Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=194093
About to accept an OMM offer in CA over NYC V5-15 firms. Is this wise??Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
+1Anonymous User wrote:About to accept an OMM offer in CA over NYC V5-15 firms. Is this wise??Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
Which office?Anonymous User wrote:+1Anonymous User wrote:About to accept an OMM offer in CA over NYC V5-15 firms. Is this wise??Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
Does it matter? Either the firm is solvent or not.Anonymous User wrote:Which office?Anonymous User wrote:+1Anonymous User wrote:About to accept an OMM offer in CA over NYC V5-15 firms. Is this wise??Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
The solvency question was big last year, when they had all the partner departures in NY. That appears to have stabilized with new laterals being brought in from Dewey, and a change in leadership. I asked about office because something like their SV outpost, which relies on emerging tech/corporate work, may be harder hit by the contraction of corporate work that Bloomberg News reported on last week, and may be a riskier choice than their LA headquarters.Anonymous User wrote:LA, but does it matter? Either the firm is solvent or not.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:About to accept an OMM offer in CA over NYC V5-15 firms. Is this wise??Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
Which office?
Source for Pillsbury?Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
I'm a little perplexed by this. The information I am getting is that Pillsbury has zero debt and no lease commitment (they own their office space). That generally seems like pretty conservative management. Any substance behind rumors?Anonymous User wrote:Source for Pillsbury?Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
It was the fact that they shut down their 2010 California recruiting, and recently moved into a smaller office space to save money (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... l?page=all). Could be nothing, but I haven't any stories of positive business outlook.Anonymous User wrote:I'm a little perplexed by this. The information I am getting is that Pillsbury has zero debt and no lease commitment (they own their office space). That generally seems like pretty conservative management. Any substance behind rumors?Anonymous User wrote:Source for Pillsbury?Anonymous User wrote:Pillsbury in SF/SV is not doing well. Read a bunch here about O'Melveny, but not entirely sure of its accuracy.
This is bull. Fulbright Dallas is the most profitable office.Anonymous User wrote:As someone who is interested in that firm I'd like to know where this information is coming from. I've seen it posted around TLS without much to support it or reasoning behind it. Anyone care to share?Anonymous User wrote:Fulbright and Jaworski (Dallas) is not doing well financially.Anonymous User wrote:As offer decision deadlines loom, I thought having a thread about the financial stability (or instability) of law firms would be helpful. Anyone have any insight into which firms are financially unstable or on the other hand, firms that are shining stars in terms of financial stability. Also, it would probably be useful to say why (if you know) in addition to sharing firm names.
Apparently Dewey wasn't a surprise to everyone. One partner at my firm told me they were told a year before the collapse to start evaluating practice groups they may want to bid on. Apparently Dewey had been notoriously slow paying out to its partners and that's a huge sign that things aren't right.Cavalier wrote:At this point I don't think anyone can predict which firm(s) will fail next. Two years ago it was fairly obvious that Howrey was in trouble, but last year Dewey looked fine--only a handful of its partners knew about its problems at the time. A few weeks ago there were a lot of rumors about White & Case stealthing associates, and now there's talk of incoming layoffs at Latham, but the problem with anonymous posting is that there's no way to determine whether these reports are credible or just the work of one or two people who happen to be bitter about a particular firm.
If you're considering a firm, research the heck out of it--search it on Google (in the past year/month/week), Google News, Above the Law, TLS, AutoAdmit, etc. A wave of departures is generally a bad sign. See if the firm's revenue per lawyer has been increasing or decreasing. Talk to any 3Ls at your school who summered there. Also, don't totally blow off school now that you have an offer. My friends who were headed to Dewey both found jobs at other law firms, but I suspect they might have had more difficulty if they had let their grades tank.
But it was a surprise to a great number of people. Citibank is suing one lateral partner for payment of the loan it gave him for his buy-in. He is alleging that Citibank had a duty to tell him that Dewey was struggling, which is something Citibank knew. Citibank say he had the chance to look at the firm's books but never took it.Anonymous User wrote:Apparently Dewey wasn't a surprise to everyone. One partner at my firm told me they were told a year before the collapse to start evaluating practice groups they may want to bid on. Apparently Dewey had been notoriously slow paying out to its partners and that's a huge sign that things aren't right.Cavalier wrote:At this point I don't think anyone can predict which firm(s) will fail next. Two years ago it was fairly obvious that Howrey was in trouble, but last year Dewey looked fine--only a handful of its partners knew about its problems at the time. A few weeks ago there were a lot of rumors about White & Case stealthing associates, and now there's talk of incoming layoffs at Latham, but the problem with anonymous posting is that there's no way to determine whether these reports are credible or just the work of one or two people who happen to be bitter about a particular firm.
If you're considering a firm, research the heck out of it--search it on Google (in the past year/month/week), Google News, Above the Law, TLS, AutoAdmit, etc. A wave of departures is generally a bad sign. See if the firm's revenue per lawyer has been increasing or decreasing. Talk to any 3Ls at your school who summered there. Also, don't totally blow off school now that you have an offer. My friends who were headed to Dewey both found jobs at other law firms, but I suspect they might have had more difficulty if they had let their grades tank.
