Top Law Schools

.

Biglaw1990 wrote:

Actus Reus wrote:

Biglaw1990 wrote:Do you want to practice in the U.S., or in Asia? That's a big factor here.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about SullCrom's Asia practice, but I can tell you that S&C is the best of the best. You can't go wrong with SullCrom. Congrats on having such a great opportunity!
Disclaimer: I'm a 0L

You can absolutely go wrong with Sullivan & Cromwell

Can you please explain? Not being argumentative or sarcastic. I'm truly interested. I've been told that Wachtell, Cravath, and Sullivan and Cromwell are the best. TIA.

They may be the best according to Vault, WSJ, AmLaw, etc., but they are far from the best if you desire to have any semblance of a life outside the office. If you're goal is prestige at the expense of other aspects of your life, then sure, you can't go wrong.

These firms also don't have a huge selection of practice groups. Cravath and S&C don't really have bankruptcy groups, and Wachtell doesn't have anything resembling a capital markets group. None of them have any group devoted to real estate acquisitions (unlike most firms). Obviously, the reason is pure profit - they only work in the most profitable legal areas. But if your career goals are outside of their limited selection of practice groups, maybe V3 PREFTIGE is not for you.

I guess it would be an exaggeration to say these firms only do M&A and securities litigation, but not by much.

Edit: Also, working at any of these firms means you should kiss your family and loved ones goodbye

Biglaw1990 wrote:

Actus Reus wrote:

Biglaw1990 wrote:Do you want to practice in the U.S., or in Asia? That's a big factor here.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about SullCrom's Asia practice, but I can tell you that S&C is the best of the best. You can't go wrong with SullCrom. Congrats on having such a great opportunity!
Disclaimer: I'm a 0L

You can absolutely go wrong with Sullivan & Cromwell

Can you please explain? Not being argumentative or sarcastic. I'm truly interested. I've been told that Wachtell, Cravath, and Sullivan and Cromwell are the best. TIA.

Wachtell is the best at m&a and obviously tops compensation, but those other two firms --cravath and s&c--aren't in the same tier of selectivity and aren't really any special or different than peers e.g. davis polk or simpson. Also S&C and CSM are very different firms; in the city, CSM has more in common with DPW in many respects wrt culture. These are all "good" corporate firms but anyone knowledgable in the industry will tell you that there's no real reputational distinction; on the other hand, they can be terrible decisions for quality of life.

Biglaw1990 wrote:

Actus Reus wrote:

Biglaw1990 wrote:Do you want to practice in the U.S., or in Asia? That's a big factor here.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about SullCrom's Asia practice, but I can tell you that S&C is the best of the best. You can't go wrong with SullCrom. Congrats on having such a great opportunity!
Disclaimer: I'm a 0L

You can absolutely go wrong with Sullivan & Cromwell

Can you please explain? Not being argumentative or sarcastic. I'm truly interested. I've been told that Wachtell, Cravath, and Sullivan and Cromwell are the best. TIA.

It really depends on what you want to do with your career. If you work at one of those big firms (with possibly the exception of WLRK) you're going to be pigeonholed into something very specific and specialized that you may not even be interested in. If you're flexible that's fine, but for most people doing lots and lots of doc review and managing massive litigations was not their idea of having a successful career. Going to one a firm like S&C will give you good exit options for certain jobs but it's not the golden ticket that many people think it is.

Lexaholik wrote: It really depends on what you want to do with your career. If you work at one of those big firms (with possibly the exception of WLRK) you're going to be pigeonholed into something very specific and specialized that you may not even be interested in. If you're flexible that's fine, but for most people doing lots and lots of doc review and managing massive litigations was not their idea of having a successful career. Going to one a firm like S&C will give you good exit options for certain jobs but it's not the golden ticket that many people think it is.

Man is this post wrong. S&C/DPW/Cravath tend to pigeonhole you LESS than other firms (since they have more flexibility to write off time for your learning curve). And the exit options are absolutely extraordinary.

I'm not denying there are downsides to working at one of the corporate powerhouses, but these aren't it. You will get more general experience and you will have much better job options if you want to leave.

wons wrote:

Lexaholik wrote: It really depends on what you want to do with your career. If you work at one of those big firms (with possibly the exception of WLRK) you're going to be pigeonholed into something very specific and specialized that you may not even be interested in. If you're flexible that's fine, but for most people doing lots and lots of doc review and managing massive litigations was not their idea of having a successful career. Going to one a firm like S&C will give you good exit options for certain jobs but it's not the golden ticket that many people think it is.

Man is this post wrong. S&C/DPW/Cravath tend to pigeonhole you LESS than other firms (since they have more flexibility to write off time for your learning curve). And the exit options are absolutely extraordinary.

I'm not denying there are downsides to working at one of the corporate powerhouses, but these aren't it. You will get more general experience and you will have much better job options if you want to leave.

They may be better than other big firms, but my point still holds. For example, it'll be tough to get into trial work after a stint at one of those firms. And it's also dependent on practice area. Litigation associates have very different experience than corp associates.

.

BernieTrump wrote:Unorganized thoughts from a practicing V3 associate:

1. WLRK is more difficult to work for in kind, not in degree, when it comes to hours. It also has more interesting work (at least in M&A) than the other two and pays a good bit more. Differences in pay have gone down with the market bonus bumps of the last few years, but it's still yuge, and it's yuge from year 1 to year 8.

2. That you'd choose a firm further down the list for a better life is not laughable. The idea that you'd find that better life at a place like Simpson, Skadden or DPW is. None even pretend to offer balance, and all will be as bad as Cravath or S&C on average. The real differences are practice area and partners you're working for (and obviously CSM has the ability to screw you longer, harder on that issue). The only person from my law school class that had a legitimate, pulled-her-hair-out-and-was-found-shivering-in-a-corner breakdown was at a non-V3 V6.

PM'd

.

BernieTrump wrote:Unorganized thoughts from a practicing V3 associate:

1. WLRK is more difficult to work for in kind, not in degree, when it comes to hours. It also has more interesting work (at least in M&A) than the other two and pays a good bit more. Differences in pay have gone down with the market bonus bumps of the last few years, but it's still yuge, and it's yuge from year 1 to year 8.

2. That you'd choose a firm further down the list for a better life is not laughable. The idea that you'd find that better life at a place like Simpson, Skadden or DPW is. None even pretend to offer balance, and all will be as bad as Cravath or S&C on average. The real differences are practice area and partners you're working for (and obviously CSM has the ability to screw you longer, harder on that issue). The only person from my law school class that had a legitimate, pulled-her-hair-out-and-was-found-shivering-in-a-corner breakdown was at a non-V3 V6.

some of this is true, but it's still missing the point.
V3 doesn't carry any independent significance. That's just a survey of associates whose results change each year. It's not an industry standard. See chambers.
These firms are all very similar with some distinction in which is stronger in particular practice groups and some cultural/work schedule differences. You can go wrong with any of them if you don't want big firm corporate work. You can go wrong with cravath if you really want investment management or securities, you can go wrong with dpw if you want to remain flexible across groups for as long as possible. Ultimately s&c has such a poor matriculation rate relative to dpw and csm due to perceived lifestyle concerns and personalities: some of this is justified, some of it is not (overall s&c hate is exaggerated on TLS, but big corporate firm hate is not).

After considering all of these firms (except Wachtell) and spending much of a summer at one of them, I know that they are not for everyone and you can go wrong choosing them. I'm not saying corporate at Milbank et al is better--its almost certainly not--but the type of person that will thrive at a firm like s&c is the minority, not the majority, of the class.