AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

(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.
User avatar
glitched

Silver
Posts: 1103
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 9:50 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby glitched » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:44 pm

dabigchina wrote:I don't know why we are getting so triggered over this. Dude enjoyed his time at S&C. Who cares. I personally wouldn't work there but to each his own.


Same. Though this thread is fun to read.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326386
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:45 pm

I don't get all the people shitting on OP. I'm a juniorish midlevel and would prefer to grind out 4-5 years at a 2300 place like S&C than be in constant competition for hunting for new work. Coasting to 1600 at a slow firm sounds fun until you realize that a lot of firms will can you well before the end of your your second year if you're on that pace, regardless of the fact that it's not your fault that there's not enough work to go around (I know, it happened to me). I know someone else posted something similar above but I wanted to add a +1.

JohannDeMann wrote:if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.


That isn't necessarily true - it's possible to like something (biglaw), but like another thing (9-5 in house) even more.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326386
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I don't get all the people shitting on OP. I'm a juniorish midlevel and would prefer to grind out 4-5 years at a 2300 place like S&C than be in constant competition for hunting for new work. Coasting to 1600 at a slow firm sounds fun until you realize that a lot of firms will can you well before the end of your your second year if you're on that pace, regardless of the fact that it's not your fault that there's not enough work to go around (I know, it happened to me). I know someone else posted something similar above but I wanted to add a +1.

JohannDeMann wrote:if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.


That isn't necessarily true - it's possible to like something (biglaw), but like another thing (9-5 in house) even more.


I haven't read the entire thread but I agree with this anon's first point: you can't really "coast" and having no work can be as stressful (esp if you need to service your debt). I also know people who have been let go before year two. It happens

Anonymous User
Posts: 326386
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't get all the people shitting on OP. I'm a juniorish midlevel and would prefer to grind out 4-5 years at a 2300 place like S&C than be in constant competition for hunting for new work. Coasting to 1600 at a slow firm sounds fun until you realize that a lot of firms will can you well before the end of your your second year if you're on that pace, regardless of the fact that it's not your fault that there's not enough work to go around (I know, it happened to me). I know someone else posted something similar above but I wanted to add a +1.

JohannDeMann wrote:if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.


That isn't necessarily true - it's possible to like something (biglaw), but like another thing (9-5 in house) even more.


I haven't read the entire thread but I agree with this anon's first point: you can't really "coast" and having no work can be as stressful (esp if you need to service your debt). I also know people who have been let go before year two. It happens


And all billable hours aren't the same. I'd imagine at the more elite firms, clients pay and their is less pressure on associates to cut their own hours. This isn't the case at firms where clients take issue with almost every bill. You could end up billing 1900, but in actuality have worked the same as someone who billed 2300 hours.

User avatar
glitched

Silver
Posts: 1103
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 9:50 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby glitched » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I don't get all the people shitting on OP. I'm a juniorish midlevel and would prefer to grind out 4-5 years at a 2300 place like S&C than be in constant competition for hunting for new work. Coasting to 1600 at a slow firm sounds fun until you realize that a lot of firms will can you well before the end of your your second year if you're on that pace, regardless of the fact that it's not your fault that there's not enough work to go around (I know, it happened to me). I know someone else posted something similar above but I wanted to add a +1.

JohannDeMann wrote:if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.


That isn't necessarily true - it's possible to like something (biglaw), but like another thing (9-5 in house) even more.


As having been there, I definitely understand the very real fear of having low hours. It's sometimes way more stressful than being busy. But the right comparison isn't really 1600 hour firms vs. 2300. It's 1950 versus 2300. That extra 350+ hours is huge. It means several more nights/weekends per month of painful hours (i.e. late nights), and that's assuming that it's spread out evenly, which almost certainly doesn't happen. At 1950, you're not really worried about being canned (though it's certainly possible). So not taking into account exit options, is it really worth it to lose weeknights and weekends you could spend on other things when you're being paid the exact same? You can still love the law and what you do at 1950 hour firms - the work isn't that different.

But ultimately to each their own right? If you value exit options, gaining more experience, and prestige, then why not? There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that there are several firms where you don't have to worry about getting work and can get by with way less than 2300 hours.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326386
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:11 pm

glitched wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't get all the people shitting on OP. I'm a juniorish midlevel and would prefer to grind out 4-5 years at a 2300 place like S&C than be in constant competition for hunting for new work. Coasting to 1600 at a slow firm sounds fun until you realize that a lot of firms will can you well before the end of your your second year if you're on that pace, regardless of the fact that it's not your fault that there's not enough work to go around (I know, it happened to me). I know someone else posted something similar above but I wanted to add a +1.

JohannDeMann wrote:if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.


That isn't necessarily true - it's possible to like something (biglaw), but like another thing (9-5 in house) even more.


As having been there, I definitely understand the very real fear of having low hours. It's sometimes way more stressful than being busy. But the right comparison isn't really 1600 hour firms vs. 2300. It's 1950 versus 2300. That extra 350+ hours is huge. It means several more nights/weekends per month of painful hours (i.e. late nights), and that's assuming that it's spread out evenly, which almost certainly doesn't happen. At 1950, you're not really worried about being canned (though it's certainly possible). So not taking into account exit options, is it really worth it to lose weeknights and weekends you could spend on other things when you're being paid the exact same? You can still love the law and what you do at 1950 hour firms - the work isn't that different.

But ultimately to each their own right? If you value exit options, gaining more experience, and prestige, then why not? There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that there are several firms where you don't have to worry about getting work and can get by with way less than 2300 hours.


