Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

(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: 273127
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:19 pm

Deciding between the two offices. I'm 90% sure I want to do corporate work (beyond that, I'm not entirely sure). I've enjoyed the people I've met at both places, but I will say that with two considerations. First, I've met with close to a dozen people from Gibson and enjoyed most of my interactions (great fit). Second, I only met with 5 people at Skadden, but enjoyed their company (good fit). I'd say 5% chance I end up in LA, and 5% I end up in D.C. at some point (family and spouse ties).

Thoughts? My very early (albeit not 100% informed) opinion is that the work is "better" at Skadden. But I'm curious if Amazing Work/Good fit trumps Good work/Great fit. Lastly, I worry just a little bit about the Skadden reputation (workaholics), but I didn't feel that from the office/associates I met with in the office. I'd be open to being a partner, but understand that exiting is the much, MUCH more realistic option (and I'm ok with that; I've gotten the impression exit options would be slightly better at Skadden). Based off NALP--Leverage is slightly less desirable at Skadden, but not by much (1:3 v. 2:3). Between the heavy training culture and free market system, I have no preference.

Please feel free to correct any assumptions I've made. I'm working off TLS research, Vault, and Chambers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273127
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Deciding between the two offices. I'm 90% sure I want to do corporate work (beyond that, I'm not entirely sure). I've enjoyed the people I've met at both places, but I will say that with two considerations. First, I've met with close to a dozen people from Gibson and enjoyed most of my interactions (great fit). Second, I only met with 5 people at Skadden, but enjoyed their company (good fit). I'd say 5% chance I end up in LA, and 5% I end up in D.C. at some point (family and spouse ties).

Thoughts? My very early (albeit not 100% informed) opinion is that the work is "better" at Skadden. But I'm curious if Amazing Work/Good fit trumps Good work/Great fit. Lastly, I worry just a little bit about the Skadden reputation (workaholics), but I didn't feel that from the office/associates I met with in the office. I'd be open to being a partner, but understand that exiting is the much, MUCH more realistic option (and I'm ok with that; I've gotten the impression exit options would be slightly better at Skadden). Based off NALP--Leverage is slightly less desirable at Skadden, but not by much (1:3 v. 2:3). Between the heavy training culture and free market system, I have no preference.

Please feel free to correct any assumptions I've made. I'm working off TLS research, Vault, and Chambers.


You heard from Skadden Palo Alto tonight?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273127
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:48 pm

Out of curiosity, do you tell your interviewers that you only know you want to do corporate and leave it at that? In truth, I feel the same way you do but I tend to give a more specific interest to look like I know what I want to do. However, this has gotten me in some trouble when I am asked more in depth questions regarding that practice area.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273127
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Out of curiosity, do you tell your interviewers that you only know you want to do corporate and leave it at that? In truth, I feel the same way you do but I tend to give a more specific interest to look like I know what I want to do. However, this has gotten me in some trouble when I am asked more in depth questions regarding that practice area.


OP here.

I usually say that I'm fairly I want to do corporate because of X, Y, and Z. But, given that the first year courses give absolutely no insight into transactional work, I'd hate to make a decision with so little information. Sometimes that spins into other conversations like "I like M&A, because of the more problem-solving oriented nature...plus I like negotiations. But, I also like the more cooperative nature of Capital Markets work".

It took a while to cultivate these answers. Conversations with transactional attorneys pretty much helped me refine it.

Does anyone have any more insight into the cultures/name recognition/quality of work/exit options (ESPECIALLY exit options) of the two firms?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273127
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:55 am

Bump.

Curious if any one else has any opinions/insights before I put this topic to rest. I keep going back and forth between the two. I feel a marginally better fit at Gibson. It seems like work is marginally "better" at Skadden.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273127
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:20 pm

bump

Anonymous User
Posts: 273127
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Skadden v. Gibson Palo Alto

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:53 pm

Bump.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.