Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

(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: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:29 pm

Primarily interested in corporate. As far as which area within corp, I am still unsure. I am leaning STB because I like the idea of the rotation system and had a better feeling about the firm at my CB. However, my primary concern is going to the most financially stable firm and ultimately getting an offer. Vault has STB's 2012 offer rate at not quite 100% (106 out of 107). It has Cleary at 100% in NY, and 25/26 in DC. While the odds are extremely low, its unnerving to think I could be that one person. Any thoughts on financial stability, offer rates for this current summer, what went down in the 2012 summer classes at the respective firms to result in the no-offer for each person, and other info/rumors would be much appreciated.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:34 pm

Not to be snippy but...

We've got lots of people here with decent grades but 0 CBs, and you're worried because one of your V10s offers at 99.1% while your other V10 offers at 100%?

You probably can't go wrong with either firm. Just go on second visits, make them take you out to lunch or dinner, and whoever treats you to the better meal gets your acceptance.

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby bdubs » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:39 pm

If you like the rotation and the people at STB better than Cleary you should go there. The fact that one dude who probably behaved totally inappropriately got no offered last year is not a reason to think STB is "financially unstable" or that they plan on no offering one or more people in the future.

STB and Cleary have much different vibes, you should base you decision on that.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Not to be snippy but...

We've got lots of people here with decent grades but 0 CBs, and you're worried because one of your V10s offers at 99.1% while your other V10 offers at 100%?

Sorry, I don't mean to be insensitive. I'm just genuinely confused. It's difficult to get an accurate cross section from a four hour interview, and I was just looking for any other information to sift through.

User avatar
purpletiger
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby purpletiger » Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:46 am

Anonymous User wrote:Primarily interested in corporate. As far as which area within corp, I am still unsure. I am leaning STB because I like the idea of the rotation system and had a better feeling about the firm at my CB. However, my primary concern is going to the most financially stable firm and ultimately getting an offer. Vault has STB's 2012 offer rate at not quite 100% (106 out of 107). It has Cleary at 100% in NY, and 25/26 in DC. While the odds are extremely low, its unnerving to think I could be that one person. Any thoughts on financial stability, offer rates for this current summer, what went down in the 2012 summer classes at the respective firms to result in the no-offer for each person, and other info/rumors would be much appreciated.


You realize that no-offering one person means, almost certainly, that the one no-offer was either insanely lazy or a total asshole right? You should credit STB's willingness to get that loser out of there.

User avatar
AntipodeanPhil
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:02 pm

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby AntipodeanPhil » Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:50 am

purpletiger wrote:You realize that no-offering one person means, almost certainly, that the one no-offer was either insanely lazy or a total asshole right? You should credit STB's willingness to get that loser out of there.

+1

A 95-99% offer rate is better than 100%, imho. You'll have to work with these people as a junior associate.

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6400
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby 5ky » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:28 am

AntipodeanPhil wrote:
purpletiger wrote:You realize that no-offering one person means, almost certainly, that the one no-offer was either insanely lazy or a total asshole right? You should credit STB's willingness to get that loser out of there.

+1

A 95-99% offer rate is better than 100%, imho. You'll have to work with these people as a junior associate.


this is something you say now and then regret immensely as your summer program winds down. a 95-99% offer rate is not better than a 100% rate. if you make part of your decision based on that logic, even just a little bit, then you are an insane person.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:47 am

I was a 2012 summer and absolutely loved the firm. Our of our entire class, only 1 person was no-offered. From what I heard from friends, the no-offer occurred after multiple meetings where the summer was told that the management had issues with the summer. It had to do with their performance and ability to fit into the program. The problem was VERY specific to that particular associate, but I don't want to go into any more detail of what I've heard out of concern for the summer's privacy.

I chose Simpson over Cleary based on the people and the quality of the work. I think if you're interested in corporate work in NYC, it's a wonderful place to work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:49 am

I seriously question your judgment. You take a single no-offer as an indication of the firm's health? Good luck with everything bro.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:39 am

5ky wrote:
AntipodeanPhil wrote:
purpletiger wrote:You realize that no-offering one person means, almost certainly, that the one no-offer was either insanely lazy or a total asshole right? You should credit STB's willingness to get that loser out of there.

+1

A 95-99% offer rate is better than 100%, imho. You'll have to work with these people as a junior associate.


this is something you say now and then regret immensely as your summer program winds down. a 95-99% offer rate is not better than a 100% rate. if you make part of your decision based on that logic, even just a little bit, then you are an insane person.


Perennial 100% offer rate means that either the firm has its share of shitty associates or the firm cold offers. No one recruiting a class of over 100 can score all hits and no misses. Give STB credit for owning up to it rather than bringing back someone who clearly does not carry their weight.

