PW, CSM, K&E, STB, or Jenner for NYC Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

[vine][/vine]Interested in leaving for an AUSA Office (which seems to require clerking as a pre-req) or SEC Enforcement Division (not sure how that exits look like) - not looking to stay and make partner.

From a pure prestige perspective, CSM stands out, but given that I'm interested in government, I'm not sure that it matters. For what its worth, I clicked with the people at Jenner by far the best, and their leanly staffed cases+public service bent is appealing. Realize I'm extremely fortunate to be in this position, would require some feedback on which firm might get me closer to my goals (without hating my life too much).

[Anonymous User]

[vine][/vine]Interested in leaving for an AUSA Office (which seems to require clerking as a pre-req) or SEC Enforcement Division (not sure how that exits look like) - not looking to stay and make partner.

From a pure prestige perspective, CSM stands out, but given that I'm interested in government, I'm not sure that it matters. For what its worth, I clicked with the people at Jenner by far the best, and their leanly staffed cases+public service bent is appealing. Realize I'm extremely fortunate to be in this position, would require some feedback on which firm might get me closer to my goals (without hating my life too much).

You have great options but none of these are the preferred AUSA exit firms in NY (DPW, Debevoise, even Wilmerhale). Any chance you can get one of those?

If not, either CSM or PW is the move - go for the one where you clicked better with the people.

Without getting into more detail, K&E and Jenner are Chicago firms and are much weaker and/or worse in NY. STB is not the same caliber of litigation firm as the others on this list.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks the response.

I'm currently waiting on Wilmer (NY) atm, as well as Selendy Gay- would these be viable options?

Generally speaking, how important does the firm you go to actually matter for govt. exits? It seems that certain credentials (high grades / clerkships / previous work at DA/AUSA office) are much more important than the actual firm you go to, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous User]

[vine][/vine]Interested in leaving for an AUSA Office (which seems to require clerking as a pre-req) or SEC Enforcement Division (not sure how that exits look like) - not looking to stay and make partner.

From a pure prestige perspective, CSM stands out, but given that I'm interested in government, I'm not sure that it matters. For what its worth, I clicked with the people at Jenner by far the best, and their leanly staffed cases+public service bent is appealing. Realize I'm extremely fortunate to be in this position, would require some feedback on which firm might get me closer to my goals (without hating my life too much).

You have great options but none of these are the preferred AUSA exit firms in NY (DPW, Debevoise, even Wilmerhale). Any chance you can get one of those?

If not, either CSM or PW is the move - go for the one where you clicked better with the people.

Without getting into more detail, K&E and Jenner are Chicago firms and are much weaker and/or worse in NY. STB is not the same caliber of litigation firm as the others on this list.

Is PW not a preferred AUSA exit firm? I was under the impression it was just as desirable as DPW, not to mention Deb and WH.

[Anonymous User]

Making connections with former AUSAs who can both vouch for you and give you information that can make you a stronger interviewer is definitely helpful.

That doesn’t mean it’s necessary, especially depending where you want to work as an AUSA. Assuming that you, like most people here, want one of the prime major metro offices, then those kinds of connections will probably make a big difference. If you’re willing to go to any USAO, it’s probably not as determinative.

I’ve worked in smaller/regional offices with people who’ve have had pretty varied biglaw experiences - some come from a couple of local biglaw firms while others come from elsewhere in the country and from firms no one in the office really knows about.

I think generally, biglaw is just a proxy for other skills (like research and writing) and the qualifications you’ve already identified. Also, one reason why we’ve hired out of one particular local firm semi-regularly is that they let their associates do details with the local DA’s office, so we know that those candidates have at least some exposure to criminal law and weren’t turned off by the reality of it. So we’re not necessarily favoring that firm, but people who come out of that firm have had the opportunity to shore up their applications in that way (I think there are former AUSAs there as well and the firm is probably supportive of these ambitions, but I don’t know that we care about that directly).

So overall, I agree that your complete application/qualifications and experience are more important than the name of the firm on your resume. I think, too, it’s best to go the firm where you think you’ll get the best opportunity to do the kind of work that interests you and where you like the culture (to the extent you can judge that), than go to a firm just because it reportedly feeds the most AUSAs *if it’s a firm you’re not otherwise excited about.* Because I don’t think USAOs really look at a firm name and give someone a bonus for it in a vacuum, but value reaching out to known quantities at that firm who can give an informed opinion about your potential as an AUSA, and you can get more of an insider scoop by working with former AUSAs. So if you don’t end up working with former AUSAs there for whatever reason, or they aren’t super enthusiastic about you, that firm won’t give much benefit.

