Cravath v. Sullivan & Cromwell (NYC Lit) Forum

[Anonymous User]

[delete]

[Anonymous User]

Why are you looking at either when you want to do appellate and/or practice in the Midwest? If just loans, I would consider that there are firms meeting your criteria better that are comparable financially to NYC biglaw (tons of firms in Chicago obviously, plus there are others that pay very well for the COL in MSP, Ohio, STL, even Des Moines). And for appeals you want DC.

Anyway I would just decide how you feel about the rotation system, they’re similar firms. Neither is meaningfully more prestigious or gets meaningfully better work. S&C does have an actual appellate group, unlike CSM, but it appears to recruit separately and idk if you’d get interest as “only” a district court, esp being in NY vs. DC.

[Anonymous User]

Why are you looking at either when you want to do appellate and/or practice in the Midwest? If just loans, I would consider that there are firms meeting your criteria better that are comparable financially to NYC biglaw (tons of firms in Chicago obviously, plus there are others that pay very well for the COL in MSP, Ohio, STL, even Des Moines). And for appeals you want DC.

Anyway I would just decide how you feel about the rotation system, they’re similar firms. Neither is meaningfully more prestigious or gets meaningfully better work. S&C does have an actual appellate group, unlike CSM, but it appears to recruit separately and idk if you’d get interest as “only” a district court, esp being in NY vs. DC.

Quick answer to the first part is personal reasons. My partner works in banking, and we both want to be in a big city before moving back to the MW to start a family. Left to my own devices, I'd be in DC, but my partner's industry doesn't exist there.

I am not really under the impression that I would get to work with S&C's appellate group; I view that aspiration as a longer-term play after clerking again. I like the rotation system, but the more and more I talk to folks, it just seems like people enjoy working at S&C more. Do you think that's a good enough reason to pick it over Cravath?

[Anonymous User]

Almost certainly doxing myself to one or two people, but I am currently weighing offers from both post-FDC. I recognize I can’t really go wrong here, but I’m feeling torn and would appreciate input from people without a dog in the fight.

So, here are my considerations in order of importance:

1. Platform for the future.
- I want to do a COA clerkship within 5 years (S&C has more COA clerks in part bc it’s bigger)
- I probably want to leave big law in 3-5 years, so at least for now, my expectation is not to try to make partner at either, need $$ to pay off loans
- I want to be attractive to employers in the MidWest, which is where I plan to move in 3-5 years. Employers = top litigation boutiques in MW and competitive federal government jobs.
- I had a very very *bad* 1L Fall at a T20 bc of a medical issue, but I’ve done superlatively in every respect since, so I’ve been doing some closing the gap on “prestige”, which makes Cravath sort of attractive.

2. Quality of work
- I’d like to be doing more substantive legal work than doc review to the extent that’s reasonable to expect. The firms seem comparable (and very solid) in this respect.
- I don’t really know what I want to do long term other than vaguely civil litigation, probably appellate work, with a strong federal emphasis, so S&C’s generalist model is appealing in that I don’t really want to specialize at this point.
- that said, in terms of structure, I have preferred to work closely with one boss in past professional settings, so Cravath’s rotation system seems overall better to me, i.e., it’s staffing model of rotating associates to a new partner every few months, but I am wary about the possibility of getting stuck with a tough partner.

3. Quality of life
- I know my hours are going to suck and it seems like this aspect will be equally terrible at both firms. It is what it is.

4. Atmosphere
- I liked folks at both firms
- people seem to like working at S&C more, those I’ve spoken to struggled to find firm-specific things they didn’t like about working there, a lot clerked and came back, and a few worked as paralegals, went to law school, and then came back.
- people outside of the firm love to tell horror stories about Cravath, but I don’t really get the vibe from people who work there that it’s any worse than other big law. It mostly just seems more serious/cerebral than S&C
- S&C seems like a better personality fit, but if Cravath is “better” enough in terms of quality of work and reputation, then I’d still go there.

Appreciate any and all feedback.

S&C's generalist thing is corporate-centric, I don't know if lit is similar or more silo'd. Their appellate group is def silo'd in DC though.

I don't really think there is a meaningful difference in the substantiveness or variety of work available at either firm. I think S&C probably skews a little more to securities work while Cravath has a bit more CCL but both are going to be doing everything.

