Having grown up a loser, I really value the opportunity to become a winner that Nixon Peabody provides

Reed Smith!

Haven't you people seen the Transformers movie? It's obviously PHJW.

It's obviously the highly-pedigreed and well-bred Gallion & Spielvogel.

Absolutely Nixon Peabody, because everyone will be a winner.

Simpson Thacher

How about the "it" firms in other cities? DC? Chicago? LA? Boston?

Schulte. Do it. Do it.

can someone finally tell me, is it pronounced Peabody or Pee-buddy? The song suggests the latter.

Cock & Balls LLP

Those "it" firms are "it" firms every year. It's more interesting to discuss less obvious firms that for one reason or another are buzzing this year (or in recent years).

Wachtell is an "it" firm. How insightful. Could this article have been any more mailed-in?

This article leads me to believe that Lat is hoping to get a callback from a French solo practitioner.

Jesus Christ Lat, this was weak. A 1L could look at the Vault 100 guide for 10 minutes and write the same article. BREAKING NEWS: WACHTELL IS A GOOD FIRM PEOPLE WANT TO WORK AT.

I call BS on the "lifestyle" firms mentioned

Second, esp Latham, which is a passive aggressive sweat shop.

Eighteenth!

it was a shallow article.

what is a passive agressive sweat shop?

"A 1L could look at the Vault 100 guide for 10 minutes and write the same article."

Wrong. A 1L must also ask XO what they think about Skadden before writing that article.

Glad you see you're letting Merck ghostwrite some stuff for you, Lat.

01:31 PM:

Friend who worked there said it was pronounced "PEH-buh-dee" (emphasis on first syllable)

Thacher Proffitt

Balls, Balls & Johnson

Lat - Off topic, but can you set the comments to be numbered? It seems a lot of commenters desperately want the order in which they posted to be clear. The fact that the comments are listed chronologically just isn't enough.

To satisfy this most basic of human needs, is it possible for the first comment to be titled something like "#1" or "1" ??

I could have sworn I just saw Lat at West Elm.

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood - I'd totally phone it in today too if I were Lat.

I am a regular reader; irregular commentater. This site is going down-hill fast. The "it" firm feels like jumping the shark.

Lat, get back to digging up dirt. NO MORE RECRUITING. It is done, over, finished.

Maybe now is the time of year to move over to discussions of bonuses. Or even better, start working your contacts and find out if we are all getting laid off.

I don't understand Nixon Peabody's website. The first page has the quote: "I don't need a lawyer who will win at all costs. I need them to win, but calculate the costs." Is this firm some kind of insurance defense shop? What do they do? Who are its clients?

Idiot 2Ls think LATHAM is a kinder, gentler law firm? They're in for one hell of a surprise-- one which will probably come in the form of three all-nighters in a row.

I think people are missing the point that the article is light because it is not geared to practicing attorneys but more to casual "Observers"

but "casual observers" don't care a whit what firm is a quirky lifestyle firm, and what firm is a hardcore sweatshop.

1:47: Totally. I thought the idea of an "it" firm was that it inexplicably got a lot of attention one year. Wow, Davis Polk has a good reputation - really?

I've heard a lot of buzz about Schulte.

S&C tells the other firms to just 'bend over.'

Agree with those who say this article sucked. Wachtell, Cravath, Davis Polk, Latham, and Debevoise are "it" law firms this season? Wait, wait . . . I can do this too: The "it" I-banks this season are Goldman, Blackstone, Lehman, and JPMC. For accountants, the "it" firms are PWC, Deloitte, E&Y, and KPMG. And the "it" colas this season are Coke and Pepsi!

Really, Lat, you're going to put Vault out of business!

Btw, Lat, if your goal is to provoke (something other than a gigantic yawn), you have failed. Better luck next time.

Anyone who has ever been to New England knows that any Peabody is pronounced PEA-buh-dee

Paul, Weiss.

2:40 - That's really interesting and all, but the firm is based in Rochester.

I hear thacher proffitt gives you career currency....

Powell Goldstein gives you an opportunity when other firms won't.

I think that's their motto.

Newsflash: the "it" law schools this year are Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and NYU.

Davis Polk needs to put up pictures of attorneys on their website. What's the point of having good looking associates if you can't put them on display?

