S&C (NYC) v. Skadden (NYC) v. Kirkland (NYC) for litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

Want to litigate and stay in big law for a long time (hopefully make partner).Which firm has greater prestige/lateral options? Could work in NYC for a while but could see myself working somewhere else.

[Anonymous User]

I'm seeing S&C getting more traction than Skadden and Kirkland--why? All three firms have Band 1 General Commercial Litigation in NYC, and all three are V10. Skadden is even ranked lower than S&C in the Vault Rankings, if that matters. So if the question is asking about prestige/lateral options, why is S&C getting more votes? Genuinely curious here.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I'm seeing S&C getting more traction than Skadden and Kirkland--why? All three firms have Band 1 General Commercial Litigation in NYC, and all three are V10. Skadden is even ranked lower than S&C in the Vault Rankings, if that matters. So if the question is asking about prestige/lateral options, why is S&C getting more votes? Genuinely curious here.

because you asked about prestige and, in NYC, S&C is the most old-school, white-shoe, Ivy League of these three. Whether that's important is a separate question. No, Vault does not matter, certainly not among firms like these that are all in the same general band anyhow.

[Anonymous User]

I'm seeing S&C getting more traction than Skadden and Kirkland--why? All three firms have Band 1 General Commercial Litigation in NYC, and all three are V10. Skadden is even ranked lower than S&C in the Vault Rankings, if that matters. So if the question is asking about prestige/lateral options, why is S&C getting more votes? Genuinely curious here.

because you asked about prestige and, in NYC, S&C is the most old-school, white-shoe, Ivy League of these three. Whether that's important is a separate question. No, Vault does not matter, certainly not among firms like these that are all in the same general band anyhow.

That makes sense. Do you think S&C's higher prestige is actually important in a lateral-sense (meaning that it could make a real difference), or pretty much only just in a respect/admiration sense?

[Anonymous User]

I’d go Kirkland or S&C over Skadden for sure

[The Lsat Airbender]

That makes sense. Do you think S&C's higher prestige is actually important in a lateral-sense (meaning that it could make a real difference), or pretty much only just in a respect/admiration sense?

I don't understand the distinction. Material differences in "respect" do, on balance, make a difference in lateral hiring. But these three firms are too similar to care.

[Anonymous User]

Didn't vote because polls on here are stupid, but I would have voted for SullCrom. When litigation practice groups are equivalent, pick the most prestigious option. SullCrom is known to be more prestigious.

[Anonymous User]

SullCrom is known to be more prestigious.

not according to vault

[Anonymous User]

Didn't vote because polls on here are stupid, but I would have voted for SullCrom. When litigation practice groups are equivalent, pick the most prestigious option. SullCrom is known to be more prestigious.

To add: as a summer associate, S&C guarantees litigation, Skadden does not.

S&C's only relevant litigation presence is in NY. K&E has a fraction of its litigators in NY and over 60% of litigation headcount is in Chicago and DC. At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality. I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

Add these points to the fact that A&C has more old-school prestige in NY and the decision is a no brainer.

[Anonymous User]

Didn't vote because polls on here are stupid, but I would have voted for SullCrom. When litigation practice groups are equivalent, pick the most prestigious option. SullCrom is known to be more prestigious.

To add: as a summer associate, S&C guarantees litigation, Skadden does not.

Why would Skadden not guarantee litigation?

[Anonymous User]

Didn't vote because polls on here are stupid, but I would have voted for SullCrom. When litigation practice groups are equivalent, pick the most prestigious option. SullCrom is known to be more prestigious.

To add: as a summer associate, S&C guarantees litigation, Skadden does not.

Why would Skadden not guarantee litigation?

You don't get assigned a group until after you accept your offer. S&C you accept an offer into lit or corporate

[Anonymous User]

At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality. I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

How much of this is because of hiring vs actual associate quality though? I’ve noticed K&E NY hires a lot of T30 grads, way more so than T14s as far as I can tell. That said, there are still HYS summers whose resumes/transcripts I know to be pretty strong (one I know turned down S&C)—would they be in the same boat or no?

[Anonymous User]

Didn't vote because polls on here are stupid, but I would have voted for SullCrom. When litigation practice groups are equivalent, pick the most prestigious option. SullCrom is known to be more prestigious.

To add: as a summer associate, S&C guarantees litigation, Skadden does not.

S&C's only relevant litigation presence is in NY. K&E has a fraction of its litigators in NY and over 60% of litigation headcount is in Chicago and DC. At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality. I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

Add these points to the fact that A&C has more old-school prestige in NY and the decision is a no brainer.

