Sidley v. Ropes & Gray (Chicago) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Rising 2L choosing between the two. I had my best CB with Ropes and loved people there. Ropes Chicago seems to have a solid asset management group, and a much smaller office of 150 (which I like). Sidley’s interviewers were fine, but not comparable to Ropes. I’m targeting Sidley’s global finance group.

Sidley may have better exit options while Ropes people tend to stay longer (could be a sign of satisfaction?). I’m also thinking about landing in academia in the future—though it looks pretty unrealistic as I’m a foreigner at a T20 law school and didn’t get law review offer.

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Rising 2L choosing between the two. I had my best CB with Ropes and loved people there. Ropes Chicago seems to have a solid asset management group, and a much smaller office of 150 (which I like). Sidley’s interviewers were fine, but not comparable to Ropes. I’m targeting Sidley’s global finance group.

Sidley may have better exit options while Ropes people tend to stay longer (could be a sign of satisfaction?). I’m also thinking about landing in academia in the future—though it looks pretty unrealistic as I’m a foreigner at a T20 law school and didn’t get law review offer.

Thanks!

Sidley 100% and it's not close. Yes, academia isn't happening. Not sure people stay at Ropes longer, but if that's true, it's because people at Sidley have more options than people at Ropes.

[Anonymous User]

Disagree with the comment above. While Sidley in Chicago is more highly regarded, if you think you would be happier at Ropes you should go there.

There’s tons of mobility in big law. Once you’re in, you can easily move around if you’re unhappy.

Don’t go by first impressions though. Take a second at both firms.

[Anonymous User]

Disagree with the comment above. While Sidley in Chicago is more highly regarded, if you think you would be happier at Ropes you should go there.

There’s tons of mobility in big law. Once you’re in, you can easily move around if you’re unhappy.

Don’t go by first impressions though. Take a second at both firms.

I'd agree if the other firm was Skadden, Latham, Mayer, MWE or something similar. Maybe even K&S or Cooley - both seem to have good people & are building out their offices in Chi.

But Ropes is a second tier satellite and the people I know there are only superficially pleasant and kinda shitty underneath (so it's not even like Cooley, where sure it's a satellite but the people are very likeable and the firm has a very strong niche countrywide and is growing).

[Anonymous User]

This is far from an easy call. Ropes is a strong firm with a good reputation for being more humane than most. Sidley used to have that reputation too but not anymore.

[Anonymous User]

Disagree with the comment above. While Sidley in Chicago is more highly regarded, if you think you would be happier at Ropes you should go there.

There’s tons of mobility in big law. Once you’re in, you can easily move around if you’re unhappy.

Don’t go by first impressions though. Take a second at both firms.

I'd agree if the other firm was Skadden, Latham, Mayer, MWE or something similar. Maybe even K&S or Cooley - both seem to have good people & are building out their offices in Chi.

But Ropes is a second tier satellite and the people I know there are only superficially pleasant and kinda shitty underneath (so it's not even like Cooley, where sure it's a satellite but the people are very likeable and the firm has a very strong niche countrywide and is growing).

Anecdotally but my experiences with Cooley have been exactly what you described for Ropes.

[becodalapa]

This is far from an easy call. Ropes is a strong firm with a good reputation for being more humane than most. Sidley used to have that reputation too but not anymore.

I've heard a lot of things about Ropes, but "more humane than most" is not one of them.

[industrialstylebest]

This is far from an easy call. Ropes is a strong firm with a good reputation for being more humane than most. Sidley used to have that reputation too but not anymore.

I've heard a lot of things about Ropes, but "more humane than most" is not one of them.

I'm not sure what's happening here. Are there multiple Boston people in the thread?

OP - it's Sidley and it's NOT close. There's not one single practice area where Ropes beats out Sidley in Chicago, and Ropes isn't some biglaw wonderland where the people and hours are that much better. I know multiple attorneys there who have an average Chicago biglaw lifestyle. If you're looking for that, go to MWE or something.

