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: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
I haven't heard any of this-wow. Had 4 CB in Dallas and (suprisingly!!) all indicated they were doing fine. I also had a CB at Fulbright (Dallas) that I thought went very well. But this is scaring the shit out of me.


It should be obvious that no one who you interview with is going to ring the alarm during a CB. Recruiting sets you up with people who are billing a lot and appear to be happy at the firm. Do you think anyone told the Dewey summers during their CBs that the partners hadn't gotten paid?


For what it's worth, at my Dewey screener last summer, the partner I interviewed with told me flat out that I should look elsewhere because Dewey wasn't doing very well. Her comment came unprompted. (I didn't get a CB, ended up at a V10.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
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.


Much appreciated. Any word on Baker McKenzie or Katten?



Can you also elaborate on the Skadden/Sidley comments? Sources, news outlets, etc.?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:46 pm

As someone interested in Winston and FJ for the Houston offices, this thread is less than encouraging. Any news about other Houston offices? Locke Lord, Baker Botts, VE, Andrews Kurth, etc.?

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

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby anon168 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:48 pm

androstan wrote:
booboo wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Job security, to a lesser extent exit options. When you're partner you can dick wave about how your firm is doing in the league tables.


I'd love to know how to figure this out... :D.


Definitely. Is there a way to reliable know job security and exit options? I presume that the Vault rankings approximate exit options? And the % of associates promoted to partner approximates job security? Those are generally inversely related, which is just wonderful.


No.

Job security at a V100 firm has less to do with you and more to do with external forces, like the economy, which you have no real control over.

The one thing you can control with respect to job security is to make yourself the best darn lawyer possible, and to specialize as early as practicable in your career. If you do litigation, for example, don't just be a general practitioner -- find a niche. And make it a niche that not everyone at the firm already has expertise in. So maybe it's FCPA stuff, or ERISA litigation, or whatever.

The other thing that increases job security -- which has little practical significance for this board -- is ability to generate business and/or having your own client base.

Both of those things -- skill set and business development -- will also increase your exit options. And those two things will have much more significance than the stupid rankings of your first firm.

The % of associates making partner has almost no correlation to job security. At a minimum, so few V100 firms even have partners that matriculated from their SA or First Year Associate classes. To take % of associates who make partner as anything more than just a number is silly and ignorant.

Just go to a firm that you feel most comfortable with. It's impossible to read the tea leaves to figure out the Dewey, or Howry, or whatever firm that's gone under or been swallowed up.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Can you also elaborate on the Skadden/Sidley comments? Sources, news outlets, etc.?

Original Anon here:

Sidley -- Just to clarify, I didn't mean to give the impression that Sidley is anything other than fine from what I can tell. It's just not Kirkland in terms of how busy they are/revenue per lawyer.
Skadden -- That they are slow is just sort of the general buzz right now. Learned that they didn't give 100% offers from a law student who summered there this summer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:22 pm

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


I was an SA at Jenner - the firm is doing extremely well, is bringing in tons of work, and everyone in my office got an offer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:27 pm

Someone from DLA Piper told me that having a happy family and succeeding are mutually exclusive at the firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Someone from DLA Piper told me that having a happy family and succeeding are mutually exclusive at the firm.


We had an adjunct partner from DLA Piper DC more or less tell us the same thing. People routinely sleep in their offices, apparently.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:57 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.


I'm assuming Skadden NY is more stable?

JRD
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:17 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby JRD » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
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.


I'm assuming Skadden NY is more stable?



Can't confirm or deny whether Skadden Chicago gave 100% offers, but it seemed generally busy this summer. Certain groups were slammed, and all of them appeared to have plenty of work to go around. Transactional work might have been a bit slower, but seemed like it was just the natural ebb and flow of deals (meaning a huge deal had just closed, so there was a bit of down time after that).

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby rayiner » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:26 pm

androstan wrote:
booboo wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Job security, to a lesser extent exit options. When you're partner you can dick wave about how your firm is doing in the league tables.


I'd love to know how to figure this out... :D.


Definitely. Is there a way to reliable know job security and exit options?


