Akin/Paul Weiss Restructuring Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any insight into working in one of these groups? People generally name Kirkland/Weil as the debtor shops and DPW/Milbank as the creditor shops but would be interested to hear if anyone has experience with some of the other highly regarded groups in terms of QOL and exit options.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel at PW and came over from one of the other shops you mentioned. Happy to answer more specific questions

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel at PW and came over from one of the other shops you mentioned. Happy to answer more specific questions

People are always talking about how brutal Weil/Kirkland are so I'm curious how PW compares in terms of quality of life and overall morale. What made you switch? What's your sense of exit options?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel at PW and came over from one of the other shops you mentioned. Happy to answer more specific questions

People are always talking about how brutal Weil/Kirkland are so I'm curious how PW compares in terms of quality of life and overall morale. What made you switch? What's your sense of exit options?

i've never worked at either (came over from a creditor-leaning practice) but it sounds like the lifestyle is better here, which probably affects morale. This may be obvious to you but Weil/Kirkland is brutal not simply because you are on mostly debtor matters but also because everyone else is on mostly debtors. This makes it much harder for the associates to absorb the blow since staffing can't be shuffled (everyone else also slammed) and it forces the group to become very machine-like. We regularly have debtor matters but they make up a smaller share of our practice, so even when a company engagement is blowing up it's much easier for us to redeploy resources as necessary.

I switched because PW's client base is generally less risk-averse than the clients at my old firm, which offers different opportunities. I didn't want to leave my first firm and the Basta move actually gave me some pause at the time because I was worried it would turn into another Kirkland but that hasn't been the case at all. I would say morale is pretty good here. It's a smaller group (around 40 lawyers) and we all sit on one floor so there's a good rapport among partners and associates.

On exit options, we don't really have consistent attrition. Bankruptcy is kind of a niche practice so it doesn't have the broad exit options as your standard M&A practice. Almost all of the people i've seen leave (or heard of leaving before i arrived) left to a hedge fund or PE client as a desk lawyer sitting with their credit/special situations group. I haven't seen anyone leave for another firm yet but that's probably what I'll do if i decide to leave. The hybrid roles at funds have never interested me.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel at PW and came over from one of the other shops you mentioned. Happy to answer more specific questions

People are always talking about how brutal Weil/Kirkland are so I'm curious how PW compares in terms of quality of life and overall morale. What made you switch? What's your sense of exit options?

i've never worked at either (came over from a creditor-leaning practice) but it sounds like the lifestyle is better here, which probably affects morale. This may be obvious to you but Weil/Kirkland is brutal not simply because you are on mostly debtor matters but also because everyone else is on mostly debtors. This makes it much harder for the associates to absorb the blow since staffing can't be shuffled (everyone else also slammed) and it forces the group to become very machine-like. We regularly have debtor matters but they make up a smaller share of our practice, so even when a company engagement is blowing up it's much easier for us to redeploy resources as necessary.

I switched because PW's client base is generally less risk-averse than the clients at my old firm, which offers different opportunities. I didn't want to leave my first firm and the Basta move actually gave me some pause at the time because I was worried it would turn into another Kirkland but that hasn't been the case at all. I would say morale is pretty good here. It's a smaller group (around 40 lawyers) and we all sit on one floor so there's a good rapport among partners and associates.

On exit options, we don't really have consistent attrition. Bankruptcy is kind of a niche practice so it doesn't have the broad exit options as your standard M&A practice. Almost all of the people i've seen leave (or heard of leaving before i arrived) left to a hedge fund or PE client as a desk lawyer sitting with their credit/special situations group. I haven't seen anyone leave for another firm yet but that's probably what I'll do if i decide to leave. The hybrid roles at funds have never interested me.

Super helpful, thanks. Maybe this is a bit naive, but what do you mean by less risk-averse?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel at PW and came over from one of the other shops you mentioned. Happy to answer more specific questions

People are always talking about how brutal Weil/Kirkland are so I'm curious how PW compares in terms of quality of life and overall morale. What made you switch? What's your sense of exit options?

i've never worked at either (came over from a creditor-leaning practice) but it sounds like the lifestyle is better here, which probably affects morale. This may be obvious to you but Weil/Kirkland is brutal not simply because you are on mostly debtor matters but also because everyone else is on mostly debtors. This makes it much harder for the associates to absorb the blow since staffing can't be shuffled (everyone else also slammed) and it forces the group to become very machine-like. We regularly have debtor matters but they make up a smaller share of our practice, so even when a company engagement is blowing up it's much easier for us to redeploy resources as necessary.

