Quinn or Susman?

(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.

Susman or Quinn

Susman
23
79%
Quinn
6
21%
 
Total votes: 29

Anonymous User
Posts: 327422
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Quinn or Susman?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:59 pm

I'm interested in lit, but my long-term goal is to go in-house. I also want to be mentored/learn from the best. Thoughts?

User avatar
First Offense

Platinum
Posts: 7091
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby First Offense » Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:03 pm

Susman pays more, right? Go there. Both will work you to death.

User avatar
cbbinnyc

Bronze
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:49 am

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby cbbinnyc » Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:21 pm

I assume this is for a full-time position, since Susman doesn't do a full SA program and doesn't give full-time offers at the end? If so, I would think go with Susman. Both tops for lit but, from what I've heard, Susman is just in a league of its own in terms of getting early responsibility and making $$$.

Jchance

Silver
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby Jchance » Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:24 pm

Susman, harder to get.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327422
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:29 pm

Yes, both are for full-time offers. Susman pays substantially more (almost 100k)

Thanks guys! I was thinking Susman also. I think it's not as well-known as Quinn, but I don't think that should matter when I go in-house.

User avatar
First Offense

Platinum
Posts: 7091
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby First Offense » Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Yes, both are for full-time offers. Susman pays substantially more (almost 100k)

Thanks guys! I was thinking Susman also. I think it's not as well-known as Quinn, but I don't think that should matter when I go in-house.

Susman is plenty known where it matters.

Magic Hat

Bronze
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:07 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby Magic Hat » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:16 pm

Susman. Slightly more hours (relatively speaking), more money, shorter and more realistic partnership track, more selective and better training.

Think about it like this - is it easier to go from Susman to Quinn or Quinn to Susman?

hlsperson1111

Bronze
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby hlsperson1111 » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:29 pm

Susman, but this is a comical thread - these are both super hard-charging litigation shops and I don't know why you would want to go to one of them if your endgame is an in-house job.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5659
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby rpupkin » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:33 pm

hlsperson1111 wrote:Susman, but this is a comical thread - these are both super hard-charging litigation shops and I don't know why you would want to go to one of them if your endgame is an in-house job.

Agreed. Also, to the extent that in-house lit opportunities exist, they can be particularly tough to get if you've done a lot of plaintiff-side work, which OP would likely do at Susman. If OP's long-term goal is in-house lit, then OP might be better off at a firm that leans more strongly towards defense-side lit.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3466
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby UVA2B » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:36 pm

rpupkin wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:Susman, but this is a comical thread - these are both super hard-charging litigation shops and I don't know why you would want to go to one of them if your endgame is an in-house job.

Agreed. Also, to the extent that in-house lit opportunities exist, they can be particularly tough to get if you've done a lot of plaintiff-side work, which OP would likely do at Susman. If OP's long-term goal is in-house lit, then OP might be better off at a firm that leans more strongly towards defense-side lit.


This was my initial impression to the question too. Most in-house will be hiring at defense shops, not at a boutique like Susman.

As always rpupkin, you confirm my initial impressions on this sort of question.

RaceJudicata

Gold
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby RaceJudicata » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interested in lit, but my long-term goal is to go in-house. I also want to be mentored/learn from the best. Thoughts?


I'm glad you at least recognized that bolded is essential.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327422
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:23 pm

Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on BOTH SIDES of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327422
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:25 am

Anonymous User wrote:Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on BOTH SIDES of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.


That's what I was thinking. I feel like for any in house lit position, Susman would set me up just fine. I don't see why in house would care if I did defense v. Plaintiffs work since that distinct matters mostly for conflicts check. I also feel that the smaller size of Susman would give a better chance at building relationships with the partners, who can later facilitate my transition to in-house.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5659
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby rpupkin » Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:27 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on BOTH SIDES of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.


That's what I was thinking. I feel like for any in house lit position, Susman would set me up just fine. I don't see why in house would care if I did defense v. Plaintiffs work since that distinct matters mostly for conflicts check.

That's not really true for some of the companies that have moved toward larger in-house lit departments. It's not just about conflicts; many companies (particularly the younger tech companies) have strong biases against hiring attorneys who have done plaintiff-side work.

By the way, I am not saying you should avoid Susman for this reason. I would choose Susman over Quinn, and it's not close. (And, frankly, if you have the credentials for Susman, you should have several other lit-focused options besides Quinn.) But doing plaintiff-side work will limit your in-house options.

cavalier1138

Platinum
Posts: 5087
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Quinn or Susman?

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:43 am

Anonymous User wrote:Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on BOTH SIDES of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.


Out of curiosity, do you know of people regularly going in-house from either of these firms? I was under the same impression as rpupkin: in-house lit is hard to land and it's harder to land from a firm where associates are less likely to leave and forge those connections for future laterals.



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.