Is Sullivan & Cromwell really that bad? Forum

[Anonymous User]

OMM also has numerous programs that allow greater work life balance, including a sabbatical program, and a pro-rated time program. (i.e. you can work 80% of the billables and get paid 80% of the salary.) They also have a program where you and another attorney can together bill the normal time of one attorney, and each get paid 90K instead of 180k.

[Anonymous User]

OMM also has numerous programs that allow greater work life balance, including a sabbatical program, and a pro-rated time program. (i.e. you can work 80% of the billables and get paid 80% of the salary.) They also have a program where you and another attorney can together bill the normal time of one attorney, and each get paid 90K instead of 180k.

Former OMM associate. OMM is one of the worst firms for work/life balance. In theory it offers the programs you reference, but almost nobody takes advantage of them. The few friends I had who went on any kind of part-time work schedule worked just as hard as before.

[Anonymous User]

OMM also has numerous programs that allow greater work life balance, including a sabbatical program, and a pro-rated time program. (i.e. you can work 80% of the billables and get paid 80% of the salary.) They also have a program where you and another attorney can together bill the normal time of one attorney, and each get paid 90K instead of 180k.

Former OMM associate. OMM is one of the worst firms for work/life balance. In theory it offers the programs you reference, but almost nobody takes advantage of them. The few friends I had who went on any kind of part-time work schedule worked just as hard as before.

So which firms are good for work/life balance? Does it just not exist anywhere in biglaw?

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

OMM also has numerous programs that allow greater work life balance, including a sabbatical program, and a pro-rated time program. (i.e. you can work 80% of the billables and get paid 80% of the salary.) They also have a program where you and another attorney can together bill the normal time of one attorney, and each get paid 90K instead of 180k.

Former OMM associate. OMM is one of the worst firms for work/life balance. In theory it offers the programs you reference, but almost nobody takes advantage of them. The few friends I had who went on any kind of part-time work schedule worked just as hard as before.

So which firms are good for work/life balance? Does it just not exist anywhere in biglaw?

IME, the handful of people I know who went part-time at MoFo and other V100 and AmLaw 200 firms all ended up working nearly full time hours for far less than full time pay. Only the non-Vault people are still at their current firms. Law as a business model does not necessarily lend itself to lifestyle, because success is built upon generating billable hours.

[First Offense]

OMM also has numerous programs that allow greater work life balance, including a sabbatical program, and a pro-rated time program. (i.e. you can work 80% of the billables and get paid 80% of the salary.) They also have a program where you and another attorney can together bill the normal time of one attorney, and each get paid 90K instead of 180k.

Former OMM associate. OMM is one of the worst firms for work/life balance. In theory it offers the programs you reference, but almost nobody takes advantage of them. The few friends I had who went on any kind of part-time work schedule worked just as hard as before.

So which firms are good for work/life balance? Does it just not exist anywhere in biglaw?

How do you define work/life balance?

[misterjames]

OMM also has numerous programs that allow greater work life balance, including a sabbatical program, and a pro-rated time program. (i.e. you can work 80% of the billables and get paid 80% of the salary.) They also have a program where you and another attorney can together bill the normal time of one attorney, and each get paid 90K instead of 180k.

Former OMM associate. OMM is one of the worst firms for work/life balance. In theory it offers the programs you reference, but almost nobody takes advantage of them. The few friends I had who went on any kind of part-time work schedule worked just as hard as before.

So which firms are good for work/life balance? Does it just not exist anywhere in biglaw?

imo it's far more dependent on practice area and supervisors. I think it's a bit pointless to try and fit entire firms into categories of "good" work/life balance vs "bad", outside of the few obvious sweatshops. even then though, practically no one in biglaw is working a 9-5 and if they are they're probably big time rainmakers

[Anonymous User]

OMM will true up your salary if you bill more than your part time billables are supposed to be. But I take the point.

