Cravath Forum

[Anonymous User]

Has Cravath hired dozens and dozens of laterals that aren't qualified/barred in their office jurisdiction?

[Anonymous User]

Solid firm. Followed the Baker scale this year for bonuses which tells you they're at least staying with market for the time being. Hopefully they can figure things out long term.

[Anonymous User]

Solid firm. Followed the Baker scale this year for bonuses which tells you they're at least staying with market for the time being. Hopefully they can figure things out long term.

Many firms hired a bunch of foreign trained lawyers who mostly are bad

[Wanderingdrock]

Solid firm. Followed the Baker scale this year for bonuses which tells you they're at least staying with market for the time being. Hopefully they can figure things out long term.

Many firms hired a bunch of foreign trained lawyers who mostly are bad

I've not had that experience with the foreign-trained lawyers with whom I've worked. Just need to work with them on the right stuff; comparative advantages and all that. There are things they're better at than I am and vice versa.

As for Cravath, I don't have direct experience - all I know is pretty much what the above poster already said, that they seem to be holding their own, and at least they followed Baker this year.

[Anonymous User]

Had similar experience with Cravath on a current deal. Feels like all their junior associates are either foreign trained and/or not barred in their jurisdiction. Doesn't really affect the deal at all but just odd.

[Anonymous User]

Has Cravath hired dozens and dozens of laterals that aren't qualified/barred in their office jurisdiction?

Why are people so obsessed with Cravath? Serious question. None of the top students at my school (T14) targeted it. The best lit-focused students went to firms with established DC offices or to lit boutiques after finishing their clerkships. And the transactional folks gunned for Wachtell. I literally don't know a single person who specifically sought a job at Cravath. And I know quite a few people who had Cravath offers, but turned them down to go to places like Davis Polk, Latham, or S&C instead. The only people at my law school who seemed to think of Cravath as special were the older professors. Did Cravath pay above market like Wachtell back in the day or something? Genuinely don't understand the obsession with this place.

[LittleRedCorvette]

Has Cravath hired dozens and dozens of laterals that aren't qualified/barred in their office jurisdiction?

Why are people so obsessed with Cravath? Serious question. None of the top students at my school (T14) targeted it. The best lit-focused students went to firms with established DC offices or to lit boutiques after finishing their clerkships. And the transactional folks gunned for Wachtell. I literally don't know a single person who specifically sought a job at Cravath. And I know quite a few people who had Cravath offers, but turned them down to go to places like Davis Polk, Latham, or S&C instead. The only people at my law school who seemed to think of Cravath as special were the older professors. Did Cravath pay above market like Wachtell back in the day or something? Genuinely don't understand the obsession with this place.

Ouchie, no callback?

[Anonymous User]

Has Cravath hired dozens and dozens of laterals that aren't qualified/barred in their office jurisdiction?

Why are people so obsessed with Cravath? Serious question. None of the top students at my school (T14) targeted it. The best lit-focused students went to firms with established DC offices or to lit boutiques after finishing their clerkships. And the transactional folks gunned for Wachtell. I literally don't know a single person who specifically sought a job at Cravath. And I know quite a few people who had Cravath offers, but turned them down to go to places like Davis Polk, Latham, or S&C instead. The only people at my law school who seemed to think of Cravath as special were the older professors. Did Cravath pay above market like Wachtell back in the day or something? Genuinely don't understand the obsession with this place.

Ouchie, no callback?

Not the guy above but I also don't quite understand the obsession with Cravath and very few people from my T14 that I know of are going there. DC firms and firms like P,W and GDC are much more popular with the lit-gunning top-of-the-class types. I also don't get the attraction of Cravath; it has the reputation of a firm that makes associates work way more hours than other places but also pays associates market. Sounds miserable to me.

[Anonymous User]

It’s reputational inertia given its history.

A lot of older people also think of Shearman as a great firm for similar reasons.

[Sackboy]

It’s reputational inertia given its history.

A lot of older people also think of Shearman as a great firm for similar reasons.

Yep, to expand:

Cravath also, like Wachtell, used to have a sort of mystique to it. They compensated partners purely on tenure, didn't hire laterals, only had two offices, did major SCOTUS and other era-defining work, and paid at the tippy top of the market. Now, they aren't pure lockstep for partner compensation, were rumored to have been looking to hire a lateral recruiting manager a year or two ago (and definitely take laterals now in more than just specialist groups), opened a DC office, rarely every do major SCOTUS and era-defining work and instead just do major deals and high dollar commercial litigation like most highly profitable shops, and offer both an associate and partnership compensation structure that is on par with or lags a dozen or so other firms.

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

[Anonymous User]

It’s reputational inertia given its history.

A lot of older people also think of Shearman as a great firm for similar reasons.

