Stuffy Firms

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
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.
User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Attorney » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:36 pm

HamDel wrote:I'm working at a very highly regarded transactional boutique in New York this summer and I'm starting to regret my choice. My firm requires that all male lawyers wear a suit every day... BLAH BLAH BLAH WHITE PERSON COMPLAINT BLAH BLAH PETTY COMPLAINT BLAH

This is horrible!! Saddest story I've heard all day. Seriously. I'm not even joking. Tragic.
:|

PS - Who knew that attorneys would have to dress nicely? Things they don't tell you in law school...
Last edited by Attorney on Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Stanford4Me » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:39 pm

Attorney wrote:
HamDel wrote:I'm working at a very highly regarded transactional boutique in New York this summer and I'm starting to regret my choice. My firm requires that all male lawyers wear a suit every day

This is horrible!! Saddest story I've heard all day. Seriously. I'm not even joking. Tragic.
:|

PS - Who knew that attorneys would have to dress nicely? Things they don't tell you in law school...

The firm I'm working at this summer is business casual. Good job reading the entire OP. Since your comprehension abilities seem to be rather low, I'll clarify "business casual" by saying that I was explicitly told not to wear a suit to work. HTH.

User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Attorney » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:41 pm

Stanford4Me wrote:
Attorney wrote:
HamDel wrote:I'm working at a very highly regarded transactional boutique in New York this summer and I'm starting to regret my choice. My firm requires that all male lawyers wear a suit every day

This is horrible!! Saddest story I've heard all day. Seriously. I'm not even joking. Tragic.
:|

PS - Who knew that attorneys would have to dress nicely? Things they don't tell you in law school...

The firm I'm working at this summer is business casual. Good job reading the entire OP. Since your comprehension abilities seem to be rather low, I'll clarify "business casual" by saying that I was explicitly told not to wear a suit to work. HTH.

It's unclear to me which part of the OP you think I must not have read. Great job landing that dream "business casual" gig though. I have a cookie around here somewhere, just to give you! For all the important work that you must do.

(What I'm saying here is that if you ever want to do important law work, you'll eventually have to interact with clients. The sooner you get used to pwning a suit, the better. This ain't Google, and you're not going to do anything important in casualwear. Sorry!)
Last edited by Attorney on Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Stanford4Me » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:45 pm

Attorney wrote:It's unclear to me which part of the OP you think I must not have read. Great job landing that dream "business casual" gig though. I have a cookie around here somewhere, just to give you! For all the important work that you must do.


HamDel wrote:My firm requires that all male lawyers wear a suit every day, and I hate having to follow such a strict dress code.
...I had options that weren't quite as "prestigious" but would have allowed me to wear business casual every day and offered a less formal atmosphere in general (read: fewer dark western paintings and brown leather couches around).


Also, I never said I do important work, I'm a lowly 1L. I don't want your cookies either, the're probably pretty disgusting.

User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Attorney » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:46 pm

Stanford4Me wrote:I don't want your cookies either, the're probably pretty disgusting.

On that we can agree! I never offer my best cookies to others.. it would have been one that had pocket lint as a topping.

User avatar
Royal
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:52 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Royal » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:53 pm

Because lawyers and law students have an obsession with perceived prestige. This probably stems from the most common personality type attracted to law school: Strong type A personality, somewhat insecure and socially awkward, risk averse.

Granted, the more "prestigious" firms may present associates with better exit options, including AUSA, etc. Still, I'd rather be a successful solo or small firm partner enjoying my work and my work environment than an associate or partner at a "prestigious" firm. Not that either is a readily attainable option. I don't care if the 1% of the population that knows what a "Vault 10" firm even is thinks I'm not "prestigious."

User avatar
dood
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby dood » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:07 pm

Magnificent wrote:
are you trying to console yourself after getting turned down by Cravath?

dude please......prestige in the legal field is HUGE....its pretty much everything

and if you think the same doors are opened going to Jones Day as opposed to Cravath then your delusional


u are delusional. please tell me what extra doors cravath presents vs. JD. tell me of these HUGE differences.

rose711
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:57 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby rose711 » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:35 pm

Does anyone consider that the reason this particular firm enforces its "stuffy" rules is because it assumes that is what the clients want? If your clients aren't going business casual, then the firm won't be either. If the clients are going business casual, then the firm might choose to stay conservative just to be sure the clients and the opposition are impressed?

