S&C (NY) v. Wilmer Hale (Boston) v. Cravath (NY) v. Selendy Gay (NY) v. Susman Godfrey (NY) Forum

[cartmanbrah123]

Current 1L here, have a 2L offer from one of these and interviewing for the rest. The goal eventually is to do appellate law in either in NY or Boston, and open to explore other lit practice areas (antitrust, white collar, CCL, etc.) I understand that Susman might be a long shot, but I do find their plaintiff side work interesting, and people say to be a good appellate lawyer you need to have a good understanding of trial cases. Would either of these options significantly better in terms of opportunity for a COA clerkship? Want to eventually be partner at a law firm. Appreciate any input, thank you!

[Anonymous User]

Can't speak to WilmerHale Boston. For NYC lit, Susman > Cravath > S&C. Gap between Susman and Cravath is much larger than between Cravath and S&C. Not too sure about Selendy, would prob put them under S&C but could be incorrect on that. I think all the NYC firms you've listed have great reputations in terms of work product and prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Susman only takes people who previously clerked. Appellate work is tough to get into. I would pick one of the regular shops you listed - be it S&C, Wilmer, Cravath, or Selendy. Keep your grades up in 2L and apply broadly, and see what happens with clerkships. No firm will give you a material advantage in clerkship applications.

[Anonymous User]

Can't speak to WilmerHale Boston. For NYC lit, Susman > Cravath > S&C. Gap between Susman and Cravath is much larger than between Cravath and S&C. Not too sure about Selendy, would prob put them under S&C but could be incorrect on that. I think all the NYC firms you've listed have great reputations in terms of work product and prestige.

Same person (forgot to address second part of your question) – just in terms of sharing where my perspective comes from, I am a forthcoming COA clerk from a V10 NYC lit group, not one of the ones you listed. My impression is that your firm doesn't usually impact clerkship hiring decisions. It can hurt your application if it indicates a lack of sophisticated work, but that's not a problem you'll have at any of these firms (or really any V100 firm). As a law clerk, I think the only one of these that would stand out to me would be Susman, but honestly clerkship hiring is mostly school + grades + "in" you have with judge (recommender, demonstrated shared passion, alma mater, etc). So don't worry too much about it for clerkship hiring purposes (it matters for other reasons, obviously).

[Anonymous User]

Susman only takes people who previously clerked. Appellate work is tough to get into. I would pick one of the regular shops you listed - be it S&C, Wilmer, Cravath, or Selendy. Keep your grades up in 2L and apply broadly, and see what happens with clerkships. No firm will give you a material advantage in clerkship applications.

Agree with this. I summered at Susman and am currently a COA clerk and I don't see how your 2L firm would impact your clerkship chances much at all. Plus isn't Susman's summer program only four weeks? You could just split between Susman and Cravath or S&C. Also keep in mind that many people work for a year before clerking, so you'd presumably go back to the non-Susman firm for that gap year anyway (as they generally don't hire anyone pre-clerkship).

[Anonymous User]

Idk if you're a liberal but choosing S&C especially now would hurt you with my liberal judge. She wasn't already a fan of S&C because she finds them pretty abrasive, but now... well that could be a red mark.

[Anonymous User]

If you're dead set on appellate litigation, I'd go with Susman. Frankly, though, Susman, like the other firms on your list, is not really an appellate litigation firm. But it puts you on your feet sooner than these other firms and that's a big plus if you're interested in appellate litigation.

But it looks to me like you're not sure about what you're interested in long-term. If that's true, I'd go with one of the more traditional white shoe firms. More varied practice groups, more formal training, and limitless money means they'll teach you an obsessive level of detail.

[cartmanbrah123]

Idk if you're a liberal but choosing S&C especially now would hurt you with my liberal judge. She wasn't already a fan of S&C because she finds them pretty abrasive, but now... well that could be a red mark.

Thanks for the insight! This is something I do worry about. Would this concern equally apply to Davis Polk (recently taking some controversial cases), or Cravath (no news about them in recent affairs, but from what I heard, they do seem to lean more conservative than other NY peers)?

