Quinn Emanuel?

(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: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Are people getting rejections from Quinn, or do they just not ever respond?


I sent an app into the DC office, and I never heard anything back. According to this thread, some callbacks already went out for the office, so I'm assuming if you haven't gotten dinged, you're on hold until they can compare you to other apps as they come in, or to traditional OCI interviewees.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I know four people now who have offers in NY. They all accepted about two weeks ago (right after the interview), but I haven't heard anything about SF or SV. No dings, no interviews...nothin.


They all accepted before OCI?


Ya. I think the stress of not having to deal with weeks of interviews and waiting was worth it for them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I know four people now who have offers in NY. They all accepted about two weeks ago (right after the interview), but I haven't heard anything about SF or SV. No dings, no interviews...nothin.


They all accepted before OCI?


Ya. I think the stress of not having to deal with weeks of interviews and waiting was worth it for them.


Lol. Guess it's working for Quinn, but it's almost laughable that a few weeks of interviews/callbacks is enough for them to just accept their first offer and not even compare or see what else is out there.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Are people getting rejections from Quinn, or do they just not ever respond?


I sent an app into the DC office, and I never heard anything back. According to this thread, some callbacks already went out for the office, so I'm assuming if you haven't gotten dinged, you're on hold until they can compare you to other apps as they come in, or to traditional OCI interviewees.


I applied a month ago and haven't heard anything.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I know four people now who have offers in NY. They all accepted about two weeks ago (right after the interview), but I haven't heard anything about SF or SV. No dings, no interviews...nothin.

There have been callbacks and offers out of SF.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:10 am

QE's DC Hiring Contact wrote:We appreciate your continued interest in the firm. We are still in the process of collecting application materials and have not made any final decisions yet.


Anyone else get this, or is it just a 3-week belated response to the updated resume I sent (which she confirmed receiving at the time)?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:27 am

Anonymous User wrote:
QE's DC Hiring Contact wrote:We appreciate your continued interest in the firm. We are still in the process of collecting application materials and have not made any final decisions yet.


Anyone else get this, or is it just a 3-week belated response to the updated resume I sent (which she confirmed receiving at the time)?


Got the same email. Better than a ding, I suppose.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:56 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
QE's DC Hiring Contact wrote:We appreciate your continued interest in the firm. We are still in the process of collecting application materials and have not made any final decisions yet.


Anyone else get this, or is it just a 3-week belated response to the updated resume I sent (which she confirmed receiving at the time)?


Got the same email. Better than a ding, I suppose.


Ditto. Maybe a post OCI pile?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:46 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just to add some info: hys already scheduled call back. medium-ok grades, i think t40%?

have a friend who has already done his/hers.

would like more info from the current SAs about the summer, good and bad :)


current SA. quinn has an excellent summer program w/ a good balance of social/fun and meaningful work. the mock trial program is great and provides substantive training if you put effort into it. the firm hike was also awesome, and could be a good filter on whether you would like the firm (does hiking 25+ miles through canadian rockies sound appealing or not).

overall, my impression is that its a great firm if (1) you ACTUALLY want to work on trials (2) you are independent and (3) you are the opposite of that guy that posted about how he wants to wear a suit to the office every day (as in, you want to be able to wear w/e you want and don't care if randoms know you are an attorney).

I say point one because the whole trial focus thing is legit: associates seem to constantly travel to NDCA, ITC, etc. for various trials, and it is a very tough life w/ long hours away from home. You need to actually want that to be happy at the firm.


I had a CB and got the impression that the associates are worked nearly to death. Some of the associates looked really worn out and mentioned that office face-time is required and common on weekends. They appeared to be afraid of leaving the office early (before 7pm) to work from home and mentioned that 12 hour days are a regular occurrence. Do any SAs know if this is representative of life at Quinn? I would also be interested to know the billable hour expectations.

I was impressed with the emphasis on giving new associates substantive work but I am really hesitant about the hours expectations at Quinn. I have gone on CBs at other firms but the feeling of being worked to exhaustion was palpable at Quinn.

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby anon168 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:51 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just to add some info: hys already scheduled call back. medium-ok grades, i think t40%?

have a friend who has already done his/hers.

would like more info from the current SAs about the summer, good and bad :)


current SA. quinn has an excellent summer program w/ a good balance of social/fun and meaningful work. the mock trial program is great and provides substantive training if you put effort into it. the firm hike was also awesome, and could be a good filter on whether you would like the firm (does hiking 25+ miles through canadian rockies sound appealing or not).

overall, my impression is that its a great firm if (1) you ACTUALLY want to work on trials (2) you are independent and (3) you are the opposite of that guy that posted about how he wants to wear a suit to the office every day (as in, you want to be able to wear w/e you want and don't care if randoms know you are an attorney).


