The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Is Shearman Imploding?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:27 PM Author: smoky cruise ship http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?topic=Greedy%20NY&msg_id=002xe4
Author: AliHajiSheik February 28, 2006 08:34 am
I don't know what additional detail this kid wants from me, but where do I start?
*S&S lost Barbash and his highly profitable fund/private equity practice to Willkie...with 4 other partners. Its a total f8ckshow for Shearman to lose that group now and become even more one-dimensional.
* The firm lost one of the top antitrust practices in the world to CWT a over year ago, wholesale. Their chair/top antitrust rainmaker along with his right hand men/women in DC and NY. Not only is antitrust a nice practice to have, but its a crucial ancillary service to S&S's bread and butter M&A practice. Keeping the entire deal in shop keeps the wolves at bay, and prevents some antitrust group from trying to cross-sell your client's business.
*Crappy litigation practice. Not even close to the top tier practices in NY or DC. Litigation may not be the high margin work that M&A can be with success fees but profitable nonetheless and more importantly, counter-cyclical. S&S can't afford to poach top talent to build this practice out. The same can be said of their restructuring practice, although they did manage to snag a very nice deal last year, so maybe there is hope in restructuring.
*Lagging profits. S&S is now a full million per partner below firms like Cahill ($2.45mm), S&C ($2.35mm), STB ($2.3mm), CSM ($2.2mm), PW ($2.15mm), CWT ($2.1mm), and nearly a million behind firms like DPW, K&E, Milbank and Schulte. Several of these firms were not considered to be in S&S's class 5 years ago. Simply put, S&S just cannot pay their partners enough money to prevent any top tier firm from poaching its desireable partners at will, unless the partner is motivated by loyalty (yeah right), prevented by conflicts, or S&S either (i) robs Peter to pay Paul, or (ii) borrows. None of these scenarios is desireable, you can rob enough Peters to keep a few Pauls around, but eventually you'll lose the Peters and be down to too few service partners keep deals around. Financial leverage and departing partners is what brought firms like Brobeck to their knees, so don't expect to see S&S take that route.
* Huge leasing practice, dissolved after changes in law and integrated into (I think) their tax department. Just what any firm needs is to absorb a huge group of lawyers into a group they haven't practiced in before.
* Associate enmity. Those who survived the mass execution and watched S&S poison the wells and burn their crops resent management. Those who watched from the sidelines wouldn't step foot in the door of S&S without some sort of sweetener they aren't offering (and probably couldn't afford to anyhow). Sure they can con law students into buying their sunshine and lolipop sales pitch but that leaves the S&S snakepit with a serious gap in the midlevel and senior associate ranks.
* Finally, Fvck S&S. You deserve what you get if you join up with that pack of jackals after what they did to those 80 associates.
There is no misinformation here. Its all verifiable fact. The fact that you decided to buy their recruiting baloney isn't my fault, so don't hold me responsible and cast your accusations and invective my way. Frankly, I hope they recover since they are responsible for employing a huge number of GAs that I would like to see do well. They have some very smart and talented lawyers at S&S, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the tremendous issues they are facing.
To the extent you think we are picking on your poor, sweet little firm that you signed up for and feel so gosh golly darn excited about, bear in mind any firm that not only tells 80 GAs to pack their bags, but comes out to the press and tells them that those GAs sucked at practicing law, would receive the same treatment. Think about searching for a job with 80 others and the normal lateral turnover, in a tight market, with your firm's chair telling anyone who reads the papers that you suck. That sucks worse than anything a GA can do to S&S on this board; it is really some messed up sh1t.
|
 |
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:33 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank We should all avoid S&S. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207881) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:45 PM Author: smoky cruise ship Who do you feel are peer firms to Shearman? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207923) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:47 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank For a rough approximation, I would look at the vault ranking and scroll down 10 notches or so.
I would really encourage someone who things Shearman is their best option to really consider it carefully. I'd recommend this for Dewey, as well.
We should be punishing for the firings, and the recent events are not all that positive either. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:48 PM Author: peach mind-boggling dilemma so worse than white and case/milbank? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207935) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:49 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank Hmm... Not really familiar with Milbank. White and Case does sound like a peer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207939) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:51 PM Author: peach mind-boggling dilemma although White and Case is like the top non-elite firm, if you still count paul weiss as elite.
The thing is there are a bunch of non new york firms in the 10-20 rankings, so white and case maybe should be up there, instead of down in the second tier wilkie, fried frank, etc.
