PW vs. Cleary (NY M&A) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Curious to hear thoughts on PW vs. Cleary for NY corporate/M&A. I have heard Cleary has traditionally been strong in corporate while PW is known for lit, but both are band 2 on Chambers for M&A. Would love to hear personal anecdotes/thoughts on each M&A groups' culture, burnout/retention, and exit opportunities. TIA!

[Anonymous User]

I would go with Paul Weiss, but I think it's a close-call.

Pros and Cons of PW:
PW has had a lot of positive momentum with M&A in recent years, with notable lateral hires. I believe they've been more active in M&A than Cleary in recent years, at least in terms of deal volume. This could provide a junior associate with more opportunities to see deals from start to finish. PW seems to also have a fairly balanced representation of blue-chip public companies and financial sponsors.

Pros and Cons of CGSH:
Excellent reputation in antitrust, capital markets, tax, and other M&A-adjacent practices. Blue-chip public company and PE clients (Google/TPG/Warburg). But, my impression is that Cleary is re-building their M&A practice after losing a few key partners in recent years.

Not sure how the cultures of the groups differ, but I think that is worth considering as well.

[Anonymous User]

I would go with Paul Weiss, but I think it's a close-call.

Pros and Cons of PW:
PW has had a lot of positive momentum with M&A in recent years, with notable lateral hires. I believe they've been more active in M&A than Cleary in recent years, at least in terms of deal volume. This could provide a junior associate with more opportunities to see deals from start to finish. PW seems to also have a fairly balanced representation of blue-chip public companies and financial sponsors.

Pros and Cons of CGSH:
Excellent reputation in antitrust, capital markets, tax, and other M&A-adjacent practices. Blue-chip public company and PE clients (Google/TPG/Warburg). But, my impression is that Cleary is re-building their M&A practice after losing a few key partners in recent years.

Not sure how the cultures of the groups differ, but I think that is worth considering as well.

Cons of PW: Scott Barshay has corrupted the practice group's culture from the top, and even if you dodge Barshay, Apollo's a notoriously shitty PE client to work with. PW's definitely a strong M&A practice but it's pretty toxic.

[Anonymous User]

I would go with Paul Weiss, but I think it's a close-call.

Pros and Cons of PW:
PW has had a lot of positive momentum with M&A in recent years, with notable lateral hires. I believe they've been more active in M&A than Cleary in recent years, at least in terms of deal volume. This could provide a junior associate with more opportunities to see deals from start to finish. PW seems to also have a fairly balanced representation of blue-chip public companies and financial sponsors.

Pros and Cons of CGSH:
Excellent reputation in antitrust, capital markets, tax, and other M&A-adjacent practices. Blue-chip public company and PE clients (Google/TPG/Warburg). But, my impression is that Cleary is re-building their M&A practice after losing a few key partners in recent years.

Not sure how the cultures of the groups differ, but I think that is worth considering as well.

Cons of PW: Scott Barshay has corrupted the practice group's culture from the top, and even if you dodge Barshay, Apollo's a notoriously shitty PE client to work with. PW's definitely a strong M&A practice but it's pretty toxic.

True. I voted for PW before remembering these two factors. Based on what I've heard, they're significant enough to the point where if it were me I'd actually choose Cleary. I retract my earlier vote.

See also:
https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-we ... ein-2021-5

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, the Apollo story should be taken with all the salt there is. There are a bunch of inaccuracies and inconsistencies and it makes a lot out of nothing. There’s a lot of stuff you can say about both PW and Apollo that are true but I don’t think the article really breaks new ground.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, the Apollo story should be taken with all the salt there is. There are a bunch of inaccuracies and inconsistencies and it makes a lot out of nothing. There’s a lot of stuff you can say about both PW and Apollo that are true but I don’t think the article really breaks new ground.

Perhaps. But definitely not inaccurate to say that working with Scott Barshay sucks ass.

[Anonymous User]

Cons of PW: Scott Barshay has corrupted the practice group's culture from the top, and even if you dodge Barshay, Apollo's a notoriously shitty PE client to work with. PW's definitely a strong M&A practice but it's pretty toxic.

Can you say a bit more about this? I'd heard that PW corporate before Barshay was no bed of roses: dominated by O'Melveny laterals on Apollo work, not really playing in capital markets/funds/bankruptcy, with a lot of screamers.

I've heard about Barshay's reputation. Is everyone else in his mold these days and how much can you dodge working with Scott directly as a junior to midlevel? Only data points I have are that the associate who'd moved with him from Cravath made partner at PW then seems to have moved to Kirkland and there have been some high profile laterals. I wondered if Laura Turano and Krishna Veeraraghavan had changed things much - Laura was well-regarded at DPW; many of her juniors were sad when she left.

[Anonymous User]

Cons of PW: Scott Barshay has corrupted the practice group's culture from the top, and even if you dodge Barshay, Apollo's a notoriously shitty PE client to work with. PW's definitely a strong M&A practice but it's pretty toxic.