Yep, to expand:

Cravath also, like Wachtell, used to have a sort of mystique to it. They compensated partners purely on tenure, didn't hire laterals, only had two offices, did major SCOTUS and other era-defining work, and paid at the tippy top of the market. Now, they aren't pure lockstep for partner compensation, were rumored to have been looking to hire a lateral recruiting manager a year or two ago (and definitely take laterals now in more than just specialist groups), opened a DC office, rarely every do major SCOTUS and era-defining work and instead just do major deals and high dollar commercial litigation like most highly profitable shops, and offer both an associate and partnership compensation structure that is on par with or lags a dozen or so other firms.

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

Interesting, I haven't heard of lateral associates in non-specialist groups. I know they took on Portilla and quite a few ex-federal officials as partners, but people I know at the firm say lateral hiring at the associate level is still confined to ECEB. Are people actually getting hired into general corporate/litigation now?

[Sackboy]

Interesting, I haven't heard of lateral associates in non-specialist groups. I know they took on Portilla and quite a few ex-federal officials as partners, but people I know at the firm say lateral hiring at the associate level is still confined to ECEB. Are people actually getting hired into general corporate/litigation now?

Yes, I've seen at least one. Lateraled from a another V5/V10, if I recall correctly.

[Anonymous User]

It’s reputational inertia given its history.

A lot of older people also think of Shearman as a great firm for similar reasons.

Yep, to expand:

Cravath also, like Wachtell, used to have a sort of mystique to it. They compensated partners purely on tenure, didn't hire laterals, only had two offices, did major SCOTUS and other era-defining work, and paid at the tippy top of the market. Now, they aren't pure lockstep for partner compensation, were rumored to have been looking to hire a lateral recruiting manager a year or two ago (and definitely take laterals now in more than just specialist groups), opened a DC office, rarely every do major SCOTUS and era-defining work and instead just do major deals and high dollar commercial litigation like most highly profitable shops, and offer both an associate and partnership compensation structure that is on par with or lags a dozen or so other firms.

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

Interesting, I haven't heard of lateral associates in non-specialist groups. I know they took on Portilla and quite a few ex-federal officials as partners, but people I know at the firm say lateral hiring at the associate level is still confined to ECEB. Are people actually getting hired into general corporate/litigation now?

Associate lateral recruiting doesn't really work out for them. They seem to only be interested in attracting midlevel/senior talent from other top tier firms, and their environment is way too restrictive / stuffy for such lateral hires.

Cravath is extremely big on facetime, and in general don't let associates get the exposure and career advancement most good midlevels want and seek. For example, they just started listing their associates on the firm website like this year or maybe the last. Prior to that, only partners were listed on the website - it's just a firm that's geared towards the partners wishes to run the firm the way they want.

I know 4-5 associates who had offers to lateral to Cravath (mix of litigation, restructuring and 1 corporate), and each one of them turned Cravath down for other firms. All of those associates were fellow V5 associates who were well regarded at their firm. Most of them chose firms that are ranked lower than Cravath, and often several tiers lower. If you've already been at a V5 for 3-5 years, you don't really need a brand name for your resume anymore. You're usually looking for something more substantial than just name recognition (i.e. better WLB, leadership roles, partnership prospects, prospect of building out a practice area for a firm/office, etc.) Cravath just can't or won't give you any of those things. They're also too stubborn or prideful to reach below the V5 for midlevel talent.

On the flip side, every lateral I've met who left from Cravath has been extremely happy with their decision to leave for all the reasons stated above (or at least they represented as much to me, which I admit they would have reasons to hide their displeasure from a fellow associate at their new firm / former classmate).

I think their whole mantra of "we don't hire laterals" has turned into "we can't hire laterals".

[Joachim2017]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

And that was a strategic failure on their part. You're not going to suddenly compete with the Lathams and Kirklands of the world so why not at least keep your unique stick up the ass "we're special and different" culture like Williams & Connolly in DC.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

And that was a strategic failure on their part. You're not going to suddenly compete with the Lathams and Kirklands of the world so why not at least keep your unique stick up the ass "we're special and different" culture like Williams & Connolly in DC.

Well, and at least Williams & Connolly is actually elite, so they can pull this off. Take ten random lit associates from Cravath and put them next to ten random lit associates from Williams & Connolly, and the huge gap in credentials and clerkships is immediately apparent. The reason people find Cravathers so unbearable is that they act like they're special when everyone knows they're not. People like to rag on Kirkland (me included), but at least Kirkland is smashing every other firm in terms of profits. What has Cravath accomplished recently to distinguish itself from the morass of indistinguishable NYC corporate shops other than its dumb pretentiousness?

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

And that was a strategic failure on their part. You're not going to suddenly compete with the Lathams and Kirklands of the world so why not at least keep your unique stick up the ass "we're special and different" culture like Williams & Connolly in DC.