That said, I do think my experience in smaller/regional offices is different from someplace like SDNY/EDNY (which quite frankly would never have considered hiring me and still wouldn’t). So given that you’re interested in NY lit and probably want to go to a NYC office, which firm may well take on greater importance, and which ones help, I can’t comment on personally.

[Anonymous User]

DPW is the only NYC firm that has a DA rotation program, which is, in part, why it's such an AUSA feeder firm. Paul, Weiss is also a solid AUSA feeder in NYC so I'd go there.

And firms matter for AUSA jobs. There are certain firms that have sent maybe at most 1 ex-associate to a big city USAO, and others, like Davis Polk, Debevoise, and Paul, Weiss that send multiple each year.

STB isn't bad for SEC Enforcement exits and SEC actually pays considerably better than the USAOs so that might be something to look into.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

1) This is a follow-up to a previous point, but does it matter whether one works at an “AUSA Exit Office/Firm”? Asking because much of it seems to depend on how many former AUSA’s/USA are at an office (ex. Joon Kim at Cleary, Preet at WH, Mary Jo White at Deb). How does the number of former AUSA’s at an office make it an “exit office”, given that I most likely won’t be working with ex-AUSA’s even if I work there? (I’m assuming the chances of a random litigation associate working directly with Mary Jo White are slim to none)

2) Would the calculus change if I wasn’t interested in SDNY/EDNY? These seem to be the most prestigious offices outside of main justice, and while I’m all for pursuing excellence, I would also like to have a life, and would be willing to pursue other offices in different regions.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

1) This is a follow-up to a previous point, but does it matter whether one works at an “AUSA Exit Office/Firm”? Asking because much of it seems to depend on how many former AUSA’s/USA are at an office (ex. Joon Kim at Cleary, Preet at WH, Mary Jo White at Deb). How does the number of former AUSA’s at an office make it an “exit office”, given that I most likely won’t be working with ex-AUSA’s even if I work there? (I’m assuming the chances of a random litigation associate working directly with Mary Jo White are slim to none)

2) Would the calculus change if I wasn’t interested in SDNY/EDNY? These seem to be the most prestigious offices outside of main justice, and while I’m all for pursuing excellence, I would also like to have a life, and would be willing to pursue other offices in different regions.

Very long-winded regional office person here. It depends on what regions you mean. If you’re talking about anywhere, including districts with smaller biglaw markets (like for instance districts in Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, Idaho, etc), I don’t think which NYC biglaw firm will matter at all. No one in South Carolina will care if you worked at the same firm as Preet (unless of course you work with him and use him as a reference and he says you’re amazing) (I suspect a decent chunk of people in SC will not have even paid any attention to where Preet ended up). In most of these districts most AUSAs, even those coming out of biglaw, are less likely to have worked in NYC biglaw or to pay close attention to any of this.

If by other regions you mean other major, market-paying metros that have robust biglaw markets, and people more regularly go back and forth between the USAO and biglaw, people at those offices are more likely to have opinions about the different biglaw firms. I still don’t know if someone in the CDCA who worked in LA biglaw is going to have strong preferences about which NYC firm you were at, but I can’t say they won’t.

I also think the benefit of a specific firm is marginal compared to your overall qualifications, your clerkship experience, what you did at whichever law firm, and how well you can put that all together to sell yourself in an interview as someone who understands what an AUSA job entails and has the kind of temperament/judgment to handle that autonomy. I can’t say which firm you pick is irrelevant to this, especially if you can go somewhere they will detail you to a local prosecutor’s office, but I don’t think it’s going to be make/break.

Re what makes an exit office - I do think that if you have a lot of former government attorneys in an office, it could make a difference to the overall culture/training etc such that you end up a (slightly) better candidate. On a concrete level, the more ex-AUSAs you have, the more likely a firm is to value/emphasize/bring in white collar work, which has obvious practical advantages. On a more amorphous level, and speculating wildly, AUSAs both have a lot of autonomy and have to function within the confines of a particular bureaucracy. If you have a lot of former AUSAs at a firm you might end up with a culture that fosters those qualities in associates. But like I said, that’s pure speculation and I wouldn’t want to quantify that in any way.

[Anonymous User]

OP here again.

1) To the poster who commented that STB might offer better exits to the SEC, would you mind elaborating on that? What about Simpson makes it strong with regards to SEC enforcement work? As context, I came to law school very much interested in the SEC - until a big-wig ex-prosecutor (think Division Head at DOJ) had some..."choice words" about their training and their trial capabilities (given that a lot of the adjudications happen within the SEC, I believe it's a little different than Article III tribunals).

2) To the other regional office poster, appreciate the long-winded answer! Very helpful to get feedback. I'm getting a sense that culture/fit are going to be more important given my long-term career goals (and that the qualifications for govt. exits are going to depend more on how I spend my time in law school than a firm spoon-feeding me opportunities).