I think most top firm partners would wear pajamas to work every day, and require associates to wear pajamas as a dress code, if that is what they thought would keep the clients happy and paying their bills.

User avatar
crazycanuck
Posts: 3041
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby crazycanuck » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:28 am

rose711 wrote:Does anyone consider that the reason this particular firm enforces its "stuffy" rules is because it assumes that is what the clients want? If your clients aren't going business casual, then the firm won't be either. If the clients are going business casual, then the firm might choose to stay conservative just to be sure the clients and the opposition are impressed?

I think most top firm partners would wear pajamas to work every day, and require associates to wear pajamas as a dress code, if that is what they thought would keep the clients happy and paying their bills.


Bingo, I work at a professional services firm and when I go out the clients I dress to what their code is, and when I have meetings with them at my office I wear what they would wear. OP stated that they have a lot of work from the big banks/funds etc. Typically they tend to wear suits every day and would expect their lawyers to do the same.

I remember once I went to a clients on friday wearing jeans and got screamed at by the stressed out CFO for wearing jeans when they only wear suits every day.

Mystery solved.

2LLLL
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:38 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby 2LLLL » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:42 am


u are delusional. please tell me what extra doors cravath presents vs. JD. tell me of these HUGE differences.





I agree with you dood. If you go to a V10 vs. Jones Day or another well-regarded firm, you're going to have the same exit opportunities, just with different firms. So when you get the soft boot a few years into your career (probably actually earlier at a V10 than other BigLaw firms) you can go to an investment bank instead of another Fortune 500 company. But guess what? You're going to be doing the exact same job as an in-house counsel at Goldman that you would as an in-house counsel at, say, Procter & Gamble. Sure Goldman makes it rain for its employees, but how much of that makes it to the legal department? My guess- not much.

Its really a self-perpetuating cycle- you get a more prestigious firm job (that pays the same) so that you can get a more prestigious job after the firm (that probably pays about the same). But in the end, what does all that prestige get you?

Sup Kid
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:49 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Sup Kid » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:04 pm

2LLLL wrote:I agree with you dood. If you go to a V10 vs. Jones Day or another well-regarded firm, you're going to have the same exit opportunities, just with different firms. So when you get the soft boot a few years into your career (probably actually earlier at a V10 than other BigLaw firms) you can go to an investment bank instead of another Fortune 500 company. But guess what? You're going to be doing the exact same job as an in-house counsel at Goldman that you would as an in-house counsel at, say, Procter & Gamble. Sure Goldman makes it rain for its employees, but how much of that makes it to the legal department? My guess- not much.

Its really a self-perpetuating cycle- you get a more prestigious firm job (that pays the same) so that you can get a more prestigious job after the firm (that probably pays about the same). But in the end, what does all that prestige get you?

I don't necessary disagree with you and dood, but I think you are oversimplifying it, by assuming that all associates at firms like Jones Day can get an in-house position at a F500 company. Not all V10 associates will get investment bank offers, which inevitably leads to V10 associates competing with V50 associates for similar jobs. At that point, lots of other things obviously come into play, but if everything else is equal, the attorney from Cravath or Skadden has a better chance than the attorney from Jones Day. It's a minor point, but prestige isn't completely worthless.

User avatar
drylo
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:41 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby drylo » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:35 am

2LLLL wrote:Its really a self-perpetuating cycle- you get a more prestigious firm job (that pays the same) so that you can get a more prestigious job after the firm (that probably pays about the same). But in the end, what does all that prestige get you?


Maybe a little off topic of the thread, but I totally agree with this concept. Even if you make a little more money at the more prestigious job, it doesn't really change the calculus that much. And this cycle starts when you choose a law school, and probably even when you choose an undergrad. You can choose what matters most to you in life, and if it is prestige, you can go down that road and continually feel the pressure to maintain that feeling that you are prestigious. But I think there is value in the freedom to shake out of that mold and have other priorities in life (and still be very successful by most people's standards).

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby RVP11 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:46 am

Sup Kid wrote:it's Cravath -- you get paid the top of the market


LOL what kind of flame is this?

Sup Kid
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:49 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Sup Kid » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:59 am

RVP11 wrote:
Sup Kid wrote:it's Cravath -- you get paid the top of the market


LOL what kind of flame is this?

