Firms to avoid

(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
IrwinM.Fletcher
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:55 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby IrwinM.Fletcher » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:04 pm

DeSimone wrote:
IrwinM.Fletcher wrote:
seriouslyinformative wrote:
quakeroats wrote:Where's our megapost?


Gonna have to wait until after the bar exam. Sorry folks. Should've started studying... oh... before July 4th...


This is really a shame, I was so looking forward to a comprehensive list of firm weaknesses in the world's largest legal market from someone who hasn't actually started as an associate yet.

He's also posted much more helpful and constructive information than you itt.


Aside from bickering with Renzo and posting questionable statements about Covington, I missed the big contribution. And I don't think you were tuned in for his exploits under the old username.

Also- I hate you.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Grizz » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:09 pm

I've heard some very helpful posters have alts actually. TLS rumor mill...

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8441
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby thesealocust » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:10 pm

The key to the alt rule is that it's no unauthorized, new alting. If you have to ask what or how you get an alt authorized, the answer is almost certainly going to be 'no.' The mods were also more tolerant of alts that existed before the rule against alts, but it's been years since that happened now.

User avatar
Cavalier
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Cavalier » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:18 pm

rad law wrote:I've heard some very helpful posters have alts actually. TLS rumor mill...

That's a total lie.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby bk1 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:22 pm

thesealocust did something nice for somebody today. I think he deserves a sticker.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8441
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby thesealocust » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:35 pm

bk1 wrote:thesealocust did something nice for somebody today. I think he deserves a sticker.


Shit, really? I'm going to go take a shower. Scrub away the shame.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:48 pm

.
Last edited by 09042014 on Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 27893
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Kronk » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:50 pm

.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Renzo » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:04 am

IrwinM.Fletcher wrote:Aside from bickering with Renzo and posting questionable statements about Covington, I missed the big contribution. And I don't think you were tuned in for his exploits under the old username.

Also- I hate you.


My enemies list is now back to being comprised of 100% banned posters, just the way I like it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:58 pm

Bump. Would love to hear more about White & Case NY. Should I avoid if I have other V20 options?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Bump. Would love to hear more about White & Case NY. Should I avoid if I have other V20 options?


How was your CB there? What are people like? Really interested in their culture, what drives them, etc.

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby quakeroats » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Bump. Would love to hear more about White & Case NY. Should I avoid if I have other V20 options?


How was your CB there? What are people like? Really interested in their culture, what drives them, etc.


Check out their revenue per lawyer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:45 pm

Anyone know anything about Paul Hastings DC?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know anything about Paul Hastings DC?


A old friend of mine is a corporate/projects associate there and seems to like it as far as I know.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:08 pm

Anyone know how Hogan Lovells is doing?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
quakeroats wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The problem is that the Cravath model doesn't allow for partner-track laterals.


http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/ ... st-lawyer/


This decision is enormous, enormous news for Cravath. They've probably done it like 3 times ever, and once was recently a BK guy from Skadden at the height of the crisis. That anonymous poster also meant partner-track laterals, i.e. mid-level and senior associates, which Cravath at least claims to not hire at all, rather than partner laterals (who they also claim to never hire). It's actually a point the firm tries to sell: the only way in is through the front door, they boast about not hiring laterals.

As for why that anon said (s)he wouldn't work for Cravath over most other V10s, I can provide some context. Cravath has a great reputation and interesting, professional people. But it also has a well deserved reputation for working its associates more consistently and in a more demanding fashion than basically every firm other than Wachtell. It likely at one point enjoyed a reputation that exceeded that of places like S&C, DPW, STB, Cleary, etc. but that's not true any more. It's probably not worse, but signing up to work there basically guarantees you longer hours. While there are going to be associates at every other V10 who pull hours longer than attorneys at Cravath, it's not quite as institutionalized.

And the point about mistakes during the crisis is pretty on point. A partner there has admitted as much to me in person. Cravath saw its PPP fall 24% or so in one year. Still a profitable firm, still a prestigious firm, still a place that will launch incredible careers and train talented lawyers: but there's almost nothing you can point to that would make it a better choice than another V10ish NYC firm, unless you found it a particularly strong fit personality wise.


Thanks for this. Also want to hear about Cravath's culture/work environment (other than long hours, obviously). Is it as bad as it's known to be? (i.e. soul crushing)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
quakeroats wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The problem is that the Cravath model doesn't allow for partner-track laterals.


http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/ ... st-lawyer/


This decision is enormous, enormous news for Cravath. They've probably done it like 3 times ever, and once was recently a BK guy from Skadden at the height of the crisis. That anonymous poster also meant partner-track laterals, i.e. mid-level and senior associates, which Cravath at least claims to not hire at all, rather than partner laterals (who they also claim to never hire). It's actually a point the firm tries to sell: the only way in is through the front door, they boast about not hiring laterals.

