Mulling. Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Mulling.
[quote="Desert Fox"][/quote]
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:59 pm, edited 11 times in total.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
If you like job security, run away from Bingham (it's a sinking ship).Anonymous User wrote:All NY, all transactional. Here are my most important considerations:
Got the offers this week and haven't had much time to process, so I'd love to hear any and all opinions on the firms individually or their relative merits. Thank you!
- I'm not sure exactly what kind of transactional work I want to do long term, so I don't want to pigeonhole myself into one practice area or anything.
- I want to make sure I'll be able to lateral to my home state (CO) in a few years.
- I'm very risk averse with this, so job security is probably my #1 consideration.
NOTE: Asking for a friend.
Greenberg is notorious for no-offers and being a sweatshop, especially in NY.
Don't know too much about S&K, but I would avoid Bingham and Greenberg if I could.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Heard about no-offers at Greenberg NY as well, oddly its not up on NALP yet though.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Definitely Bingham. Avoid Greenberg
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
This (especially Bingham from my intel in Boston).Anonymous User wrote:If you like job security, run away from Bingham (it's a sinking ship).Anonymous User wrote:All NY, all transactional. Here are my most important considerations:
Got the offers this week and haven't had much time to process, so I'd love to hear any and all opinions on the firms individually or their relative merits. Thank you!
- I'm not sure exactly what kind of transactional work I want to do long term, so I don't want to pigeonhole myself into one practice area or anything.
- I want to make sure I'll be able to lateral to my home state (CO) in a few years.
- I'm very risk averse with this, so job security is probably my #1 consideration.
NOTE: Asking for a friend.
Greenberg is notorious for no-offers and being a sweatshop, especially in NY.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:40 pm
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/09/17/aki ... ring-team/
(Managing) Partner(s) fleeing after a year of declining profits, and merger talks regarding two firms with lower associate:partner ratios than Bingham --> the firm is in severe trouble and the Bingham summers may get axed in the shuffle.
Regardless of practice interest, I think secure employment concerns counsel against Bingham.
(Managing) Partner(s) fleeing after a year of declining profits, and merger talks regarding two firms with lower associate:partner ratios than Bingham --> the firm is in severe trouble and the Bingham summers may get axed in the shuffle.
Regardless of practice interest, I think secure employment concerns counsel against Bingham.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.
Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.
Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Is this true? There website seems to indicate that they do some maritime, corp finance, bankruptcy and even litigation.Anonymous User wrote:OP here.
And the problem with S&K is that they pretty much only do investment management stuff, which I'm not sure I want to specialize in.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
No lateral options from GT? That's ridiculous...do you have a source other than personal anecdotes by chance?Anonymous User wrote:You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.
Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.
Disclaimer: Not OP, and do not work at GT
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
I think the first part of this post is a bit extreme and unwarranted but I would agree with the second part.Anonymous User wrote:You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.
Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.
- JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
I would say SewKis because I'd be pretty worried going to Bingham right now and I don't really know anything about GT. The biggest problem with S&K, in my limited understanding, is that they do a ton of 40 Act stuff and a ton of shipping. If you want to move back to CO, I would be a little bit concerned about having transferrable skills (I don't really know the Denver economy, but I can't imagine it's huge on shipping or IF work - may be totally off base here). FWIW, S&K has had 100% offers for a while AFAIK
- baal hadad
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:57 pm
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Seward for sure out of those for reasons people already said
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
- sundance95
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
jesus that's exactly what everyone has already said ITTAnonymous User wrote:OP here.
So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.
Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?
if you want to roll those dice, fine, but don't expect anyone here to endorse that move
- Kikero
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:28 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Have you seen this from today?Anonymous User wrote:OP here.
So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.
Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/ ... PO20140917
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Your choice, but everyone on TLS will tell you to avoid Bingham at all costs. There is a very, very high chance many summers will be no-offered compared to financially secure firms. I don't even think Bingham should be part of the discussion.Anonymous User wrote:OP here.
So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.
Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?
Then between Greenberg and Seward, it comes down to sweatshop vs. doing work you're not thrilled about. Personally, I would go with the work I'm not super interested in, and network as much as possible. You could also try to join a smaller, albeit, more interesting practice area.
I would echo the earlier post that basically said your options are...subpar.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Greenberg. You can get a pretty broad experience and they have an office in Colorado. Not sure where the sweatshop rep comes from. The no lateral options part is false, but I'd imagine the lateral options thing depends more on the group you work with at any of these firms than anything else.Anonymous User wrote:Your choice, but everyone on TLS will tell you to avoid Bingham at all costs. There is a very, very high chance many summers will be no-offered compared to financially secure firms. I don't even think Bingham should be part of the discussion.Anonymous User wrote:OP here.
So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.
Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?
Then between Greenberg and Seward, it comes down to sweatshop vs. doing work you're not thrilled about. Personally, I would go with the work I'm not super interested in, and network as much as possible. You could also try to join a smaller, albeit, more interesting practice area.
I would echo the earlier post that basically said your options are...subpar.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.
If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.
Go to one of the two other options. My god.
If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.
Go to one of the two other options. My god.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
THIS.Anonymous User wrote:Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.
If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.
Go to one of the two other options. My god.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
180Anonymous User wrote:THIS.Anonymous User wrote:Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.
If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.
Go to one of the two other options. My god.
But seriously, friends don't let friends Bingham.
/someone who had CBs at Ropes/WH/GP/Skadden Boston
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Saddest sight at our OCI this year was a returning 3L who got no-offered from Bingham after being completely gung-ho for them the past year. And he's an incredibly smart, chill dude whom I guarantee didn't fuck anything up over the summer.Anonymous User wrote:THIS.Anonymous User wrote:Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.
If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.
Go to one of the two other options. My god.
Don't go to Bingham.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
I would take Bingham and hope that they merge soon with Morgan Lewis.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
Rumor has it MLB ain't doin so hot either. Tethering one sinking ship to another won't solve much.Anonymous User wrote:I would take Bingham and hope that they merge soon with Morgan Lewis.
-
- Posts: 432536
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Seward & Kissel v. Greenberg Traurig v. Bingham McCutchen
I mean, you're not going to starve, but none of these places will give you a resume that moves the needle. I'd choose S&K because their 40 Act practice is actually very good and there are folks in flyover states (i.e. CO) that will pay for that kind of knowledge. Coming from a GT, you're just the 18th best resume that crosses a desk for any job.Anonymous User wrote:No lateral options from GT? That's ridiculous...do you have a source other than personal anecdotes by chance?Anonymous User wrote:You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.
Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.
Disclaimer: Not OP, and do not work at GT
Going to Bingham right now would be so ill-advised that it is not worth discussing.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login