[cartmanbrah123]

Can't speak to WilmerHale Boston. For NYC lit, Susman > Cravath > S&C. Gap between Susman and Cravath is much larger than between Cravath and S&C. Not too sure about Selendy, would prob put them under S&C but could be incorrect on that. I think all the NYC firms you've listed have great reputations in terms of work product and prestige.

Same person (forgot to address second part of your question) – just in terms of sharing where my perspective comes from, I am a forthcoming COA clerk from a V10 NYC lit group, not one of the ones you listed. My impression is that your firm doesn't usually impact clerkship hiring decisions. It can hurt your application if it indicates a lack of sophisticated work, but that's not a problem you'll have at any of these firms (or really any V100 firm). As a law clerk, I think the only one of these that would stand out to me would be Susman, but honestly clerkship hiring is mostly school + grades + "in" you have with judge (recommender, demonstrated shared passion, alma mater, etc). So don't worry too much about it for clerkship hiring purposes (it matters for other reasons, obviously).

Thanks! My current plan is to work for 2-3 years before a CoA clerkship. Do you think either of these options would help in terms of LoR, or substantive experience as a litigator? I understand that Susman doesn't take full time associates before clerkship, but would Selendy Gay be much more helpful in that regard than the traditional firms listed here?

[Anonymous User]

Idk if you're a liberal but choosing S&C especially now would hurt you with my liberal judge. She wasn't already a fan of S&C because she finds them pretty abrasive, but now... well that could be a red mark.

Thanks for the insight! This is something I do worry about. Would this concern equally apply to Davis Polk (recently taking some controversial cases), or Cravath (no news about them in recent affairs, but from what I heard, they do seem to lean more conservative than other NY peers)?

From what I understand DPW and Cravath have not made any deals or been particularly vocal. I think DPW did a transactional deal for a trump media org, but that is more just value neutral and helping him financially which is different then a public deal that involves pro bono support. Personally, I think Cravath and DPW are still bad for not being vocal about this and refusing to support the firms targeted, but there is a sense that S&C is noticeably worse for being an assistant to the carnage as opposed to just a spineless victim. Beyond the firms decisions you also have a big S&C back bench in the Trump administration.

There is a sense where I wonder if this is all just confirming pre-concieved notions that my judge previously had as even prior to all this when receiving apps from S&C she was super negative and didn't seem to have a good experience with prior S&C clerks or that firm. To be honest, I sort of share her ire as personality-wise the people from my law school who went to S&C tended to be disproportionately hyper-competitive weirdos.

I am curious if anyone else here can back this up because its entirely possible my judge is unique and my S&C experience is not the norm and I would hate for you to get an impression of the firm just on one random anonymous comment.

[Anonymous User]

Idk if you're a liberal but choosing S&C especially now would hurt you with my liberal judge. She wasn't already a fan of S&C because she finds them pretty abrasive, but now... well that could be a red mark.

Thanks for the insight! This is something I do worry about. Would this concern equally apply to Davis Polk (recently taking some controversial cases), or Cravath (no news about them in recent affairs, but from what I heard, they do seem to lean more conservative than other NY peers)?

From what I understand DPW and Cravath have not made any deals or been particularly vocal. I think DPW did a transactional deal for a trump media org, but that is more just value neutral and helping him financially which is different then a public deal that involves pro bono support. Personally, I think Cravath and DPW are still bad for not being vocal about this and refusing to support the firms targeted, but there is a sense that S&C is noticeably worse for being an assistant to the carnage as opposed to just a spineless victim. Beyond the firms decisions you also have a big S&C back bench in the Trump administration.

There is a sense where I wonder if this is all just confirming pre-concieved notions that my judge previously had as even prior to all this when receiving apps from S&C she was super negative and didn't seem to have a good experience with prior S&C clerks or that firm. To be honest, I sort of share her ire as personality-wise the people from my law school who went to S&C tended to be disproportionately hyper-competitive weirdos.

I am curious if anyone else here can back this up because its entirely possible my judge is unique and my S&C experience is not the norm and I would hate for you to get an impression of the firm just on one random anonymous comment.

Clerking for a judge next year whose current clerk is going to S&C lit. Can't speak to what the judge thought about it. Possible the clerk took the gig immediately prior to everything going down but not sure.

