (although LA is probably a very different market). But certainly behind Gibson and L&W.

STB is head and shoulders above Cooley/Mofo for corporate work. Depending on the group, on par or ahead of GDC/LW too

[Anonymous User]

If its anything like their Palo Alto office, then probably not as good as local firms (Cooley, MoFo, etc.) except maybe funds (although LA is probably a very different market). But certainly behind Gibson and L&W.

STB is head and shoulders above Cooley/Mofo for corporate work. Depending on the group, on par or ahead of GDC/LW too

LOL are you serious, STB is not even a major market player in LA according to Chambers. They only have 36 people in LA

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/cor ... 37:20532:1

[Anonymous User]

If its anything like their Palo Alto office, then probably not as good as local firms (Cooley, MoFo, etc.) except maybe funds (although LA is probably a very different market). But certainly behind Gibson and L&W.

STB is head and shoulders above Cooley/Mofo for corporate work. Depending on the group, on par or ahead of GDC/LW too

LOL are you serious, STB is not even a major market player in LA according to Chambers. They only have 36 people in LA

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/cor ... 37:20532:1

So...... STB is a corporate powerhouse across the board. Who cares if some of your deals are sourced from NY or PE driven. Cooley is cool and all if you're into tech whatever, but seriously Mofo isn't even in the same league lol

[Anonymous User]

If its anything like their Palo Alto office, then probably not as good as local firms (Cooley, MoFo, etc.) except maybe funds (although LA is probably a very different market). But certainly behind Gibson and L&W.

STB is head and shoulders above Cooley/Mofo for corporate work. Depending on the group, on par or ahead of GDC/LW too

LOL are you serious, STB is not even a major market player in LA according to Chambers. They only have 36 people in LA

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/cor ... 37:20532:1

So...... STB is a corporate powerhouse across the board. Who cares if some of your deals are sourced from NY or PE driven. Cooley is cool and all if you're into tech whatever, but seriously Mofo isn't even in the same league lol

Yeahhhhno... STB is a corporate powerhouse in NY and to an extent Texas. It's satellite office in CA isn't particularly impressive.

[Anonymous User]

You do at least know the firm well enough to know there are two CA offices, right?

Sophistication and quality of deals across both are definitely elite, notwithstanding it is an NY centric firm.

[Anonymous User]

You do at least know the firm well enough to know there are two CA offices, right?

Sophistication and quality of deals across both are definitely elite, notwithstanding it is an NY centric firm.

Yes, and neither are particularly impressive except, as already mentioned ITT, the STB Palo Alto w.r.t funds. If you think STB's CA offices get more substantive work than MoFo or Cooley, or equally substantive work as STB NY, then you're either a STB junior or have no concept of what it's like to work at a satellite office.

[Anonymous User]

I know nothing about STB LA but have had friends at STB SV describe a miserable culture fwiw.

[Anonymous User]

miserable b/c of too much work, toxic culture?

[Anonymous User]

miserable b/c of too much work, toxic culture?

Toxic culture, mean partners--this is truly secondhand though so take it with many grains of salt. That said, I think there have been a few recent TLS comments attesting to the same.

[Anonymous User]

miserable b/c of too much work, toxic culture?

Toxic culture, mean partners--this is truly secondhand though so take it with many grains of salt. That said, I think there have been a few recent TLS comments attesting to the same.

Idk if I'd say toxic but the PA office feels like an NYC office. Yes, a lot of quality work but also extremely demanding partners. Know a couple who couldn't hack it there and had to jump. I think ppl get in trouble choosing STB on the west coast thinking it will be more laid back like some of the native firms. I'd still choose it though, just know you will have to grind. [know less about LA, but think it might be a bit better]

[Anonymous User]

You do at least know the firm well enough to know there are two CA offices, right?

Sophistication and quality of deals across both are definitely elite, notwithstanding it is an NY centric firm.

Yes, and neither are particularly impressive except, as already mentioned ITT, the STB Palo Alto w.r.t funds. If you think STB's CA offices get more substantive work than MoFo or Cooley, or equally substantive work as STB NY, then you're either a STB junior or have no concept of what it's like to work at a satellite office.

[Anonymous User]

Probably best to defer to the thread raging on firm v. locale.

Regardless I’m firmly in the camp of firm and would not think twice about STB over not one of even the most impressive native CA firms. Likewise satellite means less and less these days

[Anonymous User]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

[Anonymous User]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

[Anonymous User]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

[Anonymous User]

So...... STB is a corporate powerhouse across the board. Who cares if some of your deals are sourced from NY or PE driven. Cooley is cool and all if you're into tech whatever, but seriously Mofo isn't even in the same league lol

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

I know I'm not adding anything productive here, but the rote/mechanical use of "corporate powerhouse" and "corporate platform" (as if reciting from some glossy firm brochure) really gives me "mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell" vibes

[Anonymous User]

You do at least know the firm well enough to know there are two CA offices, right?

