Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

(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: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:26 pm

Assuming offers at both coming off clerkships, what are the factors leaning towards one over the other? (For litigation, NY)

User avatar
Lacepiece23
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Lacepiece23 » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:53 pm

Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:50 pm

Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby fats provolone » Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:54 pm

oh s&c selects for personality alright

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby utahraptor » Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)

in terms of people, both have total weirdos and both have amazing people, at least in terms of the students they attract

I don't think TLS is going to be able to help you with something like that

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14440
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


Because it makes no sense to be more selective at screener than callback.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:54 pm

I have to say, I don't get this "screening for personality" idea at all. I don't think it can actually be done, especially in a 20-30 minute interview with stock questions and stock responses. You bet that I tried to affect, whatever that means, a "fratty" demeanor for Latham, Kirkland, etc. But it's really hard to show how fratty you are when answering questions about my 1L summer. Law students will do what it takes to get a job.

Even if one could determine an interviewee's personality in a short interview, how do we know that affected personality is actually the interviewee's actual personality?

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby fats provolone » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have to say, I don't get this "screening for personality" idea at all. I don't think it can actually be done, especially in a 20-30 minute interview with stock questions and stock responses. You bet that I tried to affect, whatever that means, a "fratty" demeanor for Latham, Kirkland, etc. But it's really hard to show how fratty you are when answering questions about my 1L summer. Law students will do what it takes to get a job.

Even if one could determine an interviewee's personality in a short interview, how do we know that affected personality is actually the interviewee's actual personality?

u figure it out over the summer and cold offer them

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:39 pm

S&C is more preftigious

PW seems to have substantially fewer assholes

Downtown versus midtown

I would be shocked if anyone could point to a concrete categorical advantage to going to SullCrom for lit.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby 2014 » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:48 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


Because it makes no sense to be more selective at screener than callback.

Those $400 flights and $300 hotels cut into PPPs though bro gotta cut back

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14440
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:51 pm

2014 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


Because it makes no sense to be more selective at screener than callback.

Those $400 flights and $300 hotels cut into PPPs though bro gotta cut back


So why even call back.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby minnbills » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


(outed as S&C aspie)

User avatar
sayan
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:05 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby sayan » Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


At least at HLS in my year (and the year before), every single person who received a callback then received an offer. Callbacks were based on grades since that's all you can really gleam from a screener. I know people with excellent resume credentials who had 3Hs and were dinged. I know K-JDs with 6Hs who received callbacks. I don't know of anyone who received an offer with fewer than ~5Hs. This pattern is frequently confirmed at HLS among everyone I talked to. Thus, S&C offers were almost assuredly based solely on grades for at least those two years.

Grades have little, if any connection with personality. Thus, S&C's selection process for those two years almost assuredly had little, if any connection with personality. I doubt the process has changed at all at HLS, and I imagine the same process is used at other schools.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby skers » Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


It's completely true though. S&C's pattern is pretty much auto-callback->offer w/ same day offers.

Weird to make that a distinguishing feature from Paul, Weiss though since they also have a really high callback offer ratio.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:53 pm

Can't imagine there's much of a difference re: the quality of the two practices, but I do corporate so don't really know.

S&C is awful. I remember sitting in their corner waiting room during my callback watching all the helicopters go by, etc. Not gonna lie, it got my panties pretty wet. Then I realized I was around a bunch of aspie nutjobs and chose a diff. firm.

Turns out the new firm was full of a bunch of aspie nutjobs too; they were just slightly better at covering it up. Who knows...you really can't win in this fucking job. YMMV.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:23 pm

for what it's worth, PW's new corporate partner is worse than any S&C partner

Anonymous User
Posts: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:26 pm

skers wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


It's completely true though. S&C's pattern is pretty much auto-callback->offer w/ same day offers.

Weird to make that a distinguishing feature from Paul, Weiss though since they also have a really high callback offer ratio.

top 10% at CCN who did not get a S&C callback...

must be the aspiest of the aspies

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14440
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
skers wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


It's completely true though. S&C's pattern is pretty much auto-callback->offer w/ same day offers.

Weird to make that a distinguishing feature from Paul, Weiss though since they also have a really high callback offer ratio.

top 10% at CCN who did not get a S&C callback...

must be the aspiest of the aspies

Did u wet ur pants?