Who's now? It has to be Addison & Butler LLP.

3:12 = NYU troll.

The "it" FTT is Ave Marie.

You're better than this, Lat. I'm getting a quantity over quality vibe right now.

No ground was broken at all with these firms (wow, people want to work for Wachtell and Wachtell pays high bonuses). It was so unimaginative that I doubt you ever spoke to any real students.

The top firms are the top firms for a while. These were top firms when I interviewed 7 years ago. It may be hard to pinpoint "it" firms, but maybe you could've started from the premise that A,B,C, etc. are the top, most prestigious firms for X,Y,Z reasons, but lesser known firms such as [___] are gaining attention for [___] reasons.

Hell, I'd much rather you tell me whose stock is falling, since it's likely easier to determine and a helluva lot more interesting. Of course, that puts you in the crosshairs.

Last year Latham really was the "it" firm, lifestyle and prestige. What more could you ask for? Well, a callback would have been nice.

Who gives a shit?

This is the stupidest question. If being at the "it" firm is all that matters to you, how shallow are you? Well, la tee dah how special that you are the firm that everybody considers to be the best. Get a life. Find a firm that fits you and your personality.
And, yes not to 10% of my class at a non top 10 school. But working and happy. Eat your heart out.

Always the "it" coffee!

also, only idiots call DP&W "Davis," especially in NY. It's Davis Polk. And Davis Polk was an it firm when I interviewed there in 1994. Lat needs to start working again and stop sniffing his own farts.

Please be advised that this year's "it" book is Chambermaid, the controversial clerkship novel by lawyer-turned-writer Saira Rao.

THEY ARE ALL SWEATSHOPS! Don't be rediculous, Lat. This is very miselading.

I showed this to a friend who used to be at Cleary and he almost peed himself laughing at the mention of Cleary in the "lifestyle" section of your article. Get real.

Agreed. If being at an "it" firm does it for you, then you deserve to work at any of these firms.

The "it" firms at YLS this year are all in DC.
As for NYC, the Yale Law Women compiled a list of supposedly "family-friendly" firms based on stated (but illusory) maternity and flex-time policies, and Cleary and Debeviose were high on the list, so everyone blindly applies there. Pass the Koolaid.
Schulte and Simpson have to be on the "it" list, since every lawyer in america owes Simpson a debt of gratitude for their recent raise, and Schulte is the dark horse elbowing aside old white-shoes for top hedgie/PE work. WLRK is still the top choice for gunners who aren't into the DC appellate thing. (BTW Lat, who goes to WLRK to clerk for the SCOTUS? People like that go to Gibson DC or Covington).
Cravath gets surprisingly few interview bids, and is relatively unselective. More than half of those interested get offers. Not an "it" firm.

Wasn't Cleary just sanctioned for witness tampering? That would put it a notch or two down on the "it" scale.

In the minds of law students at least, Cravath is not that prestigious anymore. Their hiring standards seem to have declined a bit as well. Not sure which caused the other.

3:16, we all also already know which firm's stocks are falling. S&C got Charneyed, and Nixon got Pee-bodied.

"Cravath gets surprisingly few interview bids, and is relatively unselective."

Complete b.s. Other than Wachtell, Cravath is the most selective by far. When I was at YLS (very recently) their interview schedule was full and they only extended around 5 offers.

3:58. Not true anymore so i hear. They used to almost never take laterals. Now I know that they've been calling associates at other firms.

What ever happened to Aaron Charney? (No I don't want to use google.)

When I was interviewing (many moons ago), Cravath had the reputation of being one of the hardest summer positions to get, but that it was much easier to get a position as a full time associate interviewing as a 3L.

Wachtell is NOW.

What even sets Cravath apart anymore? Is the training still superior to say, Kirkland?

Lat, this article was pretty poor. Did you actually talk to students, or did you just combine the top firms from the Vault and AmLaw lists and make up interviews?

More interesting is the firms that aren't traditional powerhouses that are generating buzz, and also those firms that are doing much poorly than predicted.

At CLS, where I'm a 2L, the sense I get is that the "hot" firms that you might not predict are:

- Quinn Emanuel is generating a lot of buzz, perhaps because of their unique trial-focused business model, perhaps because of stunts like this recruiting trip (which wasn't open to CLS students).

