Firms to Avoid Forum

[BlueLotus]

You can also put the Washington DC Public Defender's Office on this list as well.

Curious about this, as I've heard nothing but great things about PDS.

[Tanicius]

You can also put the Washington DC Public Defender's Office on this list as well.

Because they didn't hire any of their 2013 summer interns? That's a problem with all public defender offices -- they either get the money to do it or they don't. Unlike firms, the size of their summer class isn't in any way a predictor of how many people will actually get hired.

[Anonymous User]

Both Nutter and Sullivan & Worcester in Boston have no-offered recently.

[androstan]

Nony's comments are partly why I am trying to be conservative about what to put in the OP.

I encourage everyone to share their personal experience/anecdotes as that is likely useful to students who will be preparing bidlists and then (hopefully) deciding among multiple offers over the coming months, but the OP is really meant to be a SHIT-list.

[Sgtpeppernyc]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

[westphillybandr]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

lolwut

[wert3813]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

Problem is there is at least some evidence that a 5% cut isn't wheening out shitbirds so much as "we hired 5% too many SA's everybody protect you favorite SA."

[09042014]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

Ironically people who think this way are likely to be the 5%.

[Anonymous User]

If one is going to one of these firms, is there a simple checklist to follow to not be that 5 percent or is it more of a musical chairs game to be one partner's favorite SA? The phrases "do good work" and "be nice" are so vague that they aren't really helpful.

[Anonymous User]

If one is going to one of these firms, is there a simple checklist to follow to not be that 5 percent or is it more of a musical chairs game to be one partner's favorite SA? The phrases "do good work" and "be nice" are so vague that they aren't really helpful.

I would generally say be a social guy. Make sure people, especially partners, know who you are. Obviously do good work, but that's not gonna help you stand out. Knowing people will. Attend the social events, and keep in touch with partners.

[ph14]

If one is going to one of these firms, is there a simple checklist to follow to not be that 5 percent or is it more of a musical chairs game to be one partner's favorite SA? The phrases "do good work" and "be nice" are so vague that they aren't really helpful.

I would generally say be a social guy. Make sure people, especially partners, know who you are. Obviously do good work, but that's not gonna help you stand out. Knowing people will. Attend the social events, and keep in touch with partners.

This probably depends on firm. At my firm, work product was far, far more important than attending social events. They couldn't care less about social events but cared a lot that you were a good writer and were good at legal research and analysis.

[Anonymous User]

If one is going to one of these firms, is there a simple checklist to follow to not be that 5 percent or is it more of a musical chairs game to be one partner's favorite SA? The phrases "do good work" and "be nice" are so vague that they aren't really helpful.

I would generally say be a social guy. Make sure people, especially partners, know who you are. Obviously do good work, but that's not gonna help you stand out. Knowing people will. Attend the social events, and keep in touch with partners.

This probably depends on firm. At my firm, work product was far, far more important than attending social events. They couldn't care less about social events but cared a lot that you were a good writer and were good at legal research and analysis.

Well yeah. I mean I did say do good work. What I'm saying is that it's generally reasonable to assume that most people will take the SA seriously and so if everybody does do goodwork, well you need another means of standing out.

I guess I just took it for granted that people would take the SA seriously and write as well as they can etc. I'm just saying when it comes down to it, if a firm is gonna cut, then assuming you worked hard and did good work, the only thing that might save you is connections.

I definately did not mean, nor did I say, to preference social events over good work

[ph14]

If one is going to one of these firms, is there a simple checklist to follow to not be that 5 percent or is it more of a musical chairs game to be one partner's favorite SA? The phrases "do good work" and "be nice" are so vague that they aren't really helpful.

I would generally say be a social guy. Make sure people, especially partners, know who you are. Obviously do good work, but that's not gonna help you stand out. Knowing people will. Attend the social events, and keep in touch with partners.

This probably depends on firm. At my firm, work product was far, far more important than attending social events. They couldn't care less about social events but cared a lot that you were a good writer and were good at legal research and analysis.

