Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=187123
It'll be interesting to see if A&P stays as grade selective as Howard Rice used to be. Doubtful, but possible. They're also now one of the largest offices in SF, with over 100 lawyers.Anonymous User wrote:Agreed. Howard Rice is great, as is Farella. Both are very very grade-selective though.Anonymous User wrote:GDC def laid off people.
I really like Howard Rice, which is now Arnold and Porter.
Got an offer there last year but ended up at another firm. They seem really great though.sundance95 wrote:Any thoughts on Sheppard Mullin?
It wasn't. They had one bad year but are now killing it. The firm has little if any debt, solid profits, are pretty much the go to for life sciences and privacy...SchopenhauerFTW wrote:Good post. Didn't realize Cooley was hit so hard though.
Kind of a shite post, IMO.Anonymous User wrote:I posted this in another threat but thought it might help more people interested in bay area firms and offices. feel free to add to this:
WSGR (SF) - all about tech start ups and VC. not sure why you want the SF office though (obviously living in the city is 10x better then palo alto, but the office is a tiny satellite compared to SV.....though that is definitely changing as more tech companies start up and stay in SF). clearly the leader in this space. though, I'd be a bit wary. I think their SV office hired 45 summers for this summer (which strikes me as very imprudent), and the tech market is notoriously boom bust. all the indigenous SV firms (fenwick, WSGR, cooley, gunderson) go through these cycles, and they always see revenue and PPP crash, lay people off, lower salaries, etc. if the tech boom continues for the next 2-4 years this would be a great firm to be at. but if the bust comes, few firms will hurt as much as WSGR.
Fenwick (SF) - see above. but also my feeling is a bit more stable then the other SV firms. check out the recent profile on this firm in the american lawyer. again, SF is a tiny outpost compared to SV. and with their FB representation, I'm sure the firm will be in high demand.
Goodwin (SF) - know very little about this firm, but seems like a non-player to me.
Latham (SF) - impressive/quality presence in SF and SV. their SV office is one of the biggest and is very successful. good firm/office in SF. probably a bit more selective then others.
Pillsbury (SF) - stay away. they just moved offices and cut their office space literally in half. the firm has been unhealthy for years. bad mergers, bad investments in people, just not a quality firm I'd want to work for.
Gunderson (SF) - know little about this firm, but seems a quality start up/VC shop. be wary of the boom bust issues discussed above.
Kirkland (SF) - quality SF firm, though my impression is that, at least on the transactional side, all they do is private equity, over and over and over again. if that interests you, check them out. selective, relatively speaking. also, sick offices at the top of the bank of america building, incredible views. a very healthy office as well - I've been told one of the most profitable in the firm.
MoFo (SF) - the SF behemoth, largest office in the city by far. I think close to 300 lawyers now. if you want to be at a biglaw HQ (which does have a lot of perks), look here (and WSGR in SV). seems like a solid firm, excellent pan-asia practice, expertise in cleantech, respected in the start up/VC world (one of the larger palo alto office), done a lot of high profile M&A work and some major litigation work for apple/oracle. also expanding quite a bit in new york, and trying to capture more of the new york style finance/M&A/and corporate work. not particularly selective about grades. also snazzy brand new offices.
Skadden (SV) - decent SV practice, but nothing special at all. hires few people.
Cooley (SF) - exciting firm to work for, like the other SV firms, riding the tech wave with lots of great work. however, cooley is originally an SF firm, so their SF presence is better and more established IMO then the other SV firms. they also hurt terribly after the last bust, so watch out. their revenues collapsed pretty substantially.
Jones Day (SF) - a relatively new office that they're still expanding, especially on the corporate side (not much of a practice yet). its jones day, so its solid as can be. incredible offices as well.
OMM (SF) - a major california firm, and a major office. don't know much else but I think a solid choice.
Ropes (SF) - a PE shop, and a solid one at that. don't know much else about them.
Weil (SF) - like the other wallstreet firms in the bay area, these offices, especially in SV, focus on NY style cap markets work. not start up/VC/tech - but raising cash on the capital markets, representing underwriters during IPOs, etc. pretty limited practices.
Orrick (SF) - the other SF giant, aside from MoFo. have their own building, which is pretty cool. I got the impression they struggled a bit through the recession (who didnt though) but that they're in solid shape now. very strong public finance, project finance, and infrastructure practices.
Anonymous User wrote:Kind of a shite post, IMO.Anonymous User wrote:I posted this in another threat but thought it might help more people interested in bay area firms and offices. feel free to add to this:
WSGR (SF) - all about tech start ups and VC. not sure why you want the SF office though (obviously living in the city is 10x better then palo alto, but the office is a tiny satellite compared to SV.....though that is definitely changing as more tech companies start up and stay in SF). clearly the leader in this space. though, I'd be a bit wary. I think their SV office hired 45 summers for this summer (which strikes me as very imprudent), and the tech market is notoriously boom bust. all the indigenous SV firms (fenwick, WSGR, cooley, gunderson) go through these cycles, and they always see revenue and PPP crash, lay people off, lower salaries, etc. if the tech boom continues for the next 2-4 years this would be a great firm to be at. but if the bust comes, few firms will hurt as much as WSGR.