Anon from above. I don't disagree it surprised many. But knowledge of it wasn't limited to internal partners as asserted. It seems that its troubles were widely speculated on by partners outside the firm. It just wasn't general knowledge.sunynp wrote:But it was a surprise to a great number of people. Citibank is suing one lateral partner for payment of the loan it gave him for his buy-in. He is alleging that Citibank had a duty to tell him that Dewey was struggling, which is something Citibank knew. Citibank say he had the chance to look at the firm's books but never took it.Anonymous User wrote:Apparently Dewey wasn't a surprise to everyone. One partner at my firm told me they were told a year before the collapse to start evaluating practice groups they may want to bid on. Apparently Dewey had been notoriously slow paying out to its partners and that's a huge sign that things aren't right.Cavalier wrote:At this point I don't think anyone can predict which firm(s) will fail next. Two years ago it was fairly obvious that Howrey was in trouble, but last year Dewey looked fine--only a handful of its partners knew about its problems at the time. A few weeks ago there were a lot of rumors about White & Case stealthing associates, and now there's talk of incoming layoffs at Latham, but the problem with anonymous posting is that there's no way to determine whether these reports are credible or just the work of one or two people who happen to be bitter about a particular firm.
If you're considering a firm, research the heck out of it--search it on Google (in the past year/month/week), Google News, Above the Law, TLS, AutoAdmit, etc. A wave of departures is generally a bad sign. See if the firm's revenue per lawyer has been increasing or decreasing. Talk to any 3Ls at your school who summered there. Also, don't totally blow off school now that you have an offer. My friends who were headed to Dewey both found jobs at other law firms, but I suspect they might have had more difficulty if they had let their grades tank.
Why were Dewey partners so intimidated that they never checked the firm's books? I'll never understand that one.
But most people were fooled by Dewey and Dewey managed to keep up the masquerade (fraud) for a long time.
I read as much information on law firm financials as I can find and I wouldn't be able to pick the next Dewey or Winston either. I don't know how to tell what firm will be next.
No, you're dead on. The other post is clearly from someone that has no clue what they are talking about--most likely from someone upset they didn't get a callback there.Anonymous User wrote:When, after the mass layoffs, did Latham hire huge summer classes? A timeline would be helpful. It sounds like some folks are saying that they had a lot of associates during the boom (true), laid off a bunch (true), hired a bunch of summers?, laid off more associates?, and are hiring more summers again?
From what I understand they have changed their hiring philosophy since the mass layoffs, and they've especially committed to lean summer classes. But I could be way off. Thoughts?
I do get the sense that they are trying to keep their SA class relatively small. At least for the LA office, their SA numbers stayed about the same (15-20) for the past couple of years and I was told they are planning to hire 18 this year. But who knows, could it be because they don't have enough work to go around (I don't know about this part just guessing)?Anonymous User wrote:When, after the mass layoffs, did Latham hire huge summer classes? A timeline would be helpful. It sounds like some folks are saying that they had a lot of associates during the boom (true), laid off a bunch (true), hired a bunch of summers?, laid off more associates?, and are hiring more summers again?
From what I understand they have changed their hiring philosophy since the mass layoffs, and they've especially committed to lean summer classes. But I could be way off. Thoughts?
Associates (juniors) in the office I interviewed at talked about being very busy and the amount of work there is to go around. They could have been lying, but I doubt juniors at Latham have a vested interest in tricking candidates. There could also be differences amongst practice groups.Anonymous User wrote:I do get the sense that they are trying to keep their SA class relatively small. At least for the LA office, their SA numbers stayed about the same (15-20) for the past couple of years and I was told they are planning to hire 18 this year. But who knows, could it be because they don't have enough work to go around (I don't know about this part just guessing)?Anonymous User wrote:When, after the mass layoffs, did Latham hire huge summer classes? A timeline would be helpful. It sounds like some folks are saying that they had a lot of associates during the boom (true), laid off a bunch (true), hired a bunch of summers?, laid off more associates?, and are hiring more summers again?
From what I understand they have changed their hiring philosophy since the mass layoffs, and they've especially committed to lean summer classes. But I could be way off. Thoughts?
Why hogan lovells? I'm very interested in their NY office.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from attorneys on callbacks that Kaye Scholar, Hogan Lovells, Goodwin Proctor, Winston & Strawn and White & Case were the firms to stay away from.
hogan lovells is like trying to hold up two dumbbells with a rubber band. Eventually the rubber band will snap under all that weight.Anonymous User wrote:Why Hogan Lovells? I'm very interested in their NY office.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from attorneys on callbacks that Kaye Scholar, Hogan Lovells, Goodwin Proctor, Winston & Strawn and White & Case were the firms to stay away from.
Anyone have more details on Goodwin? I know they had deferrals during the downturn but I hadn't heard any rumors of current problems.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from attorneys on callbacks that Kaye Scholar, Hogan Lovells, Goodwin Proctor, Winston & Strawn and White & Case were the firms to stay away from.
They told me that their friends were very unhappy and slow on work in the corporate side. Low morale usually isn't the best sign.Anonymous User wrote:Why Hogan Lovells? I'm very interested in their NY office.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from attorneys on callbacks that Kaye Scholar, Hogan Lovells, Goodwin Proctor, Winston & Strawn and White & Case were the firms to stay away from.
They were laying off lots of staff, and usually that's the first step to stop hemorrhage.Anonymous User wrote:Anyone have more details on Goodwin? I know they had deferrals during the downturn but I hadn't heard any rumors of current problems.Anonymous User wrote:I heard from attorneys on callbacks that Kaye Scholar, Hogan Lovells, Goodwin Proctor, Winston & Strawn and White & Case were the firms to stay away from.
