Lawyerly Lairs: Back in the Big Apple
We’ve been so focused on nationwide associate pay raises that we’ve been neglecting New York City — where lawyers have always earned top dollar. And where they enjoy real estate spoils reflecting their high compensation, which we regularly profile for Lawyerly Lairs.
One of our favorite sources of real estate porn in the deliciously gossipy New York Observer. Here are a few recent “Manhattan Transfers” items, all of which involve lawyers:
1. Crusading Lawyer Inks Sweet $2.4 M. Deal for Harlem Townhouse
The Erin Brockovich of big-sugar class-action lawsuits has bought a stately 108-year-old townhouse on West 137th Street (at right), a leafy block near Harlem’s Strivers Row.Lawyer Edward Tuddenham and his wife, Sarah Cleveland, a University of Texas law professor, paid $2.4 million for the five-level townhouse.
Moral of the story: If you’re a law professor with dreams of a million-dollar home, you need to marry well. Or be Feldsuk.
In addition to having a million-dollar home, Professor Cleveland is also highly attractive, a former Rhodes Scholar, and a former Supreme Court clerk (for Justice Blackmun). Could a life be any more charmed? (Although that Manhattan-Austin commute is probably a real pain…)
Update: Per this comment, and as confirmed by this press release, Professor Cleveland — who is “a fantastic teacher,” we’re told — has been snapped up by Columbia. Very nice.
2. Saint David’s Buys Headmaster Two Philip Johnson Condos for $2.99 M
The Saint David’s School, an all-boys prep school, just purchased two adjacent condos for a total of almost $3 million. These apartments will be the home of their headmaster. Who says schoolteachers can’t live well?
One of the principals in this deal is a lawyer: Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Xavier Dieux is selling one of the two units. Presumably Mr. Dieux is trading up; he was probably living below his means in his condo at the Metropolitan.
This item, reporting on Davis Polk & Wardwell’s 650,000-square-foot renewal at 450 Lexington Avenue, concerns commercial rather than residential real estate. So it may lie slightly beyond the jurisdiction of Lawyerly Lairs.
But it is interesting to see how Davis Polk is perceived by the outside world. The Observer refers to DPW as “cultivat[ing] its reputation as the Cravath, Swaine & Moore for happy people.”
Is that view of DPW accurate? Feel free to debate in the comments.
(33) 
Comments
I'd like to see pictures of Sandman's lair.
To be fair, I've never worked for Cravath or DPW. I do know that a senior associate at my previous firm who was joining us from DPW spent her first six months adjusting to the new firm environment where - horror - junior associates could actually ask senior associates questions! Such a thing would never, ever happen at Davis Polk, she assured us.
Then again, it's entirely possible that she was politely shown the door at DPW (how would we know?) for such a personality.
Sarah Cleveland has accepted an offer at Columbia, I think. So not that bad of a commute. And - just to make her more delicious, I have heard that they're doing a movie on the work that she and her husband did on labor rights in the sugar industry
Actually, Professor Cleveland hasn't taught at Texas for several years. She's been visiting at Columbia, and will likely take a permanent spot there. So it's not a commute at all. Rather charmed life, indeed.
It is officially a slow news day.
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who [heard you can't ask senior associates questions at DPW]. I guess it's pretty serious.
Thank you [Chris].
Is S&C the only law firm that actually owns the building they are in? They must save a bundle on rent since they bought the building back in the 70's. That must really help to jack up their PPP.
3:33, that is a terrific observation. With Manhattan commercial real estate rental rates running over $100/sq. ft., S & C's owning its own building must translate into many tens of millions of dollars in savings per year in rent.
That helps to pad PPP by a few hundred thousand dollars per lawyer. Not bad.
I work at DPW and have worked at other large New York firms.
DPW's image as place where people are well adjusted (not just "well adjusted for lawyers"; no grading on a curve here) and actually nice to one another is well justified.
It's also a welcome relief.
Does S&C own the whole building or do they just own their floors?
cleveland i don't think meant to marry rich, she worked in FL at legal aid and probably worked together with him there doing the sugar cane litigation, as per her UT law profile. The moral: legal aid lawyers can end up rich too.
