 |
||
|
|
||
| |||||||||||
History: Strength in litigation Founded in 1919, Cahill Gordon & Reindel historically was known for its litigation practice, which was built up by former U.S. Attorney John Cahill. Cahill Gordon was tapped as special litigation counsel for The New York Times in its 1973 decision to publish the Pentagon Papers. Since the early 1980s, however, the firm has emphasized corporate finance, and this specialization has fueled its growth - the firm has doubled in size to over 237 lawyers in 1988. When Wall Street went bust in the late 1980s, the firm lost two of its major clients to bankruptcy: E.F. Hutton and Drexel Burnham Lambert. (Drexel, the junk bond firm led by Michael Milken, had accounted for an estimated 25 to 30 percent of firm billings in 1988 and 1989.) But Cahill rebounded, gobbling up investment bank business as the economy improved. We're in the money You can bank on Cahill, and many of the most prestigious investment banks in New York do just that, including J.P. Morgan, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Merrill Lynch, SBC Warburg Dillon Read, Salomon Smith Barney, and Goldman Sachs. With these cash-cow clients, it's no wonder that the midsized firm is flush with funds - and getting flusher and flusher. From 1996's $130.5 million, firm revenues hit $137 million in 1997, and $148 million in 1998. The fabulous Floyd Abrams Cahill is more than just a money machine. The firm also has a high profile First Amendment practice led by the venerable Floyd Abrams. Cahill's media client list is a virtual who's who of the Fourth Estate: The New York Times, NBC, American Lawyer Media, Capital Cities/ABC, and Time Warner, to name just a few. Recent media matters the firm has handled range from representing Time magazine in libel cases brought by Scientologists to representing NBC Sports in its negotiations of television contracts for the upcoming Sydney and Salt Lake City Olympic Games. In July 1998, Abrams headed, at CNN's request, the investigation into the network's controversial story that nerve gas was used on American defectors in 1970. Cahill's report led CNN to retract the story. The same month, Abrams struck again, successfully defending client CBS against a closely watched copyright action brought by the descendants of Dr. Martin Luther King. The suit, filed in federal court in Georgia, sought to prevent CBS from reproducing 62 percent of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. The district court disagreed, finding that Dr. King had encouraged the coverage and rebroadcast of the speech, thus rendering it a "general publication," unprotected by copyright laws. The plaintiffs appealed, and in May 1999, the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on the case. Before several members of the King family sitting in the hearing room, including Coretta Scott King, Abrams insisted that "there were no limits whatsoever" on coverage, and accordingly, none on reproduction rights.
Not hung up on pedigree Cahill isn't snooty, although coming from a top school won't hurt. One insider explains: "Cahill does not hesitate to hire graduates from smaller schools, so long as they meet one essential criterion: willingness to work hard. In this industry, Cahill's is a refreshing approach - it is not steeped in snobbery which so afflicts its competitors." Another Cahill attorney even admits that "not making law review is not an impediment to getting hired." Reports one litigation associate: "Cahill hiring is somewhat random. It is based more on personality than scholastic achievement for the final cut." The situation prompts one glum associate to say: "I think our standards have dropped recently." Nevertheless, a majority of new associates at the firm come from three excellent law schools: Columbia, Harvard, and Fordham. The firm also regularly draws associates from Chicago, Georgetown, Yale, Stanford, and NYU. Show you can handle responsibility "It is hard to get a callback interview," a contact tells us, "but once you've got a callback, you have a good chance of getting a job - at that stage personality is much more important than grades." So what is Cahill looking for? Since the firm is leanly staffed, and devoid of formal structure, says one associate, "it's a good idea to show that you can handle substantial responsibility with little supervision." A recent hire agrees, saying that since "Cahill is such a strong, self-starter culture, it is important that candidate have these traits." The firm also reportedly "adores" clerkships, "especially on the litigation side."