[Anonymous User]

Tbh seems like you're looking for someone to tell you it's fine to go with Jenner. Jenner NY is a small office but it's very selective and hires a lot of federal clerks in particular. It also has a very respectable (Chambers Elite Band 3) criminal practice in NYC. Think comparable to Patterson Belknap. If you want to be an SDNY AUSA in particular, yeah it's probably best to play it safe and go to Paul Weiss, but if you want to exit to a smaller market (esp in the Midwest where Jenner has a very strong rep) I think there's no reason not to take Jenner.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Thanks for the comment above. I'm not completely sold on Jenner (I think it would be insane to based solely on a 2-hour callback), but just wanted to be open about where I'm currently at.
The main reason I made this poll is because I realized (quickly) that asking 2Ls/3Ls is not the best strategy for long-term career advice. Things like prestige and personal biases (ex: if DPW rejected a 3L when they were recruiting, they might still be salty) can affect the way students view firms even if they don't want to admit it. On the flip-side, for the most part I feel that practicing attorneys tend to have a MUCH clearer view of things. There are exceptions to that of course, but that's been my impression so far.

[Anonymous User]

[vine][/vine]Interested in leaving for an AUSA Office (which seems to require clerking as a pre-req) or SEC Enforcement Division (not sure how that exits look like) - not looking to stay and make partner.

From a pure prestige perspective, CSM stands out, but given that I'm interested in government, I'm not sure that it matters. For what its worth, I clicked with the people at Jenner by far the best, and their leanly staffed cases+public service bent is appealing. Realize I'm extremely fortunate to be in this position, would require some feedback on which firm might get me closer to my goals (without hating my life too much).

Cravath and it's not particularly close, in my opinion. Cravath's prestige is legendary and helps in any area of employment. If you like leanly staffed cases and small teams that give you a ton of experience early on, Cravath again stands out. Any of these firms have robust pro bono practices that allow you to get experience arguing motions, so that's a wash. In any case, you may change your mind about leaving for the USAO (considering the pay cut and loss of amenities, or just simply different interests). In that case, it's better to be at the best generalist firm in the country. But if you're not sure, I would recommend reaching out to your school's public interest office and get connected with AUSAs to speak with. I have done legal recruiting and am familiar with SDNY and EDNY hiring practices, and am confident you will hear what I've said.

[Anonymous User]

[vine][/vine]Interested in leaving for an AUSA Office (which seems to require clerking as a pre-req) or SEC Enforcement Division (not sure how that exits look like) - not looking to stay and make partner.

From a pure prestige perspective, CSM stands out, but given that I'm interested in government, I'm not sure that it matters. For what its worth, I clicked with the people at Jenner by far the best, and their leanly staffed cases+public service bent is appealing. Realize I'm extremely fortunate to be in this position, would require some feedback on which firm might get me closer to my goals (without hating my life too much).

Cravath and it's not particularly close, in my opinion. Cravath's prestige is legendary and helps in any area of employment. If you like leanly staffed cases and small teams that give you a ton of experience early on, Cravath again stands out. Any of these firms have robust pro bono practices that allow you to get experience arguing motions, so that's a wash. In any case, you may change your mind about leaving for the USAO (considering the pay cut and loss of amenities, or just simply different interests). In that case, it's better to be at the best generalist firm in the country. But if you're not sure, I would recommend reaching out to your school's public interest office and get connected with AUSAs to speak with. I have done legal recruiting and am familiar with SDNY and EDNY hiring practices, and am confident you will hear what I've said.

legendary! the stuff of legends! the tales of olde foretolde the coming of Mr. Paul Cravath

[Anonymous User]

The Cravath troll is getting really annoying.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Unfortunately, I do not share the same love of prestige, but I do think Cravath is a good firm.

My questions pertain to leaving to be a prosecutor specifically, so please limit the conversation to that. As Shrek said, “this is MY swamp”, so if you’re going to mock or fawn over the firm, please do so elsewhere!

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Unfortunately, I do not share the same love of prestige, but I do think Cravath is a good firm.

My questions pertain to leaving to be a prosecutor specifically, so please limit the conversation to that. As Shrek said, “this is MY swamp”, so if you’re going to mock or fawn over the firm, please do so elsewhere!

Thanks for the follow-up, OP. In that case, I would still recommend Cravath as it's the best firm you listed and has many alumni at SDNY/EDNY.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

1) This is a follow-up to a previous point, but does it matter whether one works at an “AUSA Exit Office/Firm”? Asking because much of it seems to depend on how many former AUSA’s/USA are at an office (ex. Joon Kim at Cleary, Preet at WH, Mary Jo White at Deb). How does the number of former AUSA’s at an office make it an “exit office”, given that I most likely won’t be working with ex-AUSA’s even if I work there? (I’m assuming the chances of a random litigation associate working directly with Mary Jo White are slim to none)

2) Would the calculus change if I wasn’t interested in SDNY/EDNY? These seem to be the most prestigious offices outside of main justice, and while I’m all for pursuing excellence, I would also like to have a life, and would be willing to pursue other offices in different regions.