Well yeah. I mean I did say do good work. What I'm saying is that it's generally reasonable to assume that most people will take the SA seriously and so if everybody does do goodwork, well you need another means of standing out.

I guess I just took it for granted that people would take the SA seriously and write as well as they can etc. I'm just saying when it comes down to it, if a firm is gonna cut, then assuming you worked hard and did good work, the only thing that might save you is connections.

I definately did not mean, nor did I say, to preference social events over good work

I haven't been on the other side of the hiring process, but I have had associates tell me things to the effect that you would be surprised, some people don't always turn in great work product (or proofread it) or just aren't great writers (almost always about Yale summers though, so if you're at another school you don't have much to worry about ).

[Pokemon]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

Ironically people who think this way are likely to be the 5%.

Wise words. Shitbirds that think their fellow SAs are inferior to them are more likely to get canned than others.

[BullShitWithBravado]

Surprised no one has mentioned Dechert. At the beginning of summer 2012 it told its classes in two offices (I think) that its offer acceptance rates had been higher than in previous years and they therefore had a larger summer class than planned; consequently, they would no offer about 10% of the summer class. At my school alone, two people were no-offered as a result. The high acceptance rate would have been known at least by mid-fall 2011, and they could have told their last few accepting applicants to allow them to take any secondary offers. Instead they let the summer associates play hunger games, hoping they wouldn't be considered bottom 10%.

I want to stress that I do not have first-hand knowledge of this, as I did not summer at Dechert, but I heard this from people who actually got offers, so I have no reason to doubt it.

Edited for accuracy.

I heard this as well. However I was told by people who summered there that the 2013 summer class got 100% offers (at least in NYC) because the firm drastically cut the size of it's summer class. While Dechert isn't the most financially healthy firm, it seems to have taken the right steps to make sure it doesn't screw over future summer classes.

[Yukos]

I guess I just took it for granted that people would take the SA seriously and write as well as they can etc. I'm just saying when it comes down to it, if a firm is gonna cut, then assuming you worked hard and did good work, the only thing that might save you is connections.

I definately did not mean, nor did I say, to preference social events over good work

Isn't there some parable floating around TLS about being the lobster with the name? I can't find it but it seemed to fit this question.

[bk1]

I guess I just took it for granted that people would take the SA seriously and write as well as they can etc. I'm just saying when it comes down to it, if a firm is gonna cut, then assuming you worked hard and did good work, the only thing that might save you is connections.

I definately did not mean, nor did I say, to preference social events over good work

Isn't there some parable floating around TLS about being the lobster with the name? I can't find it but it seemed to fit this question.

You mean Karl?

[Yukos]

I guess I just took it for granted that people would take the SA seriously and write as well as they can etc. I'm just saying when it comes down to it, if a firm is gonna cut, then assuming you worked hard and did good work, the only thing that might save you is connections.

I definately did not mean, nor did I say, to preference social events over good work

Isn't there some parable floating around TLS about being the lobster with the name? I can't find it but it seemed to fit this question.

You mean Karl?

Yeah that's the one, thanks. Should've searched for lobster*.

[run26.2]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

You really have a different opinion about a firm that gives 95% offers as opposed to 100%?

I imagine that substantially less than 95% of people, even hired by the top NY firms, are actually cut out to be great lawyers. But firms can generally use warm bodies somewhere. They will get pushed out or chose another profession soon enough.

[Donkeykongmadness]

This is a crappy industry to be in. We all know this.

But I'm always a bit surprised at the "entitled" attitude that folks have about how they should or should not be treated by the firms. This is the only industry that I know of where hiring happens two years prior, mandatory pay raises every year (mostly regardless of merit), and attrition is encouraged rather than minimized. The idea that you're going to work your employees into the ground until they either drop dead or survive this trial by fire is just antiquated and inefficient.

The shady things you see firms doing is because it's an industry in decline and the boomer partners are fighting for smaller and smaller scraps. At the same time, this is an industry in which a first year's worth is crap, unlike say a B-school graduate/management trainee who is seen as an investment for the future.