I agree about Dewey though - their lit has been dying for 3 years - though their M&A is still solid. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:56 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank I'll defer to your judgment. Dewey and S&S, for me, are just too hot to handle. If there are limited benefits to small amounts of prestige (v20 v. v30), why take the risk? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207960) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:57 PM Author: smoky cruise ship So you'd recommend Wilkie, CWT, and Boies over Dewey. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207965) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:48 PM Author: Diverse persian From the perspective of a 2L looking for a summer job in NYC, I would rank them around White & Case, Fried Frank, Milbank, Wilkie. I would choose Debevoise and Weil and maybe even Paul Weiss (even if I wanted to do corporate) over S&S (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207933) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 12:58 PM Author: vibrant community account macaca This is exactly correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5207971) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:25 PM Author: Bright Fanboi HOw would you rate Linklaters in this group? I have a hard time evaluating them b/c they are so non-american thus hard to find comps. Also, if not in that group what would you say are their NY comps? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208115) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 3:20 PM Author: galvanic point haunted graveyard for ny? they don't compete with these other firms. it's a 100 person office... these other firms have 100 person m&a groups. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5209047) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 3:25 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate Isn't that office overwhelmingly corp though? Plus you're probably working a lot with their very large overseas offices.
The UK firms tend to get their share of hate on this board, at least for their US offices. I don't necessarily agree with it, but do a search. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:29 PM Author: Wine indecent temple If you want to do corporate I think it would be a mistake to take Paul Weiss over S&S. PW's corporate practice is pretty pathetic; Shearman's is hurting but their core clients/practice areas are still among the best. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208143) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:33 PM Author: Diverse persian They (PW) do some pretty large M&A deals (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208171) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:38 PM Author: Wine indecent temple They are trying to develop their corporate practice by leveraging their litigation clients and occaisionally a good deal comes along but in general PW's M&A is restricted to mid-market deals. And there's not much going on in other corp practice areas. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208223) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 2:16 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate http://www.chambersandpartners.com/us/?action=frame&lf=sfrt&rf=spe&eid=259 http://www.paulweiss.com/resources/news/Detail.aspx?news=1167
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 2:44 PM Author: Wine indecent temple Doesn't this kind of support my point? Lots of mid-market deals = high deal volume + high total deal value. That's why Dorsey & Whitney is always way up there on these charts.
The difference is that PW occasionally does get a big deal through their lit clients--such as the Time Warner deal described in that news article.
I had an offer there and did all my callback interviews in the corporate dept. Decided on a lower-ranked (by vault) firm instead.
What do you think is going to happen with that fucking test yesterday? It was ridiculous. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 3:14 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate According to their chart, their deal volume doesn't seem to be that high. They have about half the deal volume as Gibson Dunn, but with more deal value. Another way to look at it is that they have about half the deal volume as Shearman and about half the deal value, so it's basically on par except for the volume.
I have a friend who plans to do corp at Paul Weiss, which is why I know a little bit about it. I think his choice is good. If their deal volume is low but a lot of those are big media deals, I think a lot of people would be interested. (Personal rep to Spielberg and Geffen in the Dreamworks SKG deal.) Also their PPP has been so high (especially compared to Shearman) that I think the lit gives them a good buffer if deal volume ever drops off.
Yeah, I haven't really been paying attention or doing the homework in Financial Statements, so that midterm was pretty tough. I spent all my time getting those balance sheets to work out and had to skip straight to essay questions when he gave us the 10 minute warning (I think I answered 3 or 4 of them).
Do I know who you are, btw? Or vice versa? |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 3:35 PM Author: Wine indecent temple I sat behind you one day and saw you posting.
The test was ridiculous. I would have been fine except that I forgot to account for the initial cash balance in my balance sheet and spent 30 minutes figuring out where I'd gone wrong. Didn't have time to really do the indirect cash flow statemtent and answered the essay questions really quickly.
Oh well, fuck it. The guy to the left of me never got his statements to balance at all and even his revenues were all fucked up so I assume after the curve I'll pass. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 3:42 PM Author: Brass Round Eye If, you want to do M&A, S&S is better than all the firms mentioned.
If the reason you want to keep away from S&S is because its struggling, then you want to stay away from FF and white and case as well. Both have weak profits, and not enough work to go around.