I switched because PW's client base is generally less risk-averse than the clients at my old firm, which offers different opportunities. I didn't want to leave my first firm and the Basta move actually gave me some pause at the time because I was worried it would turn into another Kirkland but that hasn't been the case at all. I would say morale is pretty good here. It's a smaller group (around 40 lawyers) and we all sit on one floor so there's a good rapport among partners and associates.

On exit options, we don't really have consistent attrition. Bankruptcy is kind of a niche practice so it doesn't have the broad exit options as your standard M&A practice. Almost all of the people i've seen leave (or heard of leaving before i arrived) left to a hedge fund or PE client as a desk lawyer sitting with their credit/special situations group. I haven't seen anyone leave for another firm yet but that's probably what I'll do if i decide to leave. The hybrid roles at funds have never interested me.

Super helpful, thanks. Maybe this is a bit naive, but what do you mean by less risk-averse?

Not naive at all. Sorry, should have gone into more detail. In general my experience at Paul Weiss has been that both the firm and its traditional restructuring clients (e.g., credit/special situation arms of PE firms, vulture funds, the PE sponsors that own the distressed portfolio company, etc..) don't shy away from litigation. My guess it's partly because PW is historically litigation oriented but mainly b/c the clients themselves are inherently more opportunistic (i.e., need to generate above-average returns for investors so they're more comfortable with taking more risk). That doesn't mean that they're eager for litigation or careless with their moves/tactics. But the threat of litigation isn't enough to change their posture. If they think calling a default and accelerating is a good strategic move, then they don't shy away from that. This opens up a much wider range of issues because a broader array of bankruptcy/finance/litigation maneuvers are now on the table.

My old firm had some of these clients but it's historically been (and will always be) a bank firm. Bank lenders are much more cautious (i.e., don't need to generate huge returns) and the threat of litigation is enough to deter them from taking certain actions, regardless of whether they're likely to win or lose. That limited my opportunities as an associate because we were always operating in a narrow lane because our clients refused to venture further out into the field. Also, our litigation capabilities at my old firm were more limited. Many of the partners had never tried a case as they had spent most of their career negotiating settlements and/or never ventured further than motion to dismiss/summary judgment. So the firm itself (in my opinion) was geared to advise already-conservative clients away from litigation. That's not the case here. Our litigators are always trial-ready and wouldn't shy away from it.

I'm not sure if there's a similar dynamic for debtor practices, but the further "out of the money" your creditor clients are, the more aggressive they have to be (and by extension, the law firm) to maximize their recovery (or recover anything at all). For example, Akin and Milbank generally represent either junior/unsecured bondholders or unsecured creditors committees, which affects your experience as an associate (more likely to be drafting objections and researching preference/fraudulent transfer as opposed to drafting forbearance agreements and credit amendments).

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel at PW and came over from one of the other shops you mentioned. Happy to answer more specific questions

People are always talking about how brutal Weil/Kirkland are so I'm curious how PW compares in terms of quality of life and overall morale. What made you switch? What's your sense of exit options?

i've never worked at either (came over from a creditor-leaning practice) but it sounds like the lifestyle is better here, which probably affects morale. This may be obvious to you but Weil/Kirkland is brutal not simply because you are on mostly debtor matters but also because everyone else is on mostly debtors. This makes it much harder for the associates to absorb the blow since staffing can't be shuffled (everyone else also slammed) and it forces the group to become very machine-like. We regularly have debtor matters but they make up a smaller share of our practice, so even when a company engagement is blowing up it's much easier for us to redeploy resources as necessary.

I switched because PW's client base is generally less risk-averse than the clients at my old firm, which offers different opportunities. I didn't want to leave my first firm and the Basta move actually gave me some pause at the time because I was worried it would turn into another Kirkland but that hasn't been the case at all. I would say morale is pretty good here. It's a smaller group (around 40 lawyers) and we all sit on one floor so there's a good rapport among partners and associates.

