Firms to Avoid Forum

NYSprague · Post by **NYSprague** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:55 pm

androstan wrote:We need a law firm shitlist. Firms that have seriously screwed over incoming associates without proper justification. OCIers deserve to know which firms to avoid and these firms deserve to pay the price of their decision.

I'll start with two firms on the list and people let me know what to add. Please link to the available evidence of the alleged misconduct.

Winston & Strawn (no-offered 1/3 of its SA's in 2012, also I think it no-offered one of the greatest TLSers)
Brown Rudnick (Rescinded on nearly half of its incoming class on the eve of graduation)

They will all screw over 1st years if they need to. Winston may have cared about its image because it looked bad to clients, but not because of associates. To think that they will have trouble finding qualified associates as a result of their actions is naive. People need jobs and there are many more qualified grads than there are jobs.

I don't know if 0Ls fully understand how different the post-recession biglaw firm is compared to pre-recession. Clients just won't pay the same as they did before, expenses go up but revenue stays flat. When firms say layoffs are related to finances, and probably hoping things would return to pre-recession longer than they should have, you should believe them. I believe every no-offer is related to finances, but few firms will admit it. They want to blame the associates and not the market.

You guys need to pay attention to the citi law firm reports.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:59 pm

White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.

jbagelboy · Post by **jbagelboy** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.

Why no White & Case? They seem like a strong choice for my interests

kaiser · Post by **kaiser** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.

Why do you say avoid Cahill? Everyone I know there loves it, and a guy I know who left the firm has nothing but good things to say. Of course, thats all just anecdotal, but I'm curious why you think the firm should be avoided.

androstan · Post by **androstan** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:13 pm

WhirledWorld wrote:Weil laid off 60 associates this past summer: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/ ... rtner-pay/

They blamed it on the recession, which was silly considering it was 2013 -- they should have planned better.

But they did give a generous 6-month severance package.

Yeah handing out 6 month severance is not the kind of behavior I'm going for here.

I remember someone posted with their avatar saying "White & Case" as a non-searchable way to warn 2L's. I'm overall hesitant to add rumors to the shitlist.

You people going on and on about how there are more of us than they need don't get the point. They can feel the pain in lower quality associates as strong candidates select away from firms that have exhibited particularly poor judgment.

androstan · Post by **androstan** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.

Patton does appear to be in some trouble but afaik they haven't done anything exceptional to screw over young attorneys/lawgrads.

Ppl suggesting additions to the shitlist please cite something as a basis.

El Pollito · Post by **El Pollito** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:15 pm

androstan wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.
Patton does appear to be in some trouble but afaik they haven't done anything exceptional to screw over young attorneys/lawgrads.

Ppl suggesting additions to the shitlist please cite something as a basis.

It seems like Patton may be imploding.

El Pollito · Post by **El Pollito** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:16 pm

androstan wrote:
WhirledWorld wrote:Weil laid off 60 associates this past summer: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/ ... rtner-pay/

They blamed it on the recession, which was silly considering it was 2013 -- they should have planned better.

But they did give a generous 6-month severance package.
Yeah handing out 6 month severance is not the kind of behavior I'm going for here.

Wut?

JusticeJackson · Post by **JusticeJackson** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:25 pm

dead head · Post by **dead head** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:32 pm

El Pollito wrote:
androstan wrote:
WhirledWorld wrote:Weil laid off 60 associates this past summer: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/ ... rtner-pay/

They blamed it on the recession, which was silly considering it was 2013 -- they should have planned better.

But they did give a generous 6-month severance package.
Yeah handing out 6 month severance is not the kind of behavior I'm going for here.
Wut?

He wants hard-hitting stuff like someone who allegedly got no-offered because she was not enough of a bro and Latham is super fratty. That's what he's going for, not stuff like Latham Lathaming people during the recession.

