I don't know. I also don't know if it's continued at the same rate or sped up. That's why I asked for sources. Do you have anything from 2012?Anonymous User wrote:http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/whats-go ... eny-myers/
Has that slowed down now?
Firms to avoid 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: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
And, as a summer there this past summer, I can confirm that the amount of work is commensurate with that.O'Melveny's RPL score also rose 11 points, as O'Melveny had its most profitable financial year ever in 2011.
They're fine - at least as fine as anyone can tell without being a partner there.
- dresden doll
- Posts: 6797
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am
Re: Firms to avoid
They said that they hadn't done it when everyone else did, in which case they'd now be merely catching up, no?Anonymous User wrote:Capital call is never a good thing. Just because partners say things are fine and that it's normal doesn't mean it is. If everyone were really doing it, G&T doing it wouldn't be news.Anonymous User wrote:Doesn't seem clear that Greenberg is in trouble...unless you know something new...
All I can say is that they offered to move up my boyfriend's start date to August when he contacted them about a salary advance and that someone from a client firm remarked that they were busy as fuck right now (which certainly seems consistent with offering to start the incoming first year associate as early as August).
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
Re: Foley. This summer is 10 weeks. Friend has offer.Anonymous User wrote:Kirkland -- Not surprising, but they continue to thrive. Biggest 2012 summer class in Chicago by far and everyone seems very busy (they recently bolstered their RE practice with a few strong lateral hires and their IP lit is swamped apparently)Anonymous User wrote:Any news concerning Chicago firms/offices specifically?
Sidley -- Not as hot as Kirkland, but still busy and had a good-sized summer class.
Skadden -- Rumor has it that this satellite office has been very slow lately. Did not make 100% offers to their small summer class this summer (Don't know if it was because of fit or something else).
Latham -- Probably the busiest of the satellite offices. Apparently did not make 100% offers but was told that was because of a fit issue.
Foley -- Don't know much about how busy they are, but they shortened their summer program to 6-8 weeks this past summer.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
Locke Lord as well.Anonymous User wrote:If by the Texas firm you mean T&K, then yes, I've heard this too.Anonymous User wrote:Some people have been no-offered, some deferred and some work for firms they know are in trouble. ITT, we discuss firms 2Ls might think twice about, if they are lucky enough ITE to have multiple offers. Obviously, Winston is at the top of the list after today, but I'm sure people have other gossip that isn't substantiated enough to warrant ATL coverage. Let's hear it here. I've also heard unsubstantiated chatter about Kelley Drye, White & Case, Fish & Richardson, Nixon Peabody, Squire Sanders, and an unidentified large firm in Texas.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
100% offers.nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Any word on VE dallas? Im curious about litigation and M&A
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
There were rumors around Houston that VE is considering doing serious restructuring to make themselves even more of a specialized shop. The New Managing Partner apparently wants the firm to look more like Cravath than what they have in the past. They recently shed their entire Public Finance practice and 10-20 Environmental partners. They are still a very good firm, and they aren't going under or anything, but it is unclear what the firm will look like in a decade.Anonymous User wrote:100% offers.nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Any word on VE dallas? Im curious about litigation and M&A
VE also has the reputation of having a very high (for Texas) attrition rate among associates.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
Inside knowledge, no major restructuring plans. Also, probably the most stable Texas firm.Anonymous User wrote:There were rumors around Houston that VE is considering doing serious restructuring to make themselves even more of a specialized shop. The new managing partner apparently wants the firm to look more like Cravath than what they have in the past. They recently shed their entire Public Finance practice and 10-20 Environmental partners. They are still a very good firm, and they aren't going under or anything, but it is unclear what the firm will look like in a decade.Anonymous User wrote:100% offers.nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Any word on VE dallas? Im curious about litigation and M&A
VE also has the reputation of having a very high (for Texas) attrition rate among associates.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
It has slowed down. There was a rush of partner departures in the first half of 2011 and it was cause for concern. From what I've heard, and my sources are good, a lot of the partners who left weren't getting along well with others and were creating work conflicts, i.e., making it hard to take certain matters.Anonymous User wrote:I don't know. I also don't know if it's continued at the same rate or sped up. That's why I asked for sources. Do you have anything from 2012?Anonymous User wrote:http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/whats-go ... eny-myers/
Has that slowed down now?
I've seen other articles around that partners have left since, but not at a rate that's higher than normal. They've also added some partners. I think it's basically business as usual now. You could find sources if you searched Google news, but you're not going to find anything too jarring. Couple partners coming, couple going, but nothing as arresting as last spring.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
That's bull shit. I summered at Locke Lord Dallas. They had nearly perfect offer rate and have been looking for laterals - a lot of work to go around.Anonymous User wrote:Locke Lord as well.Anonymous User wrote:If by the Texas firm you mean T&K, then yes, I've heard this too.Anonymous User wrote:Some people have been no-offered, some deferred and some work for firms they know are in trouble. ITT, we discuss firms 2Ls might think twice about, if they are lucky enough ITE to have multiple offers. Obviously, Winston is at the top of the list after today, but I'm sure people have other gossip that isn't substantiated enough to warrant ATL coverage. Let's hear it here. I've also heard unsubstantiated chatter about Kelley Drye, White & Case, Fish & Richardson, Nixon Peabody, Squire Sanders, and an unidentified large firm in Texas.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
Update - Brought up Winston's layoffs in my non-Chicago screener. Interviewer told me the numbers were exaggerated and that the particular office I was interviewing for wasn't affected.Anonymous User wrote:I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.