Am I getting this correct? Really, S&C has way lower PPP then some other firms and it's artificially jacked up by the rent they save. (And if they own the whole building it's being jacked up even further by the rents they collect!)
What's artificial about that? How stupid.
S&C owns the whole building. They rent out most (majority?) of the floors.
This is way to funny for me! You can lower S&C's ppp by a couple of hundred grand.
This is way to funny for me! You can lower S&C's ppp by a couple of hundred grand. Lat, I think this issue deserves its own posting
It's Cravath that owns its own building people. Get with the program.
No, you get with the program. S&C owns its building, renting out the first 20 or so floors, with a couple of other tenants occupying portions of the top 3 floors.
Hey 4:52, I'm not following your logic. Because Cravath owns their building S&C can't own theirs?? I Know that S&C owns the whole building 'cause they remind us associates of it every so often. That's how proud of it they are!
Cravath doesn't own its own building. It was owned by Equity Office before the Blackstone deal. Now someone else owns it. You are thinking of Cahill, which owns its own building and, like S&C, bought it on the cheap many years ago.
Now some of you number guys,get together and crunch it. How much is S&C's PPP after you take off the amount made (from rent) and saved (lack of rent) from the building itself?
S&C doesn't charge the ACLU any rent for the floors it rents (17, 18 and 19) so it can get some serious 1st amendment legal ammunition on the free speech angle when S&C partners need to tell S&C associates to bend over cuz they should like that.
Maybe the PPP at S&C is much higher then reported and the income from the building is not included.
For those that rent, they get tax savings each year DUH.
Davis Polk may be "the Cravath, Swaine & Moore for happy people." But (at least for the moment) it's also the Cravath, Swaine & Moore for two-year clerks who don't mind leaving $20,000 on the table.
S&C bought 125 Broad after Manhattan real estate crashed in the late 80's/early 90s. Probably around 1990-91 I think.
125 Broad is a condo and S&C only owns their specific condo units (consisting of their floors plus a little more) - they do not own the whole building.
hey anon 7:02. I hate to give away that I'm a tax associate (and thus only bill 1800 a year-Ha Ha) but the firm itself pays no income taxes you dick!
10:08, I believe S&C owns a majority of 125 Broad though.
Is Davis "Cravath for happy people"? Or is it "Cravath for passive-aggressive people"?
Are people at Davis really "happier"? Or do they just smile more as they go about the same business as everyone else?
Do people treat each other better at DPW? Or do they just act nicer to each others' faces, but then talk about each other behind their backs?
I interviewed at Davis and S&C and although I know that an interview does not reveal anything. Two of the partners I met at Davis seemd to be first class jerks. (The 3rd partner I met seemd to be a great guy!) Compare that to S&C where I didnt meet any partners that came across as genuinly nice people, but neither were they jerky either
Yeesh, anon 12:56, your musings about Davis Polk happiness sound like a line from Frank Zappa's classic "Billy the Mountain."
"You can never really tell about a guy like that ... whether he's really a nice person or if he just smiles a lot ... or if he has a son named Pinocchio or what...."
If I thought it would make you happy, I'd review a Davis Polk face book to confirm whether anyone has a son named Pinocchio.
(Ooops, that wasn't passive agressive, was it? Sorry, didn't mean to be. My bad. Won't happen again. Sorry.)
But beyond counting sons named Pinocchio, it's all subjective.
Yeesh, anon 12:56, your musings about Davis Polk happiness sound like a line from Frank Zappa's classic "Billy the Mountain."
"You can never really tell about a guy like that ... whether he's really a nice person or if he just smiles a lot ... or if he has a son named Pinocchio or what...."
If I thought it would make you happy, I'd review a Davis Polk face book to confirm whether anyone has a son named Pinocchio.
(Ooops, that wasn't passive agressive, was it? Sorry, didn't mean to be. My bad. Won't happen again. Sorry.)
But beyond counting sons named Pinocchio, it's all subjective.