As a side note, overall most would consider PW stronger than weil and probably stronger than deb.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:01 PM Author: Diverse persian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211052) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 11:50 PM Author: Ungodly mother theater question - what the fuck does ppp matter to a summer associate? a junior associate?
answer - absolutely nothing. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 11:56 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate This was discussed a little before: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&mc=87&forum_id=2#4998667
But basically, rich partners = happy partners, and that's good for associates. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 10:06 PM Author: Talented sapphire den patrolman Except that many of the firms you listed are improving or stable, whereas S&S is a declining TTT in many respects. Comparing firms is not one dimensional endeavor involving nothing more than adjustments to the vault rankings. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5212235) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 3:49 PM Author: Confused area affirmative action Subject: this guy has no news for us. You have got to be kidding me.
This guy just recycles old news abut departures from over a year ago, adds a few exclamation points, and then acts like he's contributed a major fucking nugget of wisdom.
Anyone who's read a legal paper in the last month knows as much or more. Plus he's obviously a GA lifer with some vendetta complex from 2001.
By any objective, credible measure S&S has practice areas that dwarf the "peer" firms you guys are mentioning. It has seen shake-ups and problems, but not life threatening ones. I wouldn't downgrade it and sign my life away to White & Case or some other acknowledged inferior just yet.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 4:04 PM Author: Pink school cafeteria associates doing norma rae always come of silly, with their asinine "boycotts" of firms that merely get rid of unneeded employees. somehow,there's always a big stack of resumes from those who desperately want to be a part of "biglaw" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5209275) |
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:22 PM Author: high-end masturbator Exactly what did the S&S chairman say about the 80 associates they canned? Did he really say that they were let go because they were bad, not because the firm didn't have enough work for them? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208087) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:24 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank "We recently had to let some associates go who did not meet the high standards our clients expect and demand." This is a paraphrase. The exact quote is below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208099) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:25 PM Author: smoky cruise ship That's an uber-fucking right there. Pathetic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208112) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:26 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank "Shearman & Sterling, a major Wall Street law firm, is trimming the ranks of its junior lawers by about 10%; the move is expected to affect roughly 80 associates at the 1,000-lawyer firm." WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 31, 2001, Wednesday (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208123) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:45 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank "Shearman & Sterling, the fifth biggest US law firm, has said it is shed ding 10 per cent of its associates. "It's in the nature of the times - these decision are unavoidable," said Chris Bright, a partner at Shearman. "We're in the same economic cycle as our clients." " Financial Times (London,England), November 30, 2001
Wall Street Lawyers Being Laid Off as Deals Drop, The New York Times November 9, 2001 Friday:
"Shearman & Sterling, with 950 associates, announced layoffs of about 10 percent from its headquarters in New York and other offices. "
"Now, on the Greedy Associates Web site (www.greedyassociates .com), the forum of choice for those working at the firms that they collectively call Biglaw, crabbing about bonuses -- the standard last year was $40,000 -- has given way to mordant jokes about getting "Shearmanated." Shearman associates often refer to the partners' profits, which last year averaged about $1.2 million.
"I heard Shearman partners are sacrificing, in a bloody, gruesome manner, 1 of each 10 associates at midnight during the next full moon," one reported the day before Shearman & Sterling announced layoffs. "Nobody will be spared!""
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:40 PM Author: bistre boiling water hahahaha right. and i bet if they had lots of business, those associates would've been called "great credits to the firm." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208244) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 10:01 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead "i bet if they had lots of business, those associates would've been called "great credits to the firm.""
well, yea, because they would have been doing work.
I don't think its unreasonable for a business to law off employees during a bad year. The fact that it never happens is only because the bad associates get forced out in other less obvious ways, and because retention is so bad otherwise. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:46 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank Okay. I've found the "money quote".
Reuters News October 26, 2001 Friday 8:57 PM GMT
Bob Treuhold, managing partner of Shearman & Sterling, said that attorneys who do not have the "right long-term fit" with the firm will be given three months notice.
Treuhold characterized the cuts as part of the firm's normal review process.