As for why that anon said (s)he wouldn't work for Cravath over most other V10s, I can provide some context. Cravath has a great reputation and interesting, professional people. But it also has a well deserved reputation for working its associates more consistently and in a more demanding fashion than basically every firm other than Wachtell. It likely at one point enjoyed a reputation that exceeded that of places like S&C, DPW, STB, Cleary, etc. but that's not true any more. It's probably not worse, but signing up to work there basically guarantees you longer hours. While there are going to be associates at every other V10 who pull hours longer than attorneys at Cravath, it's not quite as institutionalized.

And the point about mistakes during the crisis is pretty on point. A partner there has admitted as much to me in person. Cravath saw its PPP fall 24% or so in one year. Still a profitable firm, still a prestigious firm, still a place that will launch incredible careers and train talented lawyers: but there's almost nothing you can point to that would make it a better choice than another V10ish NYC firm, unless you found it a particularly strong fit personality wise.


Thanks for this. Also want to hear about Cravath's culture/work environment (other than long hours, obviously). Is it as bad as it's known to be? (i.e. soul crushing)


It depends on your personality, I think. I personally didn't find the atmosphere "soul crushing" (though I don't know anything about the hours obviously), but I did find it a little off-putting. I did not like the feng-shui of the place. Green carpet and dark wood created a somber tone that was reflected in the people. I found Davis Polk, for example, (light beige carpet, light maple wood) to be warmer and more open. I think that tone carried over to the people too.

This is obviously a small reason to choose one firm over the other, but again these firms all select from the same pool of people. Folks, including most of the partners you will work with, choose one firm over the other based on these factors.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:23 pm

I think that DPW's "nice" atmosphere is worse than a screaming/in-your-face Skadden. I've had CBs with each and I genuinely appreciated Skadden's honesty - my interviewers at Skadden were brutally honest with me and just in general and it was relieving to know that I was speaking with an actual person. At DPW it was very fake.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I think that DPW's "nice" atmosphere is worse than a screaming/in-your-face Skadden. I've had CBs with each and I genuinely appreciated Skadden's honesty - my interviewers at Skadden were brutally honest with me and just in general and it was relieving to know that I was speaking with an actual person. At DPW it was very fake.


I totally agree with this. Don't know about Skadden but had a cb at DPW and felt that people there were very fake. Probably that's why they're known to be passive-aggressive.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:30 pm

My Cravath interviewer said, in response to a question about the working environment: "Well, it isn't like I would say hello to you in the elevator. Pleasantries aren't billable."

I'm serious, that is essentially verbatim. Don't work there if you have a soul.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:My Cravath interviewer said, in response to a question about the working environment: "Well, it isn't like I would say hello to you in the elevator. Pleasantries aren't billable."

I'm serious, that is essentially verbatim. Don't work there if you have a soul.


Pleasantries may not be billable, but they don't cost you billable time either. I personally don't agree with the "just business" folks --- I think you should smile even when you're having a bad day. Your troubles are no reason to pollute the vibe for the rest of the office. Of course if you're someone who doesn't see things that way, all the smiling people at "nice" firms probably weird you out quite a bit.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My Cravath interviewer said, in response to a question about the working environment: "Well, it isn't like I would say hello to you in the elevator. Pleasantries aren't billable."

I'm serious, that is essentially verbatim. Don't work there if you have a soul.


Pleasantries may not be billable, but they don't cost you billable time either. I personally don't agree with the "just business" folks --- I think you should smile even when you're having a bad day. Your troubles are no reason to pollute the vibe for the rest of the office. Of course if you're someone who doesn't see things that way, all the smiling people at "nice" firms probably weird you out quite a bit.


For all the shit they catch, at least the people at Cadwalader smile.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Blindmelon » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:06 pm

Aston2412 wrote:Anyone know how the Boston firms hold up?

Specifically Ropes, Nixon Peabody, Choate Hall and the Foleys (Folies?)?


For a Boston-based firm, Nixon is rarely, if ever mentioned as a good place to be. I believe they're not market (check this). Choate is a great firm, but focus mostly on mid-level transaction work and IP. Their litigation group is decent, but focuses a lot on IP. The smaller cases allows for more responsibility for young associates, BUT it also means a lot of doc review falls to small groups of attorneys and the culture is stuffy. They're not as stable as other bigfirms in the area (laid off 10% in the crash), and because they're smaller, shifts in the economy hit them hard. Foley & Lardner is just a satellite office. Foley Hoag is kind of just standard, but I haven't heard anything overly negative about them - they're just kind of boring and attract a very nerdy/intellectual crowd. Ropes rocks all of the satisfaction surveys, but I never understood why. I know quite a few associates who are there and they are pretty miserable - IMO theres better choices for litigation in Boston than Ropes as the misery I've heard is mostly from lit associates. They also had stealth layoffs (a buddy of mine was fired due to performance because of a memo that was subpar or some crap - he said others were too - but they swore they weren't layoffs).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Bump. Would love to hear more about White & Case NY. Should I avoid if I have other V20 options?


http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker/#topten

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=140758&p=3742680#p3742680

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Bump. Would love to hear more about White & Case NY. Should I avoid if I have other V20 options?


http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker/#topten

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=140758&p=3742680#p3742680


Thanks!




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.