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: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/whats-going-on-at-omelveny-myers/

Has that slowed down now?


I don't know. I also don't know if it's continued at the same rate or sped up. That's why I asked for sources. Do you have anything from 2012?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:31 pm

O'Melveny's RPL score also rose 11 points, as O'Melveny had its most profitable financial year ever in 2011.


And, as a summer there this past summer, I can confirm that the amount of work is commensurate with that.

They're fine - at least as fine as anyone can tell without being a partner there.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby dresden doll » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
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.

They said that they hadn't done it when everyone else did, in which case they'd now be merely catching up, no?

All I can say is that they offered to move up my boyfriend's start date to August when he contacted them about a salary advance and that someone from a client firm remarked that they were busy as fuck right now (which certainly seems consistent with offering to start the incoming first year associate as early as August).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Any news concerning Chicago firms/offices specifically?


Kirkland -- Not surprising, but they continue to thrive. Biggest 2012 summer class in Chicago by far and everyone seems very busy (they recently bolstered their RE practice with a few strong lateral hires and their IP lit is swamped apparently)
Sidley -- Not as hot as Kirkland, but still busy and had a good-sized summer class.
Skadden -- Rumor has it that this satellite office has been very slow lately. Did not make 100% offers to their small summer class this summer (Don't know if it was because of fit or something else).
Latham -- Probably the busiest of the satellite offices. Apparently did not make 100% offers but was told that was because of a fit issue.
Foley -- Don't know much about how busy they are, but they shortened their summer program to 6-8 weeks this past summer.


Re: Foley. This summer is 10 weeks. Friend has offer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:21 am

Anonymous User wrote:
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.


Locke Lord as well.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:55 am

nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Any word on VE dallas? Im curious about litigation and M&A


100% offers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:
nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Any word on VE dallas? Im curious about litigation and M&A


100% offers.


There were rumors around Houston that VE is considering doing serious restructuring to make themselves even more of a specialized shop. The new managing partner apparently wants the firm to look more like Cravath than what they have in the past. They recently shed their entire Public Finance practice and 10-20 Environmental partners. They are still a very good firm, and they aren't going under or anything, but it is unclear what the firm will look like in a decade.

VE also has the reputation of having a very high (for Texas) attrition rate among associates.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:58 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Any word on VE dallas? Im curious about litigation and M&A


100% offers.


There were rumors around Houston that VE is considering doing serious restructuring to make themselves even more of a specialized shop. The new managing partner apparently wants the firm to look more like Cravath than what they have in the past. They recently shed their entire Public Finance practice and 10-20 Environmental partners. They are still a very good firm, and they aren't going under or anything, but it is unclear what the firm will look like in a decade.

VE also has the reputation of having a very high (for Texas) attrition rate among associates.


Inside knowledge, no major restructuring plans. Also, probably the most stable Texas firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/whats-going-on-at-omelveny-myers/

Has that slowed down now?


I don't know. I also don't know if it's continued at the same rate or sped up. That's why I asked for sources. Do you have anything from 2012?


It has slowed down. There was a rush of partner departures in the first half of 2011 and it was cause for concern. From what I've heard, and my sources are good, a lot of the partners who left weren't getting along well with others and were creating work conflicts, i.e., making it hard to take certain matters.

I've seen other articles around that partners have left since, but not at a rate that's higher than normal. They've also added some partners. I think it's basically business as usual now. You could find sources if you searched Google news, but you're not going to find anything too jarring. Couple partners coming, couple going, but nothing as arresting as last spring.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
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.


Locke Lord as well.


That's bull shit. I summered at Locke Lord Dallas. They had nearly perfect offer rate and have been looking for laterals - a lot of work to go around.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:58 pm

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


Update - Brought up Winston's layoffs in my non-Chicago screener. Interviewer told me the numbers were exaggerated and that the particular office I was interviewing for wasn't affected.

Got a CB.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:19 pm

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


Update - Brought up Winston's layoffs in my non-Chicago screener. Interviewer told me the numbers were exaggerated and that the particular office I was interviewing for wasn't affected.

Got a CB.


Which office? And true brass balls would have also inquired about the alleged "choke out" lists that the firm keeps.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
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.


Locke Lord as well.


That's bull shit. I summered at Locke Lord Dallas. They had nearly perfect offer rate and have been looking for laterals - a lot of work to go around.


Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.

User avatar
philosoraptor
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:49 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby philosoraptor » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:16 pm

.
Last edited by philosoraptor on Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Re: Foley. This summer is 10 weeks. Friend has offer.


I just checked with someone who was an SA at Foley this summer. The program was definitely shortened to 8 weeks for this summer.

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.


What are the "several other dallas firms?"

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby chadwick218 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:39 pm

nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.


What are the "several other dallas firms?"


Not the anonymous poster, but I've also heard rumblings of TK and Fulbright from various sources. I've also heard from first hand sources that TK has had a number of "very good" young associates lateral into more prestigious firms, but maybe this isn't all that unusual.

al_state
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby al_state » Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:00 pm

chadwick218 wrote:
nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.


What are the "several other dallas firms?"


Not the anonymous poster, but I've also heard rumblings of TK and Fulbright from various sources. I've also heard from first hand sources that TK has had a number of "very good" young associates lateral into more prestigious firms, but maybe this isn't all that unusual.


What about some of the other mid-sized Houston/Dallas firms? Especially curious about the ones with smaller SA classes.

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby chadwick218 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:10 pm

al_state wrote:
chadwick218 wrote:
nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.


What are the "several other dallas firms?"


Not the anonymous poster, but I've also heard rumblings of TK and Fulbright from various sources. I've also heard from first hand sources that TK has had a number of "very good" young associates lateral into more prestigious firms, but maybe this isn't all that unusual.


What about some of the other mid-sized Houston/Dallas firms? Especially curious about the ones with smaller SA classes.


My understanding from friends/colleagues working at some of those firms is that they are doing alright. Middle-market M&A has been pretty strong in Texas. I understand that AK (although arguably a bigger boy) and Winstead in Dallas has been doing very well. They are arguably at a slight advantage from a pricing standpoint. Mid-sized, non-public companies don't want to pay $400/hour for a first/second year associate (which a couple of firms in town do charge).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:33 pm

A number of folks have been trying to warn me away from Pillsbury DC, but nobody can tell me what is wrong with it. I have a CB coming up this week and am very curious. Any information at all?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:56 pm

I have several Austin callbacks. Are there any firms in Austin I should avoid? I'm going for transactional work.

512

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:A number of folks have been trying to warn me away from Pillsbury DC, but nobody can tell me what is wrong with it. I have a CB coming up this week and am very curious. Any information at all?


also relevant to my interests

anewaphorist
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:13 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby anewaphorist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:26 pm

Thread relevant to interests. Tagged.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:49 pm

It's really hard to tell how a firm is doing without talking to people in the firm. At least two firms that failed recently (Howrey, Heller) had their best year (according to the numbers reported to the American Lawyer) just before going under.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:23 am

Anyone know anything about how the big Boston firms are doing? Ropes, Wilmer, Goodwin, Bingham?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.