On exit options, we don't really have consistent attrition. Bankruptcy is kind of a niche practice so it doesn't have the broad exit options as your standard M&A practice. Almost all of the people i've seen leave (or heard of leaving before i arrived) left to a hedge fund or PE client as a desk lawyer sitting with their credit/special situations group. I haven't seen anyone leave for another firm yet but that's probably what I'll do if i decide to leave. The hybrid roles at funds have never interested me.

Super helpful, thanks. Maybe this is a bit naive, but what do you mean by less risk-averse?

Not naive at all. Sorry, should have gone into more detail. In general my experience at Paul Weiss has been that both the firm and its traditional restructuring clients (e.g., credit/special situation arms of PE firms, vulture funds, the PE sponsors that own the distressed portfolio company, etc..) don't shy away from litigation. My guess it's partly because PW is historically litigation oriented but mainly b/c the clients themselves are inherently more opportunistic (i.e., need to generate above-average returns for investors so they're more comfortable with taking more risk). That doesn't mean that they're eager for litigation or careless with their moves/tactics. But the threat of litigation isn't enough to change their posture. If they think calling a default and accelerating is a good strategic move, then they don't shy away from that. This opens up a much wider range of issues because a broader array of bankruptcy/finance/litigation maneuvers are now on the table.

My old firm had some of these clients but it's historically been (and will always be) a bank firm. Bank lenders are much more cautious (i.e., don't need to generate huge returns) and the threat of litigation is enough to deter them from taking certain actions, regardless of whether they're likely to win or lose. That limited my opportunities as an associate because we were always operating in a narrow lane because our clients refused to venture further out into the field. Also, our litigation capabilities at my old firm were more limited. Many of the partners had never tried a case as they had spent most of their career negotiating settlements and/or never ventured further than motion to dismiss/summary judgment. So the firm itself (in my opinion) was geared to advise already-conservative clients away from litigation. That's not the case here. Our litigators are always trial-ready and wouldn't shy away from it.

I'm not sure if there's a similar dynamic for debtor practices, but the further "out of the money" your creditor clients are, the more aggressive they have to be (and by extension, the law firm) to maximize their recovery (or recover anything at all). For example, Akin and Milbank generally represent either junior/unsecured bondholders or unsecured creditors committees, which affects your experience as an associate (more likely to be drafting objections and researching preference/fraudulent transfer as opposed to drafting forbearance agreements and credit amendments).

From your experiences at two firms, when there is litigation related restructuring work, was is usually handled by restructuring group or litigation group? How was the task divided?

Besides, do you mind sharing more about your transfer experience? How many years did you work in the previous firm? Was is hard to transfer from a restructuring place with very limited litigation work to a place with more litigation opportunities?

[Anonymous User]

I’m in restructuring at Weil/Kirkland and everyone here always shit talks akin as the worst restructuring group to have to deal with.

For what it’s worth I personally have only had to deal with them on one case and they sucked equally as much as all the other restructuring groups involved in that case

[Anonymous User]

Also at Weil/Kirkland and I would say the post above isn't a great reason to choose a firm. I agree, there are definitely firms I'm less thrilled to work with. But I know there are firms that are less thrilled to work with us. I think that kind of thing has little to do with where you work (people often act very different internally than externally, plus its an adversarial process so it's not like you are necessary seeing the best of someone).

Not at Akin/PW, so I will try to limit my input here. But, they both definitely do good work, complex work. Both have a lot of hedge fund clients, and do some company work as well. Fund clients aren't usually the type of people that want to see the world burn, but they can get pretty aggressive depending on their relative position in the financial structure and deal (as previous poster alluded to). Little idea what the work life/balance is like, but my limited experience doing hedge fund work is the clients can be very demanding, much more demanding than the CFO/GC of a bankrupt company.

[Anonymous User]

From your experiences at two firms, when there is litigation related restructuring work, was is usually handled by restructuring group or litigation group? How was the task divided?

Besides, do you mind sharing more about your transfer experience? How many years did you work in the previous firm? Was is hard to transfer from a restructuring place with very limited litigation work to a place with more litigation opportunities?

It depends on the situation but both firms draw a bright line once evidentiary issues come into play. Litigation will always handle discovery, depositions, cross-examinations, and weigh in on anything else that touches on building the record like declarations/affidavits. The bankruptcy team will inevitably be more familiar with the facts so we remain involved, but litigation executes. Our litigation team is more trial-ready but also busy with their own matters. So we will still draft the motions and briefs and do our own legal research. The bankruptcy group at my old firm historically grew out of its finance practice, so we were more familiar with covenant analysis, collateral issues, credit docs and indentures and litigation shouldered more of the motion/brief/research aspects.