"Twice a year we go through a review process to make sure that we continue to maintain the selective and high standards that our clients expect," said Treuhold.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:48 PM Author: bistre boiling water have they ever done this before? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208317) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:56 PM Author: high-end masturbator Holy shit. What a complete piece of trash that man is. Good thing no one believed him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208379) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:25 PM Author: bistre boiling water it seems like those PPP's at Cravath, Sullivan, etc. have barely moved in the last few years. i mean they're still great, but they dont seem to have grown. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208114) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: hairraiser public bath tank "In 2000, S&S's PPP of $1.35-million put it solidly in league with its peer group—Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher, Sullivan & Cromwell, et. al. But 2001 saw a 30% falloff to $980,000, as Wall Street hit a wall and S&S was even forced to lay off 10% of its associates that fall. In fact, it took until this past year for PPP to resume significant growth, finally topping 2000 for the first time (and up 22% year over year) at $1.4-million."
S&C et al. are now $1MM higher than S&S... that's a lot.
http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/archives/2006/02/its_not_1977_an.html |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:31 PM Author: bistre boiling water interesting but irrelevant to my post (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208161) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:30 PM Author: irradiated blue set travel guidebook Does it really make sense to you that PPP should grow faster than the economy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208146) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 1:33 PM Author: bistre boiling water it looks like it has grown more slowly than GDP. although i see no reason why it might not, at least for a while, exceed GDP growth. you could see GDP contraction in a big recession, but lots of PPP growth from bankruptcy work. of course, PPP growth cant exceed GDP forever or law firms would comprise the entire economy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5208166) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 4:25 PM Author: Chocolate gaming laptop mediation Not all of this is rehashed from 2001.
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=118651&d=pndpr&h=pnhpr&f=pnfpr
"Barbash, a specialist in hedge funds and mutual funds, had been considered one of Shearman’s top rainmakers having led the firm’s asset management group." |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 4:40 PM Author: smoky cruise ship How can they keep their talent, when their PPP is 2/3 of their "peers"? Law students will kill over a Wachtell job that might pay $25k more to a 1st year. Here, we're talking a million bucks difference.
For example, they recently lost their investment mgmt group to Wilkie and their Antitrust partners to CWT. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 7:51 PM Author: seedy fear-inspiring dysfunction I think the weak PPP will make other firms more tempted raid away the best S&S partners. It's kind of circular. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5210975) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 4:41 PM Author: Confused area affirmative action I am under the impression Barbash was in fund formation, which is not the same thing as private equity M&A, which is what a lot of firms have made money on since 2001.
If you take a look at the latest Chambers Rankings for S&S their "crappy" litigation is ranked as the peer of Kirkland & Gibson (and beats Willkie and FF), and their supposedly gutted Antritrust practice is still a 2, peered with S&C and Wachtell. And these ranks came out after the shake-up with Sunshine he alluded to...
The GA posters are blowhards. Just get used to it.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 4:49 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate I just noticed your moniker. Are you at Shearman now? I guess it would explain the trolling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5209597) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 4:57 PM Author: Chocolate gaming laptop mediation Nicely done (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5209665) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 7:44 PM Author: Confused area affirmative action 159. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5210924) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:04 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead Perhaps, but i'm not and I could make the same point. Any justification for classifying S&S as having a crappy litigation practice? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211079) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:05 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate Did you mean to reply to somebody else? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211088) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:09 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead No, I meant to reply to your bashing of the OP without responding to his point that S&S has a highly rated litigation practice. Sure, perhaps he is a troll, but can anyone undermine what he is saying? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211110) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:12 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate I didn't respond to his litigation point because I don't know anything about that. I had just noticed his posts in a couple Shearman threads and only noticed his moniker now, so I wanted to point that out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211134) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:21 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead Great work. But I'm still waiting for someone to show me why S&S has a crappy litigation practice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211206) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 7:52 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead You guys are seriously thinking about going to Willkie or White & Case or Milbank over S&S because of something that happened 5 years ago? That is pretty insane.
Yea what happened to those people sucked, but its pretty clear that they wouldn't have made partner anyway and probably they didn't cut anyone who worked hard. Any other business this is routine - only in law is it offensive that a business would cut dead wood - and they only did it because of 9/11! |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 7:54 PM Author: seedy fear-inspiring dysfunction If you're not interested in Cap mkts or M&A, I think Milbank is a superior firm. Shearman barely has a litigation practice to speak of. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211009) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 7:58 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead "Shearman barely has a litigation practice to speak of"
Are you on crack?
