Quinn or Susman? Forum
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 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.
-
- Posts: 428551
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Quinn or Susman?
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?
- First Offense
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
Susman pays more, right? Go there. Both will work you to death.
- cbbinnyc
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:49 am
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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 $$$.
-
- Posts: 428551
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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.
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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- First Offense
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
Susman is plenty known where it matters.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.
-
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:07 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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?
Think about it like this - is it easier to go from Susman to Quinn or Quinn to Susman?
-
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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.
- rpupkin
- Posts: 5653
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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.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.
- UVA2B
- Posts: 3570
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
This was my initial impression to the question too. Most in-house will be hiring at defense shops, not at a boutique like Susman.rpupkin wrote: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.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.
As always rpupkin, you confirm my initial impressions on this sort of question.
-
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
I'm glad you at least recognized that bolded is essential.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?
-
- Posts: 428551
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 428551
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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.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.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- rpupkin
- Posts: 5653
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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.Anonymous User wrote: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.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.
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
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm
Re: Quinn or Susman?
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.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.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login