Proskauer v. Sheppard

(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.

Proskauer vs. Sheppard Mullin

Proskauer
7
35%
Sheppard Mullin
13
65%
 
Total votes: 20

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:43 pm

Simple vote. Both CA offices. Primarily interested in Litigation.

User avatar
YourCaptain
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby YourCaptain » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:07 pm

If LA offices; SM for Lit, Proskauer for Corp

Congrats!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:23 pm

I personally liked Proskauer better and loved the people I met in their lit department.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:10 pm

bump

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:13 am

.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:14 am

reasons?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:11 am

bumpity bump bump

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:08 am

Sheppard mullin because it pays lockstep, yet the hourly requirement (1950) is a genuine one. You can meet it and no one will bother you.

Also, Sheppard is doing great lately in terms of profitability, and reports are that it has no long term debt to speak of. At this point it is attracting, not losing partners, and climbed ten spots on the v100 rankings last year.

Finally, Sheppard because it has one of the best summer programs in the country, and is known for putting a lot into young associate development.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:Sheppard mullin because it pays lockstep, yet the hourly requirement (1950) is a genuine one. You can meet it and no one will bother you.

Also, Sheppard is doing great lately in terms of profitability, and reports are that it has no long term debt to speak of. At this point it is attracting, not losing partners, and climbed ten spots on the v100 rankings last year.

Finally, Sheppard because it has one of the best summer programs in the country, and is known for putting a lot into young associate development.


It's lockstep only for partnership track employees, right? <edit> (i.e., not lockstep) <edit> I heard you need ~2100. The partners in the practice group I interviewed with were really cool. The firm has brand name appeal in CA (even if the boys on Wallstreet haven't heard of it). Excited for May (but not LA).




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.