Got a CB.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
Which office? And true brass balls would have also inquired about the alleged "choke out" lists that the firm keeps.Anonymous User wrote:Update - Brought up Winston's layoffs in my non-Chicago screener. Interviewer told me the numbers were exaggerated and that the particular office I was interviewing for wasn't affected.Anonymous User wrote:I have a Winston screener tomorrow. Totally don't care/gonna bring up the Chicago mess.
Got a CB.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.Anonymous User wrote:That's bull shit. I summered at Locke Lord Dallas. They had nearly perfect offer rate and have been looking for laterals - a lot of work to go around.Anonymous User wrote:Locke Lord as well.Anonymous User wrote:If by the Texas firm you mean T&K, then yes, I've heard this too.Anonymous User wrote:Some people have been no-offered, some deferred and some work for firms they know are in trouble. ITT, we discuss firms 2Ls might think twice about, if they are lucky enough ITE to have multiple offers. Obviously, Winston is at the top of the list after today, but I'm sure people have other gossip that isn't substantiated enough to warrant ATL coverage. Let's hear it here. I've also heard unsubstantiated chatter about Kelley Drye, White & Case, Fish & Richardson, Nixon Peabody, Squire Sanders, and an unidentified large firm in Texas.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- philosoraptor
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:49 am
Re: Firms to avoid
.
Last edited by philosoraptor on Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
I just checked with someone who was an SA at Foley this summer. The program was definitely shortened to 8 weeks for this summer.Anonymous User wrote:
Re: Foley. This summer is 10 weeks. Friend has offer.
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am
Re: Firms to avoid
What are the "several other dallas firms?"Anonymous User wrote: Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.
- chadwick218
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm
Re: Firms to avoid
Not the anonymous poster, but I've also heard rumblings of TK and Fulbright from various sources. I've also heard from first hand sources that TK has had a number of "very good" young associates lateral into more prestigious firms, but maybe this isn't all that unusual.nonprofit-prophet wrote:What are the "several other dallas firms?"Anonymous User wrote: Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:08 am
Re: Firms to avoid
What about some of the other mid-sized Houston/Dallas firms? Especially curious about the ones with smaller SA classes.chadwick218 wrote:Not the anonymous poster, but I've also heard rumblings of TK and Fulbright from various sources. I've also heard from first hand sources that TK has had a number of "very good" young associates lateral into more prestigious firms, but maybe this isn't all that unusual.nonprofit-prophet wrote:What are the "several other dallas firms?"Anonymous User wrote: Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.
- chadwick218
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm
Re: Firms to avoid
My understanding from friends/colleagues working at some of those firms is that they are doing alright. Middle-market M&A has been pretty strong in Texas. I understand that AK (although arguably a bigger boy) and Winstead in Dallas has been doing very well. They are arguably at a slight advantage from a pricing standpoint. Mid-sized, non-public companies don't want to pay $400/hour for a first/second year associate (which a couple of firms in town do charge).al_state wrote:What about some of the other mid-sized Houston/Dallas firms? Especially curious about the ones with smaller SA classes.chadwick218 wrote:Not the anonymous poster, but I've also heard rumblings of TK and Fulbright from various sources. I've also heard from first hand sources that TK has had a number of "very good" young associates lateral into more prestigious firms, but maybe this isn't all that unusual.nonprofit-prophet wrote:What are the "several other dallas firms?"Anonymous User wrote: Rumor is they're having financial trouble like several other Dallas firms. They have been known to no-offer lots of people for "fit" in years past but did pretty well this year. They also appear to have reduced the size of their Dallas SA class, however.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
A number of folks have been trying to warn me away from Pillsbury DC, but nobody can tell me what is wrong with it. I have a CB coming up this week and am very curious. Any information at all?
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
I have several Austin callbacks. Are there any firms in Austin I should avoid? I'm going for transactional work.
512
512
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
also relevant to my interestsAnonymous User wrote:A number of folks have been trying to warn me away from Pillsbury DC, but nobody can tell me what is wrong with it. I have a CB coming up this week and am very curious. Any information at all?
-
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:13 pm
Re: Firms to avoid
Thread relevant to interests. Tagged.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
It's really hard to tell how a firm is doing without talking to people in the firm. At least two firms that failed recently (Howrey, Heller) had their best year (according to the numbers reported to the American Lawyer) just before going under.
-
- Posts: 431990
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Firms to avoid
Anyone know anything about how the big Boston firms are doing? Ropes, Wilmer, Goodwin, Bingham?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login