Ropes should only be a play if you're 100% set on Chicago and it was the only offer you got. Luckily for you, you landed one of the two best firms in the city. Take the offer and run with it. You'll go far.

[Anonymous User]

Probably going to get slaughtered for this take, but here goes. I had offers from both in Chicago and chose Ropes, FWIW. I'm always amazed at how much people on this site overblow the differences between firms in terms of exit opps, etc. If you feel like you could survive in biglaw longer if you go to Ropes because you gel with the people more, go there (assuming you want to stay in biglaw as long as possible). If you are ambivalent between the two, go to Sidley for the purportedly better exit opps. Anecdotally, the exit opps I've seen from both are essentially the same (I'm sure others will disagree with this, but I'm just sharing my own data points). The difference in office size is also significant enough to meaningfully change your experience. Most of the responses you'll get here will overweight reputation, vault ranking, etc. and underweight fit, culture, and other more subjective things because they can't accurately weigh those subjective things for you. That's fine, but just recognize that it's happening so you can reweigh accordingly.

[showusyourtorts]

I’m targeting Sidley’s global finance group.

FWIW, I've heard for years now that Sidley's Chicago global finance group is a particularly grueling shit show that has incredibly high associate turnover.

Sidley's corporate groups are also unusually siloed -- if you don't like global finance, you're basically stuck with it unless you're able to make a formal practice group switch (not sure how hard or common that is). Not sure how Ropes is structured in that regard.

[Anonymous User]

If you do take the Sidley offer and work in finance, make sure you get your work in Chicago. Stay away from NY people. Trust me on this one. (unless global finance is a different group?)

[Anonymous User]

Probably going to get slaughtered for this take, but here goes. I had offers from both in Chicago and chose Ropes, FWIW. I'm always amazed at how much people on this site overblow the differences between firms in terms of exit opps, etc. If you feel like you could survive in biglaw longer if you go to Ropes because you gel with the people more, go there (assuming you want to stay in biglaw as long as possible). If you are ambivalent between the two, go to Sidley for the purportedly better exit opps. Anecdotally, the exit opps I've seen from both are essentially the same (I'm sure others will disagree with this, but I'm just sharing my own data points). The difference in office size is also significant enough to meaningfully change your experience. Most of the responses you'll get here will overweight reputation, vault ranking, etc. and underweight fit, culture, and other more subjective things because they can't accurately weigh those subjective things for you. That's fine, but just recognize that it's happening so you can reweigh accordingly.

What confuses me is Ropes isn't exactly a culture firm. When someone drinks the MWE or Latham Kool-Aid, I get it, but not sure what kind of Kool-Aid Ropes is offering exactly. If you felt this strongly and still think it was a good decision for you, all power to you I guess.

But - no disrespect intended - when a recruiter looks at your resume, they're tossing it in the bin over someone from Sidley with the same creds & similar experience 10 times out of 10.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Probably going to get slaughtered for this take, but here goes. I had offers from both in Chicago and chose Ropes, FWIW. I'm always amazed at how much people on this site overblow the differences between firms in terms of exit opps, etc. If you feel like you could survive in biglaw longer if you go to Ropes because you gel with the people more, go there (assuming you want to stay in biglaw as long as possible). If you are ambivalent between the two, go to Sidley for the purportedly better exit opps. Anecdotally, the exit opps I've seen from both are essentially the same (I'm sure others will disagree with this, but I'm just sharing my own data points). The difference in office size is also significant enough to meaningfully change your experience. Most of the responses you'll get here will overweight reputation, vault ranking, etc. and underweight fit, culture, and other more subjective things because they can't accurately weigh those subjective things for you. That's fine, but just recognize that it's happening so you can reweigh accordingly.

What confuses me is Ropes isn't exactly a culture firm. When someone drinks the MWE or Latham Kool-Aid, I get it, but not sure what kind of Kool-Aid Ropes is offering exactly. If you felt this strongly and still think it was a good decision for you, all power to you I guess.

But - no disrespect intended - when a recruiter looks at your resume, they're tossing it in the bin over someone from Sidley with the same creds & similar experience 10 times out of 10.