Personally, again not speaking for a judge, I do think S&C is on a tier by themselves right now in terms of being aiders rather than onlookers/capitulators.

[Anonymous User]

Can't speak to WilmerHale Boston. For NYC lit, Susman > Cravath > S&C. Gap between Susman and Cravath is much larger than between Cravath and S&C. Not too sure about Selendy, would prob put them under S&C but could be incorrect on that. I think all the NYC firms you've listed have great reputations in terms of work product and prestige.

Same person (forgot to address second part of your question) – just in terms of sharing where my perspective comes from, I am a forthcoming COA clerk from a V10 NYC lit group, not one of the ones you listed. My impression is that your firm doesn't usually impact clerkship hiring decisions. It can hurt your application if it indicates a lack of sophisticated work, but that's not a problem you'll have at any of these firms (or really any V100 firm). As a law clerk, I think the only one of these that would stand out to me would be Susman, but honestly clerkship hiring is mostly school + grades + "in" you have with judge (recommender, demonstrated shared passion, alma mater, etc). So don't worry too much about it for clerkship hiring purposes (it matters for other reasons, obviously).

Thanks! My current plan is to work for 2-3 years before a CoA clerkship. Do you think either of these options would help in terms of LoR, or substantive experience as a litigator? I understand that Susman doesn't take full time associates before clerkship, but would Selendy Gay be much more helpful in that regard than the traditional firms listed here?

Same person again – I think the answer is "no." It's definitely not going to help you with LoR since you'll use your professors. Maybe Selendy is better for substantive experience; not sure. Others might disagree but I do wonder if Selendy having less name-brand would hurt with older judges. Probably not. I think you should honestly just pick the firm you perceive as having the best reputation for lit generally, or which people you like the best. I think the clerkship difference will be negligible.

[Anonymous User]

Idk if you're a liberal but choosing S&C especially now would hurt you with my liberal judge. She wasn't already a fan of S&C because she finds them pretty abrasive, but now... well that could be a red mark.

Thanks for the insight! This is something I do worry about. Would this concern equally apply to Davis Polk (recently taking some controversial cases), or Cravath (no news about them in recent affairs, but from what I heard, they do seem to lean more conservative than other NY peers)?

From what I understand DPW and Cravath have not made any deals or been particularly vocal. I think DPW did a transactional deal for a trump media org, but that is more just value neutral and helping him financially which is different then a public deal that involves pro bono support. Personally, I think Cravath and DPW are still bad for not being vocal about this and refusing to support the firms targeted, but there is a sense that S&C is noticeably worse for being an assistant to the carnage as opposed to just a spineless victim. Beyond the firms decisions you also have a big S&C back bench in the Trump administration.

There is a sense where I wonder if this is all just confirming pre-concieved notions that my judge previously had as even prior to all this when receiving apps from S&C she was super negative and didn't seem to have a good experience with prior S&C clerks or that firm. To be honest, I sort of share her ire as personality-wise the people from my law school who went to S&C tended to be disproportionately hyper-competitive weirdos.

I am curious if anyone else here can back this up because its entirely possible my judge is unique and my S&C experience is not the norm and I would hate for you to get an impression of the firm just on one random anonymous comment.

Clerking for a judge next year whose current clerk is going to S&C lit. Can't speak to what the judge thought about it. Possible the clerk took the gig immediately prior to everything going down but not sure.

Personally, again not speaking for a judge, I do think S&C is on a tier by themselves right now in terms of being aiders rather than onlookers/capitulators.

Same person, should clarify the judge is democrat-appointed, not FedSoc etc. But not especially political.

[Anonymous User]

OP, curious what school you're applying from?

[Anonymous User]

.

[cartmanbrah123]

OP, curious what school you're applying from?

A t14, first semester +0.23 from median, not sure what my class rank is

[cartmanbrah123]

If you're dead set on appellate litigation, I'd go with Susman. Frankly, though, Susman, like the other firms on your list, is not really an appellate litigation firm. But it puts you on your feet sooner than these other firms and that's a big plus if you're interested in appellate litigation.

But it looks to me like you're not sure about what you're interested in long-term. If that's true, I'd go with one of the more traditional white shoe firms. More varied practice groups, more formal training, and limitless money means they'll teach you an obsessive level of detail.