Go work at Patterson if you want some semblance of a life.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

OMM will true up your salary if you bill more than your part time billables are supposed to be. But I take the point.

Go work at Patterson if you want some semblance of a life.

*On the true up - I would prefer some lifestyle clawback mechanism from the firm, bc to me that sounds like they're saying this: if you're slow, we'll pay you less; and if we have lots of work, we won't hesitate to give it to you because we'll pay you market.

But point also taken on it trying to solve a problem and give people options (see also the DPW return to work program).

[Anonymous User]

i don't have an experience with S&C directly, but i'd encourage you to think about all the people from your law school headed to S&C. are they really the types of people you'd like to work with? at least for my T10, i can categorically say NO. i would't want to spend 10 minutes with the people that i know are headed to S&C from my school. at least one person nearly struck out of biglaw entirely even with top grades, and S&C was his/her one and only offer out of OCI.

it's just what you get when a firm basically hires strictly based on grades without regard for personality. see their CB to offer ratio. basically, if you get a CB with them out of OCI, you pretty much have a guaranteed offer. most of the other firms are at 50~60% CB to offer conversion rate, maybe lower at some places.

[Anonymous User]

i don't have an experience with S&C directly, but i'd encourage you to think about all the people from your law school headed to S&C. are they really the types of people you'd like to work with? at least for my T10, i can categorically say NO. i would't want to spend 10 minutes with the people that i know are headed to S&C from my school. at least one person nearly struck out of biglaw entirely even with top grades, and S&C was his/her one and only offer out of OCI.

Agree with the bolded. But to make sure that there is at least one data point for posterity that cuts the other way, I have the opposite reaction to those going to S&C (currently at YHS). Everyone I know who is going to S&C (either for SA or full-time post law school) is genuinely cool to hang out with. The other thing to note is that other offices of S&C like DC or Palo Alto have different reputations than the NY office, so that's something to consider as well.

[pml87]

i don't have an experience with S&C directly, but i'd encourage you to think about all the people from your law school headed to S&C. are they really the types of people you'd like to work with? at least for my T10, i can categorically say NO. i would't want to spend 10 minutes with the people that i know are headed to S&C from my school. at least one person nearly struck out of biglaw entirely even with top grades, and S&C was his/her one and only offer out of OCI.

Agree with the bolded. But to make sure that there is at least one data point for posterity that cuts the other way, I have the opposite reaction to those going to S&C (currently at YHS). Everyone I know who is going to S&C (either for SA or full-time post law school) is genuinely cool to hang out with. The other thing to note is that other offices of S&C like DC or Palo Alto have different reputations than the NY office, so that's something to consider as well.

Sounds about right. Seems like the HK Office of S&C is similar to NY in that regard. What is the rationale for hiring strictly based on grades?

[Anonymous User]

i don't have an experience with S&C directly, but i'd encourage you to think about all the people from your law school headed to S&C. are they really the types of people you'd like to work with? at least for my T10, i can categorically say NO. i would't want to spend 10 minutes with the people that i know are headed to S&C from my school. at least one person nearly struck out of biglaw entirely even with top grades, and S&C was his/her one and only offer out of OCI.

Agree with the bolded. But to make sure that there is at least one data point for posterity that cuts the other way, I have the opposite reaction to those going to S&C (currently at YHS). Everyone I know who is going to S&C (either for SA or full-time post law school) is genuinely cool to hang out with. The other thing to note is that other offices of S&C like DC or Palo Alto have different reputations than the NY office, so that's something to consider as well.

Sounds about right. Seems like the HK Office of S&C is similar to NY in that regard. What is the rationale for hiring strictly based on grades?

Even within the NY office, different practice groups have different cultures and working styles, so maybe it's hard to screen for fit? I'm not really sure, but I can say that the people I've met and worked with here, both as a summer and as an associate, are genuinely respectful, down-to-earth and take teaching and mentoring seriously. I don't blame law students for choosing Cleary or Simpson (why take a chance?), but most of the rumors about S&C just don't ring true for me or the other juniors I've talked to about this.