Sorry but not willing to share the timeline because it'll out me but suffice to say that i've spent roughly half of my career at both firms by this point. Lateraling to Paul Weiss has been notably pleasant compared to what i imagine the lateral experience was like at my old firm. PW (especially its non-litigation groups) is always adding lateral associates so the firm as a whole is well-practiced with integrating us and is very welcoming. My old firm is among the handful of firms that prides itself on only hiring laterals sparingly, if at all. So working presumption towards laterals was that they were brought in to ease the hours and not on partner track. Also generally excluded from summer recruiting.

There has been a certain adjustment with going from a finance-leaning practice to a more litigation-leaning one. But it cuts both ways given that i'm more comfortable around finance documents/issues than the homegrown associates, so that can ease the misery when staffed on out-of-court matters.

Also at Weil/Kirkland and I would say the post above isn't a great reason to choose a firm. I agree, there are definitely firms I'm less thrilled to work with. But I know there are firms that are less thrilled to work with us. I think that kind of thing has little to do with where you work (people often act very different internally than externally, plus its an adversarial process so it's not like you are necessary seeing the best of someone).

I love working with Weil/Kirkland. I've never had any issues with their associates, always managed to develop a good rapport with them. One thing people forget is that the debtor needs to run the show (it is chaos when they can't). Sure sometimes their team can be unpleasant, but they need to be able to tell other stakeholders to fuck off and that this is how it's going to be. Sometimes we're on the receiving end of that but that's the trade off. Also, it works to our advantage because our usual cast of clients usually end up aligned with the debtors once a deal is struck. So it helps to have debtor counsel that can go bust the requisite heads. At the end of the day it's always better to have debtor counsel that can control the process and keep things moving. Never had any complaints with either Weil/Kirkland on that.

Not at Akin/PW, so I will try to limit my input here. But, they both definitely do good work, complex work. Both have a lot of hedge fund clients, and do some company work as well. Fund clients aren't usually the type of people that want to see the world burn, but they can get pretty aggressive depending on their relative position in the financial structure and deal (as previous poster alluded to). Little idea what the work life/balance is like, but my limited experience doing hedge fund work is the clients can be very demanding, much more demanding than the CFO/GC of a bankrupt company.

Agree that our clients can be more demanding but that doesn't necessarily mean more work for us, especially for repeat clients since we can anticipate their needs/preferences. I think it actually makes life harder for debtor counsel because all roads, demands, requests, disputes ultimately flow back to the company.

[Anonymous User]

From your experiences at two firms, when there is litigation related restructuring work, was is usually handled by restructuring group or litigation group? How was the task divided?

Besides, do you mind sharing more about your transfer experience? How many years did you work in the previous firm? Was is hard to transfer from a restructuring place with very limited litigation work to a place with more litigation opportunities?

It depends on the situation but both firms draw a bright line once evidentiary issues come into play. Litigation will always handle discovery, depositions, cross-examinations, and weigh in on anything else that touches on building the record like declarations/affidavits. The bankruptcy team will inevitably be more familiar with the facts so we remain involved, but litigation executes. Our litigation team is more trial-ready but also busy with their own matters. So we will still draft the motions and briefs and do our own legal research. The bankruptcy group at my old firm historically grew out of its finance practice, so we were more familiar with covenant analysis, collateral issues, credit docs and indentures and litigation shouldered more of the motion/brief/research aspects.

Sorry but not willing to share the timeline because it'll out me but suffice to say that i've spent roughly half of my career at both firms by this point. Lateraling to Paul Weiss has been notably pleasant compared to what i imagine the lateral experience was like at my old firm. PW (especially its non-litigation groups) is always adding lateral associates so the firm as a whole is well-practiced with integrating us and is very welcoming. My old firm is among the handful of firms that prides itself on only hiring laterals sparingly, if at all. So working presumption towards laterals was that they were brought in to ease the hours and not on partner track. Also generally excluded from summer recruiting.

There has been a certain adjustment with going from a finance-leaning practice to a more litigation-leaning one. But it cuts both ways given that i'm more comfortable around finance documents/issues than the homegrown associates, so that can ease the misery when staffed on out-of-court matters.