Fenwick (SF) - see above. but also my feeling is a bit more stable then the other SV firms. check out the recent profile on this firm in the american lawyer. again, SF is a tiny outpost compared to SV. and with their FB representation, I'm sure the firm will be in high demand.
Goodwin (SF) - know very little about this firm, but seems like a non-player to me.
Latham (SF) - impressive/quality presence in SF and SV. their SV office is one of the biggest and is very successful. good firm/office in SF. probably a bit more selective then others.
Pillsbury (SF) - stay away. they just moved offices and cut their office space literally in half. the firm has been unhealthy for years. bad mergers, bad investments in people, just not a quality firm I'd want to work for.
Gunderson (SF) - know little about this firm, but seems a quality start up/VC shop. be wary of the boom bust issues discussed above.
Kirkland (SF) - quality SF firm, though my impression is that, at least on the transactional side, all they do is private equity, over and over and over again. if that interests you, check them out. selective, relatively speaking. also, sick offices at the top of the bank of america building, incredible views. a very healthy office as well - I've been told one of the most profitable in the firm.
MoFo (SF) - the SF behemoth, largest office in the city by far. I think close to 300 lawyers now. if you want to be at a biglaw HQ (which does have a lot of perks), look here (and WSGR in SV). seems like a solid firm, excellent pan-asia practice, expertise in cleantech, respected in the start up/VC world (one of the larger palo alto office), done a lot of high profile M&A work and some major litigation work for apple/oracle. also expanding quite a bit in new york, and trying to capture more of the new york style finance/M&A/and corporate work. not particularly selective about grades. also snazzy brand new offices.
Skadden (SV) - decent SV practice, but nothing special at all. hires few people.
Cooley (SF) - exciting firm to work for, like the other SV firms, riding the tech wave with lots of great work. however, cooley is originally an SF firm, so their SF presence is better and more established IMO then the other SV firms. they also hurt terribly after the last bust, so watch out. their revenues collapsed pretty substantially.
Jones Day (SF) - a relatively new office that they're still expanding, especially on the corporate side (not much of a practice yet). its jones day, so its solid as can be. incredible offices as well.
OMM (SF) - a major california firm, and a major office. don't know much else but I think a solid choice.
Ropes (SF) - a PE shop, and a solid one at that. don't know much else about them.
Weil (SF) - like the other wallstreet firms in the bay area, these offices, especially in SV, focus on NY style cap markets work. not start up/VC/tech - but raising cash on the capital markets, representing underwriters during IPOs, etc. pretty limited practices.
Orrick (SF) - the other SF giant, aside from MoFo. have their own building, which is pretty cool. I got the impression they struggled a bit through the recession (who didnt though) but that they're in solid shape now. very strong public finance, project finance, and infrastructure practices.
For example, Goodwin just took on a bunch of Gunderson partners and are establishing themselves as a legit BA presence. Latham and MoFo are awful sweatshops, OMM suffered way worse than Cooley in the downturn...
One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote:
Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
Say more!Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote: Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
And IYO, what are some of the best places? (Looking to work in SF/SV)Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote:
Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
Agreed. Know someone who left MoFo after 9 months for Cooley because MoFo was so bad.Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote:
Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
Vault: Orrick (SF&SV), WSGR (SF&SV), Morgan Lewis (SF&SV), Perkins (SF), A&P (SF), Winston (SF), Fish & Richardson (SV).camelcrema wrote:And IYO, what are some of the best places? (Looking to work in SF/SV)Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote:
Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
Orrick is good, although possibly on the decline (for the last several years). I disagree with WSGR being on this list- it is a very rigid institution and can feel sweatshoppy even though hours aren't anything like Quinn/Kirkland/others with that rep. It's easy to get screwed over with crappy work there.Anonymous User wrote:Orrick, WSGR, Farella, Hanson Bridgett, Morgan Lewis, Perkins, A&P.camelcrema wrote:And IYO, what are some of the best places? (Looking to work in SF/SV)Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote:
Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
For IP, also look into Fish & Richardson.
The work. Awesome tech clients. Also, good peeps, laid back vibe.sundance95 wrote:Great posts, ty all. What's great about working at Fenwick?