I despite what the firms are doing and I would never want to conduct myself in such a shady manner. But, at the same time, I recognize that many of these boomer partners are just doing what they need to do to survive (in the famine years) and extract as much wealth as possible (during the boom years, by using leverage).

None of this should be a surprise to people. If you folks don't like how firms treat juniors here, you ought to reconsider law as a profession. It's only going to get worse from here on out and no one will be safe as this house of cards comes tumbling down. Holding on to an attitude that the firms will put your welfare above those of their boomer partners is just like hoping that the Titanic won't sink.

[ClerkAdvisor]

I think this conversation is missing out on an important factor, that is the financial structure of the law firm. Unless the firm is one of the rare firms that has no debt and either a fully funded partner retirement plan or no retirement plan, there can be substantial consequences when there is a substantial decline in business (and thus cash flow). Some of these highly associate leveraged firms also have debt leveraging as well and may have little choice but to cut associates. This isn't to say that there is not a right way and a wrong way to make cuts, nor is it meant as a defense for firms getting themselves into the situation in the first place, but I think it does bear mention that it's more than just about some 50 year old partner's bottom line.

[NYSprague]

To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.

You know this how? I am sure all the associates could do the work. It simply isn't that hard. This idea about "quality" and"deserving" is bordering on outright delusional thinking.

[NYSprague]

I think this conversation is missing out on an important factor, that is the financial structure of the law firm. Unless the firm is one of the rare firms that has no debt and either a fully funded partner retirement plan or no retirement plan, there can be substantial consequences when there is a substantial decline in business (and thus cash flow). Some of these highly associate leveraged firms also have debt leveraging as well and may have little choice but to cut associates. This isn't to say that there is not a right way and a wrong way to make cuts, nor is it meant as a defense for firms getting themselves into the situation in the first place, but I think it does bear mention that it's more than just about some 50 year old partner's bottom line.

Is this news to you or have you heard about the crash? Do you not understand that layoffs were made rather than cut money to the partners (as much as possible.). You do understand that non equity partners and service partners are getting pushed out too.

All firms have some kind of bank financing, usually a line of credit. Dewey was the only firm that issued debt instruments, notes of some kind that they defaulted on. I don't think any other biglaw firm has done the same.

I have no idea how an associate or a law student can find out about the funding of partnership plans.

[Old Gregg]

I think this conversation is missing out on an important factor, that is the financial structure of the law firm. Unless the firm is one of the rare firms that has no debt and either a fully funded partner retirement plan or no retirement plan, there can be substantial consequences when there is a substantial decline in business (and thus cash flow). Some of these highly associate leveraged firms also have debt leveraging as well and may have little choice but to cut associates. This isn't to say that there is not a right way and a wrong way to make cuts, nor is it meant as a defense for firms getting themselves into the situation in the first place, but I think it does bear mention that it's more than just about some 50 year old partner's bottom line.

Is this news to you or have you heard about the crash?
All firms have some kind of bank financing, usually a line of credit. Dewey was the only firm that issued debt instruments, notes of some kind that they defaulted on. I don't think any other biglaw firm has done the same.

And the issuance of those notes is primarily why they're still on the hook.

[09042014]

I think this conversation is missing out on an important factor, that is the financial structure of the law firm. Unless the firm is one of the rare firms that has no debt and either a fully funded partner retirement plan or no retirement plan, there can be substantial consequences when there is a substantial decline in business (and thus cash flow). Some of these highly associate leveraged firms also have debt leveraging as well and may have little choice but to cut associates. This isn't to say that there is not a right way and a wrong way to make cuts, nor is it meant as a defense for firms getting themselves into the situation in the first place, but I think it does bear mention that it's more than just about some 50 year old partner's bottom line.

Even with no debt and no retirement plan, the issue is that partner compensation is entirely profit based not salary based. Which means you can't take a hit for 2 years and be less profitable. Because partners will jump ship.

This can cause a "run on talent" where once big partners leave, it scares everyone into getting the fuck out. And then you get Howrey'd. Even after bankruptcy it still had more assets than liabilities. The problem was the talent ran off.

It's a problem with the firm business structure.