- Schulte (lots of hedge fund stuff, great rep)

- Simpson (always a hot firm, but this year it seems more selective than DPW, Cravath, or S&C, probably because of the pay raise)

- Gibson Dunn (people seem to really like working there)

Firms that have a negative buzz relative to their position in the league tables include:

- S & C (maybe it's the lawsuit, maybe it's just that they have a particularly bad reputation as a place to work, but I get the feeling they are not having a great recruiting season)

- Skadden (no surprise)

- Shearman & Sterling (word has it they're slipping)

In my class, (not too long ago), Cravath supposedly gave 15 SA offers and got one acceptance.

3:01, what do you mean by career currency?

Dewey & LeBoeuf!

I think the perception is that the difference in prestige between Cravath, S&C & DPW is minimal, but Cravath has the reputation of having much longer hours, which makes it a less compelling choice if you have and offer from one of the others.

How is Shearman Slipping?

Simpson, DPW, Debevoise: those are all "hot", but that really isn't very shocking.

Cadwalader

4:10 - I just googled charney and nothing new came up. Old stuff from months ago. Lat should investigate.

Sidley Austin is the "IT" firm this year!!!

What about Kirkland? High bonuses, great training, most lavish summer program hands down.

Kirkland's about as "it" as Barry Manilow.

Why did QE make the jump from Vault unranked to top 50? That might make them and "it" firm...

Why did QE make the jump from Vault unranked to top 50? That might make them an "it" firm...

rising at NYU this year:

McKee Nelson
Schulte
Patterson Belknap
Simpson

falling:

S&C
Skadden

4:53 is correct.

Sidley.. so hot right now.

YLS 2L:

You completely neglected to identify which DC firms are the "it" firms.

nyuer:

Patterson Belknap and McKee Nelson...really?

Yeah, Sidley is hot... if you consider bathroom stall foot-tapping to be hot.

Weil Gotshal is so in the zone right now.

I would imagine the DC firms that are "it" right now are the ones that are always "it:" Williams and Connolly, Covington, etc. Those have probably also always been favored by Yale types as well. Are there any places in DC that are hot right now that you wouldn't expect?

And Kirkland, Latham, and Cleary in NY all have great reps, but I don't feel like that's more true now than it has been in the past.

How do you define an "it" firm? If you take the perspective that an "it" firm is one that recruits better than one would expect from its Vault ranking, then I'd say:
1) Orrick
2) Quinn
3) WSGR
4) Milbank

But then again, we're Bay Area biased out here (explaining Orrick, WSGR maybe?). Of course, DPW/ Simpson/ PW/ Weil/ Kirkland would still be preferred above any of those 4...

I am surprised that a firm like Simpson Thatcher or Latham which pride itself on being a private equity firm is still considered "hot" even though the credit bubble has burst and their clients aren't doing nearly as many deals.

I agree with the high regard for Quinn Emanuel --

didn't a whole bunch of partners - including former SCOTUS clerks - just jump ship from Sidley ... so not hot

At least in the Bay Area, Simpson seems less selective. I know people from Golden Gate, University of San Francisco and Santa Clara who all got interviews there. There was even a summer associate from USF there last summer.

5:33 (1), where's your oddball Sidley hate coming from?

No-offered? Envy? Overworked? Or just run-of-the mill-homophobia?

My guess would be that the people interviewed by Simpson from "lower tiered" law schools in the Bay Area are at the very top of their class, and relatively interesting people. The New York office has lawyers from Seton Hall and Hofstra, and it doesn't make the firm any less selective.

3:58- These are the exact YLS numbers from Cravath last year:
Students wanting interviews: 53
Interviews conducted: 49
Callbacks: 33
Callbacks accepted: 29
Offers: 25
Acceptances: 4

Compare with Wilmer DC, an "it" firm (along with DC offices of Kirkland, Gibson, Covington, OMM), whose numbers are:

Students wanting interviews: 77
Interviews conducted: 45
Callbacks: 17
Callbacks accepted: 16
Offers: 14
Acceptances: 7

I'm not just making these up. I can tell you're sensitive about Cravath. Sorry you have to work so much.