911 crisis actor
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby 911 crisis actor » Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I have to say, I don't get this "screening for personality" idea at all. I don't think it can actually be done, especially in a 20-30 minute interview with stock questions and stock responses. You bet that I tried to affect, whatever that means, a "fratty" demeanor for Latham, Kirkland, etc. But it's really hard to show how fratty you are when answering questions about my 1L summer. Law students will do what it takes to get a job.

Even if one could determine an interviewee's personality in a short interview, how do we know that affected personality is actually the interviewee's actual personality?


Definitely not written by somebody about to summer at S&C

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby 2014 » Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:35 pm

TBH the S&C personality shit show schtick is probably way overblown. The type of person that ends up there is on average probably similar to the one who ends up at any major player in the NY market including Paul Weiss. If I were making this decision it would basically come down to location preference and whether I valued the top tier corporate practice under the same roof at S&C more than the marginally better lit reputation PW has. Either is defensible.


E- To be fair though I'm tainted by the fact that their recruiting at UChi is indistinguishable from any other NY V20 (i.e. it's as much personality as a resume drop)

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

I mean, there is so much variation and subjectivity it's hard to know what to believe about any particular firm's "culture" but S&C is one of those places that seems to have an almost universally negative connotation from people who have dealt with them. It's all kind of vague but at some point it starts to feel significant. And this isn't about the "personality" of the associates so much as the kind of attitudes that prevail among the partnership.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:02 am

Anonymous User wrote:for what it's worth, PW's new corporate partner is worse than any S&C partner


Is their name on here? http://www.paulweiss.com/practices/tran ... x?id=19080

911 crisis actor
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby 911 crisis actor » Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:19 am

That anon is probably talking about their new shiny lateral from K&E

Anonymous User
Posts: 273481
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:04 pm

minnbills wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Only a 3L, but from everything I've heard is S&C for corporate PW for Lit. S&C also has a culture of selecting only the top students irrespective of personality, which for me would be a huge turn off. I'd go PW. But I really am not basing this off much.



Ah, the myth that never dies. I've never understood why folks assume that because S&C does its big cull at the screener stage rather than the callback stage, it doesn't select for personality.

(Which is not to say that S&C doesn't weigh grades more than its peer firms, because my understanding is that it does, but it's a giant leap from (x) weighing grades more heavily to (y) "irrespective of personality".)


(outed as S&C aspie)



Duh.

What I've heard - and this is second and third hand, not from the horse's mouth, so make of it what you will - is that S&C cares about personality to ensure that you're above a threshold. I.e, there's not this notion that the cooler you are, the better a lawyer you'll be. Rather, you need to have some minimum level of social skills, and above that there are lots of ways to skin the cat - some folks are client-charming salesmen, some are legal ninjas with barebones client management skills, and everywhere in between. (Even at other firms, I think a quick glance around any partnership reveals that sociability only weakly correlates, at best, with long term professional success.)

Testing for that level of social skills generally can be done at a screener, and in the rare case that the screening folks miss a horrendous jerk, well, that's the rare callback that doesn't lead to an offer. So instead of testing whether you're a Cool Girl or a Sweet Dude or a Hipster or whatever, none of which has much bearing on your ability to do legal work, callbacks are viewed as a chance to recruit candidates that have already passed a grade threshold and seem to have the minimum social skills necessary to have a chance to succeed professionally.

I do think that S&C's obvious efforts to keep doors open to top candidates from lower-ranked schools and/or nontraditional backgrounds is closely related to this. If you're assessing candidates based on how much you'd want to go have drinks with them on Friday night, then you're going to ding people from backgrounds that differ from yours. Some of the best associates I've worked with are folks I'd never hang with socially, but they are responsible, collaborative, and smart as hell.

Finally, as with all firms, different practice groups have different cultures. Some groups tend to be quiet and keep to themselves, some groups are gregarious and social, and some groups are a mix. It would be crappy - and unfair - for me to ding the fratty loud guy just because I'm personally quiet and reserved and work with quiet, reserved folks if there's a bunch of loud, back-slapping lawyers upstairs who would love to work with him.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby utahraptor » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:07 pm

this is some really dumb kool-aid drinking




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.