[Anonymous User]

I wussed out and took DPW/Cleary/Simpson over S&C even though the associates I met at S&C were awesome. What did it for me is how many practicing attorneys told me to go anywhere but S&C. I found it very rare that attorneys who were just business acquaintances were very reticent to talk shit about other firms, except for S&C. Maybe it's just jealously or whatever, but when you're talking to a bro from Debevoise or Cleary who has nothing but nice things to say about all of his competition except S&C, you gotta figure there is something to the negative reputation. Nice offices though.

[Anonymous User]

The most insufferable person I know is headed to S&C. Despite the general shittyness of biglaw, it sounds like there is some merit to the particular shittyness of S&C

[Anonymous User]

I worked at S&C. In my view, it was the best law firm to start a legal career for three reasons. First and foremost, S&C is a true leanly-staffed meritocracy. As a law clerk, I worked on project teams consisting of (i) a partner, a 7th/8th year associate, and me or (ii) a partner and me on 80%+ of my matters. I learned a lot from experienced lawyers and didn't have to runaround in circles because there were no third-year associates who couldn't grasp what's important telling me to do meaningless tasks. Second, I got to work on matters in different practice areas at any given time, which made my days more interesting. During most of my days, I worked on matters in 2 or more practice areas. I would have been bored at most other law firms where you work with one group for 6-18 months (i.e., can't imagine doing legal capital markets work for 6 months straight). Third, the hybrid assignment system (i.e., a free market system with a central assigning mechanism) not only allowed me to pursue matters that interested me but more importantly allowed me to turn down work that did not interest me. I thought most people at S&C were smart, polite, and thoughtful. When people who I had bad experiences with asked me to do work, I just said no with no negative consequences.

While S&C is intense, it isn't more intense than Cravath/DPW on a firm-level (i.e., some practice groups are more intense than others). It offers a pleasant environment in which you can learn a lot.

[smaug]

I worked at S&C. In my view, it was the best law firm to start a legal career for three reasons. First and foremost, S&C is a true meritocracy. As a law clerk, I worked on project teams consisting of (i) a partner, a 7th/8th year associate, and me or (ii) a partner and me on 80%+ of my matters. I didn't have to runaround in circles because there were no third-year associates who couldn't grasp what's important telling me to do meaningless tasks. Second, I got to work on matters in different practice areas at any given time, which made my days more interesting. During most of my days, I worked on matters in 2 or more practice areas. I would have been bored at most other law firms where you work with one group for 6-18 months (i.e., can't imagine doing legal capital markets work for 6 months straight). Third, the hybrid assignment system (i.e., a free market system with a central assigning mechanism) not only allowed me to pursue matters that interested me but more importantly allowed me to turn down work that did not interest me. I thought most people at S&C were smart, polite, and thoughtful. When people who I had bad experiences with asked me to do work, I just said no with no negative consequences.

k

But also to be specific, you can get that lean of staffing (or leaner) elsewhere, I don't understand the different practice areas thing so I'm assuming that's a corporate thing that I don't get, and re: work assignment systems, it's going a "to each their own."

I think it's fine to love Sullivan, but also realize that it's not just a TLS reputation problem, or a limited perception problem, it's pretty widely considered to be on the bottom end of options in terms of culture and ability to survive for a while in biglaw, and folks who get offers there invariably have options elsewhere.

They seem to do good work though.