The firms ability to help you get an appellate clerkship is going to entirely depend on the people you work with there. I can see that going either way - Cravath being helpful in that you work with one person and will be close enough that they will help out in meaningful way vs Cravath hampering you because you only work with one person who might not be interested in helping. You can make similar arguments about Cravath re: culture, since it also depends on who you are actually working for

I have friends at both and they both work hard but the people I know at Cravath work harder and seem more stressed. The Cravath people also still have to be suited at work, while the people at S&C are more casual (still button up + slacks tho)

I don't really think there is a meaningful difference in terms of ~prestige~ ! In NYC - Davis Polk, Cravath, and S&C are pretty interchangeable as the grouping of firms right below Wachtell (even with Wachtell having a pretty niche lit prax). But it's pretty hard to find breakpoints between these two firms so if being at a V1 firm is going to be existentially fulfilling, maybe that's enough to push to Cravath!

[Anonymous User]

As far as prestige and platform for the future and ability to get COA clerkship these two firms are not just "basically" identical they are identical. I honestly cannot comprehend a Judge or clerk picking someone who went to S&C over Cravath due even in part to their firm and vice versa. The only time this would happen is if the judge has personal connection to either firm or good or bad experiences with either firm and at that point you can't really predict. I'd just go to the firm that you like better for classic I like X firm better reasons (location, strength in a certain practice area, etc...)

[Anonymous User]

As far as prestige and platform for the future and ability to get COA clerkship these two firms are not just "basically" identical they are identical. I honestly cannot comprehend a Judge or clerk picking someone who went to S&C over Cravath due even in part to their firm and vice versa. The only time this would happen is if the judge has personal connection to either firm or good or bad experiences with either firm and at that point you can't really predict. I'd just go to the firm that you like better for classic I like X firm better reasons (location, strength in a certain practice area, etc...)

I agree that getting a COA clerkship is not a worthwhile reason for picking one over the other. I would say that S&C has a clerkship edge, though, at least in the FedSoc world. It has many more SCOTUS clerks, a dedicated appeals group, and a lot of experience sending associates off to clerkships and then taking them back. The free market system also makes it easier to work with partners who are well connected compared to a rotation system where you could be assigned to anyone.

[Anonymous User]

For appellate, probably neither to be honest. Maybe Gibson, Kirkland, or (gasp) Jones Day if you're really serious about the Midwest? Not sure the latter would get you appellate experience unless you're specifically in I&A, but you could build up your network and stay in the same firm post-Midwest move? Though I hesitate to recommend Jones Day as a general rule, in the Midwest it's a pretty good option (Chicago aside).

If the choice is only between the two, I guess I'd say S&C.

[Anonymous User]

For appellate, probably neither to be honest. Maybe Gibson, Kirkland, or (gasp) Jones Day if you're really serious about the Midwest? Not sure the latter would get you appellate experience unless you're specifically in I&A, but you could build up your network and stay in the same firm post-Midwest move? Though I hesitate to recommend Jones Day as a general rule, in the Midwest it's a pretty good option (Chicago aside).

If the choice is only between the two, I guess I'd say S&C.

I am not really going for appellate rn--I'm not currently competitive for it at the level I'd like, and I have to be in NYC for my partner's job. Mostly just want something that will look nice on my resume until I get a circuit clerkship and then move into a lit boutique or appellate shop after. Also, I don't want to be in big law in the Midwest (hopefully gov in appellate), so I don't really think going to big firm's with a midwestern presence really makes any sense. If I am honest, just going for generic clout to maximize amorphous options later.

[Anonymous User]

For appellate, probably neither to be honest. Maybe Gibson, Kirkland, or (gasp) Jones Day if you're really serious about the Midwest? Not sure the latter would get you appellate experience unless you're specifically in I&A, but you could build up your network and stay in the same firm post-Midwest move? Though I hesitate to recommend Jones Day as a general rule, in the Midwest it's a pretty good option (Chicago aside).

If the choice is only between the two, I guess I'd say S&C.

I am not really going for appellate rn--I'm not currently competitive for it at the level I'd like, and I have to be in NYC for my partner's job. Mostly just want something that will look nice on my resume until I get a circuit clerkship and then move into a lit boutique or appellate shop after. Also, I don't want to be in big law in the Midwest (hopefully gov in appellate), so I don't really think going to big firm's with a midwestern presence really makes any sense. If I am honest, just going for generic clout to maximize amorphous options later.