Correct that Sidley is more respected in Chicago. The idea that someone is tossing the Ropes Chicago resume in the trash is totally wild, though, and not accurate.

[Anonymous User]

Probably going to get slaughtered for this take, but here goes. I had offers from both in Chicago and chose Ropes, FWIW. I'm always amazed at how much people on this site overblow the differences between firms in terms of exit opps, etc. If you feel like you could survive in biglaw longer if you go to Ropes because you gel with the people more, go there (assuming you want to stay in biglaw as long as possible). If you are ambivalent between the two, go to Sidley for the purportedly better exit opps. Anecdotally, the exit opps I've seen from both are essentially the same (I'm sure others will disagree with this, but I'm just sharing my own data points). The difference in office size is also significant enough to meaningfully change your experience. Most of the responses you'll get here will overweight reputation, vault ranking, etc. and underweight fit, culture, and other more subjective things because they can't accurately weigh those subjective things for you. That's fine, but just recognize that it's happening so you can reweigh accordingly.

What confuses me is Ropes isn't exactly a culture firm. When someone drinks the MWE or Latham Kool-Aid, I get it, but not sure what kind of Kool-Aid Ropes is offering exactly. If you felt this strongly and still think it was a good decision for you, all power to you I guess.

But - no disrespect intended - when a recruiter looks at your resume, they're tossing it in the bin over someone from Sidley with the same creds & similar experience 10 times out of 10.

To be clear, I am not saying that OP should take Ropes over Sidley because the culture is objectively better or for any other reason (though I think there is a general consensus that Ropes, at least in Chi, is relatively humane and non-toxic). I am saying that the firms are not so different in terms of prefftige and exit opps that OP should entirely ignore his/her subjective perception of culture/fit when making their decision.

On your other point, maybe, I guess? I don't think that the difference between Ropes and Sidley is so huge as to make a recruiter toss my resume in a bin haha, but I guess I haven't been in that position. If you hold creds and experience exactly constant, such that the only differentiator between me and someone else was the firm, I guess that would be the only data point they theoretically could use to distinguish us as candidates, so I can't argue with you there. It just seems unlikely that two candidates would be exactly the same or so similar that this was the only real distinguishing factor. I can't figure out a non-tool way to say this, but I guess I feel confident enough in my other credentials (law school, prior work experience, etc. ~trying not to doxx myself here~) that the relatively small difference in firm prestige I would have gotten by taking Sidley over Ropes is outweighed by other factors. But I guess I can envision a scenario where that added boost would be an important indication of intellect, achievement, etc.

Maybe I'm just defending my own terrible decision. I'm sure that's what j. dooley would say if he were still around. RIP.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who has gone through a lateral process during an “ok” economic period and who has been involved with recruiting at both the associate and SA levels in chi, I would be be willing to bet that no one at a firm (at least on the transactional side) would ever throw a Ropes resume in the garbage because it is a Ropes associates.

Sidley will have better name recognition with in-house recruiters given their larger presence in the city, so you might get passed up by a non-legal-specialized recruiter who has not heard of ropes.

That said, making decisions based on meeting a handful of people specifically selected for performing interviews is likely not going to give you a ton of insight into what the people you will work with day-to-day will be like.

[Anonymous User]

Probably going to get slaughtered for this take, but here goes. I had offers from both in Chicago and chose Ropes, FWIW. I'm always amazed at how much people on this site overblow the differences between firms in terms of exit opps, etc. If you feel like you could survive in biglaw longer if you go to Ropes because you gel with the people more, go there (assuming you want to stay in biglaw as long as possible). If you are ambivalent between the two, go to Sidley for the purportedly better exit opps. Anecdotally, the exit opps I've seen from both are essentially the same (I'm sure others will disagree with this, but I'm just sharing my own data points). The difference in office size is also significant enough to meaningfully change your experience. Most of the responses you'll get here will overweight reputation, vault ranking, etc. and underweight fit, culture, and other more subjective things because they can't accurately weigh those subjective things for you. That's fine, but just recognize that it's happening so you can reweigh accordingly.