What are you disagreeing with? The OP already mentioned Wachtell as paying more, and other than them, and a few select litigation boutiques, Cravath does pay at the top of the market. Look at this year's spring bonuses -- S&C did them first, Cravath raised them a little higher, and all the other firms followed behind. Besides that, you are simply cherry-picking one line from the post; the clear intent was to answer OP's question about why people pick Cravath. The answer was besides paying paying a top market salary, there is a level of prestige involved, which was then debated over 2 pages of posts.

User avatar
Other25BeforeYou
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Other25BeforeYou » Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:37 pm

Sup Kid wrote:
RVP11 wrote:
Sup Kid wrote:it's Cravath -- you get paid the top of the market


LOL what kind of flame is this?

What are you disagreeing with? The OP already mentioned Wachtell as paying more, and other than them, and a few select litigation boutiques, Cravath does pay at the top of the market. Look at this year's spring bonuses -- S&C did them first, Cravath raised them a little higher, and all the other firms followed behind. Besides that, you are simply cherry-picking one line from the post; the clear intent was to answer OP's question about why people pick Cravath. The answer was besides paying paying a top market salary, there is a level of prestige involved, which was then debated over 2 pages of posts.

I think RVP's point is that you don't get paid "top of the market" at Cravath, you get paid market. You get paid the same working at Cravath as you do working at Jones Day or MoFo or Hogan Lovells. Same salary as the New York office of most any V100 firm, although some (but not all) of them probably have smaller bonuses.

lock1
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:55 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby lock1 » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:21 am

go with it dude every one have there different styles and different looks which suits clients as per there point of view not from your.
some wear formals and some suits..

Anonymous User
Posts: 273280
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:21 am

Prestige is important because lawyers are a dime-a-dozen, and being smart isn't as important as we'd like it to be. There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers who graduated from elite law schools out in the job market.

If you lack the personal qualities and talent to differentiate yourself, the only thing you can rely upon is the prestige of your past experiences. It's a crutch for people with deficiencies.

If you're a talented and unique enough person, you don't need prestige on your record. The extent to which you need prestige to acquire your next job or your career goal is inversely proportional to your talent level.

Look at it like you are an NFL player on draft day. The more athletic and talented you are, the less you need to have a track record of success in college. The more ordinary your natural talents, the more you need to show productivity in college.

Seasoned attorneys know and accept what I just typed. Law students and most associates have yet to learn it.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby alumniguy » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:37 am

dood wrote:no law firm is "prestigious". goldman sachs might be prestigious. buy side private equity, aka making millions before age 30 is prestigious. get this in ur head and u'll be alot happier. if you took "prestige" into account when interviewing/deciding on offers, u made a mistake and as u say "got the worst of both worlds." QoL is the ONLY consideration, assuming basic needs are met ($160K, no Howrey scenarios, etc).


Completely disagree. Of course no 1st year associate at any law firm is prestigious. Although I would argue that some first year analyst at GS isn't prestigious either. You do realize that GS runs the up or out system, right? You're give 3-4 years to prove yourself, if you don't make it - goodbye. Then you're given a few more years to prove yourself at that level - up or out. It continues like this for 95% of the employees of an investment bank (at least for the bankers). They won't fire straight away, but you'll be getting crappy bonuses and the writing will be on the wall.

Investment banking as a whole generally has higher salaries than law, but no investment bank can survive without their legal "paper pushing" counterpart. Investment banks are in the service industry as well - they need clients to want to use them. If you're equating prestige with money, then perhaps no law firm is prestigious.

* * *

Regarding prestige and exit opportunities, I think the conventional wisdom on this board is a little misplaced. People from Cravath don't have better opportunities than people from Nixon Peabody because Cravath is more "prestigious" - it is a function of the types of deals and clients that Cravath has that Nixon Peabody doesn't have. If you're working at Cravath, you're probably working with the major investment banks and corporations of the world. You are doing highly sophisticated work for clients willing to pay top dollar. It is the level of sophistication that makes your exit opportunities "better". You are a better candidate to going in-house at bank X because well, you know the type of work and legal complexities that bank X deal with on a regular basis. The thought, whether accurate or not, is that you will need less on-the-job training than an associate from a firm who doesn't regularly deal with such complex matters. Another factor is client base. Cravath likely gets a substantial amount of work from X investment bank because it regularly advises X investment bank. The investment banks inhouse legal team will be composed of former Cravath associates. So, X investment bank will say, let's hire an inhouse guy/girl from Cravath because we know they are smart people and know how to get jobs done quickly and accurately. Nixon Peabody has their own set of clients who would hire from Nixon Peabody because the associates know that client.

