Check out top-law-schools.com Forum

[feralinfant]

Someone can correct me, but I always thought the thing that was especially egregious about Winston was that they were economically motivated no-offers, but the firm pretended like they were performance motivated. By refusing to publicly acknowledge the firm's poor financial planning and condition, they basically lied to the job market by pretending that 1/3 of their summers were defective. Not like it wouldn't have been hard enough no matter the reason for the no offer, but this is the kind of shady bullshit behavior that makes people shit on Winston, coupled with the fact that prior to the summer and all through it, people were not given any indication that anything was wrong and given time to make contingency plans. It was all a big surprise even though the firm had to know well in advance it was coming.

At least that's the impression I've gotten from the boards, but someone with more direct knowledge should feel free to comment.

[Desert Fox]

[feralinfant]

Winston only gets shit because a beloved TLSer got no offered there.

Almost every firm in the country would no offer you if their firm couldn't afford to hire you. The only thing separating Winston from any other random V100 was that they were in trouble.

There are a few firms who are so solid that you can pretty much guarantee they'll never be in Winston's spot, but there aren't that many. Maybe 10, but probably less.

Many, if not most, firms did this for Summer of 2009.

Maybe winston is still weak, but saying only winston would do something like this is insane.

Don't most firms at least try to help people secure other employment though/acknowledge that they just can't afford to hire? Seriously asking, not sure how this typically works but this is the aspect that I always understood made Winston especially egregious.

[Anonymous User]

Don't Schiff Hardin and Mayer Brown no offer at least a couple people each year?

[Desert Fox]

[First Offense]

Winston only gets shit because a beloved TLSer got no offered there.

Almost every firm in the country would no offer you if their firm couldn't afford to hire you. The only thing separating Winston from any other random V100 was that they were in trouble.

There are a few firms who are so solid that you can pretty much guarantee they'll never be in Winston's spot, but there aren't that many. Maybe 10, but probably less.

Many, if not most, firms did this for Summer of 2009.

Maybe winston is still weak, but saying only winston would do something like this is insane.

Don't most firms at least try to help people secure other employment though/acknowledge that they just can't afford to hire? Seriously asking, not sure how this typically works but this is the aspect that I always understood made Winston especially egregious.

They'll at least tell them to keep their options open.

No offers happen - sometimes the summer can't keep it together for 8-12 weeks and are clearly not a fit. Most firms will flag those people as early as possible, telling them to shape up, and that generally puts the summer on notice to participate in stuff like 3L OCI or mass mailing. By not doing that, you're really fucking with people's future livelihood in an unacceptable way.

[gk101]

Winston did some shady stuff like tell the summers that the firm was doing well and everyone would get offers at the beginning of the summer even though they had been doing stealth layoffs through most of 2012

[Anonymous User]

it's the gift and curse of law firm recruiting. investment banks generally give something like 2/3 offers for summer interns to return full time and its no big deal.

its great for summer associates to be able to relax and not have to worry about churning out a perfect work product, but its total bullshit how a firm no offering summers for economic reasons, which the summer obviously cant control gets turned into a Black Mark of Death for that person

[Desert Fox]

[DCNTUA]

.

[Johann]

I understand what people are saying about Winston but I honestly think that people's calculus is wrong. While what Winston did in 2012 was shitty, they also know that it has tremendously adversely affected their reputation with law students and are thus actually more likely than other firms to give 100% offers. See this story on their website from last year:

http://www.winston.com/en/careers-winst ... iates.html

All in all I think they're less likely to no offer people than the average firm, given their history. Other firms have made a practice of no offering 10-20% of their class consistently and don't get the flack that Winston does for 1 year.

Just like the dude who starts dating the side piece always tells the side piece she is different until its too late. You're clueless. Winston is really ruthless with its up or out model too. I would take Winston before K&L Gates, but again if you get Winston, presumably you got other options. Rankings something like:
Katten/Kirkland/Skadden/MayerBrown
Sidley (reluctantly cheap but way better than any of the below)
Jones Day (black box shit on workers)
Perkins Coie (below market)
McDermott (sweat shop)
Winston
K&L Gates

[jbagelboy]

I understand what people are saying about Winston but I honestly think that people's calculus is wrong. While what Winston did in 2012 was shitty, they also know that it has tremendously adversely affected their reputation with law students and are thus actually more likely than other firms to give 100% offers. See this story on their website from last year:

http://www.winston.com/en/careers-winst ... iates.html

All in all I think they're less likely to no offer people than the average firm, given their history. Other firms have made a practice of no offering 10-20% of their class consistently and don't get the flack that Winston does for 1 year.

