Gerard Fox Law - Beware

(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.
jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby jd20132013 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:30 pm

rpupkin wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Yea and I wouldn't advise anyone with williams grades o go there over a boutique that actually pays market

Munger, Keker, and W&C have usually paid below market over the past 20 years. Why would you advise someone not to work at those places?

Because they don't pay market. Ymmv of course

But I thought your point was that you would advise someone to go to boutiques that actually pay market. What boutiques are you talking about? The boutiques/smaller firms that consistently pay market and above (like Susman and McKool) tend to focus on plaintiff-side work and require longer hours. If your hypothetical advice-seeker wanted to avoid those environments (many people do), would you tell them to choose big law over Munger/Keker/W&C because big law pays market?



Oh, definitely not. I don't fully remember the context of the hypothetical but I fully agree with your point if it's that someone unwilling to deal with the lifestyle of a susman but who wants to get early experience should def take w and c over a conventional big law firm.

lolwat

Silver
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby lolwat » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:26 pm

jd20132013 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:Yea and I wouldn't advise anyone with williams grades o go there over a boutique that actually pays market

Munger, Keker, and W&C have usually paid below market over the past 20 years. Why would you advise someone not to work at those places?

Because they don't pay market. Ymmv of course

But I thought your point was that you would advise someone to go to boutiques that actually pay market. What boutiques are you talking about? The boutiques/smaller firms that consistently pay market and above (like Susman and McKool) tend to focus on plaintiff-side work and require longer hours. If your hypothetical advice-seeker wanted to avoid those environments (many people do), would you tell them to choose big law over Munger/Keker/W&C because big law pays market?



Oh, definitely not. I don't fully remember the context of the hypothetical but I fully agree with your point if it's that someone unwilling to deal with the lifestyle of a susman but who wants to get early experience should def take w and c over a conventional big law firm.


The context was just a mild debate (if you could even call it that) about whether a boutique firm has to pay market to be considered an "elite litigation boutique." W&C got mentioned as an elite litigation boutique and you jumped in saying you wouldn't recommend with W&C grades go there over a boutique that pays market. Your initial explanation was essentially that you would advise someone to take a market-paying boutique over W&C simply of the difference in compensation. Now you've agreed with rpupkin that at least one other factor (lifestyle) would affect your advice. So now I'm confused!

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby jd20132013 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:57 pm

I defer to rpupkin's analysis to the extent anything I said conflicts with his

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby nealric » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:20 am

FascinatedWanderer wrote:
nealric wrote:
FascinatedWanderer wrote:
nealric wrote:
giggaman1228 wrote:The pay is about 50,000$-80,000 off the Cravath scale, at all levels, with minimal bonuses.


If a firm is not paying at least Cravath scale (including bonus), it is not an elite litigation boutique.

OP sorry to hear, but these sorts of things happen. The good news is that career detours are generally reversible.


He said, ignoring the fact that Williams & Connolly pays well under market.


W&C traditionally paid over-market base, but with no bonus. It was over-market at certain class levels during the recession. Setting that aside, I don't really consider W&C a litigation "boutique." A place with 250+ attorneys is straight up biglaw in my book.


I'm aware of all of this. Doesn't change the fact that they pay $25k less than market for third years when considering all-in comp. And about $50k less all-in for fourth years.


It's for people who value stability and certainty over upside potential. Seems to work out OK for them as they still attract top candidates.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby rpupkin » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:10 pm

nealric wrote:
FascinatedWanderer wrote:
nealric wrote:
W&C traditionally paid over-market base, but with no bonus. It was over-market at certain class levels during the recession. Setting that aside, I don't really consider W&C a litigation "boutique." A place with 250+ attorneys is straight up biglaw in my book.


I'm aware of all of this. Doesn't change the fact that they pay $25k less than market for third years when considering all-in comp. And about $50k less all-in for fourth years.


It's for people who value stability and certainty over upside potential.

That's a strange use of "upside potential." Isn't there more upside potential at W&C, given the better chances of making partner (compared to traditional big law) and the likely better exit opportunities for litigators? If you replace "upside potential" with "short-term earnings," your statement would be closer to correct.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby nealric » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:48 pm

rpupkin wrote:
nealric wrote:
FascinatedWanderer wrote:
nealric wrote:
W&C traditionally paid over-market base, but with no bonus. It was over-market at certain class levels during the recession. Setting that aside, I don't really consider W&C a litigation "boutique." A place with 250+ attorneys is straight up biglaw in my book.


I'm aware of all of this. Doesn't change the fact that they pay $25k less than market for third years when considering all-in comp. And about $50k less all-in for fourth years.


It's for people who value stability and certainty over upside potential.

That's a strange use of "upside potential." Isn't there more upside potential at W&C, given the better chances of making partner (compared to traditional big law) and the likely better exit opportunities for litigators? If you replace "upside potential" with "short-term earnings," your statement would be closer to correct.


Upside at the associate level (i.e. potential for a big bonus year like 2007). I'm not sure if W&C associates are more likely to make partner than lockstep firms or not.

FascinatedWanderer

Bronze
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby FascinatedWanderer » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:35 pm

nealric wrote:
FascinatedWanderer wrote:
nealric wrote:
FascinatedWanderer wrote:
nealric wrote:
giggaman1228 wrote:The pay is about 50,000$-80,000 off the Cravath scale, at all levels, with minimal bonuses.


If a firm is not paying at least Cravath scale (including bonus), it is not an elite litigation boutique.

OP sorry to hear, but these sorts of things happen. The good news is that career detours are generally reversible.


He said, ignoring the fact that Williams & Connolly pays well under market.


W&C traditionally paid over-market base, but with no bonus. It was over-market at certain class levels during the recession. Setting that aside, I don't really consider W&C a litigation "boutique." A place with 250+ attorneys is straight up biglaw in my book.


I'm aware of all of this. Doesn't change the fact that they pay $25k less than market for third years when considering all-in comp. And about $50k less all-in for fourth years.


It's for people who value stability and certainty over upside potential. Seems to work out OK for them as they still attract top candidates.


At this point it serves as a mechanism to get candidates who are committed to private practice I think. If you want to go to the government and spend a few years at a firm first, you're more likely to choose Kellogg, Wilkinson Walsh, Covington or some such. Which makes sense, because my sense is W&C really wants lifers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Gerard Fox Law - Beware

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:46 pm

Very interesting. I interviewed at the firm and was impressed by how nice people there were, except I thought Gerald Fox was a little full of himself (but then a lot of lawyers are). I eventually didn't go because I couldn't take the pay cut without having a reduced workload, but I always wondered how the firm was doing because it seemed like a promising place. I did see a lot of people that interviewed me had left the firm.

OP what's your plan now? Are you still there and are you trying to leave?



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.