I say point one because the whole trial focus thing is legit: associates seem to constantly travel to NDCA, ITC, etc. for various trials, and it is a very tough life w/ long hours away from home. You need to actually want that to be happy at the firm.


I had a CB and got the impression that the associates are worked nearly to death. Some of the associates looked really worn out and mentioned that office face-time is required and common on weekends. They appeared to be afraid of leaving the office early (before 7pm) to work from home and mentioned that 12 hour days are a regular occurrence. Do any SAs know if this is representative of life at Quinn? I would also be interested to know the billable hour expectations.

I was impressed with the emphasis on giving new associates substantive work but I am really hesitant about the hours expectations at Quinn. I have gone on CBs at other firms but the feeling of being worked to exhaustion was palpable at Quinn.



Quinn's a sweatshop. That's no secret. But you generally get paid for your sweat (and tears).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:15 am

From: A William Urquhart.

To: Attorneys.

Time: 9:21 a.m.

Re: CHECK YOU EMAILS OFTEN [sic]

Now more than ever there are many talented lawyers and law firms competing for our business. Doing really good legal work is not enough. Clients expect that and well they should given what we charge for our services You must all realize that we are in a service business. In this day and age of faxes, emails, internet, etc. clients expect you to be accessible 24\7. Of course, that is something of an exaggeration–but not much.

LESSON NUMBER ONE: You should check your emails early and often. That not only means when you are in the office, it also means after you leave the office as well. Unless you have very good reason not to (for example when you are asleep, in court or in a tunnel), you should be checking your emails every hour. One of the last things you should do before you retire for the night is to check your email. That is why we give you blackberries. I can assure you that all of our clients expect you to be checking your emails often. I am not asking you to do something we do not do ourselves. I can assure you that John Quinn, Peter Calamari, Mike Carlinsky, Faith Gay, Fred Lorig, etc. all check their emails often.

Yesterday I was working with a relatively new associate on a project which both he and I knew was a rush. It was for a relatively new client whom we were trying to impress. The associate did a nice job under pressure. Before I left the office at about 7:30 I sent an email to this associate asking him to perform a task–fax a draft letter for review and comment. I assumed the task was done. Turns out the associate left the office and did not check his emails until this morning. I assumed the task had been completed. It had not been. In this case it was no harm no foul, but I think we can all imagine scenarios when this could be a disaster.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:40 am

Anonymous User wrote:From: A William Urquhart.

To: Attorneys.

Time: 9:21 a.m.

Re: CHECK YOU EMAILS OFTEN [sic]

Now more than ever there are many talented lawyers and law firms competing for our business. Doing really good legal work is not enough. Clients expect that and well they should given what we charge for our services You must all realize that we are in a service business. In this day and age of faxes, emails, internet, etc. clients expect you to be accessible 24\7. Of course, that is something of an exaggeration–but not much.

LESSON NUMBER ONE: You should check your emails early and often. That not only means when you are in the office, it also means after you leave the office as well. Unless you have very good reason not to (for example when you are asleep, in court or in a tunnel), you should be checking your emails every hour. One of the last things you should do before you retire for the night is to check your email. That is why we give you blackberries. I can assure you that all of our clients expect you to be checking your emails often. I am not asking you to do something we do not do ourselves. I can assure you that John Quinn, Peter Calamari, Mike Carlinsky, Faith Gay, Fred Lorig, etc. all check their emails often.

Yesterday I was working with a relatively new associate on a project which both he and I knew was a rush. It was for a relatively new client whom we were trying to impress. The associate did a nice job under pressure. Before I left the office at about 7:30 I sent an email to this associate asking him to perform a task–fax a draft letter for review and comment. I assumed the task was done. Turns out the associate left the office and did not check his emails until this morning. I assumed the task had been completed. It had not been. In this case it was no harm no foul, but I think we can all imagine scenarios when this could be a disaster.


I am waiting to hear the results of my callback but Quinn has now dropped to the bottom of my firm preference list. This culture must breed huge turnover.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby sundance95 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:41 am

Any biglaw firm will expect you to check your emails often. Not sure what the problem here is.

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby anon168 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:42 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:From: A William Urquhart.

To: Attorneys.

Time: 9:21 a.m.

Re: CHECK YOU EMAILS OFTEN [sic]

Now more than ever there are many talented lawyers and law firms competing for our business. Doing really good legal work is not enough. Clients expect that and well they should given what we charge for our services You must all realize that we are in a service business. In this day and age of faxes, emails, internet, etc. clients expect you to be accessible 24\7. Of course, that is something of an exaggeration–but not much.