Just like the dude who starts dating the side piece always tells the side piece she is different until its too late. You're clueless. Winston is really ruthless with its up or out model too. I would take Winston before K&L Gates, but again if you get Winston, presumably you got other options. Rankings something like:
Katten/Kirkland/Skadden/MayerBrown
Sidley (reluctantly cheap but way better than any of the below)
Jones Day (black box shit on workers)
Perkins Coie (below market)
McDermott (sweat shop)
Winston
K&L Gates

Im assuming this is a chicago list
Wheres jenner

[Robb]

What are these "other firms" that no offer 10-20% of their class.

In 2014, here are the offices (not firms, so when firms show up twice that is because they have multiple offices) with more than 100 attorneys who no offered more than 10% of their class. The % is the number of offers, not no-offers. (I am thinking NALP doesn't have the correct data on the Williams & Connolly, not sure about Hinshaw.)

First, only offices with at least 20 summers:

schiff hardin llp, ( 32 / 28 ) - 87.5%
Andrews Kurth LLP, ( 27 / 23 ) - 85.2%
Norton Rose Fulbright, ( 66 / 55 ) - 83.3%
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, ( 34 / 28 ) - 82.4%
K&L Gates LLP, ( 21 / 17 ) - 81.0%
Husch Blackwell, ( 31 / 23 ) - 74.2%
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, ( 21 / 15 ) - 71.4%
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, ( 31 / 20 ) - 64.5%
Williams & Connolly LLP, ( 41 / 0 ) - 0.0%

Now, all offices with at least 5 summers:

Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
Saul Ewing LLP, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
White & Case, ( 9 / 8 ) - 88.9%
WilmerHale, ( 18 / 16 ) - 88.9%
Bryan Cave LLP, ( 8 / 7 ) - 87.5%
Lathrop & Gage LLP, ( 8 / 7 ) - 87.5%
Lathrop & Gage LLP, ( 8 / 7 ) - 87.5%
schiff hardin llp, ( 32 / 28 ) - 87.5%
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, ( 16 / 14 ) - 87.5%
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, ( 8 / 7 ) - 87.5%
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, ( 15 / 13 ) - 86.7%
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, ( 15 / 13 ) - 86.7%
fox rothschild llp, ( 15 / 13 ) - 86.7%
blank rome llp, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
day pitney llp, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
Littler Mendelson P.C., ( 14 / 12 ) - 85.7%
bingham greenebaum doll llp, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
Dentons US LLP, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
Fennemore Craig, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
Husch Blackwell, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
King & Spalding, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
locke lord llp, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
porter hedges llp, ( 7 / 6 ) - 85.7%
Andrews Kurth LLP, ( 27 / 23 ) - 85.2%
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, ( 13 / 11 ) - 84.6%
Thompson & Knight LLP, ( 13 / 11 ) - 84.6%
bradley arant boult cummings llp, ( 19 / 16 ) - 84.2%
nixon peabody llp, ( 19 / 16 ) - 84.2%
Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, ( 18 / 15 ) - 83.3%
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Holland & Hart LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Holland & Hart LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Reed Smith LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Norton Rose Fulbright, ( 66 / 55 ) - 83.3%
chapman and cutler llp, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
cooley llp, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Lathrop & Gage LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
mcguirewoods LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Morrison & Foerster LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Reed Smith LLP, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
reed smith llp, ( 6 / 5 ) - 83.3%
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, ( 34 / 28 ) - 82.4%
brown rudnick llp, ( 16 / 13 ) - 81.3%
K&L Gates LLP, ( 21 / 17 ) - 81.0%
Holland & Hart LLP, ( 10 / 8 ) - 80.0%
Holland & Hart LLP, ( 10 / 8 ) - 80.0%
sedgwick llp, ( 5 / 4 ) - 80.0%
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, ( 5 / 4 ) - 80.0%
K&L Gates LLP, ( 15 / 12 ) - 80.0%
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, ( 10 / 8 ) - 80.0%
Shipman & Goodwin LLP, ( 5 / 4 ) - 80.0%
stoll keenon ogden pllc, ( 5 / 4 ) - 80.0%
jackson walker llp, ( 14 / 11 ) - 78.6%
jackson walker llp, ( 14 / 11 ) - 78.6%
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, ( 9 / 7 ) - 77.8%
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, ( 13 / 10 ) - 76.9%
Greenberg Traurig, ( 8 / 6 ) - 75.0%
thompson coburn llp, ( 8 / 6 ) - 75.0%
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, ( 8 / 6 ) - 75.0%
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, ( 8 / 6 ) - 75.0%
Husch Blackwell, ( 31 / 23 ) - 74.2%
mckool smith, ( 18 / 13 ) - 72.2%
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, ( 21 / 15 ) - 71.4%
Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, ( 14 / 10 ) - 71.4%
Greenberg Traurig, ( 7 / 5 ) - 71.4%
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P., ( 7 / 5 ) - 71.4%
jones walker llp, ( 6 / 4 ) - 66.7%
jones walker llp, ( 6 / 4 ) - 66.7%
Balch & Bingham LLP, ( 9 / 6 ) - 66.7%
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, ( 31 / 20 ) - 64.5%
Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, ( 8 / 5 ) - 62.5%
Foley & Lardner LLP, ( 5 / 3 ) - 60.0%
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, ( 7 / 4 ) - 57.1%
locke lord llp, ( 13 / 7 ) - 53.8%
Locke Lord LLP, ( 6 / 3 ) - 50.0%
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., ( 9 / 4 ) - 44.4%
Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, ( 5 / 2 ) - 40.0%
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, ( 6 / 0 ) - 0.0%
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, ( 6 / 0 ) - 0.0%
Williams & Connolly LLP, ( 41 / 0 ) - 0.0%

