Firms to avoid

(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: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:34 pm

Some people have been no-offered, some deferred and some work for firms they know are in trouble. ITT, we discuss firms 2Ls might think twice about, if they are lucky enough ITE to have multiple offers. Obviously, Winston is at the top of the list after today, but I'm sure people have other gossip that isn't substantiated enough to warrant ATL coverage. Let's hear it here. I've also heard unsubstantiated chatter about Kelley Drye, White & Case, Fish & Richardson, Nixon Peabody, Squire Sanders, and an unidentified large firm in Texas.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:09 pm

I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:15 pm

Interested in what you heard about Squire Sanders.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Some people have been no-offered, some deferred and some work for firms they know are in trouble. ITT, we discuss firms 2Ls might think twice about, if they are lucky enough ITE to have multiple offers. Obviously, Winston is at the top of the list after today, but I'm sure people have other gossip that isn't substantiated enough to warrant ATL coverage. Let's hear it here. I've also heard unsubstantiated chatter about Kelley Drye, White & Case, Fish & Richardson, Nixon Peabody, Squire Sanders, and an unidentified large firm in Texas.


If by the Texas firm you mean T&K, then yes, I've heard this too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:16 pm

Greenberg Traurig.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Interested in what you heard about Squire Sanders.


I know they didn't show up to my school (MVP) because they claimed they were "filling their class with 1L SAs".

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:17 pm

Doesn't seem clear that Greenberg is in trouble...unless you know something new...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:18 pm

I have heard T&K also, no offered a bunch. Also, I would stay away from Fulbright in Texas. Rumblings from high ups at other firms in town is that they have been shopping around to try to merge the firm and aren't doing well.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Doesn't seem clear that Greenberg is in trouble...unless you know something new...


Capital call is never a good thing. Just because partners say things are fine and that it's normal doesn't mean it is. If everyone were really doing it, G&T doing it wouldn't be news.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby keg411 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.


Curious as to what they say.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.


Frankly, at this point, you might as well. They aren't going to hire you, anyway. It's almost disingenuous to even have a screener still.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:23 pm

Knobbe Martens - there was a thread on here about them not long ago
Troutman Sanders did a bunch of deferrals according to the Atlanta thread

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.


Frankly, at this point, you might as well. They aren't going to hire you, anyway. It's almost disingenuous to even have a screener still.



It's coming at the very end of OCI for me and I already have enough CBs to feel comfortable. I agree any chance at getting hired is next to nill (and I'd only take it if I had nothing else). I'll be sure to let everyone know what they have to say.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.


Frankly, at this point, you might as well. They aren't going to hire you, anyway. It's almost disingenuous to even have a screener still.


Depends on what office the interview is for. DC/NYC might still be doing fine.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby 09042014 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.


Frankly, at this point, you might as well. They aren't going to hire you, anyway. It's almost disingenuous to even have a screener still.


They'll still have a class, it'll just be tiny. I would only fuck with them if you have enough CBs that you think you willt have another offer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:28 pm

TBF, Winston basically told the class in the beginning of the summer that they received more acceptances than they wanted/expected. They were aiming for 22 SAs, and got 31. They gave 22 offers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:30 pm

I know Paul Hastings no-offered a not-insignificant number.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby fatduck » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:TBF, Winston basically told the class in the beginning of the summer that they received more acceptances than they wanted/expected. They were aiming for 22 SAs, and got 31. They gave 22 offers.

how generous.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby bjsesq » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:They gave 22 offers.


Source or GTFO.

User avatar
NinerFan
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby NinerFan » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:TBF, Winston basically told the class in the beginning of the summer that they received more acceptances than they wanted/expected. They were aiming for 22 SAs, and got 31. They gave 22 offers.


I'm sure those SA's wish they knew that before they accepted/started the summer

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have heard T&K also, no offered a bunch. Also, I would stay away from Fulbright in Texas. Rumblings from high ups at other firms in town is that they have been shopping around to try to merge the firm and aren't doing well.


Well word from my CSO is that Fulbright no offered its entire Dallas summer class. However, that might be more an issue with Dallas than Fulbright. I wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 or more of all SAs in Dallas were no offered.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby sunynp » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:TBF, Winston basically told the class in the beginning of the summer that they received more acceptances than they wanted/expected. They were aiming for 22 SAs, and got 31. They gave 22 offers.

Surely no one is naive enough to believe this (the idea that oops we didnt realize how popular we were so now a third of you dont have jobs) is true.

The firm just fired 30 associates, and possibly more stealth layoffs had been happening.

I'm sure they hire the class they wanted and then realized that they over estimated how much work they would have.

This firm sounds full of lying liars who lie to protect their image. (not that they are alone in that.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273311
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I have heard T&K also, no offered a bunch. Also, I would stay away from Fulbright in Texas. Rumblings from high ups at other firms in town is that they have been shopping around to try to merge the firm and aren't doing well.


Well word from my CSO is that Fulbright no offered its entire Dallas summer class. However, that might be more an issue with Dallas than Fulbright. I wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 or more of all SAs in Dallas were no offered.


I can semi-verify that at least FJ Dallas is in crappy financial position. I summered at another TX office for the firm and there were rumblings among the associates

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby sunynp » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I have heard T&K also, no offered a bunch. Also, I would stay away from Fulbright in Texas. Rumblings from high ups at other firms in town is that they have been shopping around to try to merge the firm and aren't doing well.


Well word from my CSO is that Fulbright no offered its entire Dallas summer class. However, that might be more an issue with Dallas than Fulbright. I wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 or more of all SAs in Dallas were no offered.

What? Can you elaborate? I thought Texas was booming?

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:TBF, Winston basically told the class in the beginning of the summer that they received more acceptances than they wanted/expected. They were aiming for 22 SAs, and got 31. They gave 22 offers.


This sounds like bullshit to me. It's not like all 31 people immediately accepted. If they're like any other firm, the hiring partner and others were still trying to recruit people that had been given offers. If they had only wanted 22 SAs, they could have mentioned that to law student #23-31 before they accepted. What looks worse? Giving law students a heads-up that they should maybe should explore their other options or no offering those people after not telling them anything, spending thousands of dollars on them during the summer, and then potentially ruining their legal careers?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.