I don’t think anyone wants to see this debate to continue anymore, especially because you’re ignoring pretty sound advice, but I think you’re getting confused.
No one is disputing that W&C aren’t competitors with all other US firms. To a degree, all City law firms compete against each other. However, if you were asked in an interview who W&C’s competitors were and your answer was “all US firms”, I can almost guarantee that interviewers would not be impressed. It shows a serious lack of critical thinking and depth, just like if you were asked who
Freshfields’ competitors were and you said “all of the MC”. It just isn’t the case when in many regards, HSF or
Hogan Lovells will be considered bigger competitors.
I’d say
Latham is probably W&C’s biggest competitor but that’s not purely because it’s a US firm, it’s because it’s clearly the firm W&C aspires to be by making its London office its biggest, rather than a satellite office like most US firms in London. It also is increasing its work in the corporate/capital markets sphere like
Latham.
Skadden is worth a mention too.
However, you wouldn’t say somewhere like
Orrick is a bigger competitor than W&C than
Clifford Chance, say, who excel in capital markets, insolvency, and other areas that W&C specialises in. If you’re focusing on energy and projects, which W&C is known for,
Norton Rose would be a far bigger competitor than
Paul Hastings for W&C.
It’s a nuanced answer. It’s fine to say a US firm, like
Latham, if you can back it up. Saying
Morgan Lewis,
Orrick, and Weil are competitors solely because they’re US firms, while ignoring a firm like
NRF, who is arguably a bigger competitor, won’t get you far.
Now let’s end this debate here. If you don’t want to take the advice, that’s your choice!