What confuses me is Ropes isn't exactly a culture firm. When someone drinks the MWE or Latham Kool-Aid, I get it, but not sure what kind of Kool-Aid Ropes is offering exactly. If you felt this strongly and still think it was a good decision for you, all power to you I guess.

But - no disrespect intended - when a recruiter looks at your resume, they're tossing it in the bin over someone from Sidley with the same creds & similar experience 10 times out of 10.

They are peer firms and pretending otherwise is bizarre.

Only difference is that Sidley seems to be making a play for a greater variety of PE firms (in addition to its existing pubco/strategic practice), Ropes seems like it is trying to fight with KE over relationships with the Boston PE scene.

Personally, I’d prefer to be in the HQ, the office will (presumably) be nicer, but you’re not going wrong with either pick.

I don’t even work at either firm but saying one has a dramatic edge over the other on a general level/prestige basis is crazy to me.

Edit, if you’re looking in-house, the question is gen corp vs PE—any half-decent PE shop will know Ropes on reputation alone, regardless of the fact that Sidley is a hometown favorite. If you’re looking at in-house with a pubco with a seat in Chicago, Sidley might have an edge.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Probably going to get slaughtered for this take, but here goes. I had offers from both in Chicago and chose Ropes, FWIW. I'm always amazed at how much people on this site overblow the differences between firms in terms of exit opps, etc. If you feel like you could survive in biglaw longer if you go to Ropes because you gel with the people more, go there (assuming you want to stay in biglaw as long as possible). If you are ambivalent between the two, go to Sidley for the purportedly better exit opps. Anecdotally, the exit opps I've seen from both are essentially the same (I'm sure others will disagree with this, but I'm just sharing my own data points). The difference in office size is also significant enough to meaningfully change your experience. Most of the responses you'll get here will overweight reputation, vault ranking, etc. and underweight fit, culture, and other more subjective things because they can't accurately weigh those subjective things for you. That's fine, but just recognize that it's happening so you can reweigh accordingly.

What confuses me is Ropes isn't exactly a culture firm. When someone drinks the MWE or Latham Kool-Aid, I get it, but not sure what kind of Kool-Aid Ropes is offering exactly. If you felt this strongly and still think it was a good decision for you, all power to you I guess.

But - no disrespect intended - when a recruiter looks at your resume, they're tossing it in the bin over someone from Sidley with the same creds & similar experience 10 times out of 10.

They are peer firms and pretending otherwise is bizarre.

Only difference is that Sidley seems to be making a play for a greater variety of PE firms (in addition to its existing pubco/strategic practice), Ropes seems like it is trying to fight with KE over relationships with the Boston PE scene.

Personally, I’d prefer to be in the HQ, the office will (presumably) be nicer, but you’re not going wrong with either pick.

I don’t even work at either firm but saying one has a dramatic edge over the other on a general level/prestige basis is crazy to me.

Edit, if you’re looking in-house, the question is gen corp vs PE—any half-decent PE shop will know Ropes on reputation alone, regardless of the fact that Sidley is a hometown favorite. If you’re looking at in-house with a pubco with a seat in Chicago, Sidley might have an edge.

That’s how last students actually think, though. They can’t accept the fact that their Sidley Chi offer doesn’t guarantee a better life and career than their Ropes Chi classmate. Because until they enter the real world they think it’s all a linear function based on grades and rankings.

[Anonymous User]

I lateraled from Sidley to Ropes in New York a few years ago. Ropes is definitely more humane and also has a better PE practice, if that's what you're interested in. Sidley isn't even close in that regard. Can't speak to the Chicago offices I guess.