Leave 'em alone Cahill Cahill has long been known as the "the loosey goosey firm," and that assessment still remains intact. Associates consistently describe their firm as "unstructured," "individualistic," even "very unstructured." Don't be mistaken, however - Cahill associates work hard. "It's very laid-back," says one contact in the firm's corporate department, adding: "So long as you do your work, which at times may be enough for three hardworking associates, you can basically do as you please." Another in that department agrees: "Nobody really bothers you if you are competent." A litigator describes the firm as "not so flashy" people do their own thing." Another litigator says: "At times, it's sink or swim, but more often it's live and let live." Still another associate in litigation finds some flaws with Cahill's down-to-earth, laid-back style. "It's true that Cahill is not stuffy," this contact notes, "but it's also the case that many people around the firm seem to have no clue as to how the firm runs or how certain issues could be addressed." And, says that associate: "Not being stuffy doesn't mean that associates have access [to the firm's operations]." Cahill, Sachs & Co. One associate in the firm's corporate department notes: "Cahill is a blue-collar firm. People work hard and money is the bottom line." Cahill insiders consistently emphasize the firm's business smarts. A corporate associate notes that because "we represent investment banks so much, we develop great accounting, business and marketing sense." A colleague from that department even characterizes the firm as "very much like an investment bank." The same insider, however, also evokes some of the rather unfortunate qualities of the investment business in reporting that the firm "sometimes can be a little fraternity-like." Another insider agrees, noting that the firm is "a bit on the macho side." Free market assignment system In keeping with the firm's loosey-goosey, business-smarts culture, Cahill offers its associates a free market assignment system - there is no assigning partner, and thus, "it is up to each associate to make calls to get work." Judging from our insider comments, the system offers many advantages, as well as a few disadvantages. One attorney praises how the firm's "lack of structure can enable associates to carve out a practice without being as pigeonholed as in many firms." The same contact, however, warns "it can also mean a lack of control in getting good work." Another associate raves about the "ability to shape your career." This situation is a double-edged sword, however, as one insider notes: "The lack of guidance can be daunting, especially for junior associates." This loose structure also means that switching departments is easier than at other firms. A born-again litigator reveals: "I was able to switch from corporate to litigation simply by asking a colleague to staff me on one of his cases." In fact, associates report that "there are no real departments at Cahill," and even second-year and associates refer to themselves as unassigned. However, getting into the firm's high-profile media practice is "very difficult." Says a source: "The department is desirable and people are hired to do that specifically. So it's not easy to slide sideways into that department." Perhaps the most prominent advantage of the free market system seems to be that it smoothes the relationship between partners and associates. Explains one corporate contact, "The free market staffing system imposes market discipline on the very few difficult partners." A colleague in litigation observes that having "no central assignment system allows associates to seek out work with partners they want to work for." The "seeking out" process, however, isn't unidirectional. One attorney warns that working at the firm "can be overwhelming - if you show you can handle responsibility, they really dump it on you." The legendary ugliness of Cahill's New York offices "For a large firm, it is downright embarrassing," admits one corporate associate about Cahill's headquarters. Says that contact: "I could go on for pages, but let's just say it's not good." What's so bad? For starters, "it's dirty and old." "The d?cor is awful," moans one attorney. Another adds: "The offices really are terrible. And it's not just about d?cor, but function. The library, for example, is so overcrowded that despite the wonderful staff, it at times can feel barely functional." A colleague also ponders function: "The floors don't fit that well together - stairwells and elevators are not always linked up." Pay: more than other firms, except one On the subject of pay, Cahill associates have little to complain about. Insiders frequently invoke the name of another firm to help put their own salaries in perspective. As one litigation associate reports: "The only associates I know of making more are at Wachtell." A tax attorney agrees: "To the extent Wachtell Lipton in New York sets the standard, we are probably a '9 out of 10' in pay." And in corporate? "I think that we make the most, or as much as anyone, except for Wachtell." Cahill seems to be increasingly on the ball when it comes to bonuses. It's not just the size of the bonus that matters, but also the timing - Cahill associates have in the past griped about receiving their bonuses in late February rather than in late December or early January. No longer; Cahill changed its system in 1999. "The old bonus system, where you had to wait two extra months for it, was a real sore point," explains one insider. "People seem happy with the new system - including me." The firm also wins praise from insiders for doling out the "boom-year bonuses." Another associate in the firm's corporate department glows: "The firm has aggressively attempted to meet or exceed changes in the market, and has always been among the first to give boom-year bonuses." Reports another associate about Cahill's boom-year pay: "We received a healthy bonus to increase our base last year to match the top of the market."
Joyce A. Hilly Hiring Coordinator (212) 701-3901
Legal services
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz;Sullivan & Cromwell;Davis Polk & Wardwell;Cravath, Swaine & Moore;Rogers & Wells More Company Profiles For more career information, go to Vault.com ©2000, Vault.com Inc
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