Sup Kid
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:49 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Sup Kid » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:18 pm

alumniguy wrote:
dood wrote:no law firm is "prestigious". goldman sachs might be prestigious. buy side private equity, aka making millions before age 30 is prestigious. get this in ur head and u'll be alot happier. if you took "prestige" into account when interviewing/deciding on offers, u made a mistake and as u say "got the worst of both worlds." QoL is the ONLY consideration, assuming basic needs are met ($160K, no Howrey scenarios, etc).


Completely disagree. Of course no 1st year associate at any law firm is prestigious. Although I would argue that some first year analyst at GS isn't prestigious either. You do realize that GS runs the up or out system, right? You're give 3-4 years to prove yourself, if you don't make it - goodbye. Then you're given a few more years to prove yourself at that level - up or out. It continues like this for 95% of the employees of an investment bank (at least for the bankers). They won't fire straight away, but you'll be getting crappy bonuses and the writing will be on the wall.

Investment banking as a whole generally has higher salaries than law, but no investment bank can survive without their legal "paper pushing" counterpart. Investment banks are in the service industry as well - they need clients to want to use them. If you're equating prestige with money, then perhaps no law firm is prestigious.

* * *

Regarding prestige and exit opportunities, I think the conventional wisdom on this board is a little misplaced. People from Cravath don't have better opportunities than people from Nixon Peabody because Cravath is more "prestigious" - it is a function of the types of deals and clients that Cravath has that Nixon Peabody doesn't have. If you're working at Cravath, you're probably working with the major investment banks and corporations of the world. You are doing highly sophisticated work for clients willing to pay top dollar. It is the level of sophistication that makes your exit opportunities "better". You are a better candidate to going in-house at bank X because well, you know the type of work and legal complexities that bank X deal with on a regular basis. The thought, whether accurate or not, is that you will need less on-the-job training than an associate from a firm who doesn't regularly deal with such complex matters. Another factor is client base. Cravath likely gets a substantial amount of work from X investment bank because it regularly advises X investment bank. The investment banks inhouse legal team will be composed of former Cravath associates. So, X investment bank will say, let's hire an inhouse guy/girl from Cravath because we know they are smart people and know how to get jobs done quickly and accurately. Nixon Peabody has their own set of clients who would hire from Nixon Peabody because the associates know that client.

However, you get to be a winner (Charlie Sheen-style?) at Nixon Peabody...that's gotta count for something...

(for those of you who don't get the reference: http://abovethelaw.com/2007/08/nixon-pe ... heme-song/)

User avatar
BunkMoreland
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:16 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby BunkMoreland » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:13 pm

I don't understand. Like 5% of the reason I wanted to be a lawyer was to wear a suit everyday...

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby Big Shrimpin » Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:06 pm

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:
BunkMoreland wrote:I don't understand. Like 5% of the reason I wanted to be a lawyer was to wear a suit everyday...

Is this you personally, or your moniker speaking? Because, as I recall, your moniker was "born in pinstripes."



Best. Show. Evar.

concurrent fork
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:40 am

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby concurrent fork » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:45 pm

HamDel wrote:I turned down multiple V10 firms for my job. Everyone in my firm graduated with honors (almost all from HYSCCN and none outside of t10) and almost 100% of associates clerked. Most are also laterals from V10 firms, and I'm one of two summer associates. I know most people go with Vault alone as the guide for prestige, but my firm represents some of the biggest, most prominent hedge funds and private equity firms in America. The only reason I got an invitation to interview in the first place is because I'm connected from banking. I will be getting paid at the top of the market.

You are SO prestigious.

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: Stuffy Firms

Postby delusional » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:55 pm

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:
pasteurizedmilk wrote:A transactional firm that highly values clerks.

why?

I was wondering this as well. Sort of makes me think OP's firm is of the make-believe variety.

I bet that OP changed some of the story to protect anonymity. My wild guess is that he changed "litigation" to "transactional" and he's going to work at Susman Godfrey, which has come across on these here pages as more overtly stuffy than other top firms - and loves to go on about how they've all been clerks.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.