Probably going to get slaughtered for this take, but here goes. I had offers from both in Chicago and chose Ropes, FWIW. I'm always amazed at how much people on this site overblow the differences between firms in terms of exit opps, etc. If you feel like you could survive in biglaw longer if you go to Ropes because you gel with the people more, go there (assuming you want to stay in biglaw as long as possible). If you are ambivalent between the two, go to Sidley for the purportedly better exit opps. Anecdotally, the exit opps I've seen from both are essentially the same (I'm sure others will disagree with this, but I'm just sharing my own data points). The difference in office size is also significant enough to meaningfully change your experience. Most of the responses you'll get here will overweight reputation, vault ranking, etc. and underweight fit, culture, and other more subjective things because they can't accurately weigh those subjective things for you. That's fine, but just recognize that it's happening so you can reweigh accordingly.

What confuses me is Ropes isn't exactly a culture firm. When someone drinks the MWE or Latham Kool-Aid, I get it, but not sure what kind of Kool-Aid Ropes is offering exactly. If you felt this strongly and still think it was a good decision for you, all power to you I guess.

But - no disrespect intended - when a recruiter looks at your resume, they're tossing it in the bin over someone from Sidley with the same creds & similar experience 10 times out of 10.

They are peer firms and pretending otherwise is bizarre.

Only difference is that Sidley seems to be making a play for a greater variety of PE firms (in addition to its existing pubco/strategic practice), Ropes seems like it is trying to fight with KE over relationships with the Boston PE scene.

Personally, I’d prefer to be in the HQ, the office will (presumably) be nicer, but you’re not going wrong with either pick.

I don’t even work at either firm but saying one has a dramatic edge over the other on a general level/prestige basis is crazy to me.

Edit, if you’re looking in-house, the question is gen corp vs PE—any half-decent PE shop will know Ropes on reputation alone, regardless of the fact that Sidley is a hometown favorite. If you’re looking at in-house with a pubco with a seat in Chicago, Sidley might have an edge.

[Sawtooth]

I chose Ropes Chi over peer firms HQ’d in Chi because I really liked the people and I don’t regret my decision. Feel free to DM me if helpful to talk in more detail.

[2013]

Ropes humane?

In law school, people called it “Ropes and Chains”

[Anonymous User]

I work at Ropes. I've actually discussed this nickname with several coworkers and it was universally agreed that that nickname is only repeated in Boston law schools. Those of us who didn't go to law school in Boston had never heard of it until someone who went to BU brought it up at the office one day. In my (non-Boston) law school, Ropes had the reputation of being a slightly nicer, more family friendly firm due to its Boston HQ (even though the NY office is bigger) than its peers. The idea was that Boston firms have a less workaholic 24/7 "on" culture than NY.

Ropes humane?

In law school, people called it “Ropes and Chains”

[Anonymous User]

I summered at Sidley Chicago this past summer and was also deciding between Sidley Chi and Ropes Chi last year during OCI. Here's my two cents.

You can't go wrong with either firm. They're both V20 and both have great office cultures in Chicago. This factor is a huge plus, especially since many firms have subpar cultures in Chicago and in general, such as Kirkland and Skadden.

However, Sidley has a better reputation in Chi and people in law and business in Chi will be slightly more impressed that you work at Sidley compared to Ropes. How much this prestige factor matters is up to you.

Additionally, it's hard to compare Sidley's global finance group to Ropes's asset management group. These groups do completely different work. Sidley's global finance group structures loans and credit facilities for lenders and borrowers while Ropes's asset management group forms private equity funds for private equity firms largely located outside of Chi.

A better comparison is Sidley's investment funds group and Ropes's asset management group. Sidley's investment funds group focuses mostly on hedge funds while Ropes's asset management group focuses predominantly on private equity, so both firms compete for fund formation work in slightly different niches. Sidley oftentimes competes with the likes of Schulte for hedge fund work while Ropes goes up against Kirkland for PE work.

PE investment returns are outpacing hedge fund returns. As a result, the hedge fund industry is in decline, so it might be more prudent to work at Ropes for this reason.

Sidley's investment funds group is also by far the most popular group among summer associates, and the majority of summers who want to join the funds group get turned down and slotted into other groups. I fortunately received an offer to join the funds group next year, but my case is an anomaly. I took an investment funds law course during 2L and started gunning for a position in the group from day one of the summer program. If you choose Sidley, don't expect to receive an offer to join the funds group, unless you're high EQ and really likeable or you spend a large chunk of 2L learning investments funds law, including registration exemptions under the '33 and '40 Acts, fiduciary duty requirements under the Advisers Act, and how to read and mark up PPMs, sub docs, and IMAs.