Don't underestimate Jones Day's clout in the midwest, particularly in states (such as Michigan or Ohio) where they are the biggest firm. I did appellate work at a V10 before taking a midwest government appellate role, but I would've done Jones Day I&A beforehand in a hearbeat over my other firm given Jones Day's outsized local clout.

[Anonymous User]

For appellate, probably neither to be honest. Maybe Gibson, Kirkland, or (gasp) Jones Day if you're really serious about the Midwest? Not sure the latter would get you appellate experience unless you're specifically in I&A, but you could build up your network and stay in the same firm post-Midwest move? Though I hesitate to recommend Jones Day as a general rule, in the Midwest it's a pretty good option (Chicago aside).

If the choice is only between the two, I guess I'd say S&C.

I am not really going for appellate rn--I'm not currently competitive for it at the level I'd like, and I have to be in NYC for my partner's job. Mostly just want something that will look nice on my resume until I get a circuit clerkship and then move into a lit boutique or appellate shop after. Also, I don't want to be in big law in the Midwest (hopefully gov in appellate), so I don't really think going to big firm's with a midwestern presence really makes any sense. If I am honest, just going for generic clout to maximize amorphous options later.

I think the actual, in-industry "clout" and resume appeal of these firms is entirely equal! Honestly, it kinda seems like you are trying to justify going to CSM. Which, like, power to you - it's a great firm and you should accept the offer if you want!! I just don't think it has a prestige benefit unless the people you are trying to impress are basing their prestige entirely on googling "best firm US"

[Anonymous User]

For appellate, probably neither to be honest. Maybe Gibson, Kirkland, or (gasp) Jones Day if you're really serious about the Midwest? Not sure the latter would get you appellate experience unless you're specifically in I&A, but you could build up your network and stay in the same firm post-Midwest move? Though I hesitate to recommend Jones Day as a general rule, in the Midwest it's a pretty good option (Chicago aside).

If the choice is only between the two, I guess I'd say S&C.

I am not really going for appellate rn--I'm not currently competitive for it at the level I'd like, and I have to be in NYC for my partner's job. Mostly just want something that will look nice on my resume until I get a circuit clerkship and then move into a lit boutique or appellate shop after. Also, I don't want to be in big law in the Midwest (hopefully gov in appellate), so I don't really think going to big firm's with a midwestern presence really makes any sense. If I am honest, just going for generic clout to maximize amorphous options later.

I think the actual, in-industry "clout" and resume appeal of these firms is entirely equal! Honestly, it kinda seems like you are trying to justify going to CSM. Which, like, power to you - it's a great firm and you should accept the offer if you want!! I just don't think it has a prestige benefit unless the people you are trying to impress are basing their prestige entirely on googling "best firm US"

i totally was and finally accepted that some part of me clearly wanted to be there more. took the offer this morning

[Anonymous User]

For whatever it is worth, the Cravath people definitely do not have to work suits at work anymore after COVID

[CondescendingLiberal]

You are getting snowed. Cravath is a much more prestigious firm.

[Anonymous User]

You are getting snowed. Cravath is a much more prestigious firm.

Much more prestigious than S&C? What a ridiculous take.

[Anonymous User]

You are getting snowed. Cravath is a much more prestigious firm.

Much more prestigious than S&C? What a ridiculous take.

No you dont understand - Cravath is V1!

All jokes aside, this is a wash. Davis Polk would be a wash too. Those 3 are the 3 most ~preftigious~ NYC firms outside Wachtell and distinguishing between them on this basis is dumb

[Anonymous User]

You are getting snowed. Cravath is a much more prestigious firm.

Much more prestigious than S&C? What a ridiculous take.

There's no real point in relitigating this issue. This guy is either a troll or a law student. Best to just ignore and move along.

[Anonymous User]

I think the leaner staffing at Cravath gives associates more responsibility than most firms, including S&C, as first and second years. Whether that responsibility is welcome or not depends on the person. There is also some difference as to what work the firm has and each's staffing system (open market vs being assigned to a specific partner). The specific partner assignments at Cravath can be extremely rewarding--teams can become very flat as you prove yourself. Or it could go sideways quickly. For what its worth Cravath is also starting to lateral in post-clerkship associates--the firms culture is set for a change. The client list is different at both firms as well. Lots to consider when picking between firms.