[Anonymous User]

I worked at S&C. In my view, it was the best law firm to start a legal career for three reasons. First and foremost, S&C is a true meritocracy. As a law clerk, I worked on project teams consisting of (i) a partner, a 7th/8th year associate, and me or (ii) a partner and me on 80%+ of my matters. I didn't have to runaround in circles because there were no third-year associates who couldn't grasp what's important telling me to do meaningless tasks. Second, I got to work on matters in different practice areas at any given time, which made my days more interesting. During most of my days, I worked on matters in 2 or more practice areas. I would have been bored at most other law firms where you work with one group for 6-18 months (i.e., can't imagine doing legal capital markets work for 6 months straight). Third, the hybrid assignment system (i.e., a free market system with a central assigning mechanism) not only allowed me to pursue matters that interested me but more importantly allowed me to turn down work that did not interest me. I thought most people at S&C were smart, polite, and thoughtful. When people who I had bad experiences with asked me to do work, I just said no with no negative consequences.

k

But also to be specific, you can get that lean of staffing (or leaner) elsewhere, I don't understand the different practice areas thing so I'm assuming that's a corporate thing that I don't get, and re: work assignment systems, it's going a "to each their own."

I think it's fine to love Sullivan, but also realize that it's not just a TLS reputation problem, or a limited perception problem, it's pretty widely considered to be on the bottom end of options in terms of culture and ability to survive for a while in biglaw, and folks who get offers there invariably have options elsewhere.

They seem to do good work though.

Legitimate points. I really enjoyed my time there and couldn't imagine having a better experience at another law firm. One point I do want to emphasize (which I think law students often overlook) is: culture is group/people-dependent, not firm-wide, and at S&C, you have the flexibility to choose what you do and who you work with. Perhaps as a law clerk at Cravath/DPW/Skadden, you can always turn down projects staffed with mid-level associates, though I highly doubt those firms give you such level of flexibility.

[smaug]

I think that's a fair to good point.

My counter would be that even in "free market" firms it's easy for a partner to take a shine to you and not always easy to turn down work. The individuals that you work for will always trump the reputation of the firm generally, but all other things being equal, why not choose a place with a much lower percentage of crazies?

[Anonymous User]

I think that's a fair to good point.

My counter would be that even in "free market" firms it's easy for a partner to take a shine to you and not always easy to turn down work. The individuals that you work for will always trump the reputation of the firm generally, but all other things being equal, why not choose a place with a much lower percentage of crazies?

Even back when I worked there a long time ago, the personage of bad personalities was low. I only know of 3. The benefits of flexibility extends far beyond avoiding bad personalities as I mentioned above. For instance, I have friends who wanted to do M&A and worked at Cravath. They spent 1.5 years working as M&A juniors and then had to do banking law for the next couple of years.

[smaug]

Even back when I worked there a long time ago, the personage of bad personalities was low. I only know of 3.

...ok.

[unlicensedpotato]

I worked at S&C. In my view, it was the best law firm to start a legal career for three reasons. First and foremost, S&C is a true leanly-staffed meritocracy. As a law clerk, I worked on project teams consisting of (i) a partner, a 7th/8th year associate, and me or (ii) a partner and me on 80%+ of my matters. I learned a lot from experienced lawyers and didn't have to runaround in circles because there were no third-year associates who couldn't grasp what's important telling me to do meaningless tasks. Second, I got to work on matters in different practice areas at any given time, which made my days more interesting. During most of my days, I worked on matters in 2 or more practice areas. I would have been bored at most other law firms where you work with one group for 6-18 months (i.e., can't imagine doing legal capital markets work for 6 months straight). Third, the hybrid assignment system (i.e., a free market system with a central assigning mechanism) not only allowed me to pursue matters that interested me but more importantly allowed me to turn down work that did not interest me. I thought most people at S&C were smart, polite, and thoughtful. When people who I had bad experiences with asked me to do work, I just said no with no negative consequences.

While S&C is intense, it isn't more intense than Cravath/DPW on a firm-level (i.e., some practice groups are more intense than others). It offers a pleasant environment in which you can learn a lot.

Meritocracy argument collapses entirely when women at the firm aren't advancing. I have identical staffing at a V100 in secondary market. None of this is meant to criticize S&C -- those are just poor arguments.