LESSON NUMBER ONE: You should check your emails early and often. That not only means when you are in the office, it also means after you leave the office as well. Unless you have very good reason not to (for example when you are asleep, in court or in a tunnel), you should be checking your emails every hour. One of the last things you should do before you retire for the night is to check your email. That is why we give you blackberries. I can assure you that all of our clients expect you to be checking your emails often. I am not asking you to do something we do not do ourselves. I can assure you that John Quinn, Peter Calamari, Mike Carlinsky, Faith Gay, Fred Lorig, etc. all check their emails often.

Yesterday I was working with a relatively new associate on a project which both he and I knew was a rush. It was for a relatively new client whom we were trying to impress. The associate did a nice job under pressure. Before I left the office at about 7:30 I sent an email to this associate asking him to perform a task–fax a draft letter for review and comment. I assumed the task was done. Turns out the associate left the office and did not check his emails until this morning. I assumed the task had been completed. It had not been. In this case it was no harm no foul, but I think we can all imagine scenarios when this could be a disaster.


I am waiting to hear the results of my callback but Quinn has now dropped to the bottom of my firm preference list. This culture must breed huge turnover.


You should understand that Quinn is not unique in this respect.

jd20132013
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby jd20132013 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:50 am

If checking emails often is a problem for you perhaps you should consider another career

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:05 pm

I don't think it's the need to check e-mails so much as it's the culture fostered by the leadership.

Throwing people under the bus (that is, calling someone out in a memo that appears to be directed at all offices) for what appears to be harmless error seems a bit extreme. I certainly wouldn't want a guy that pulls shit like that setting the standard.

t-ender
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:26 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby t-ender » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:08 pm

jd20132013 wrote:If checking emails often is a problem for you perhaps you should consider another career


You seem dumb.

Anonymous User wrote:I don't think it's the need to check e-mails so much as it's the culture fostered by the leadership.

Throwing people under the bus (that is, calling someone out in a memo that appears to be directed at all offices) for what appears to be harmless error seems a bit extreme. I certainly wouldn't want a guy that pulls shit like that setting the standard.


This makes sense.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby sundance95 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:11 pm

Lolwut? First, no one was called out by name. Second, the person was also praised in the email. Third, the point was to eliminate an error that, while harmless in that instance, could have led to malpractice in the future.

dixon02
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:27 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby dixon02 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:41 pm

sundance95 wrote:Lolwut? First, no one was called out by name. Second, the person was also praised in the email. Third, the point was to eliminate an error that, while harmless in that instance, could have led to malpractice in the future.


Lol. Do you actually believe anything you just wrote?

1. Ok, the person wasn't called out by name. Have you ever worked in an office before? I would put the over/under on number of minutes before 90% of the office knew who the employee was at roughly 12.

2. If you think that's a compliment, then come on over for dessert tonight. I'm serving dogshit with some sugar sprinkled on top. Should be delicious.

3. There's a pretty big leap from no fax to malpractice. And if there were malpractice, it should be Urquhart's. He should not have promised a fax without confirming that it would be sent. Alternatively, if he never received confirmation from the lawyer, he could have taken 20 seconds to fax it himself or found someone else. I recognize that this would be unheard of from a partner, but he's taking out his own mistake on an attorney (happens all the time, but let's call a spade a spade).

All that said, this is life as a biglaw associate. It's unprofessional and makes for a lousy workplace, but this is not an experience unique to Quinn. If you see this as a reason to move a firm like Quinn to the bottom of your list then a) you may want to seriously consider whether biglaw is right for you, and b) you did not do nearly enough research on your potential career choice. You should not have learned this through a random TLS message board.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby sundance95 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:25 pm

dixon02 wrote:
sundance95 wrote:Lolwut? First, no one was called out by name. Second, the person was also praised in the email. Third, the point was to eliminate an error that, while harmless in that instance, could have led to malpractice in the future.


Lol. Do you actually believe anything you just wrote?

1. Ok, the person wasn't called out by name. Have you ever worked in an office before? I would put the over/under on number of minutes before 90% of the office knew who the employee was at roughly 12.

2. If you think that's a compliment, then come on over for dessert tonight. I'm serving dogshit with some sugar sprinkled on top. Should be delicious.

3. There's a pretty big leap from no fax to malpractice. And if there were malpractice, it should be Urquhart's. He should not have promised a fax without confirming that it would be sent. Alternatively, if he never received confirmation from the lawyer, he could have taken 20 seconds to fax it himself or found someone else. I recognize that this would be unheard of from a partner, but he's taking out his own mistake on an attorney (happens all the time, but let's call a spade a spade).