[Anonymous User]

I think the leaner staffing at Cravath gives associates more responsibility than most firms, including S&C, as first and second years. Whether that responsibility is welcome or not depends on the person. There is also some difference as to what work the firm has and each's staffing system (open market vs being assigned to a specific partner). The specific partner assignments at Cravath can be extremely rewarding--teams can become very flat as you prove yourself. Or it could go sideways quickly. For what its worth Cravath is also starting to lateral in post-clerkship associates--the firms culture is set for a change. The client list is different at both firms as well. Lots to consider when picking between firms.

Does Cravath really staff leaner than S&C? The headcount at S&C NYC is 530 and Cravath NYC is 480.

Would appreciate insight into their industry coverage though, that's something you never really hear discussed

[DanBoMingLi]

I think the leaner staffing at Cravath gives associates more responsibility than most firms, including S&C, as first and second years. Whether that responsibility is welcome or not depends on the person. There is also some difference as to what work the firm has and each's staffing system (open market vs being assigned to a specific partner). The specific partner assignments at Cravath can be extremely rewarding--teams can become very flat as you prove yourself. Or it could go sideways quickly. For what its worth Cravath is also starting to lateral in post-clerkship associates--the firms culture is set for a change. The client list is different at both firms as well. Lots to consider when picking between firms.

Does Cravath really staff leaner than S&C? The headcount at S&C NYC is 530 and Cravath NYC is 480.

Would appreciate insight into their industry coverage though, that's something you never really hear discussed

I’m assuming this is across all groups? A better comparison would be headcount in lit, but afaik neither firm gives you that tally on their website (and I’m not counting).

[Anonymous User]

I think the leaner staffing at Cravath gives associates more responsibility than most firms, including S&C, as first and second years. Whether that responsibility is welcome or not depends on the person. There is also some difference as to what work the firm has and each's staffing system (open market vs being assigned to a specific partner). The specific partner assignments at Cravath can be extremely rewarding--teams can become very flat as you prove yourself. Or it could go sideways quickly. For what its worth Cravath is also starting to lateral in post-clerkship associates--the firms culture is set for a change. The client list is different at both firms as well. Lots to consider when picking between firms.

Does Cravath really staff leaner than S&C? The headcount at S&C NYC is 530 and Cravath NYC is 480.

Would appreciate insight into their industry coverage though, that's something you never really hear discussed

I’m assuming this is across all groups? A better comparison would be headcount in lit, but afaik neither firm gives you that tally on their website (and I’m not counting).

this is going off firmprospects, but S&C has 215 in NYC lit and Cravath has 180 NYC in lit

[DanBoMingLi]

I think the leaner staffing at Cravath gives associates more responsibility than most firms, including S&C, as first and second years. Whether that responsibility is welcome or not depends on the person. There is also some difference as to what work the firm has and each's staffing system (open market vs being assigned to a specific partner). The specific partner assignments at Cravath can be extremely rewarding--teams can become very flat as you prove yourself. Or it could go sideways quickly. For what its worth Cravath is also starting to lateral in post-clerkship associates--the firms culture is set for a change. The client list is different at both firms as well. Lots to consider when picking between firms.

Does Cravath really staff leaner than S&C? The headcount at S&C NYC is 530 and Cravath NYC is 480.

Would appreciate insight into their industry coverage though, that's something you never really hear discussed

I’m assuming this is across all groups? A better comparison would be headcount in lit, but afaik neither firm gives you that tally on their website (and I’m not counting).

this is going off firmprospects, but S&C has 215 in NYC lit and Cravath has 180 NYC in lit

Interesting! Honestly more than I would’ve expected.

[Anonymous User]

The partner assignment system at Cravath also guarantees that certain teams will be much leaner than others at any given point. The diff in lit count may seem small at only 30 or so, but if its coming out of mid levels--which I assume it is since both firms take huge first year classes compared to their size--that will press heavy on the juniors.

[Anonymous User]

I repeat, OP is getting snowed. Cravath and Wachtell are the best firms in NYC. Factor in that you want litigation, and the choice is an easy one.

[Anonymous User]

I repeat, OP is getting snowed. Cravath and Wachtell are the best firms in NYC. Factor in that you want litigation, and the choice is an easy one.

They already made their decision, but I don't really get the Cravath is tOp TiEr. Wachtell is clearly the best in NYC and then there's a handful of roughly equivalent firms that people can have idiosyncratic preferences among. It isn't 1980 anymore.

[Anonymous User]

I repeat, OP is getting snowed. Cravath and Wachtell are the best firms in NYC. Factor in that you want litigation, and the choice is an easy one.

This person is either a 1L or 80-years-old.