Sophistication and quality of deals across both are definitely elite, notwithstanding it is an NY centric firm.

Yes, and neither are particularly impressive except, as already mentioned ITT, the STB Palo Alto w.r.t funds. If you think STB's CA offices get more substantive work than MoFo or Cooley, or equally substantive work as STB NY, then you're either a STB junior or have no concept of what it's like to work at a satellite office.

For what it's worth, and saying this from an STB (NY) insider perspective, the PA and LA offices are more like mini-firms that happen to be part of the STB umbrella than satellite offices of STB; they mostly have their own deals and do their own work and only interact with the NY office incidentally. It's vanishingly rare for me (as a NY attorney) to work with someone in PA or LA on the same team, except when we're working cross-group and plausibly the work could have been done at a different firm.

[Anonymous User]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

Ok, but Chambers corporate bands and Vault CA beg to differ, so I don't think your notions of prefftige hold weight here. Or at least they shouldn't.

[Anonymous User]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

Ok, but Chambers corporate bands and Vault CA beg to differ, so I don't think your notions of prefftige hold weight here. Or at least they shouldn't.

See the thread on v30 vs. v10 re Mofo if you want an actual breakdown re chambers/etc. FW and Gunderson might be a choice for tech but beyond that? Whether or not it should matter, the "preftige" of STB isn't just a notion

[DiligentSage]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

Ok, but Chambers corporate bands and Vault CA beg to differ, so I don't think your notions of prefftige hold weight here. Or at least they shouldn't.

See the thread on v30 vs. v10 re Mofo if you want an actual breakdown re chambers/etc. FW and Gunderson might be a choice for tech but beyond that? Whether or not it should matter, the "preftige" of STB isn't just a notion

If someone wants to do PE M&A, then yeah, go to STB, particularly since Fenwick/Gunderson don't really do that at all. But if they do practically any other corporate practice, then Fenwick is so much better that it'd be laughable to start at STB in that instance.

[Anonymous User]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

Ok, but Chambers corporate bands and Vault CA beg to differ, so I don't think your notions of prefftige hold weight here. Or at least they shouldn't.

See the thread on v30 vs. v10 re Mofo if you want an actual breakdown re chambers/etc. FW and Gunderson might be a choice for tech but beyond that? Whether or not it should matter, the "preftige" of STB isn't just a notion

If someone wants to do PE M&A, then yeah, go to STB, particularly since Fenwick/Gunderson don't really do that at all. But if they do practically any other corporate practice, then Fenwick is so much better that it'd be laughable to start at STB in that instance.

STB for funds too... maybe also credit... and heck maybe even CapM too if they are going to throw you in the NY staffing pool anyway... and especially if you may want to lateral out of market. Oh wait I think that's all the core corporate groups.

[Anonymous User]

To be fair, STB Palo Alto is a MAJOR hitter in PE M&A. That comes with its own issues but it’s elite in that respect and unique for CA...

[Anonymous User]

is simpson thacher palo alto not as good as a native firm, like a fenwick or a gunderson in CA?

Fenwick is better than STB for palo alto and it's not even close (don't let the disillusioned Vault worshippers fool you otherwise). Gunderson is more of a smaller, relatively new, and less established firm, so I could see someone choosing STB over it.

Disagree, STB’s corporate platform is way better

Ok, but Chambers corporate bands and Vault CA beg to differ, so I don't think your notions of prefftige hold weight here. Or at least they shouldn't.

See the thread on v30 vs. v10 re Mofo if you want an actual breakdown re chambers/etc. FW and Gunderson might be a choice for tech but beyond that? Whether or not it should matter, the "preftige" of STB isn't just a notion

If someone wants to do PE M&A, then yeah, go to STB, particularly since Fenwick/Gunderson don't really do that at all. But if they do practically any other corporate practice, then Fenwick is so much better that it'd be laughable to start at STB in that instance.

STB for funds too... maybe also credit... and heck maybe even CapM too if they are going to throw you in the NY staffing pool anyway... and especially if you may want to lateral out of market. Oh wait I think that's all the core corporate groups.

You are missing the point here, people were saying Cooley/ Fenwick etc have full service in the sense that they have traditional SV style practice - VC/EC/Startup practice, and they offer full-life-cycle service to clients, from start-up stage to IPOs. Some people who wish to end up in SV/SF want to do that kind of traditional SV work and maybe later go in-house at one of those tech companies/ VCs/ Start-ups. STB/KE and other out of town firms just don't offer that kind of practice as much, since it's still New York style practice in CA. They are focused on PE/ PE financing related work, not as much in tech and start-ups. Not to say they are not good at what they do, it's just a different style. One of the appeals of working in SV/SF is the vibrant tech/start-up/VC scene here (def not for the banks in SV ...). If that's OP's potential goal, what's the point of going to non-SV-native firms.

Some non-SV native firms like Latham also offers traditional SV style practice on top of PE/Cap Market work, so that would be a great option to have as well.