To clarify, those are the Wilmer numbers. The other firms listed are popular it firms.

5:50, his hate comes from Sidley sucking.

Yeah, Orrick is incredibly selective out here on the West Coast.

Plus it's known to have a great working environment and now pays the best bonuses.

Overrated - MoFo...by far

I have to ask-- what is with your persistent use of the Royal We?

Great piece, Lat.

I think you should do more, though, on your last line here at the blog -- the "it doesn't fucking matter what firm you work at" point.

Cause -- does it really fucking matter? Not really, from what I can see.

I have to agree that Cravath is surprisingly NOT that selective.

They of course get good people with great grades -- but not really the law reviewers. They more get the awesome transfer students, or people on the business law review. They don't seem to get the real creme de la creme in any given class.

Sean's List of Hot Boston Firms

Perennials:

Ropes
Wilmer
Goodwin

On the Rise:

Goulston
Foley Hoag
Proskauer Rose
Mintz
MWE

On the Decline:

Nixon Peabody
Bingham
DLA Piper
EAPD
Choate
Nutter

Crap Factories:

Dechert
Sullivan & Worcester
Seyfarth Shaw
L&L Gates

Is L&L Gates the bastard step child of K&L Gates or a different firm altogether?

I have to agree with 8:34. I've noticed (among my classmates) that the ppl with the freedom to choose from any of the top firms (i.e. law reviewers or high gpa at top 10 school) usually don't choose Cravath. Cravath ends up with ppl with good grades, but not law review, and who really crave the old school prestige of Cravath no matter how dismal the experience will (knowingly) be.

8:34 - Not sure being on law review is a prereq for being the "creme de la creme". A lot of good students could give a shit about cite-checking and editing all day.

The "it" firm for law students will always be whomever is at the top of the Vault "Quality of Life" rankings. Suckas want to think they can get all the bank with as little of the work as possible.

Foley & Lardner.

Great $$ but reasonable hours for biglaw (1850 billables + Milwaukee COL)

10:14 - You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether being on Law Review makes you smarter or is an accurate predictor of success as a lawyer. What matters is perception, and for better or worse most big law firms view Law Review experience as the top credential for rising 2Ls. Non-lawyer clients don't know what people on journals do, so presumably they're content to let partners tell them that "Law Review" is a good thing. And partners think Law Review experience is great because many of them were on Law Review. And on and on. Maybe the brilliant people who didn't want to do cite-checking and editing all day should've thought about the market they'd be entering in evaluating which definition of "creme de la creme" actually matters.

How is Proskauer on the rise?

aside from the fact that they gave me a callback, why is shearman slipping?

Cravath is not selective at all. Callbacks were plentiful. The top 8-10 DC firms are WAY more selective than C.

Notes from Penn recruiting:

Worst overall: Skadden. Unfriendly recruiter and several inappropriate comments by interviewers. There was also an unseemly incident during their spring reception, so I doubt many will take their callbacks there.

The we're-so-prestigious-we-don't-give-a-shit award: That would be Wachtell. One interviewer actually counted down the time ("10 minutes left.... five minutes... ask me more").

Playing hard-to-get: Williams and Connolly. By far the most selective--even top 10% and LR weren't enough for some people.

Nicest people: Wilkie and Patterson Belknap. I agree with the NYU student: Patterson was definitely desirable. Their spring lunch was a great recruiting tool, because everyone they brought was a genuinely awesome person.

Most cancelled award(s): Dewey and LeBoeuf. Who wants to deal with THAT mess?

The I-love-to-eat-when-the-firm-pays award: Several firms scored extra points by taking recruits to dinner. They include Gibson Dunn (Morimoto/Tangerine); Weil (White Dog); Paul Weiss (Barclay Prime); Quinn Emanuel (Amada).

Lat, that article sucked. You must really be hurting for money or something, because I wouldn't expect you to be so willing to put your name to such crap. Remember that thing you used to do in law school? It was called research. Maybe you could try doing a little next time to try and make your article worth the bandwidth it's wasting.

Also, I call total BS on the little anecdote Lat used to open the article. There's just no way in hell that actually happened. It's fitting though that Lat would open his BS article with a story he simply BSed himself.

2:51 AM: What was the unseemly incident at Penn. Details please!