Would firms that have strong presence in DC be better in terms of appellate litigation? This is one of the reasons why WilmerHale is on the list, and maybe also Gibson Dunn NY? Would it put me in a closer position to appellate litigation before clerkship?

[Anonymous User]

If you're dead set on appellate litigation, I'd go with Susman. Frankly, though, Susman, like the other firms on your list, is not really an appellate litigation firm. But it puts you on your feet sooner than these other firms and that's a big plus if you're interested in appellate litigation.

But it looks to me like you're not sure about what you're interested in long-term. If that's true, I'd go with one of the more traditional white shoe firms. More varied practice groups, more formal training, and limitless money means they'll teach you an obsessive level of detail.

Would firms that have strong presence in DC be better in terms of appellate litigation? This is one of the reasons why WilmerHale is on the list, and maybe also Gibson Dunn NY? Would it put me in a closer position to appellate litigation before clerkship?

Not unless you are working in the DC office, and it doesn't seem like you are. At least at my V10 (not one mentioned) there was no transferring from NYC lit group to DC lit group (let alone to DC appellate lit group) without a very impressive clerkship that made you competitive for the DC lit scene already. I feel like the only BigLaw firm with a legit appellate practice in NYC that I can think of is P,W. Might be others I don't know. That being said since you mention Gibson I feel like their lit practice is overall better than S&C.

[Anonymous User]

If you're dead set on appellate litigation, I'd go with Susman. Frankly, though, Susman, like the other firms on your list, is not really an appellate litigation firm. But it puts you on your feet sooner than these other firms and that's a big plus if you're interested in appellate litigation.

But it looks to me like you're not sure about what you're interested in long-term. If that's true, I'd go with one of the more traditional white shoe firms. More varied practice groups, more formal training, and limitless money means they'll teach you an obsessive level of detail.

Would firms that have strong presence in DC be better in terms of appellate litigation? This is one of the reasons why WilmerHale is on the list, and maybe also Gibson Dunn NY? Would it put me in a closer position to appellate litigation before clerkship?

Do you want to be in NYC, Boston, or DC? None of us can keep it straight

[cartmanbrah123]

Susman only takes people who previously clerked. Appellate work is tough to get into. I would pick one of the regular shops you listed - be it S&C, Wilmer, Cravath, or Selendy. Keep your grades up in 2L and apply broadly, and see what happens with clerkships. No firm will give you a material advantage in clerkship applications.

Agree with this. I summered at Susman and am currently a COA clerk and I don't see how your 2L firm would impact your clerkship chances much at all. Plus isn't Susman's summer program only four weeks? You could just split between Susman and Cravath or S&C. Also keep in mind that many people work for a year before clerking, so you'd presumably go back to the non-Susman firm for that gap year anyway (as they generally don't hire anyone pre-clerkship).

It seems that currently only S&C allows splitting summer, out of all the big law firms listed. Would this be a tie breaker between the decision of choosing S&C over Cravath, despite S&C's role in Trump's EOs? I know that this might be getting a bit too trivial, but I just wanted to know to what extent people find S&C's actions problematic, and to what extent it would impact my career. Of course, I also need to do some soul searching myself to see if I'm comfortable joining them. My counter-argument would be that at least at S&C I don't have to work on the pro bono cases that the other capitulators agreed to do?

[Anonymous User]

Susman only takes people who previously clerked. Appellate work is tough to get into. I would pick one of the regular shops you listed - be it S&C, Wilmer, Cravath, or Selendy. Keep your grades up in 2L and apply broadly, and see what happens with clerkships. No firm will give you a material advantage in clerkship applications.

Agree with this. I summered at Susman and am currently a COA clerk and I don't see how your 2L firm would impact your clerkship chances much at all. Plus isn't Susman's summer program only four weeks? You could just split between Susman and Cravath or S&C. Also keep in mind that many people work for a year before clerking, so you'd presumably go back to the non-Susman firm for that gap year anyway (as they generally don't hire anyone pre-clerkship).