By contrast, if you go to Ropes, your chances of joining the asset management group are probably much higher.

Therefore, your decision should come down to the following. If you're only interested in asset management or investments funds, go to Ropes. If you don't care what group you're in and want lay prestige in Chi, go to Sidley.

Best of luck with your decision, and let me know if you have any questions.

[Anonymous User]

I chose Ropes Chi over peer firms HQ’d in Chi because I really liked the people and I don’t regret my decision. Feel free to DM me if helpful to talk in more detail.

Those other firms (K&E, Sidley) don't see Ropes as a peer. This one-way relationship is cute, but let's calm the circlejerk. If you're talking about Katten or Jenner (corp), then sure.

[Anonymous User]

I summered at Sidley Chicago this past summer and was also deciding between Sidley Chi and Ropes Chi last year during OCI. Here's my two cents.

You can't go wrong with either firm. They're both V20 and both have great office cultures in Chicago. This factor is a huge plus, especially since many firms have subpar cultures in Chicago and in general, such as Kirkland and Skadden.

However, Sidley has a better reputation in Chi and people in law and business in Chi will be slightly more impressed that you work at Sidley compared to Ropes. How much this prestige factor matters is up to you.

Additionally, it's hard to compare Sidley's global finance group to Ropes's asset management group. These groups do completely different work. Sidley's global finance group structures loans and credit facilities for lenders and borrowers while Ropes's asset management group forms private equity funds for private equity firms largely located outside of Chi.

A better comparison is Sidley's investment funds group and Ropes's asset management group. Sidley's investment funds group focuses mostly on hedge funds while Ropes's asset management group focuses predominantly on private equity, so both firms compete for fund formation work in slightly different niches. Sidley oftentimes competes with the likes of Schulte for hedge fund work while Ropes goes up against Kirkland for PE work.

PE investment returns are outpacing hedge fund returns. As a result, the hedge fund industry is in decline, so it might be more prudent to work at Ropes for this reason.

Sidley's investment funds group is also by far the most popular group among summer associates, and the majority of summers who want to join the funds group get turned down and slotted into other groups. I fortunately received an offer to join the funds group next year, but my case is an anomaly. I took an investment funds law course during 2L and started gunning for a position in the group from day one of the summer program. If you choose Sidley, don't expect to receive an offer to join the funds group, unless you're high EQ and really likeable or you spend a large chunk of 2L learning investments funds law, including registration exemptions under the '33 and '40 Acts, fiduciary duty requirements under the Advisers Act, and how to read and mark up PPMs, sub docs, and IMAs.

By contrast, if you go to Ropes, your chances of joining the asset management group are probably much higher.

Therefore, your decision should come down to the following. If you're only interested in asset management or investments funds, go to Ropes. If you don't care what group you're in and want lay prestige in Chi, go to Sidley.

Best of luck with your decision, and let me know if you have any questions.

This varies year to year, my summer class corporate was the most popular group and funds ended up with less than they wanted (like 2 less though, not a large discrepancy). Everyone who wanted funds got funds in my summer class. There are also a number of reasons to not pick the funds group, but that's not the point of this post so I won't get into that.

I'll add that Ropes Chi has exploded numbers wise in the past 2-3yrs and there are a lot of laterals. I think office culture has changed a little bit than what it was a few years ago so I'd echo that you should do a second look and not base this on the carefully selected individuals put in front of you

[Anonymous User]

This is far from an easy call. Ropes is a strong firm with a good reputation for being more humane than most. Sidley used to have that reputation too but not anymore.

I've heard a lot of things about Ropes, but "more humane than most" is not one of them.

The nickname for them in my non-CHI city is "Ropes & Chains," so I strongly disagree with the quoted anon. On the other hand, I've heard great things about Sidley pretty universally across multiple offices.