S&C vs. Simpson 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.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428552
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
S&C vs. Simpson
Not yet sure if I want to do lit or corp (leaning lit right now), but I definitely want to be surrounded by geniuses (S&C wins?) work in a pretty office (Simpson definitely wins) and have an international practice (tie?).
-
itbdvorm
- Posts: 1710
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:09 am
Re: S&C vs. Simpson
If really leaning lit, honestly neither...
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428552
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: S&C vs. Simpson
I think Simpson has a slight edge for litigation.
-
imchuckbass58
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm
Re: S&C vs. Simpson
If you're leaning lit, Simpson is very securities/general commercial heavy, whereas S&C is very white collar/investigations heavy. Something to take into account.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428552
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: S&C vs. Simpson
How do you take this into account with no experience in either? Are they radically different practices or just different subject matter?imchuckbass58 wrote:If you're leaning lit, Simpson is very securities/general commercial heavy, whereas S&C is very white collar/investigations heavy. Something to take into account.
Any major differences like this on the corporate side?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
imchuckbass58
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm
Re: S&C vs. Simpson
Well, it's hard to say if you've never done either. If you want to be an AUSA, white collar/investigations is probably more relevant. Securities is probably more relevant if you want to go in-house or work for the SEC or some other financial regulatory agency.Anonymous User wrote:How do you take this into account with no experience in either? Are they radically different practices or just different subject matter?imchuckbass58 wrote:If you're leaning lit, Simpson is very securities/general commercial heavy, whereas S&C is very white collar/investigations heavy. Something to take into account.
Any major differences like this on the corporate side?
On the corporate side, S&C does a lot of M&A, particularly financial institutions. Simpson also does a lot of M&A, especially private equity M&A, but also has really good PE funds and capital markets groups.
Personally, I would find Simpson's culture more attractive. It's supposed to be more relaxed and nice, whereas S&C is notorious for being hard-charging, type-a, and sometimes pretty brutal.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428552
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: S&C vs. Simpson
Don't people say the same about Simpson sometimes?imchuckbass58 wrote:Personally, I would find Simpson's culture more attractive. It's supposed to be more relaxed and nice, whereas S&C is notorious for being hard-charging, type-a, and sometimes pretty brutal.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428552
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: S&C vs. Simpson
I'm sure some do - STB is no walk in the park. S&C is pretty notorious though.Anonymous User wrote:Don't people say the same about Simpson sometimes?imchuckbass58 wrote:Personally, I would find Simpson's culture more attractive. It's supposed to be more relaxed and nice, whereas S&C is notorious for being hard-charging, type-a, and sometimes pretty brutal.
I've posted this in other threads, but:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/01/24/sul ... te-morale/
--LinkRemoved--
With the charney piece, read less for his allegations and more for other (former) associates' comments on the firm. I swear I have no personal vendetta against S&C, but those pieces make it sound pretty terrible.
