Pillsbury v. Dechert

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273494
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:09 pm

Thanks folks.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273494
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:46 pm

Dechert. Pillsbury is a TTT in decline.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273494
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Dechert. Pillsbury is a TTT in decline.

OP here. Any particular reason for this? I know the firm considered breaking away from lockstep a few years ago. Anything else?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273494
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:25 pm

do your homework - pillsbury is definitely having financial issues. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:

(1) still deferring the class of 2011
(2) canceled their summer program in those acclaimed west coast offices (definitely a red flag if you want to go back there)
(3) salary cuts/freezes
(4) layoffs, more deferrals, etc.

so yeah, between these two dechert wins on firm health alone.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273494
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:28 pm

Dechert is growing and profitable while Pillsbury might not even exist in a few years. Definitely Dechert.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:36 pm

. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:


Why? If the floor is sitting empty, no point in paying for unused space.

User avatar
Nicholasnickynic
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Nicholasnickynic » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:44 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:


Why? If the floor is sitting empty, no point in paying for unused space.


Why's that? 'Nuff said.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:59 pm

Nicholasnickynic wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:


Why? If the floor is sitting empty, no point in paying for unused space.


Why's that? 'Nuff said.


lol not really. It's hard to estimate your real estate needs as a law firm, especially long term.

User avatar
koalatriste
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:08 pm

Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert

Postby koalatriste » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:05 pm

right, but they could lease out any floor. the top floor is the most expensive and reflects an increased need for cash. but, nonetheless, the other things such as the seemingly endless deferrals should be more of a red flag . . .




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.