Really enjoyed the article! Thanks!

8:04-- It involved one particularly toolish partner's attempt to find a strip club in Philly.

Agree with all that top DC shops are far more selective and prestigious than Cravath. After if we're just talking about NYC, non litigation, Cravath is as prestigious as before. Since when is law review a true indiccator of prestige? Many of the smartest people here at CLS (that includes Jessup members, Hamilton fellows, moot court cometition winners, kent scholars - not sure about the "s") are not on Columbia Law Review. If you don't want to go to academia, clerk or do litigation, law review is bullshit work for bullshit prestige. I like how ignorant 0Ls would yell at people for being prestige whores yet consider Law Review prestigious. If you have gone to law school, you'd realize that the Law Review is filled with retards, and many smart people are simply too smart to join the dumb hype.

As for the "CLS 2L" above who said that Quinn Emanuel, Schulte, Gibson Dunn are the hot firms among CLS students and that Simpson is more selective than DPW, please stop spreading rumors. It's obvious that you hang with the bottom 25% crowd and got dinged by Simpson, but the firms you listed are TTT as they were, and Simpson is NO where near as selective as DPW or even Cravath. Nice try, though.

agree with 9:38. it's hilarious how the same 5 people who got dinged by cravath are posting multiple messages to trash its class.

"Simpson (always a hot firm, but this year it seems more selective than DPW, Cravath, or S&C, probably because of the pay raise)"

Yeah, just because it raised salary first every top 10% and LR will go there for the "pay raise" prestige. Wow, CLS students are truly TTT

Looks like somebody didn't make law review, 9:38. Time to just calm down a little bit.

Obviously, lots of people at CLS want to work at Cravath, but it's completely uninteresting to say that, because everyone with even a passing familiarity with law firms in New York would know that. But I don't know anyone who got a callback from Simpson but not Cravath, and I know a few who already have offers from Cravath but didn't get callbacks from Simpson. Purely anecdotal but interesting, given that most would say that Cravath is the more "prestigious" firm.

9:48 - "I know a few who already have offers from Cravath but didn't get callbacks from Simpson"

I know about 30-40 people who turned down Wachtell for Cravath.

In fact, they are the same people who turned down Yale law for Penn. A few of them turned down SCOTUS clerkships for New York state supreme court. I'm not making this up.

Kids, here's why prestige/perception matters. News flash: you ain't gonna make partner at Cravath, Wachtell, et al. However, when you finally figure out after a couple/few years that the gerbil on the wheel never actually runs fast enough to get anywhere, it will definitely matter when you apply to other jobs where you might actually have a career. Also the alumni networks can be very helpful: "Oh, I see you worked at S&C - so did I!" (read: you're hired)

Ummm . . . YLS 2L, what's with the Cravath hate? Makes no sense. Were you denied a callback this year and was your self-importance deflated? I've got a word of advice for you:

Being from Yale Law School does not make you God's gift to the legal profession. In fact, it really does not qualify you to be a New York lawyer at all, which is why Harvard/NYU/Columbia tend to dominate New York firms, and YLS grads run off to become professors or do appellate work in D.C. In fact, many New York firms do not focus particularly on Yale because its students have not encountered a grade in 3 years and tend to focus more on theoretical/niche classes than real world litigation/corporate classes that pay off when practicing. This is not exclusively the case, of course, it just means that the interests of YLS and the interests of NYC firms are not necessarily coextensive.

Now, you may consider some D.C. firms superior to the top New York firms, and in some areas you might well be correct. But in many ways you are comparing apples to oranges, as the type of law practiced in both cities differs vastly. But, when you venture out and offer your estimation of a firm's "prestige", such as Cravath, you are showing your own ignorance. What the Vault says, or what Lat mentions in a NY Observer article, or what word on YLS campus is, does not equate to what clients and other firms believe.

10:36 - titcr

To 9:58, 9:48 isn't making it up. I have a Cravath offer, but got zilch from Simpson...it is happening.

To 10:42, 9:58 isn't making it up. I have a Wachtell offer, but turned it down for Cravath. I am not at the end of my clerkship at the NYS Supreme Court, after turning down a clerkship with SCOTUS.

Sorry, I meant I am "now" at the end of my clerkship. The NYS Supreme Court clerkship really messed up my language skills.