Well, and at least Williams & Connolly is actually elite, so they can pull this off. Take ten random lit associates from Cravath and put them next to ten random lit associates from Williams & Connolly, and the huge gap in credentials and clerkships is immediately apparent. The reason people find Cravathers so unbearable is that they act like they're special when everyone knows they're not. People like to rag on Kirkland (me included), but at least Kirkland is smashing every other firm in terms of profits. What has Cravath accomplished recently to distinguish itself from the morass of indistinguishable NYC corporate shops other than its dumb pretentiousness?

Sorry you cant handle Cravath's blinding prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath is a great firm, but it's slowly bowing to the pressures of the industry and becoming increasingly indistinguishable from many other firms.

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

[Anonymous User]

[*]

It's already happened.

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

Agreed. To me I think the big takeaway is that most of the firms within a certain cluster/band are basically the same thing broadly speaking. The argument isn’t “Cravath isn’t special because Latham is special” it’s that “neither of them is special, but unlike Latham, Cravath won’t shut the fuck up about how special it is so let’s drill down into why it isn’t.”

That being said, a few firms can claim to special in certain small ways, but their specialness is limited to that context. For example, DPW in recent years has been the one reliably pushing comp higher every time there is a raise by Milbank, so that deserves recognition. Kirkland makes the most money, is the most dominant in PE, and has unusual business practices that the other big firms have tended to copy. Wachtell is obviously special for vastly above market comp, insane hours, and unusual/lucrative fee structures. Gibson is unique for its strength in real estate and its DC office’s dominance in litigation and white collar.

And so on. But a random M&A associate at Gibson NY isn’t extra special simply because their DC office is. DPW isn’t super special and unique in its actual work product just because they’re a leader on comp. You always need to look at these things in isolation because for most firms in most context it’s the usual Biglaw crap and whenever a firm starts getting it into its head how magical and special they are as a general matter, it’s usually bullshit.

Cravath used to be special, now it’s not. S&C has always been and continues to be overrated.

[Anonymous User]

[*]

Cravath and S&C seem like the same thing at this point, no? Both have 500 person NYC offices, have "generalist" approaches, and work you harder than peer firms while paying you the same

Yup, and S&C is similarly overrated.

Davis Polk seems in this bucket too lol

Genuinely curious which firms are at the top of your lists? If DPW, S&C and Cravath are overrated, who should be at the top?

It just seems like every firm within the V10 or V20 gets hate, and I certainly think all firms have room to improve. But we're comparing firms relative to one another right? I'm assuming you aren't going to say that Skadden, Latham, Simpson, Kirkland or Gibson ought to be rated above DPW, S&C and Cravath... unless you work at one of those firms lol.

And if you are going to show love to these firms and you have your own opinion about firm trajectories and their respective business models, then I stand corrected. But reading on TLS it seems like basically every firm in the V10 or V20 gets hated and labeled as overrated by someone. Which firms from the remainder of the V100 are deserving of these spots? Or is everyone basically in agreement that the V20 or V30 represent the best of the best, but the disagreement is about the order?

Basically every New York biglaw office other than Wachtell is overrated lol. Easiest market to break into, basically fungible firms at the V5-V20 level (I'm exaggerating a bit but not much). But because New York absorbs such large numbers of associates, people end up talking about these firms all the time. I guess people aren't saying other firms in this category are materially better than Cravath, it's more that Cravath people act like they're better than everyone else and that rubs people the wrong way.

Ranking firms 1, 2, 3 and so forth is just an inherently dumb exercise.

It completely ignores relative strengths of practice area and even types of work within that practice area. For example, even comparing within M&A, Cravath does more public M&A work while K&E does more private equity M&A work. It's already an apples to oranges comparison, but what does "better" even mean here (volume of deals, complexity of deals, exit options for associates, how often your firm is mentioned in the NYT, desirability among law students, credentials of current associates/partners, firm profitability?).

Saying "x" firm is #4 in the world, while "y" firm is #5 and then arguing about which should be #4 vs. #5 is so goddamn silly and only an exercise that neurotic law students could take seriously.

The only rankings that have any sense of legitimacy is Chambers, which at least breaks it down by practice areas and lumps firms together, but it still has the same issues of not being able to drill down into specifics or what it means to be "better".

To me asking the question whether a firm is "overrated" is like asking what sound does the color blue make? The question is based on an underlying assumption that doesn't really make sense.

The only question that can be answered is "is this firm a better fit for my personality and career goals vs. another firm", but that is a highly personal question and these boards would be completely dead if we didn't get have another "lol Cravath" or "lol Kirkland" thread.

Agreed. To me I think the big takeaway is that most of the firms within a certain cluster/band are basically the same thing broadly speaking. The argument isn’t “Cravath isn’t special because Latham is special” it’s that “neither of them is special, but unlike Latham, Cravath won’t shut the fuck up about how special it is so let’s drill down into why it isn’t.”

Sums it up perfectly.