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/us/?action=frame&lf=sfrt&rf=spe&eid=252 |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 7:59 PM Author: seedy fear-inspiring dysfunction I get an error when I click. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211044) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:02 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead Shearman & Sterling LLP
The Firm: One of the dominant international operators, Shearman & Sterling has sought to place more emphasis on its litigation arm in recent years. The upshot has been that as a business area, disputes now form its fastest growing sector, with the New York office alone housing 90 litigators, including 25 partners. The firm's traditional forte has always been the financial and capital markets, and it is no surprise to see it thriving acting on related disputes for the likes of key clients Citigroup and Merrill Lynch. The enforcement and class action field is showing more signs of expansion. The team has seven former DOJ prosecutors and is appearing in about ten grand jury investigations and two dozen SEC investigations. It has been acting for a number of clients including Pilgrim Baxter in the mutual fund investigation and has had a similarly strong showing in the insurance industry investigations. Other fruitful areas include antitrust, in which the group has appeared in the vast majority of the headline international cartel cases such as those involving vitamins and magazine paper. International arbitration is another forte, bolstered by its global network of offices and strong track record. Key clients drawn by its "top-drawer services" include Ford, which the firm represented on the Firestone tire crisis.
The Lawyers: Stuart Baskin is "a seasoned attorney who always brings a considered, balanced and thoughtful tinge to proceedings." He is best known for securities litigation, having appeared as the principal litigator in class action representations for Ford, Nortel, KPMG and Elan among others. Also a strong enforcement lawyer, he is currently involved in seven SEC investigations and three grand jury investigations. His other activities have seen him appearing for Consolidated Edison, the New York City utility, in a matter relating to the failed merger with Northeast Utilities. Colleague Fred Davis's international expertise makes him "a sure bet for anything across the water." Hugely proficient at international arbitration, he has sat as an arbitrator in the ICC and advised major concerns including GE and Citibank in matters worldwide. He melds this global expertise with a general litigation practice that has resulted in prominent matters such as the major RICO trial of John Hancock Leasing v Frank, a matter in which he obtained a $28 million award.
The Clients: BASF; Citigroup; Merrill Lynch; Morgan Stanley; UBS; Ford; Nortel and Elan.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:09 PM Author: seedy fear-inspiring dysfunction The antitrust group was basically raided away by CWT. The litigation group may be growing, but it can't compare to established shops. I will concede that S&S is top notch for international arb. if you're into that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211111) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:27 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead "The antitrust group was basically raided away by CWT."
CWT is ranked as a peer in general litigation, but isn't even on the list for anti-trust.
Who got raided away? Was this recently? Unless something dramatic has happened in the last year, this seems to be another point of lore which is unfounded.
The OP suggests the DC guy got stolen, but he appears to still be there:
http://www.sherman.com/wcollins/
as is this guy:
http://www.sherman.com/kkramer/
both of whom far outmatch most other firms.
So what is up with this? anyone know any more details?
Shearman & Sterling LLP
The Firm: The team's merger defense practice attracted particular recommendation from market sources. In this arena highlights have included representing Novartis in its acquisition of Mead Johnson and separately advising Syngenta in its acquisition of Advanta Seeds. Clients praise the stable of "sharp" attorneys, whose "keen grasp of the law and helpful insights into the process of matters" have helped win loyalty. The team's profile is largely hinged to merger work, but the group is also active in litigation, including disputes related to cartels.
The Lawyers: Dale Collins is noted for his "in-depth knowledge of economics and economic analysis." A specialist in antitrust defense of M&A transactions, he has been active on behalf of Thompson in its acquisitions of Primark, Carson Group, West Publishing and Elite Information Group among a bevy of other transactions. Kenneth Prince translates pragmatism, merger expertise and "excellent transactional skills" into successful results, clients said. Kenneth Kramer enjoys a commercial litigation practice with a proclivity toward the antitrust arena, where he is considered "bright and strategically skilled" in his approach.
The Clients: BASF; BOC Group; Cadbury-Schweppes; Georgia-Pacific and SGL Carbon Group.
"The litigation group may be growing, but it can't compare to established shops."
Wrong. It is already established. Chambers does compare them, and puts S&S ahead or the same as CWT, and usually ahead of all the others.
"I will concede that S&S is top notch for international arb. if you're into that."
They do many other things too, and are much better than most of the other firms mentioned. This is why the flamers have to go back to 2001 in order to trash them.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:32 PM Author: seedy fear-inspiring dysfunction see http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=141125
"Steven C. Sunshine, former head of Shearman & Sterling LLP's worldwide Antitrust Practice and Antitrust Litigation Affinity Group, and Jess Biggio and David P. Wales, Jr., former partners in Shearman & Sterling LLP's Antitrust Practice Group, have joined Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP as partners in the Litigation Department."