Not the quoted anon but I am the anon above. I agree in theory. It would be awesome to work somewhere where it is within your control consistenly bill 1950 hours. That would make this job so much less stressful. In reality, it is a function of not just your law firm but also the practice grp, the economy etc. You just never know.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326386
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
glitched wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't get all the people shitting on OP. I'm a juniorish midlevel and would prefer to grind out 4-5 years at a 2300 place like S&C than be in constant competition for hunting for new work. Coasting to 1600 at a slow firm sounds fun until you realize that a lot of firms will can you well before the end of your your second year if you're on that pace, regardless of the fact that it's not your fault that there's not enough work to go around (I know, it happened to me). I know someone else posted something similar above but I wanted to add a +1.

JohannDeMann wrote:if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.


That isn't necessarily true - it's possible to like something (biglaw), but like another thing (9-5 in house) even more.


As having been there, I definitely understand the very real fear of having low hours. It's sometimes way more stressful than being busy. But the right comparison isn't really 1600 hour firms vs. 2300. It's 1950 versus 2300. That extra 350+ hours is huge. It means several more nights/weekends per month of painful hours (i.e. late nights), and that's assuming that it's spread out evenly, which almost certainly doesn't happen. At 1950, you're not really worried about being canned (though it's certainly possible). So not taking into account exit options, is it really worth it to lose weeknights and weekends you could spend on other things when you're being paid the exact same? You can still love the law and what you do at 1950 hour firms - the work isn't that different.

But ultimately to each their own right? If you value exit options, gaining more experience, and prestige, then why not? There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that there are several firms where you don't have to worry about getting work and can get by with way less than 2300 hours.


Not the quoted anon but I am the anon above. I agree in theory. It would be awesome to work somewhere where it is within your control consistenly bill 1950 hours. That would make this job so much less stressful. In reality, it is a function of not just your law firm but also the practice grp, the economy etc. You just never know.


Agree /w this. Going to a known sweatshop (a real sweatshop, not in the way tls describes all firms as sweatshops) removes that layer of uncertainty.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326386
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:37 pm

This has been my favorite thread of the year so far. Some of these posts had me actually laughing out loud.

dabigchina

Silver
Posts: 1426
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby dabigchina » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:59 pm

JohannDeMann wrote:
dabigchina wrote:I don't know why we are getting so triggered over this. Dude enjoyed his time at S&C. Who cares. I personally wouldn't work there but to each his own.


if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.

Assuming this is true but he nonetheless thought it was worth it in hindsight, I don't see how that makes his experience less valid.

This doesn't seem to be the case though. He seems to have enjoyed, or at least tolerated his time.

lawlorbust

Bronze
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:50 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby lawlorbust » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:20 pm

dabigchina wrote:
JohannDeMann wrote:
dabigchina wrote:I don't know why we are getting so triggered over this. Dude enjoyed his time at S&C. Who cares. I personally wouldn't work there but to each his own.


if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.

Assuming this is true but he nonetheless thought it was worth it in hindsight, I don't see how that makes his experience less valid.

This doesn't seem to be the case though. He seems to have enjoyed, or at least tolerated his time.


All this is right, but I kind of see where JohannDeMann is coming from. Didn't he go from a TTT to shitlaw (or, at least, shit biglaw)? I could see how that sort of barrel-scraping experience would shape your view of the profession to become so triggered and automatically disbelieving of anyone who's claimed to have gotten good feels from it.

notgreat

Silver
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby notgreat » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:47 am

lawlorbust wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
JohannDeMann wrote:
dabigchina wrote:I don't know why we are getting so triggered over this. Dude enjoyed his time at S&C. Who cares. I personally wouldn't work there but to each his own.


if he really enjoyed it he wouldnt have left. he either wasnt very good at what he did and got asked to leave or didnt like what he was doing and left to do something else. which is why its dumb hes shilling for the firm now.

Assuming this is true but he nonetheless thought it was worth it in hindsight, I don't see how that makes his experience less valid.

This doesn't seem to be the case though. He seems to have enjoyed, or at least tolerated his time.


All this is right, but I kind of see where JohannDeMann is coming from. Didn't he go from a TTT to shitlaw (or, at least, shit biglaw)? I could see how that sort of barrel-scraping experience would shape your view of the profession to become so triggered and automatically disbelieving of anyone who's claimed to have gotten good feels from it.


I'm in shit biglaw (perhaps like johann), but I have friends everywhere, including at S&C, and almost none of them like their jobs or their lives. Those that do aren't concentrated at S&C, Cravath, DPW, etc.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre

Gold
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:08 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not the quoted anon but I am the anon above. I agree in theory. It would be awesome to work somewhere where it is within your control consistenly bill 1950 hours. That would make this job so much less stressful. In reality, it is a function of not just your law firm but also the practice grp, the economy etc. You just never know.


Agree /w this. Going to a known sweatshop (a real sweatshop, not in the way tls describes all firms as sweatshops) removes that layer of uncertainty.


I never understand when people say "that's not a real sweatshop" as though 1950 isn't an amount that still tires you out, impedes your personal life, and makes friends and family wonder why you must hate them. As though just because other firms really do expect you to bill 2300 and have zero life, 1950 suddenly became Club Med.

ruski

Bronze
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:45 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby ruski » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:39 am

the huge joke is the 1950 and 2350 guy actually work the exact same amount, one is just way more liberal with his time clock. comparing hours between people is completely useless. I know people who stop the clock to take a leak. I know others who keep it running when going to starbucks down the block

User avatar
stannis

Silver
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:01 am

Re: AMA - former Sullivan & Cromwell associate

Postby stannis » Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:21 am

ruski wrote:the huge joke is the 1950 and 2350 guy actually work the exact same amount, one is just way more liberal with his time clock. comparing hours between people is completely useless. I know people who stop the clock to take a leak. I know others who keep it running when going to starbucks down the block


This isn't normal? Damn.



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.