It seems that currently only S&C allows splitting summer, out of all the big law firms listed. Would this be a tie breaker between the decision of choosing S&C over Cravath, despite S&C's role in Trump's EOs? I know that this might be getting a bit too trivial, but I just wanted to know to what extent people find S&C's actions problematic, and to what extent it would impact my career. Of course, I also need to do some soul searching myself to see if I'm comfortable joining them. My counter-argument would be that at least at S&C I don't have to work on the pro bono cases that the other capitulators agreed to do?

I think you know the answer to this. My judge is personally so appalled at S&C, that you are going to need a really good reason as to why you chose to work there in the middle of all this. As a clerk looking at applications, I personally would judge a candidate for it and I'm not even that liberal. Have to imagine my other clerks, which were signficantly more liberal would have been extremely negative about it.

Don't give that counter argument answer in an interview also, that would not go over well.

[Anonymous User]

If you're dead set on appellate litigation, I'd go with Susman. Frankly, though, Susman, like the other firms on your list, is not really an appellate litigation firm. But it puts you on your feet sooner than these other firms and that's a big plus if you're interested in appellate litigation.

But it looks to me like you're not sure about what you're interested in long-term. If that's true, I'd go with one of the more traditional white shoe firms. More varied practice groups, more formal training, and limitless money means they'll teach you an obsessive level of detail.

Would firms that have strong presence in DC be better in terms of appellate litigation? This is one of the reasons why WilmerHale is on the list, and maybe also Gibson Dunn NY? Would it put me in a closer position to appellate litigation before clerkship?

Not unless you are working in the DC office, and it doesn't seem like you are. At least at my V10 (not one mentioned) there was no transferring from NYC lit group to DC lit group (let alone to DC appellate lit group) without a very impressive clerkship that made you competitive for the DC lit scene already. I feel like the only BigLaw firm with a legit appellate practice in NYC that I can think of is P,W. Might be others I don't know. That being said since you mention Gibson I feel like their lit practice is overall better than S&C.

That's just not the case with Wilmer. Anecdotally, transfers are more common (especially BOS->DC). Many matters are staffed across offices, and I know a few folks in the Boston office who frequently work (or worked) with appellate partners in DC. DC is certainly the center of gravity, but I don't think it's as walled off as it is at other firms. If you're interested in Federal Circuit practice, there's also quite a bit of that work going around both Boston and DC.

[Anonymous User]

Susman is head and shoulders the best in NYC, but if you want to work in Boston, you should go for Wilmer. Cravath and S&C are basically even. Selendy is not really an elite boutique in a meaningful sense.

None of these are great options for appellate, but Wilmer is probably the best. S&C has a good but DC-based and conservative-leaning appellate practice.

I would not let the clerkship thing affect your decision much; that sounds really idiosyncratic to me, albeit I’m not clerking for a liberal judge. Susman is the only firm here that would stand out on a clerkship app, though I agree that firms don’t matter much.

[Anonymous User]

Susman is head and shoulders the best in NYC, but if you want to work in Boston, you should go for Wilmer. Cravath and S&C are basically even. Selendy is not really an elite boutique in a meaningful sense.

None of these are great options for appellate, but Wilmer is probably the best. S&C has a good but DC-based and conservative-leaning appellate practice.

I would not let the clerkship thing affect your decision much; that sounds really idiosyncratic to me, albeit I’m not clerking for a liberal judge. Susman is the only firm here that would stand out on a clerkship app, though I agree that firms don’t matter much.

Where would you place Gibson in this mix generally / how is its appellate presence in NYC? And how would you weigh it against Hecker Fink/Selendy?

[Anonymous User]

Susman is head and shoulders the best in NYC, but if you want to work in Boston, you should go for Wilmer. Cravath and S&C are basically even. Selendy is not really an elite boutique in a meaningful sense.

None of these are great options for appellate, but Wilmer is probably the best. S&C has a good but DC-based and conservative-leaning appellate practice.

I would not let the clerkship thing affect your decision much; that sounds really idiosyncratic to me, albeit I’m not clerking for a liberal judge. Susman is the only firm here that would stand out on a clerkship app, though I agree that firms don’t matter much.

Not sure this is a fair statement. Sure, none are band 1 Chambers ranked, but Wilmer is band 2 and a great option for appellate by any measure.