I'd say hiring away the head of the dept is somewhat of a blow to the practice group. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:43 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead "I'd say hiring away the head of the dept is somewhat of a blow to the practice group."
No. Also, this is a far, far, far cry from the OP's "The firm lost one of the top antitrust practices in the world to CWT a over year ago, wholesale."
Actually, this is all garbage. S&S still has a great practice. CWT got this guy because they need to BUILD one, and they don't really have one outside of a small practice in D.C. Not even clear they are trying to expand into NY anyway - where S&S is a big player.
For example, Sunshine (the "rainmaker") was ranked a 4 by chambers. You can find this through: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/usa/default.asp?action=rf&rf=pprofile_2&pid=311281
None of the other guys who left are ranked.
Now, S&S has one guy, Collins, who is ranked a 2 (i.e. one of the best 15 antitrust lawyers in NY), and 2 others who are ranked 4s. Sunshine was a nice lawyer, but he was only one of many others. Cadwalader, on the other hand, ONLY has Sunshine. A loss for S&S, sure, but certainly not a gigantic one.
Now, if Collins were to leave, that would be a bad sign, but as long as he is there you can be sure that S&S has a top practice, better than the other firms mentioned here.
You really have to read flamers a little more critically. If you guys are seriously thinking of going to practice Anti-trust at Cadwalader (or any of these other firms mentioned) because you think it has a better NY Anti-trust practice than S&S, you are terribly misinformed. Go to Chambers, read about the lawyers on their websites, and figure it out for yourself. Don't read some article about a guy with a nice title who left (who knows why he left - maybe they kicked him out, maybe he was offered more money or more equity, maybe he is more of an administrator now and had already built the S&S practice, maybe S&S was trying to make room for their new rising star) and make vast assumptions that S&S lost its practice "wholesale" to Cadwalder.
The bottom line is they have a very good antitrust and litigation practices that are very well respected in NYC and leads to great options for their associates, and whoever wrote the OP of this thread is obviously a flamer who got canned.
I can't comment on the Private Equity bit but given how full of shit this guy is on the other two points, I'm suspicious on whether this is really a big deal. Partners leave all the time for a variety or reasons.
Profits for partner is a concern, clearly, but we've had discussions on here about how those numbers can be somewhat misleading (for example, who is an equity partner? is there a distinction? are the equity partners making 2 million while the "non-equity" partners are making 500k, thereby lowering the average?), and this is certainly somewhat of an irrelevancy for most of us who will never become partner anyway.
See also MIKE Wong's post below, linking to this:
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=370140&mc=1&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: March 1st, 2006 9:50 AM Author: aphrodisiac startling potus Those fuckers stole Shearman's sunshine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5215327) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:10 PM Author: Confused area affirmative action some of these posts are exemplifications of how to recycle bullshit until it becomes dogma.
if this board is gonna be anything more than the GA street team, it needs some standards. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 7:57 PM Author: comical boistinker tattoo i don't know much about anything, but i maintain a perplexed surprise at why law students who will wash out in 3 years anyway should care so much about the health of the firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211032) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:01 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead This is a great point. Willkie might be doing great, but if you leave in 3 years, isn't what looks better on the resume more important?
Even of those 80 associates that got canned, 40 probably would have left within a year anyway. I agree that being layed off makes finding another job a little more difficult, but I don't think you become blacklisted or anything. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 11:19 PM Author: rough-skinned ebony clown "I agree that being layed off makes finding another job a little more difficult, but I don't think you become blacklisted or anything."
I think your points elsewhere on the thread are pretty good. But on this I disagree. I have a relative who works at S&S and he survived the bloodletting, but two of his good friends didnt. Subsequently, they really had to fight for their next jobs. Granted hiring in general took a hit after 9-11, but the guys who got cut would strongly disagree with "a little more difficult". And I wouldnt say they were blacklisted, but they heard from some people in recruiting that many hiring committees just wanted nothing to do with them for what were already limited hiring needs .
The way they dealt with it was really really shitty, and made what was an unpleasant situation even worse for all around. I think the other thing is that a true white shoe firm like S&S is traditionally regarded never really had done this. Willkie is the only place I can recall that is anywhere near them in terms of clout (and still a nice gap between the two) and experienced something similar, and that was a pure economic decision due to their own piss poor planning.