1) It does indeed matter. Lots of people apply to EDNY and SDNY, so you need to have people vouching for you. And not just anyone. You need people who are well-respected by the front office, who can call up the First Assistant US Attorney and say "you gotta hire associate X." As a mid-level, you will work with them, and at the firm I was at, even if you didn't, if you were well-regarded, they would still go to bat for you.

It's just a fact of the matter that many firms essentially do not feed AUSAs. I don't think you'd have a problem from Cravath or even Kirkland, though.

2) Yes. Some offices have ex-bigwigs from Main Justice, and few offices have an AUSA from, say, the Southern District of West Virginia.

[Anonymous User]

Regarding EDNY/SDNY AUSA jobs, what matters in a firm?

1. Prestige: AUSAs in these districts were gunners. They got top grades, were Law Review, coif, you name it. So going to CSM or S&C is going to carry a candidate further than if they went to Fried Frank or Cadwalader (just to name random firms).
2. White Collar Work: Even though complex civil lit is probably more in line with the day-to-day work of prosecution than White Collar Defense work, SDNY/EDNY want people who worked on legit white collar cases and not just a few internal investigations or what not. Obviously, you can't pick what cases you work on, but some firms do more white collar work than others.
3. Recommenders: This is key, and why some firms produce more AUSAs than others. Some firms have a revolving door with the USAOs. The AUSAs have some degree of loyalty to their old firm, and if there are a lot of Debevoise people in one office, they will keep hiring Debevoise people. It's as simple as that. And Mary Jo White or Greg Andres or Lorin Reisner making a call will matter a lot more than some line prosecutor who did 7 years in SDNY/EDNY and then moved to a v50.
4. Substantive work: This is one area that's overlooked but shouldn't be. Some firms do a lot of criminal pro bono work and others don't. A previous poster noted that DPW has a DA secondment program, and I believe S&C has one for appeals as well. Some firms have a lot of pro bono work which leads to trial experience, and others don't.

In the end, a lot of getting an AUSA job is fate. Also, you'd be surprised how many mid-levels would rather get an in-house lit job with a client (more of a possibility coming out of CSM, PW, DPW, or another firm that's corporate-heavy where the litigators work closely with the corporate teams) or go to the SEC than a US Attorney's Office.

Good luck and do let us know where you land.

[Anonymous User]

OP here again.

1) To the poster who commented that STB might offer better exits to the SEC, would you mind elaborating on that? What about Simpson makes it strong with regards to SEC enforcement work? As context, I came to law school very much interested in the SEC - until a big-wig ex-prosecutor (think Division Head at DOJ) had some..."choice words" about their training and their trial capabilities (given that a lot of the adjudications happen within the SEC, I believe it's a little different than Article III tribunals).

2) To the other regional office poster, appreciate the long-winded answer! Very helpful to get feedback. I'm getting a sense that culture/fit are going to be more important given my long-term career goals (and that the qualifications for govt. exits are going to depend more on how I spend my time in law school than a firm spoon-feeding me opportunities).

Not the poster referred to in #1 but STB has a band one securities lit practice, and the SEC does securities lit. A revolving door exists between firms and the SEC, so firms like STB will send their litigators there. As far as the DOJ guy goes, be careful accepting at face value anything folks in one gov agency say about the other. Gov employees have all sorts of hidden or not hidden rivalries and have their own versions of prestige pissing contests. Trusting the DOJ to give it straight about the SEC is like trusting the Army to give it straight about the Navy. If the DOJ guy were honest, he would explain that different agencies have different budgets, different practice areas (except maybe FTC / DOJ), different political missions and political masters and make different staffing choices, and they can't be compared.

Not sure this is possible for you, but try to find out whether you like AUSA or SEC people more. IMO there is a noticeable personality difference.

[Anonymous User]

[vine][/vine]Interested in leaving for an AUSA Office (which seems to require clerking as a pre-req) or SEC Enforcement Division (not sure how that exits look like) - not looking to stay and make partner.

From a pure prestige perspective, CSM stands out, but given that I'm interested in government, I'm not sure that it matters. For what its worth, I clicked with the people at Jenner by far the best, and their leanly staffed cases+public service bent is appealing. Realize I'm extremely fortunate to be in this position, would require some feedback on which firm might get me closer to my goals (without hating my life too much).

Jenner recently changed their pro bono policies (no longer unlimited) and my friends there are annoyed about it. A lot of people don’t come back after their summers.