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

[Anonymous User]

At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality. I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

How much of this is because of hiring vs actual associate quality though? I’ve noticed K&E NY hires a lot of T30 grads, way more so than T14s as far as I can tell. That said, there are still HYS summers whose resumes/transcripts I know to be pretty strong (one I know turned down S&C)—would they be in the same boat or no?

K&E tends to hire more top of their class (literally top 1-3) T30 students than peer firms. This true in Chi and DC as well.

My impression (having summered there and starting in the fall) is that K&E doesn't care about traditional prestige credentials for partnership promotion. What does matter is the person's ability to navigate the free market system. Since litigation is based mostly out of Chi and DC, I would think the problem with a homegrown NY associate making partner is getting enough opportunities and exposure to get that level of pull from share partners.

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

Nah, I'm saying if this person doesn't care where they live, then they should go to TX or Chicago because they will make the same absolute salary with a fraction of the living expenses.

But if it is just an "idc abt DC vs NYC but I prefer those two to other markets" then that point doesn't carry the same weight!

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

Nah, I'm saying if this person doesn't care where they live, then they should go to TX or Chicago because they will make the same absolute salary with a fraction of the living expenses.

But if it is just an "idc abt DC vs NYC but I prefer those two to other markets" then that point doesn't carry the same weight!

Fair enough. Isn't there something to be said about firm quality/prospects? If a firm has much better litigation in NYC than it does in TX, isn't that an argument for NYC? Same thing with a higher chance of making partner, or getting substantive litigation experience. Obviously salary would be the same and living expenses would be more difficult, but I think there's something to say about the less tangible things.

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

In lit DC > other major markets > NYC in talent concentration, though there are tons of talented litigators in NYC obviously, it’s a huge market

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

In lit DC > other major markets > NYC in talent concentration, though there are tons of talented litigators in NYC obviously, it’s a huge market

In terms of what % of the litigators in each market has top credentials, whatever that even means, probably. But that still means NY has an astounding number of top-flight litigators in the market. These comparisons are meaningless unless it's X practice group in A firm vs. B practice group in Y firm.

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

I don’t even think this is true for litigation. Some of the best real trial lawyers in the country are in Texas and California. DC generally has high end litigators and a lot of the elite boutiques are located around there. The NYC lit market is objectively weak. There are like 50 real trial lawyers in all of NYC biglaw. I’m not impressed by discovery cogs and people who think “substantive litigation experience” means taking a deposition as a 4th year associate.

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

I don’t even think this is true for litigation. Some of the best real trial lawyers in the country are in Texas and California. DC generally has high end litigators and a lot of the elite boutiques are located around there. The NYC lit market is objectively weak. There are like 50 real trial lawyers in all of NYC biglaw. I’m not impressed by discovery cogs and people who think “substantive litigation experience” means taking a deposition as a 4th year associate.

Litigation partner in CA. A few reactions:

1. I think DC is definitely the center of gravity for appellate litigation but not litigation generally. That said, it does have some really good trial lawyers, both at big firms and boutiques.

2. NYC litigation is very focused on large cases (particularly securities and antitrust cases) that don't go to trial very often. You will work more and get less substantive experience than you will in other cities.

3. For high end, trial-focused business litigation, I tend to think the three strongest cities are LA, Houston, and Chicago. The Bay Area is a very strong market for IP litigation and transactional work, but for litigation generally I think LA is a better choice. (It's also much cheaper, though by no means cheap.)

[Anonymous User]

At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality.

I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

What's the support for either of these 2 claims?

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

I don’t even think this is true for litigation. Some of the best real trial lawyers in the country are in Texas and California. DC generally has high end litigators and a lot of the elite boutiques are located around there. The NYC lit market is objectively weak. There are like 50 real trial lawyers in all of NYC biglaw. I’m not impressed by discovery cogs and people who think “substantive litigation experience” means taking a deposition as a 4th year associate.

Litigation partner in CA. A few reactions:

1. I think DC is definitely the center of gravity for appellate litigation but not litigation generally. That said, it does have some really good trial lawyers, both at big firms and boutiques.

2. NYC litigation is very focused on large cases (particularly securities and antitrust cases) that don't go to trial very often. You will work more and get less substantive experience than you will in other cities.

3. For high end, trial-focused business litigation, I tend to think the three strongest cities are LA, Houston, and Chicago. The Bay Area is a very strong market for IP litigation and transactional work, but for litigation generally I think LA is a better choice. (It's also much cheaper, though by no means cheap.)

Out of curiosity, if you're pretty committed to NY or SF, where would the good trial litigation be? I can't justify moving to the three cities you mentioned rip.