"Being from Yale Law School does not make you God's gift to the legal profession."

What sort of blasphemy is this? Of course it does.

Rabinowitz, Douchawitz and Goldfarb LLP

10:36. I'm simply taking exception with Lat's claim that Cravath is an "it" firm, at least at YLS, and providing empirical evidence to support my argument. You're right, though, to sense my derision for Cravath. I just don't understand why anyone will go there to work 500 extra hours a year for the same money.
We haven't interviewed yet. And I'm not going to interview with Cravath. If I did, I might end up with self-image inextricably intertwined with my supposedly prestigious firm, such that when that prestige is challenged, I defensively regurgitate tired "YLS kids can't do real law" BS. Like they're going to teach us how to replace "Morgan Stanley" with "CSFB" for three years.

YLS 2L,

No "High Pass" for you. I actually don't work for Cravath. Rather, I work for one of the law firms that you've previously listed as "hot". Given my experience in 3+ years in New York, to suggest that working at Cravath = 500 more hours is insane. The difference in working hours between major firms in New York tends to be neglible, and you are fooling yourself and/or buying into the propaganda if you believe otherwise.

Go ahead, don't interview somewhere based on some pre-conceived notion. You'll just be hurting yourself in the long run, as what your other 2Ls are telling you/what the Vault reports is not gospel. Firms are like colleges, in a way. One will fit for you and feel right (hopefully), and it might not be the one that you had anticipated ahead of time. Moreover, you don't really have much to go on when choosing a firm even after you've interviewed, so rejecting a major firm without even doing that is just blind ignorance.

Finally, making any decision in life due to some notion of "selectivity" is plain madness.

I can't believe some of the firm names listed here. I guess there are money "it" firms, and (maybe, somewhere) there are QOL firms. I haven't seen anything suggesting any firm does both well, with the possible exception of Foley & Lardner, which actually hasn't yet decided whether it is a money firm or a QOL firm. So maybe that's a crap shoot.

If you're looking for a money "it" firm, just go as high up Vault as you can.

Although a few Vault 100 firms have joined the Project for Attorney Retention, which probably means they are making some efforts in QOL (or at least creating the illusion of it), if you're looking for QOL "it" firms, Vault 100 is not the place. Try Tucker, Ellis & West, Reno & Cavanaugh, Perkins Cole, or other mid-size firms that have either said they are QOL firms, or have been reported in the media with specifics as to why they are QOL firms.

Correction to my 2:09. Perkins Cole is in the Vault 100, so maybe it is the "it" firm.

1:01-
Remember, the intent of my original post was to respond to Lat's question, which firms are this fall's it firms? I responded that though he listed Cravath as an it firm, the numbers don't support his claim.
The 500 hours was just a ballpark estimate based on working 10 more hours a week for 52 weeks. I believe there are firms (though I never limited myself to NYC firms) who pay 160 for 55 hours, as compared with Cravath's 65.
But come on, we all based our decisions on anecdotes and preconcieved notions to some extent. Interviews are Koolaid keg parties; why not trust what the associates reported to American Lawyer about their hours? What makes you think the interview will be more reliable? Same lawyers, greater incentive to glorify the firm when they're not anonymous.
And you've incorrectly assumed I'm basing my interviews on selectivity. Merely noting greater selectivity in DC =/= wanting to work there. I don't give a rat's patoot about DC or NYC. They're both miserable hellholes where people think work is all that matters.

I interviewed with both the Boston and Hartford offices of Bingham.

The guy from the Bingham Hartford office said this pretty much verbatim

"Don't go to the Bingham Boston office. You won't get any experience."

Then I told him who I met with from the Boston office

"No offense, but she is the same year as me and couldn't negotiate her way out of a paper bag. We went to a red sox game and while i got to enjoy the game, she was beer bitch all night long."

I'm not sure if he thought this would impress me, but crapping on another branch of your own firm doesn't seem like the best recruiting tactic.

Really turned me off.

IN THE NAME OF CHRIST WHY IS SHEARMAN SLIPPING?

people start saying that they're slipping --> people start not wanting to work for them --> their attorney/work product quality goes down --> clients go elsewhere --> people start saying they're slipping