[lawlorbust]

I worked at S&C. In my view, it was the best law firm to start a legal career for three reasons. First and foremost, S&C is a true meritocracy. As a law clerk, I worked on project teams consisting of (i) a partner, a 7th/8th year associate, and me or (ii) a partner and me on 80%+ of my matters. I didn't have to runaround in circles because there were no third-year associates who couldn't grasp what's important telling me to do meaningless tasks. Second, I got to work on matters in different practice areas at any given time, which made my days more interesting. During most of my days, I worked on matters in 2 or more practice areas. I would have been bored at most other law firms where you work with one group for 6-18 months (i.e., can't imagine doing legal capital markets work for 6 months straight). Third, the hybrid assignment system (i.e., a free market system with a central assigning mechanism) not only allowed me to pursue matters that interested me but more importantly allowed me to turn down work that did not interest me. I thought most people at S&C were smart, polite, and thoughtful. When people who I had bad experiences with asked me to do work, I just said no with no negative consequences.

k

But also to be specific, you can get that lean of staffing (or leaner) elsewhere, I don't understand the different practice areas thing so I'm assuming that's a corporate thing that I don't get, and re: work assignment systems, it's going a "to each their own."

I think it's fine to love Sullivan, but also realize that it's not just a TLS reputation problem, or a limited perception problem, it's pretty widely considered to be on the bottom end of options in terms of culture and ability to survive for a while in biglaw, and folks who get offers there invariably have options elsewhere.

They seem to do good work though.

Legitimate points. I really enjoyed my time there and couldn't imagine having a better experience at another law firm. One point I do want to emphasize (which I think law students often overlook) is: culture is group/people-dependent, not firm-wide, and at S&C, you have the flexibility to choose what you do and who you work with. Perhaps as a law clerk at Cravath/DPW/Skadden, you can always turn down projects staffed with mid-level associates, though I highly doubt those firms give you such level of flexibility.

Ahh. Revealed as subtle Skadden trolling.

[Anonymous User]

A friend of mine worked there for a few years out of law school. He said it was absolute hell, but that he doesn't regret going there. He said that the resume line set him off on the highest trajectory imaginable, and that he had his pick of jobs when he wanted to lateral. He said that the environment is just overboard, that there is no semblance of balance, and that no one even really bothers to hide or downplay just how crazy the work culture is there. But at the same time, he said everything is absolute gold standard. Every perk is the best of the best, and that the firm puts LOTS of money into the small creature comforts to make the experience a bit more palatable. So in the end, he said it was pretty awful, but that he wouldn't necessarily discourage graduating students from going there straight out of school.

the signaling/exits are the same at peer firms (DPW, CSM, STB), and while those places all have their own flaws and you'll work basically just as much, none of them have the same universal consensus of hellishness and toxicity as people associate with SullCrom. So almost anyone with an S&C offer has alternatives from firms providing equal quality of work/prestige/options but that also offer "some semblance of balance." There are reasons to go to S&C over those other three or four firms for certain practices, but saying "it provides good exits and its prestigious" as a justification doesn't carry much weight comparatively.

Here, the choice is even easier: there's an option in a better market at a more coveted firm that provides superior QOL and early experience to juniors.

A few observations on this. A lot of people that went to S&C actually didn't have offers from csm/dpw at my school (and we had a large sample size at OCI of offerees at all these firms). And the majority of the cross-offerees between s&c, cravath, davis polk, and simpson went with cravath, davis polk, or simpson over S&C, resulting in substantially larger numbers of students in the cravath/davis polk summer classes than S&C. There were also people who received offers at CSM/DPW and not S&C, of course, since S&C required as a baseline slightly higher honors grades than the other two.