That being said, Simpson drastically cut back their summer class last year and, from what I hear, they worked their summers to death this year because of it. Not like you don't get paid enough to actually work, but don't goto Simpson expecting to roll in at 10 and leave at 5:30.

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6400
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby 5ky » Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:54 am

Anonymous User wrote:
5ky wrote:
AntipodeanPhil wrote:
purpletiger wrote:You realize that no-offering one person means, almost certainly, that the one no-offer was either insanely lazy or a total asshole right? You should credit STB's willingness to get that loser out of there.

+1

A 95-99% offer rate is better than 100%, imho. You'll have to work with these people as a junior associate.


this is something you say now and then regret immensely as your summer program winds down. a 95-99% offer rate is not better than a 100% rate. if you make part of your decision based on that logic, even just a little bit, then you are an insane person.


Perennial 100% offer rate means that either the firm has its share of shitty associates or the firm cold offers. No one recruiting a class of over 100 can score all hits and no misses. Give STB credit for owning up to it rather than bringing back someone who clearly does not carry their weight.

That being said, Simpson drastically cut back their summer class last year and, from what I hear, they worked their summers to death this year because of it. Not like you don't get paid enough to actually work, but don't goto Simpson expecting to roll in at 10 and leave at 5:30.


i will not 'give stb credit' for not bringing back a complete fuckup. i will continue to advocate that advising others to count it as a positive that a firm which trims the fat of its SA class is dumb. give the 3L vale thread a read if you'd rather be cold offered or no-offered.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:31 am

5ky wrote:i will not 'give stb credit' for not bringing back a complete fuckup. i will continue to advocate that advising others to count it as a positive that a firm which trims the fat of its SA class is dumb. give the 3L vale thread a read if you'd rather be cold offered or no-offered.


And I'm sure you probably advise 0L's to take U.S. News employment numbers seriously too, huh. I'll give credit to any firm that takes transparency seriously and admits an occasional no-offer, which any rational person knows happens or has the potential to happen everywhere. With few exceptions, automatic and consistent 100% offer rates seem about as legit as the $160k median income stats at schools that place less than a quarter of their students in BigLaw.

Also, both of OP's choices admitted no offering a 2012 SA. The only thing you've done in this thread is suggest OP should be scared to accept either of his two V10 options. You've gone past rational and entered the realm of fear mongering.

OP: From what I could gather as '13 Simpson summer, there were no no-offers. Firm financials are looking very strong (on pace for a record year as of July).

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby NYstate » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:47 am

Saying that the person no offered was insanely lazy or a total asshole is a misrepresentation. People get no offered even at top firms for smaller errors than that. I don't know if you are exaggerating for effect, but that is over the top.

I don't get the animosity toward a member of the SA class by other members. Who are you to judge that they aren't pulling their weight? All it takes is one partner to not like them for some reason. I've seen smart and talented people get no offered.

Also 100% offer rates are more likely now that firms have small classes. They aren't as likely to make an error in hiring.

Edit: oh the anon above worked for STB. No wonder he is defending them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:21 am

106 out of 107 people got offers. Unless you think that you are totally not a culture fit at Simpson, don't be scared off by one no-offer. The guy who was no-offered apparently refused to go to any social events and just did not fit in at the firm. From what I know, he is now working for S&C so it worked out for him anyway.

Anonymous User wrote:That being said, Simpson drastically cut back their summer class last year and, from what I hear, they worked their summers to death this year because of it.


I know several Simpson summer associates and this is not their experience at all. As always, take with a grain of salt any anecdotal evidence you hear about firms on this forum.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Simpson v. Cleary (NY)

Postby thesealocust » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:26 am

OP: As far as I know, STB and Cleary are among the most financially stable firms out there, and I don't think you need to be concerned about the small differences between them which you noted.

Given the similarities between the firms, I strongly encourage you to follow your gut. That counts for a lot once it comes to the daily grind, and even though you don't have perfect information, few other statistics or anecdotes should hold as much weight once you've narrowed it down to two firms like this.

For what it's worth, the people I know at either firm are as happy/miserable as one would expect, so no above-and-beyond horror stories to report.

Anonymous User wrote:Not to be snippy but...

We've got lots of people here with decent grades but 0 CBs, and you're worried because one of your V10s offers at 99.1% while your other V10 offers at 100%?

You probably can't go wrong with either firm. Just go on second visits, make them take you out to lunch or dinner, and whoever treats you to the better meal gets your acceptance.


Get lost. This is a forum for people trying to maximize their academic and professional success, not a forum for whining and feeling bad for each other. OP's question is exactly the kind of thing this forum was created for and the sort of discussion we should be encouraging.

It sucks that the legal field is so starkly divided between the haves and have nots, but that doesn't make the questions of people enjoying objective success any less important.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.