Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

(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.

Paul Weiss DC or Arnold & Porter DC

Paul Weiss
6
35%
Arnold & Porter
11
65%
 
Total votes: 17

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:25 pm

Looking to make a choice. Interested in litigation. Wrestling with the large, established office vs. small, growing office calculation. Like the culture at both.

Thoughts?

Thanks all!

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Elston Gunn » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:28 pm

Without a major fit preference, this is A&P all the way. They're the much superior brand in DC. You can argue they're on the same level as Covington and Wilmer, even (and, considering money issues etc. at Wilmer, I'd much rather work at A&P than Wilmer).

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8445
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby thesealocust » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:36 pm

Paul Weiss has a DC office?
TIL.

jd20132013
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby jd20132013 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:54 pm

Wilmer has money issues?

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Elston Gunn » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:33 pm

jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:57 am

thesealocust wrote:Paul Weiss has a DC office?
TIL.


And apparently it's "growing" :lol:

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

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby bdubs » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:58 am

Elston Gunn wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.


Local market reputation and firm financial health are not really related that much for firms with multiple offices. Wilmer is a product of a merger and its reputation from DC is not closely connected to its other offices. IP is a big thing at Wilmer in DC though, I would be surprised if none of the layoffs were in the DC office.

I think there are times that choosing a big, financially stable brand name in a secondary market makes sense but this isn't one of them. Stick with A&P.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:00 am

Elston Gunn wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.


Can you elaborate on the deferred comp? First I've heard of it.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Elston Gunn » Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:01 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
Elston Gunn wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.


Can you elaborate on the deferred comp? First I've heard of it.

Sure, this is from the Vault profile:
Our Firm has adopted a merit-based compensation system for every lawyer in the 4th year and beyond that combines an objective review of eligible hours (billable, pro bono, and certain Firm service hours) with our performance evaluations. The Firm holds its [fifth- and] sixth-year lawyers to a base salary of $210,000, which is below market. The Firm has adopted the 'Cravath model' for its base bonus scale, while providing in most cases a 'salary make up'.


They basically get paid below market, and then, if they meet their hours and have positive performance reviews, they get an end-of-year bonus that makes up for it. It's an obvious way for the firm to penny-pinch with interest, etc, and I've also read (I can't remember where) about Wilmer associates who felt like their performance reviewers were keenly aware of the firm's financial incentive to give bad reviews.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:23 am

Elston Gunn wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
Elston Gunn wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.


Can you elaborate on the deferred comp? First I've heard of it.

Sure, this is from the Vault profile:
Our Firm has adopted a merit-based compensation system for every lawyer in the 4th year and beyond that combines an objective review of eligible hours (billable, pro bono, and certain Firm service hours) with our performance evaluations. The Firm holds its [fifth- and] sixth-year lawyers to a base salary of $210,000, which is below market. The Firm has adopted the 'Cravath model' for its base bonus scale, while providing in most cases a 'salary make up'.


They basically get paid below market, and then, if they meet their hours and have positive performance reviews, they get an end-of-year bonus that makes up for it. It's an obvious way for the firm to penny-pinch with interest, etc, and I've also read (I can't remember where) about Wilmer associates who felt like their performance reviewers were keenly aware of the firm's financial incentive to give bad reviews.

how incredibly TTT. at oci, a dc partner revealed, unprompted, that his office offered most but not all its summers this year even though the firm "really wanted to make it 100%" and had the capability to do so. fair enough--wilmer's certainly not unique in no-offering the occasional summer associate. then he proceeded to explain why a nearly 100% offer rate was better than 100%. :roll:

as for paul weiss vs. a&p, a&p has the better reputation in dc, but there are some great litigators at paul weiss, too. it's a smaller but fast-growing office.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:14 am

Elston Gunn wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.


To the extent you're willing to believe an anonymous TLS commenter, there have definitely been layoffs at Wilmer DC. The ones I know of -- in one case the affected person is someone I personally know very well -- have been junior-to-mid-level associates in litigation, not just in IP.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Elston Gunn » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:32 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Elston Gunn wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.


To the extent you're willing to believe an anonymous TLS commenter, there have definitely been layoffs at Wilmer DC. The ones I know of -- in one case the affected person is someone I personally know very well -- have been junior-to-mid-level associates in litigation, not just in IP.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Laying off juniors is especially cruel.

Just confirms that Wilmer isn't a great place to be right now. Especially when you consider how good of a candidate you usually have to be to get an offer, I can imagine very few situations where someone should choose Wilmer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Paul Weiss DC v. Arnold & Porter DC

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:58 am

Elston Gunn wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Elston Gunn wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Wilmer has money issues?

July layoffs in other offices (probably not a worry for DC, since it's the main office, and I believe mostly in IP, but still...would give me pause), plus they've been doing "deferred compensation" for mid levels since the recession, which is pretty TTT.


To the extent you're willing to believe an anonymous TLS commenter, there have definitely been layoffs at Wilmer DC. The ones I know of -- in one case the affected person is someone I personally know very well -- have been junior-to-mid-level associates in litigation, not just in IP.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Laying off juniors is especially cruel.

Just confirms that Wilmer isn't a great place to be right now. Especially when you consider how good of a candidate you usually have to be to get an offer, I can imagine very few situations where someone should choose Wilmer.


Anonymous layoff-friend here. I know this didn't start out as a thread about Wilmer, but as an associate my advice to anyone considering Wilmer or ANY firm where you have concerns is to actually ask someone at the firm about it. You already have an offer, so in one of those follow-up calls from a partner, I honestly recommend saying, "you know, I have one concern. The word going around is that there have been some reductions in your associate ranks recently. Should I be worried about that?"

Obviously, they are going to "spin" you. But your job is to read between the lines. Are they taken aback, defensive, evasive? Or are they honest and giving good reasons why you shouldn't be concerned? When I interviewed several years ago, I did exactly this with respect to some huge swirling financial rumors about a particular firm. I actually came within a hair of working there based on the strength of the answer I got. So I guess I'm saying, yes, I'm not so high on Wilmer right now because of layoffs that I know about, but to those of you considering offers, please make the anonymous internet forum your first resource about all this, not your last.

(Same goes for when you tell a firm what other offers you are considering, which you should absolutely do. Do they get defensive? Or do they say, "yup, all great firms. But here are the reasons I think we're a better fit." Do they offer concrete and persuasive reasons? Or does it seem like they are blowing smoke?)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.