Can you say a bit more about this? I'd heard that PW corporate before Barshay was no bed of roses: dominated by O'Melveny laterals on Apollo work, not really playing in capital markets/funds/bankruptcy, with a lot of screamers.

I've heard about Barshay's reputation. Is everyone else in his mold these days and how much can you dodge working with Scott directly as a junior to midlevel? Only data points I have are that the associate who'd moved with him from Cravath made partner at PW then seems to have moved to Kirkland and there have been some high profile laterals. I wondered if Laura Turano and Krishna Veeraraghavan had changed things much - Laura was well-regarded at DPW; many of her juniors were sad when she left.

The thing about Barshay is that even if you don't work directly with him, he infects the rest of the chain from the top through tantrums pressuring everyone above you, weird idiosyncrasies, and a general callous disregard for the time and life of everyone around him. I heard he had his own personal style guide for documents at Cravath. I don't know if he still has that. Either way, he sets the culture for the group whether or not you work directly for him, so don't think you're dodging him.

I don't know anything about Laura and Krishna but Krishna was a very likeable adjunct prof during law school (not that that means much).

[Anonymous User]

Cons of PW: Scott Barshay has corrupted the practice group's culture from the top, and even if you dodge Barshay, Apollo's a notoriously shitty PE client to work with. PW's definitely a strong M&A practice but it's pretty toxic.

Can you say a bit more about this? I'd heard that PW corporate before Barshay was no bed of roses: dominated by O'Melveny laterals on Apollo work, not really playing in capital markets/funds/bankruptcy, with a lot of screamers.

I've heard about Barshay's reputation. Is everyone else in his mold these days and how much can you dodge working with Scott directly as a junior to midlevel? Only data points I have are that the associate who'd moved with him from Cravath made partner at PW then seems to have moved to Kirkland and there have been some high profile laterals. I wondered if Laura Turano and Krishna Veeraraghavan had changed things much - Laura was well-regarded at DPW; many of her juniors were sad when she left.

Work at PW. She did not leave because she didn’t like working with Scott. She made the choice to come over from CSM when she could have stayed and not worked with him.

Everyone seems to like Laura including clients.

The only recent corporate partner lateral away I can think of that was a hit was when Justin Hamill left for Latham. And that was mostly bc he had lots of CA clients and we didn’t have a CA office. That’s the rumor at least. If it was another reason then I don’t know it.

[Anonymous User]

Work at PW. She did not leave because she didn’t like working with Scott. She made the choice to come over from CSM when she could have stayed and not worked with him.

Everyone seems to like Laura including clients.

The only recent corporate partner lateral away I can think of that was a hit was when Justin Hamill left for Latham. And that was mostly bc he had lots of CA clients and we didn’t have a CA office. That’s the rumor at least. If it was another reason then I don’t know it.

Previous anon, work at one of the firms affected by these lateral moves. From the outside it looked like Rachael left because (a) Kirkland could offer her a bigger guarantee and (b) maybe Laura moving over has changed the dynamic for her a bit. I’d understood that Hamill left because he and Barshay were like oil and water. Seems to have brought Silver Lake work and the Endeavor IPO over, among other things - no easy feat (but not quite IBM buying Red Hat).

I take the other poster’s point about Scott infecting everything - people who’ve been on the other side of deals from him talk of having commiseration sessions with his junior partners. I guess it’s just sad if these comparatively decent lateral partners aren’t able to change the culture a bit - along with Krishna and Laura, Sarah Stasny’s another one about whom people only say good things, but realize she’s more likely to be Apollo side. (Obviously “comparatively” is doing a lot of work in the previous sentence. I think most people who stick at this for so long have something a little off.)

[Anonymous User]

Cons of PW: Scott Barshay has corrupted the practice group's culture from the top, and even if you dodge Barshay, Apollo's a notoriously shitty PE client to work with. PW's definitely a strong M&A practice but it's pretty toxic.

Can you say a bit more about this? I'd heard that PW corporate before Barshay was no bed of roses: dominated by O'Melveny laterals on Apollo work, not really playing in capital markets/funds/bankruptcy, with a lot of screamers.

I've heard about Barshay's reputation. Is everyone else in his mold these days and how much can you dodge working with Scott directly as a junior to midlevel? Only data points I have are that the associate who'd moved with him from Cravath made partner at PW then seems to have moved to Kirkland and there have been some high profile laterals. I wondered if Laura Turano and Krishna Veeraraghavan had changed things much - Laura was well-regarded at DPW; many of her juniors were sad when she left.

Work at PW. She did not leave because she didn’t like working with Scott. She made the choice to come over from CSM when she could have stayed and not worked with him.

Everyone seems to like Laura including clients.

The only recent corporate partner lateral away I can think of that was a hit was when Justin Hamill left for Latham. And that was mostly bc he had lots of CA clients and we didn’t have a CA office. That’s the rumor at least. If it was another reason then I don’t know it.

sorry to derail the convo, but is Hamill a heavyweight at Latham NY? who are the rainmakers/star m&a partners in their NY office?