A partner insulted my haircut once, and it wasn't even during the recession. True story.

rad lulz · Post by **rad lulz** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:15 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.
Why no White & Case? They seem like a strong choice for my interests

"The cream doesnt go to white and case"

- legendary TLS quote

El Pollito · Post by **El Pollito** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:18 pm

rad lulz wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.
Why no White & Case? They seem like a strong choice for my interests
"The cream doesnt go to white and case"

- legendary TLS quote

He sent me a really angry PM once when I tried to revive the cream quote.

rad lulz · Post by **rad lulz** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:21 pm

El Pollito wrote:
rad lulz wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.
Why no White & Case? They seem like a strong choice for my interests
"The cream doesnt go to white and case"

- legendary TLS quote
He sent me a really angry PM once when I tried to revive the cream quote.

classic

El Pollito · Post by **El Pollito** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:52 pm

--LinkRemoved--

09042014 · Post by **09042014** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:03 pm

Every firm will fuck your ass for an extra 1% PPP. Every firm. Firms who didn't lay off in the recession just didn't need to. Smaller offices lay people off all the time one by one. The only notable think re: Weil is that they did it all at once. You can't look at this in terms of "which firms are cool and which are dicks!"

But in terms of "which firms will be forced into being dicks." Patton Boggs IS one of those firms. Take an offer there with caution because they might not be there when their next Summer Class starts (and I know that is in 3 weeks).

There are also firms that that just don't give 100% offers as a rule. Your choice if you want to avoid them or not.

This entire thread is:

rad lulz · Post by **rad lulz** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:12 pm

I know a dude who got no offered from PB my 2L summer and was distraught

Came out later the PB guys were broke so that's probably why

Edit: well, not broke, just sinking

jarofsoup · Post by **jarofsoup** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:19 pm

I think I need to reiterate how stupid this thread is--economic realities exist.

rad lulz · Post by **rad lulz** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:23 pm

jarofsoup wrote:I think I need to reiterate how stupid this thread is--economic realities exist.

Who here is implying otherwise

Cicero76 · Post by **Cicero76** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.

Thought H&K was one of the better FL firms. How not?

IAFG · Post by **IAFG** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:48 pm

jarofsoup wrote:I think I need to reiterate how stupid this thread is--economic realities exist.

I seriously considered taking another firm over mine. That other firm doesn't exist now. Paying attention to this kind of shit matters.

North · Post by **North** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:43 pm

Cicero76 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:White & Case. Holland & Knight. Cahill Gordon. Patton Boggs LLP. Be warned.
Thought H&K was one of the better FL firms. How not?

iliketurtles123 · Post by **iliketurtles123** » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:31 am

Seems like Dickstein is having problems too (latest ATL article).

...which brings me to my question
What exactly are we looking for in terms of firm health? Obviously no-offers, deferrals, etc. but some of these problems might even be temporary, and it seems relatively common. So what other factors are there (ie: merger talks, partner departures, drop in PPP, etc.?) and how are they weighed in determining firm's long term health?

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:37 am

Any thoughts on Latham (today, not circa 2009), Orrick Herrington, Paul Hastings? Specifically their California presence

philepistemer · Post by **philepistemer** » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:22 am

jarofsoup wrote:I think I need to reiterate how stupid this thread is--economic realities exist.

You're a fucking idiot. Do you think that lenders shouldn't look at peoples' credit history? Firms reacted differently to economic realities during the recession, and it's important for people with multiple offers to know how they'll be treated if there is a slowdown.

AntipodeanPhil · Post by **AntipodeanPhil** » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:28 am

philepistemer wrote:
jarofsoup wrote:I think I need to reiterate how stupid this thread is--economic realities exist.
You're a fucking idiot. Do you think that lenders shouldn't look at peoples' credit history? Firms reacted differently to economic realities during the recession, and it's important for people with multiple offers to know how they'll be treated if there is a slowdown.

Exactly. Firms reacted differently.

And firms act differently today. Some offer every SA, some give cold-offers, and some routinely give a significant number of no offers. I'm sure the differences correlate to some degree with Vault ranking and economic health, but not perfectly -- far from it.

Firms to Avoid Forum

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Register for access!

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Register now!

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Re: Firms to Avoid

Seriously? What are you waiting for?