Also at Weil/Kirkland and I would say the post above isn't a great reason to choose a firm. I agree, there are definitely firms I'm less thrilled to work with. But I know there are firms that are less thrilled to work with us. I think that kind of thing has little to do with where you work (people often act very different internally than externally, plus its an adversarial process so it's not like you are necessary seeing the best of someone).

I love working with Weil/Kirkland. I've never had any issues with their associates, always managed to develop a good rapport with them. One thing people forget is that the debtor needs to run the show (it is chaos when they can't). Sure sometimes their team can be unpleasant, but they need to be able to tell other stakeholders to fuck off and that this is how it's going to be. Sometimes we're on the receiving end of that but that's the trade off. Also, it works to our advantage because our usual cast of clients usually end up aligned with the debtors once a deal is struck. So it helps to have debtor counsel that can go bust the requisite heads. At the end of the day it's always better to have debtor counsel that can control the process and keep things moving. Never had any complaints with either Weil/Kirkland on that.

Not at Akin/PW, so I will try to limit my input here. But, they both definitely do good work, complex work. Both have a lot of hedge fund clients, and do some company work as well. Fund clients aren't usually the type of people that want to see the world burn, but they can get pretty aggressive depending on their relative position in the financial structure and deal (as previous poster alluded to). Little idea what the work life/balance is like, but my limited experience doing hedge fund work is the clients can be very demanding, much more demanding than the CFO/GC of a bankrupt company.

Agree that our clients can be more demanding but that doesn't necessarily mean more work for us, especially for repeat clients since we can anticipate their needs/preferences. I think it actually makes life harder for debtor counsel because all roads, demands, requests, disputes ultimately flow back to the company.

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. Regarding the line between litigation and restructuring, does the litigation team present more in bankruptcy court then?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. Regarding the line between litigation and restructuring, does the litigation team present more in bankruptcy court then?

Not in terms of frequency. Most bankruptcy matters don't rise to the level of full blown litigation, so bk lawyers will handle the bulk of court appearances.

ETA: How this normally goes is that warring sides will file objections, replies, briefs, maybe initiate adversary proceedings. All that stuff is handled by bankruptcy lawyers. Ofc the litigators will start to get up to speed in case the dispute moves forward but these things usually settled, at which point everyone puts their guns down.

[Anonymous User]

Any insight into which (if any) restructuring groups are more transactional advisory in nature? I am gunning for the hybrid type fund job and would appreciate any guidance on how to best position for that type of role.

[Anonymous User]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

[Anonymous User]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

[Anonymous User]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

What are some other firms with solid relationships with funds?

[Anonymous User]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

What are some other firms with solid relationships with funds?

others can correct me but PW, Akin, Proskauer, STB although STB isn't a huge player in bankruptcy. Willkie also comes to mind.

[jkpolk]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

What are some other firms with solid relationships with funds?

others can correct me but PW, Akin, Proskauer, STB although STB isn't a huge player in bankruptcy. Willkie also comes to mind.

PW/Akin/Willkie sounds right to me - I'd note that most of major players (i.e. v10/similar) will have fund clients and the transactional advisory/deep relationship dichotomy is overstated above (as there will be specific partners at v10/similar who JUST service distressed-focused PE). PW/Akin/Willkie might use it as a marketing line but basically that line exists so that those firms can keep a seat at the table, not because it's really a difference in kind.

[alclaw10]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

What are some other firms with solid relationships with funds?

others can correct me but PW, Akin, Proskauer, STB although STB isn't a huge player in bankruptcy. Willkie also comes to mind.

PW/Akin/Willkie sounds right to me - I'd note that most of major players (i.e. v10/similar) will have fund clients and the transactional advisory/deep relationship dichotomy is overstated above (as there will be specific partners at v10/similar who JUST service distressed-focused PE). PW/Akin/Willkie might use it as a marketing line but basically that line exists so that those firms can keep a seat at the table, not because it's really a difference in kind.

What about some of the other V10-15s with smaller restructuring groups (I.e., Gibson, Latham, Debevoise, Jones day)?

[jkpolk]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

What are some other firms with solid relationships with funds?

others can correct me but PW, Akin, Proskauer, STB although STB isn't a huge player in bankruptcy. Willkie also comes to mind.