Not really, but at the same time it doesn't mean that gross revenue or the league tables are something you should be looking at. Latham broke through the $2 billion mark again by growing aggressively after laying off a bunch of people in 2009. If you look at their leverage ratio, it's a sawtooth pattern punctuated by mass layoffs in the early 1990s, early 2000's, and in 2009.

I see people looking at the league tables and PPP and shit and think: man, if you go by those, Cadwalader looks pretty good! There are lots of firms that have steady work--didn't bulk up too much in the boom or the post-recession bounce. These firms often aren't big enough to make the league tables, aren't leveraged enough to have very high PPP, but are very stable firms.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby rayiner » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:27 pm

JRD wrote:Can't confirm or deny whether Skadden Chicago gave 100% offers, but it seemed generally busy this summer. Certain groups were slammed, and all of them appeared to have plenty of work to go around. Transactional work might have been a bit slower, but seemed like it was just the natural ebb and flow of deals (meaning a huge deal had just closed, so there was a bit of down time after that).


NALP says they did give 100% offers last year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:28 pm

What about O'Melveny? Partners are leaving left and right, and they just laid off 75 support staff.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:33 pm

rayiner wrote:
JRD wrote:Can't confirm or deny whether Skadden Chicago gave 100% offers, but it seemed generally busy this summer. Certain groups were slammed, and all of them appeared to have plenty of work to go around. Transactional work might have been a bit slower, but seemed like it was just the natural ebb and flow of deals (meaning a huge deal had just closed, so there was a bit of down time after that).


NALP says they did give 100% offers last year.


Original Anon here. To be clear, Skadden Chicago did not offer 100% for Summer 2012 (that just concluded), not Summer 2011.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interested in hearing about the Kansas City firms (Shook, Husch, Lathrop and Gage, Polsinelli, etc.).


1L summered at Husch. They just bumped starting salaries from 100 to 120, seemed like a sign of good health. I have a lot more I can go into if you PM me. Can also discuss Shook to an extent.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:03 pm

Any ideas on how quinn is doing? I know their PPP is high but what about the general economics of the firm?

And whay about hogan?did the merger go well?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:As someone interested in Winston and FJ for the Houston offices, this thread is less than encouraging. Any news about other Houston offices? Locke Lord, Baker Botts, VE, Andrews Kurth, etc.?


Have heard that Vinson & Elkins is really busy both in Houston and NY.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:04 pm

.

letsdoit
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby letsdoit » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm interested in hearing about the Kansas City firms (Shook, Husch, Lathrop and Gage, Polsinelli, etc.).


1L summered at Husch. They just bumped starting salaries from 100 to 120, seemed like a sign of good health. I have a lot more I can go into if you PM me. Can also discuss Shook to an extent.


please PM me.

Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Aqualibrium » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:26 pm

I just want to say that you 2Ls and 3Ls shouldn't kid yourself into believing that someone interviewing you is going to tell you if the firm is trending down with regards to finances. First of all, if they are an associate, they are kept out of the loop on A LOT with regards to firm health, departures, etc... If they are a partner, they care about protecting their investment, not warning some kid so he can go run his mouth to the entire world. Truthfully, any law firm would be stupid to admit to you that there was a financial storm brewing.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Latham just crossed the $2 Billion in revenue marker last year and it continues to grow. It's financially doing fine; the downsizing probably made it a more profitable business anyway.


Take a look at the H1 2012 league tables


Since when is being at the top for revenue an indicator of anything? Latham is in such esteemed company as DLA Piper and Baker & McKenzie.

The only metric that matters for partners is PPP and the only metric that matters for associates is RPL. IIRC, Latham is not in the top 10 of either.

User avatar
Lawquacious
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:36 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Lawquacious » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:31 pm

Avoid them all. HTH

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What about O'Melveny? Partners are leaving left and right, and they just laid off 75 support staff.



This is relevant to my interests. From what I saw in another thread discussing this, partner departures were in NY, hasn't affected much in LA, and firm did well last year. My impression is that they will continue to be around, but I would like someone with better info than me to chime in if possible.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What about O'Melveny? Partners are leaving left and right, and they just laid off 75 support staff.


Sources? When you say "leaving" and "just," it makes it seem like you mean presently and recently, respectively. I haven't heard of any recent partner departures, especially "left and right," and the 75 support staff was last fall.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:41 pm





Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.