That said, I dont think people should be jumping to another firm and discouting the firm out of hand. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:03 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate When I did a callback there, I definitely got the feel that morale was low, and my lunch interviewers were a grumpy pair that (totally serious) only ordered appetizers. Not to mention their recruiting guy gives me the creeps. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211072) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:06 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead Morale is going to be fairly low at any NYC Biglaw firm. If you have lunch with enough people at any particular firm, you realize this.
Some firms are just better at marketing than others. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:10 PM Author: Excitant Bawdyhouse Associate I know the sample size is going to be fairly arbitrary. I don't imply much from a good lunch experience. However, it seems like it says something if a large firm like Shearman can't find just two people who will be at least somewhat positive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211123) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:20 PM Author: comical boistinker tattoo lawyers have shit to do. your interview schedule is juggled throughout your callback day. so you got stuck with some assholes at your s&s lunch; ok. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211194) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:04 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead exactly. These guys were available probably because they weren't busy - which is probably because they sucked, which is probably why they were pissed. The recruiting coordinator isn't giving this a lot of thought. You can get stuck with shitty people for lunch at ANY of these firms. Hell, Davis Polk solved this problem for me by not even offering me a lunch on any of the three times I visited the firm.
Like I said before, if you had lunch with every associate at all the firms, you'd realize that morale at most these firms is about the same |
|
Date: March 1st, 2006 8:13 AM Author: crusty contagious station Their recruiting guy gave me the creeps too... and he was an asshole. He definitely doesn't put a good face on the firm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5215185) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 8:03 PM Author: Henna titillating plaza marketing idea Well, it still impacts the environment you work in for those 3 years. Bad attitudes are like a cancer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211073) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:05 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead There are bad / good attitudes at any of these law firms. My suggestion is to get used to it. If you let other people's negativity infect you, you will kill yourself in this profession. Law is a profession for professional whiners. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211601) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:25 PM Author: Diverse persian I don't agree with what you are saying. If a firm has to downsize because the management grew too fast during the tech boom, it shouldn't blame the downsize on poor performance of its associates while other law firms aren't laying people off. The management should have blamed it on their own faulty judgment and moved on. Do you really want to go to a place where if you get let go, you will get stigmatized with the label of "underperformer"? They clearly don't give a shit about their employees and that is why nobody wants to work there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211797) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:37 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead This sounds like a response to a seperate point I made elsewhere, but whatever.
This happened 5 years ago, for christ's sake, after a pretty desperate economy in 9/11. It was a very special situation that had never happened before - no one knew what was going to happen to the economy. It wasn't that the firm used faulty judgement - it was that terrorists blew up the WTC and there was a major recession. Instead of just paying a bunch of associates to do nothing, they fired a bunch that were low-performers. True, no other firm did this, but from a business perspective this was a totally reasonable thing for S&S to do. Lots of banks did this as well. I agree that it sucked for the people who got laid off, but I think that the firm was trying to preserve its image and tell everyone "Yea, we cut a lot of people, but the top people are still here so keep bringing what little business you have".
It really matters what type of associate you think you are - if you are going to be at the bottom of the barrel, than yea you should go to a place with lockstep compensation that never fires anyone and makes everyone non-equity partner. If you think you are going to be cream of the crop, you should go somewhere that is going to do what has to be done to keep the firm healthy and competitive.
Actually, given the amount of bad press it god, S&S is probably the firm that is LEAST likely to lay anyone off! That's probably a bad thing, but hopefully the economy will stay good and they won't have to.
"They clearly don't give a shit about their employees and that is why nobody wants to work there."
Let me give you some advice - none of these big lawfirms give a shit about you unless you are making them money. Just because you went to an Ivy or got good grades or whatever doesn't entitle you to a career in law and a consistent 200k salary. If you can't / don't / won't perform, you will get pushed out one way or another. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 10:49 PM Author: Henna titillating plaza marketing idea There is a big difference between a firm with a few complainers and one where everyone is pissed and worried about losing their job. At my firm 90+ percent acknowledge the difficulties of the job but are pretty happy overall. So I don't have to get used to the negative attitudes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5212680) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 11:02 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead "There is a big difference between a firm with a few complainers and one where everyone is pissed and worried about losing their job."