PW/Akin/Willkie sounds right to me - I'd note that most of major players (i.e. v10/similar) will have fund clients and the transactional advisory/deep relationship dichotomy is overstated above (as there will be specific partners at v10/similar who JUST service distressed-focused PE). PW/Akin/Willkie might use it as a marketing line but basically that line exists so that those firms can keep a seat at the table, not because it's really a difference in kind.

What about some of the other V10-15s with smaller restructuring groups (I.e., Gibson, Latham, Debevoise, Jones day)?

Not familiar tbh

[Anonymous User]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

What are some other firms with solid relationships with funds?

others can correct me but PW, Akin, Proskauer, STB although STB isn't a huge player in bankruptcy. Willkie also comes to mind.

PW/Akin/Willkie sounds right to me - I'd note that most of major players (i.e. v10/similar) will have fund clients and the transactional advisory/deep relationship dichotomy is overstated above (as there will be specific partners at v10/similar who JUST service distressed-focused PE). PW/Akin/Willkie might use it as a marketing line but basically that line exists so that those firms can keep a seat at the table, not because it's really a difference in kind.

What about some of the other V10-15s with smaller restructuring groups (I.e., Gibson, Latham, Debevoise, Jones day)?

Gibson - Mostly creditor side with some occasional MM debtor side representations, solid amount of fund reps.

Latham - Making a serious push in the restructuring space and have picked up a bunch of large debtor side mandates recently. Think these guys will be the #3 behind KE / Weil soon since Skadden fell off the planet. Interesting group right now and also a non-KE option in Chicago and a real option in LA if that’s important to you.

Debevoise - Don’t know anything / never see them.

Jones Day - Large group, decent number of ad hoc group representations. Not a big fan of these guys.

[Anonymous User]

Latham - Making a serious push in the restructuring space and have picked up a bunch of large debtor side mandates recently. Think these guys will be the #3 behind KE / Weil soon since Skadden fell off the planet. Interesting group right now and also a non-KE option in Chicago and a real option in LA if that’s important to you.

Agree they're trying. Their ability to manage/drive process has been rather uneven in my experience but hopefully they improve as they get more practice. Interestingly most of the little activity i've seen from Skadden has been out of their Chicago office.

Debevoise - Don’t know anything / never see them.

Jones Day - Large group, decent number of ad hoc group representations. Not a big fan of these guys.

Co-signed

[Anonymous User]

Any group that grew out of a finance group will be more transactional advisory (WLRK, Cravath, probably other white shoe firms that represent primarily banks).

That said, I really don't think you should go into restructuring because you want that type of job. They exist, but doesn't like the best bet to stake your career on an unlikely outcome.

Don’t go to Cravath or DPW or S&C or any other bank firm. Go to a firm that has a deep relationship with funds. I’m the PW poster from earlier.

What are some other firms with solid relationships with funds?

others can correct me but PW, Akin, Proskauer, STB although STB isn't a huge player in bankruptcy. Willkie also comes to mind.

PW/Akin/Willkie sounds right to me - I'd note that most of major players (i.e. v10/similar) will have fund clients and the transactional advisory/deep relationship dichotomy is overstated above (as there will be specific partners at v10/similar who JUST service distressed-focused PE). PW/Akin/Willkie might use it as a marketing line but basically that line exists so that those firms can keep a seat at the table, not because it's really a difference in kind.

What about some of the other V10-15s with smaller restructuring groups (I.e., Gibson, Latham, Debevoise, Jones day)?

Gibson - Mostly creditor side with some occasional MM debtor side representations, solid amount of fund reps.

Latham - Making a serious push in the restructuring space and have picked up a bunch of large debtor side mandates recently. Think these guys will be the #3 behind KE / Weil soon since Skadden fell off the planet. Interesting group right now and also a non-KE option in Chicago and a real option in LA if that’s important to you.

Debevoise - Don’t know anything / never see them.

Jones Day - Large group, decent number of ad hoc group representations. Not a big fan of these guys.

Where does White & Case fit in?

[Anonymous User]

W&C is usually creditor side, frequently representing terrorists or otherwise acting like one, and generally disliked.

Also, to the above poster re: Skadden, my experience has also been exclusively with their Chicago office. Never worked with their NYC office, actually.