Skadden isn't typically in consideration as a peer choice among these firms, but there are of course exceptions (and other markets where skadden is more desirable)

[Anonymous User]

A friend of mine worked there for a few years out of law school. He said it was absolute hell, but that he doesn't regret going there. He said that the resume line set him off on the highest trajectory imaginable, and that he had his pick of jobs when he wanted to lateral. He said that the environment is just overboard, that there is no semblance of balance, and that no one even really bothers to hide or downplay just how crazy the work culture is there. But at the same time, he said everything is absolute gold standard. Every perk is the best of the best, and that the firm puts LOTS of money into the small creature comforts to make the experience a bit more palatable. So in the end, he said it was pretty awful, but that he wouldn't necessarily discourage graduating students from going there straight out of school.

the signaling/exits are the same at peer firms (DPW, CSM, STB), and while those places all have their own flaws and you'll work basically just as much, none of them have the same universal consensus of hellishness and toxicity as people associate with SullCrom. So almost anyone with an S&C offer has alternatives from firms providing equal quality of work/prestige/options but that also offer "some semblance of balance." There are reasons to go to S&C over those other three or four firms for certain practices, but saying "it provides good exits and its prestigious" as a justification doesn't carry much weight comparatively.

Here, the choice is even easier: there's an option in a better market at a more coveted firm that provides superior QOL and early experience to juniors.

A few observations on this. A lot of people that went to S&C actually didn't have offers from csm/dpw at my school (and we had a large sample size at OCI of offerees at all these firms). And the majority of the cross-offerees between s&c, cravath, davis polk, and simpson went with cravath, davis polk, or simpson over S&C, resulting in substantially larger numbers of students in the cravath/davis polk summer classes than S&C. There were also people who received offers at CSM/DPW and not S&C, of course, since S&C required as a baseline slightly higher honors grades than the other two.

At one of HYS, S&C has the highest yield outside of Wachtell and the elite litigation boutiques. While Skadden might not be as grade conscious as some of these other firms, Skadden is ever bit as good as Cravath/S&C/DPW.

[Anonymous User]

A friend of mine worked there for a few years out of law school. He said it was absolute hell, but that he doesn't regret going there. He said that the resume line set him off on the highest trajectory imaginable, and that he had his pick of jobs when he wanted to lateral. He said that the environment is just overboard, that there is no semblance of balance, and that no one even really bothers to hide or downplay just how crazy the work culture is there. But at the same time, he said everything is absolute gold standard. Every perk is the best of the best, and that the firm puts LOTS of money into the small creature comforts to make the experience a bit more palatable. So in the end, he said it was pretty awful, but that he wouldn't necessarily discourage graduating students from going there straight out of school.

the signaling/exits are the same at peer firms (DPW, CSM, STB), and while those places all have their own flaws and you'll work basically just as much, none of them have the same universal consensus of hellishness and toxicity as people associate with SullCrom. So almost anyone with an S&C offer has alternatives from firms providing equal quality of work/prestige/options but that also offer "some semblance of balance." There are reasons to go to S&C over those other three or four firms for certain practices, but saying "it provides good exits and its prestigious" as a justification doesn't carry much weight comparatively.

Here, the choice is even easier: there's an option in a better market at a more coveted firm that provides superior QOL and early experience to juniors.

A few observations on this. A lot of people that went to S&C actually didn't have offers from csm/dpw at my school (and we had a large sample size at OCI of offerees at all these firms). And the majority of the cross-offerees between s&c, cravath, davis polk, and simpson went with cravath, davis polk, or simpson over S&C, resulting in substantially larger numbers of students in the cravath/davis polk summer classes than S&C. There were also people who received offers at CSM/DPW and not S&C, of course, since S&C required as a baseline slightly higher honors grades than the other two.

At one of HYS, S&C has the highest yield outside of Wachtell and the elite litigation boutiques. While Skadden might not be as grade conscious as some of these other firms, Skadden is ever bit as good as Cravath/S&C/DPW.

A bizarre number of YLS students opt for S&C in some summer classes, which is I presume what you're referencing, but this was not true at mine.

I agree skadden is absolutely on the same level in terms of quality, but thats not rly the conversation here I guess (this conversation is sort of perverse anyway)