I do not think this differences really exist in the NYC firms. I think the corporate culture is different at some of the firms - i.e. "nice" at davis, "professional" at SullCrom, "intense" at Cravath. But I don't think the morale is really all that different at any of these places. If these distinguishing qualities even exist, you certainly can't tell what type of firm one is based on a lunch with 2 disgruntled associates.
"At my firm 90+ percent acknowledge the difficulties of the job but are pretty happy overall."
Sounds like you have already gotten used to the attitudes by classifying them as relating to "difficulties of the job."
In NYC, all the firms have basically the same morale, re: its a tough job, we don't get paid enough, but most of us are OK with it. Some firms just have better marketing or a culture that looks more fun. But honestly, there are just as many unhappy "nice" people as unhappy "intense" people. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 11:21 PM Author: Henna titillating plaza marketing idea I agree that despite perceived reputations most firms will be very similar, and in NYC maybe even more so. But I still think there would be a huge difference between your "its a tough job, we don't get paid enough, but most of us are OK with it" and a firm that is firing people. Now, that only applies to a couple firms (and maybe this is where you aren't seieng my point), and maybe not even Shearman, but there is a difference with that type of place. And someone else made the lunch point, not me.
When I say people acknowledge the difficulties, I am not saying they bitch about them. Would they say they work long hours if asked? Probably, but there is nothing negative about it. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 11:55 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead We'll have to agree to disagree on the last point.
As far as S&S, they haven't had a lay off in 5 years, and I think it is stupid for someone to consider that now.
Kinda like how the Repubs can't stop talking about Robert Byrd's KKK membership. It's old news - doesn't apply anymore - shouldn't matter. |
|
Date: March 1st, 2006 12:33 AM Author: Henna titillating plaza marketing idea This is the quote I was responding to: "i don't know much about anything, but i maintain a perplexed surprise at why law students who will wash out in 3 years anyway should care so much about the health of the firm." So it's not about S&S specifically, just the general idea that the health of a firm is relevant. I said above that Shearman may not even fall into this category, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to disregard it if a firm is firing or has recently fired people. That is all I was trying to say. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5213610) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:20 PM Author: Chocolate gaming laptop mediation But is there any reason to take an S&S offer over any of the V10? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211741) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:39 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead Be more specific. Where/what do you want to practice? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5211959) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:44 PM Author: Chocolate gaming laptop mediation M&A? I know they just represented Boston Scientific, and based on everything else their M&A practice remains prestigious. What about non-M&A corporate work? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5212008) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:48 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead I wouldn't take them ahead of Cravath, Wachtell, S&C, Davis Polk, and Simpson Thatcher.
After that, though, I think they are as good as anyone.
Check out chambers and partners for more specific area information. It's probably the best firm info site out there, much more useful than vault.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/usa/default.asp |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 10:17 PM Author: Diverse persian Skadden is also clearly better for M&A than S&S (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5212348) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 11:04 PM Author: Vivacious Walnut Stead In terms of partners and deals, yes. In terms of associate training and opportunities? I'd say No, as I've said many times on here, but to each his own. If you guys really wanna go to Skadden because of its prestige, go ahead. But it is really shitty for associates there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=369803&forum_id=2#5212827) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 9:22 PM Author: Dark lascivious idea he suggested sanctuary in terms of revenue per lawyer--a better indication of the firm's health--S&S is fine, though not uber-elite.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=370140&mc=1&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: February 28th, 2006 10:45 PM Author: Turquoise faggotry Their standing with students has definitely suffered. It's unclear if their standing with clients has suffered. Their international offices are pretty strong, may be evening supporting any dip in US generating revenue.
If you look at their M&A activity, it's pretty respectable compared to its peers.
http://www.thomson.com/financial/investbank/fi_investbank_league_table.jsp#mergers_acquisitions
they're definitely not imploding, but obviously still trying to gain back their standing with students and associates. |
|
Date: March 1st, 2006 1:34 AM Author: Flesh trip liquid oxygen HYS: Ding CCN: In with $$$ |
|
Date: March 1st, 2006 4:23 PM Author: Swashbuckling onyx address Yeah, their M&A group may be doing well, but one has to take into consideration some factors before deciding to go to S&S, for example: -their other departments are not doing as well; -1st year associates don't necessarily get their first choice department (and if this happens, it's difficult to rotate into another department, especially M&A which is a popular one at S&S); and -S&S has a relatively unhappy environment as compared to other firms in the same league
|