All that said, this is life as a biglaw associate. It's unprofessional and makes for a lousy workplace, but this is not an experience unique to Quinn. If you see this as a reason to move a firm like Quinn to the bottom of your list then a) you may want to seriously consider whether biglaw is right for you, and b) you did not do nearly enough research on your potential career choice. You should not have learned this through a random TLS message board.

Yeah, I do believe it. The email could have been worse, and if you think that the entire LA office didn't already know who fucked up prior to the email, then you're the naive one. And the malpractice would have been Urquhart's, that's probably why he felt the need to address it.

Bolded is the point-you don't fail to do what a boss tell you to do before you leave without at least telling them that is the case. That's not just biglaw, that professionalism.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby r6_philly » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:38 pm

sundance95 wrote:
Bolded is the point-you don't fail to do what a boss tell you to do before you leave without at least telling them that is the case. That's not just biglaw, that professionalism.


The associate didn't fail to do what a boss told him before he left. The boss tried to give him a task before the boss left. The point of the letter was that everyone should expect that a task may be assigned to you after you leave the office, to be done before you come back the next morning. Read that however you want, but generally I read it as you are on call 24/7. I don't see a problem with this email, but I also don't think every firm expect you to complete NEW tasks when you are away from office.

dixon02
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:27 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby dixon02 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:52 pm

sundance95 wrote:Yeah, I do believe it. The email could have been worse, and if you think that the entire LA office didn't already know who fucked up prior to the email, then you're the naive one. And the malpractice would have been Urquhart's, that's probably why he felt the need to address it.

Bolded is the point-you don't fail to do what a boss tell you to do before you leave without at least telling them that is the case. That's not just biglaw, that professionalism.


I assumed from the e-mail that the associate had already left when the e-mail was sent. If not, and s/he left w/o checking e-mail one final time and/or ignored a boss's e-mail (both of which seem highly unlikely in the biglaw world), then I'd agree the employee messed up. I really doubt that's what went down.

EVEN if that's the case, however, there's still no reason to call the person out on a FIRM-WIDE e-mail. Not sure what your point is about everyone already knowing who it was...doesn't that just make it worse and negate your point that s/he was not called out by name? It's humiliating and degrading to bust your ass on a deal and then have your mistake publicly disseminated to hundreds of employees.

My point is that this e-mail was bullshit and highly unprofessional. The point could have been just as easily made without sharing an anecdote that embarrassed the crap out of an associate. I realize it's closer to the norm than the exception in the biglaw world, but that doesn't mean that we should grab our ankles and say "thank you sir may I have another."

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I had a CB and got the impression that the associates are worked nearly to death. Some of the associates looked really worn out and mentioned that office face-time is required and common on weekends. They appeared to be afraid of leaving the office early (before 7pm) to work from home and mentioned that 12 hour days are a regular occurrence. Do any SAs know if this is representative of life at Quinn? I would also be interested to know the billable hour expectations.

I was impressed with the emphasis on giving new associates substantive work but I am really hesitant about the hours expectations at Quinn. I have gone on CBs at other firms but the feeling of being worked to exhaustion was palpable at Quinn.


Which office was this? I had a callback (LA) and didn't get a worn out vibe at all. It did seem like the associates worked very hard, but that face-time wasn't critical. I was consistently told that ~2,200-2,300 billables was the norm for starting associates which is high but not outside the realm of normal biglaw. FWIW, I've also heard that the NY office is more uptight than the California offices.

I haven't done any other CBs yet, so I have no basis of comparison.

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby anon168 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I had a CB and got the impression that the associates are worked nearly to death. Some of the associates looked really worn out and mentioned that office face-time is required and common on weekends. They appeared to be afraid of leaving the office early (before 7pm) to work from home and mentioned that 12 hour days are a regular occurrence. Do any SAs know if this is representative of life at Quinn? I would also be interested to know the billable hour expectations.

I was impressed with the emphasis on giving new associates substantive work but I am really hesitant about the hours expectations at Quinn. I have gone on CBs at other firms but the feeling of being worked to exhaustion was palpable at Quinn.


Which office was this? I had a callback (LA) and didn't get a worn out vibe at all. It did seem like the associates worked very hard, but that face-time wasn't critical. I was consistently told that ~2,200-2,300 billables was the norm for starting associates which is high but not outside the realm of normal biglaw. FWIW, I've also heard that the NY office is more uptight than the California offices.

I haven't done any other CBs yet, so I have no basis of comparison.


2200-2300 is high.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn Emanuel?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:20 pm

anon168 wrote:2200-2300 is high.


yup, welcome to Quinn, where you aren't wanting for work and thus the firm isn't leaving anytime soon. I can vouch for SF as generally being quite loose (the loosest I've seen of any biglaw firm, actually) when it comes to face time. That said, face time, like everything else at Quinn, is partner to partner.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.