If you are at all concerned about Vault rankings, SF is probably not the right place for you. Vault is almost entirely irrelevant in CA.Anonymous User wrote:Vault: Orrick (SF&SV), WSGR (SF&SV), Morgan Lewis (SF&SV), Perkins (SF), A&P (SF), Winston (SF), Fish & Richardson (SV).camelcrema wrote:And IYO, what are some of the best places? (Looking to work in SF/SV)Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote:
Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
CA-only: Farella, Hanson Bridgett, Keker, Coblentz.
Coblenz is supposed to be great, I've heard really good things. I think that they have at least 1 SA this summer.Anonymous User wrote:Vault: Orrick (SF&SV), WSGR (SF&SV), Morgan Lewis (SF&SV), Perkins (SF), A&P (SF), Winston (SF), Fish & Richardson (SV).camelcrema wrote:And IYO, what are some of the best places? (Looking to work in SF/SV)Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.jarofsoup wrote:
Mofo SF is suppose to be solid.
CA-only: Farella, Hanson Bridgett, Keker, Coblentz.
Yeah I'd only say "the work" if you're interested in some specific things- emerging companies, certain valley work, and tax. Overall, its vibe is excellent- very laid back, genuinely kind people who care about each other, and it seems like the firm does seriously care about quality of life. Plus the office is in a cool location at Castro Street.Emma. wrote:The work. Awesome tech clients. Also, good peeps, laid back vibe.sundance95 wrote:Great posts, ty all. What's great about working at Fenwick?
Can anyone else confirm if Coblentz hires any summer associates? Doesn't look like it from their website, but that would be good to know.jarofsoup wrote:
Coblenz is supposed to be great, I've heard really good things. I think that they have at least 1 SA this summer.
I don't think so. My friend summered there as a 1L intern and was told that Coblentz does not hire 2L SAs.sheD wrote:Can anyone else confirm if Coblentz hires any summer associates? Doesn't look like it from their website, but that would be good to know.jarofsoup wrote:
Coblenz is supposed to be great, I've heard really good things. I think that they have at least 1 SA this summer.
OP here - I meant the "last" downturn, ie the 1999-2001 downturn, sorry if that was not clear. the firm basically imploded from 500 attorneys to 250, lost a ton of long term partners. they survived obviously and are doing well now.Anonymous User wrote:It wasn't. They had one bad year but are now killing it. The firm has little if any debt, solid profits, are pretty much the go to for life sciences and privacy...SchopenhauerFTW wrote:Good post. Didn't realize Cooley was hit so hard though.
as I said in the OP, I just have not heard much about goodwin. did not say they were bad, just said they were not well known....which they are not, for the time being anyways. also I agree that OMM really hurt quite a bit 2008-2009.Anonymous User wrote:Kind of a shite post, IMO.
For example, Goodwin just took on a bunch of Gunderson partners and are establishing themselves as a legit BA presence. Latham and MoFo are awful sweatshops, OMM suffered way worse than Cooley in the downturn...
yes, mofo does do plenty of non-IP work. obviously, the firm is known as one of the top IP litigation shops in the country, also strong in patent prosecution and tech transactions. but the firm has a very strong bankruptcy practice (directed mainly out of new york as far as I know), general commercial lit practice, and M&A practice. the chair of the firm moved to new york at some point in the early 2000s to concentrate on getting more NYC style M&A and finance work, and I think that's paid off quite well.Anonymous User wrote:Does Mofo really do any work that's not IP focused? I'm not into IP, but I've heard such great things about the firm in general (not just here, but practicing attorneys in SF).
people leave firms for all kinds of reasons all the time. I have friends at mofo who are very happy there. as noted above though, mofo is the only 300+ lawyer office in SF, so its going to be less personal and intimate then a satellite office with 20 or 30 people.Anonymous User wrote:One of the worst places in SF to work, IMO.
Agreed. Know someone who left MoFo after 9 months for Cooley because MoFo was so bad.
Anonymous User wrote:Vault: Orrick (SF&SV), WSGR (SF&SV), Morgan Lewis (SF&SV), Perkins (SF), A&P (SF), Winston (SF), Fish & Richardson (SV).
CA-only: Farella, Hanson Bridgett, Keker, Coblentz./quote]
man, this is wrong. orrick is a fine firm, but I'd be wary of any firm with declining revenues. orrick also has a network of far flung offices all over the world....in this economy, those can't be profitable....milan, moscow, dusseldorf? yikes. as another poster said, WSGR is a sweatshop as well - for some of the reasons mofo and latham might be, but also because they are incredibly siloed. if I recall correctly, everyone is assigned to a particular module and partner. they have great exciting work and are the king of SV, but I've heard all kinds of negative stories about associates working there. plus, they do a lot of emerging company work, which means their clients can't afford tip top biglaw rates....hence wilson paying below market for all of 2010 and most of 2011. know very little about those other firms.
Anonymous User wrote:Anybody has comments about Finnegan SF office? Especially compared with MoFo and FR