[bearsfan23]

Williams & Connolly no-offered 41 people?!?

That's a bold move

[jbagelboy]

Most of the firms on that list had <10 summers and no offered one person, so yea ">10%" but thats noise

Point taken, tho. And useful list.

[rpupkin]

Williams & Connolly no-offered 41 people?!?

Williams & Connolly OUTED as firm to avoid. Good work, TLS!

[Elston Gunn]

W&C does a weird thing where you have to "ask" for your offer after you graduate/finish your clerkship, but don't make official offers after the summer.

[jbagelboy]

Williams & Connolly no-offered 41 people?!?

Williams & Connolly OUTED as firm to avoid. Good work, TLS!

We're the best.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

All in all I think they're less likely to no offer people than the average firm, given their history. Other firms have made a practice of no offering 10-20% of their class consistently and don't get the flack that Winston does for 1 year.

TITCR. TLS should be way more wary of those firms that have made it a consistent practice to no-offer 10%-ish of their class. I find that to be significantly shittier and worrisome than Winston fucking up for one year. However, that still doesn't mean what Winston did was okay or that it's a firm to be recommended.

Side note: It's especially shitty when a firm goes out and recruits right after screwing people over.

[rpupkin]

Side note: It's especially shitty when a firm goes out and recruits right after screwing people over.

Credited. If a firm no-offers more than 10% of its class for performance or economic reasons, it should stop hiring entirely.

[Anonymous User]

They should just hire a smaller class

[TLSModBot]

Williams & Connolly no-offered 41 people?!?

Williams & Connolly OUTED as firm to avoid. Good work, TLS!

I hear their corporate/transactional practice is just terrible. What's their Vault rank anyway?

[A. Nony Mouse]

What does that blurb on their website prove about anything?

It proves that they are trying to get the word out there that they are giving 100% offers. Obviously they could choose to not do the same in the future, but I think that it shows that it's a firm that at this point gets that hey you can't do what we did in 2012 and not have there be consequences to it. Thus, it's less likely to do it in the future.

Yeah, I don't see at all how this controls what they do in the future. Damage control is just damage control.

If they are now giving 100% offers as damage control it still means they're giving 100% offers.

This year.

[BaberhamLincoln]

I personally shit on Winston bc of stories I've heard from laterals more than anything. About their lack of transparency and how the inmates run the asylum.

[rpupkin]

I personally shit on Winston bc of stories I've heard from laterals more than anything. About their lack of transparency and how the inmates run the asylum.

Wait....so the junior associates run the firm? That sounds like it could be fun.