A warning about indoctrination Forum

[BlackAndOrange84]

• we elevate partners exclusively from within [THIS IS HUGE. Shitty firms hire lateral partners, good firms promote from within. This can be measured and it's a shame none of the garbage firm rankings do this.]
• and we compensate partners in a lockstep system throughout their careers. [Again, HUGE. Lockstep is a real thing and it affects how people interact with each other]

TLS is basically a place where all institutional knowledge about the Profession is gone. Such a weird thing to say.

This—the 2Ls posting here are wildly ignorant. Forum is definitely missing the old guard's institutional knowledge.

OP—once you're cured of the Cravath kool-aid, if ever, I think you'll find culture is a real thing at all firms. At some firms it's stronger and more idiosyncratic than others (e.g., lit boutiques often have very particular cultures because they're small, highly influenced by founders/early partners, and they are selective in hiring not just for credentials but for fit; generic Amlaw 200 firms, less so, because they're big, less selective, etc.). Self-consciousness of a firm's culture can also vary. Cravath is pretty self-conscious about its culture, other firms are less so.

Culture at all firms is influenced and reflected in concrete things like partner comp model (lockstep, blackbox, eat-what-you-kill) and firm governance, and things like work assignment systems for associates (free market, locked into practice group, etc). But there's also an intangible side which is more about personality and messaging (e.g., "we're a social firm," and in turn more social people end up working there). It's true that pretty much everybody says they're "collegial" these days, which I think is often code for "we're not bruising or filled with screamers." That said, I wouldn't write off the idea that some firms are more collegial in the sense of being less formally hierarchical or in how partners communicate to associates.

[Anonymous User]

This—the 2Ls posting here are wildly ignorant. Forum is definitely missing the old guard's institutional knowledge.

OP—once you're cured of the Cravath kool-aid, if ever, I think you'll find culture is a real thing at all firms. At some firms it's stronger and more idiosyncratic than others (e.g., lit boutiques often have very particular cultures because they're small, highly influenced by founders/early partners, and they are selective in hiring not just for credentials but for fit; generic Amlaw 200 firms, less so, because they're big, less selective, etc.). Self-consciousness of a firm's culture can also vary. Cravath is pretty self-conscious about its culture, other firms are less so.

Culture at all firms is influenced and reflected in concrete things like partner comp model (lockstep, blackbox, eat-what-you-kill) and firm governance, and things like work assignment systems for associates (free market, locked into practice group, etc). But there's also an intangible side which is more about personality and messaging (e.g., "we're a social firm," and in turn more social people end up working there). It's true that pretty much everybody says they're "collegial" these days, which I think is often code for "we're not bruising or filled with screamers." That said, I wouldn't write off the idea that some firms are more collegial in the sense of being less formally hierarchical or in how partners communicate to associates.

OK we can do another example. Again, using the exercise, the only remotely tangible/observable/real thing you identified about a firm with a "good culture" is that people don't scream. But there's no way to prove this, and no way to hold the firm accountable if they're lying. What are you going to do when a partner screams at you in the heat of the moment? File an HR complaint? Fine, let's say they never raise their voice at you, which is ridiculous. Then how do they discipline your egregious mistakes? Something unpleasant has to happen, so what is it? This whole line of thought is horseshit and I wouldn't spend a second more on it. It should never come up in an interview. If there were two otherwise equal firms, one boasted that "we don't scream," and the other didn't bring up this odd topic at all, I'd definitely go with the latter.

[nixy]

Saying that "collegial" is code for "no screamers" doesn't actually mean BlackAndOrange is claiming there aren't screamers or that a firm has a written policy against screaming or any of that - just that this is how firms are choosing to sell themselves. The whole point is that "collegial" is a way for firms to sell themselves that doesn't actually mean anything - to that extent, I think BAO is agreeing with you - *but* that just because firms message in this way doesn't mean that "firm culture" doesn't exist or that different firms don't have different cultures. Any group of people working together is going to develop norms and expectations that can differ from other groups' norms and expectations.

Some examples (some dumber than others): facetime is a norm/expectation thing - sure, you're probably working the same hours at any of these places, but for some people it matters a lot whether you can head home at 6 and work from home later/duck out in the middle of the day when things are slow vs. whether you're expected to be physically present in the office and not work from home. Dress code can matter to some people (I realize this only distinguishes firms on the margins, but there are a few outliers out there). I don't know, expectations for what kind of feedback you can/will get, or experience (at some firms people take/defend depositions earlier than other firms). Etc. Acceptance of screaming v. screaming not appropriate but freezing someone out being just fine, etc. *can* be a cultural difference (a firm describing itself as collegial to claim "no screamers" is different from a firm not actually having screamers).

That said, some of these things aren't really firm-wide culture but are contingent on the partners you work for/group you're in, so it's probably not the *best* term. Some of these things you can't know from interviews (sensible firms aren't going to put screamers in front of prospective SAs) And again, some of these things can change by the time a person actually starts work.

Really I think "culture" is a kind of vague code for "a group of people who work together in ways I like/can adopt without being miserable." I don't think it's very easy for 2Ls (or anyone) to actually identify that "culture" before actually working with the people (though the more experience you have, in the working world generally and with law firms more specifically, the better you will get at it, I think). And I agree that applicants shouldn't 1) prioritize "culture" over other concrete things *that matter to them,* like salary, rotation through groups v. permanent placement, free market v. some other system for getting work, opportunities in chosen practice area, exit options, etc., or 2) forget that they're operating on limited info, their assessment of culture is going to be very rough, and firms have an incentive to make themselves look good.

All *that* said, if you're choosing between two otherwise largely indistinguishable offers (say, to do "corporate" writ broadly at market-paying lockstep firms in the same city) (especially if you're a K-JD who's not sure exactly what you want to do/where you want to end up), there's no real harm in going with the firm you felt like you "clicked" with better. People have to decide somehow.

[Anonymous User]

OP: I agree with everything Nixy wrote, but would only add that 2Ls should do some form of the exercise I recommend to understand why they click with a firm, to see if it's real. Remember, all conned people clicked with their con artist and the best people often undersell. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

[Pneumonia]

This is a weird thread with some bad advice and some egregious anon abuse. Here are a few things that are true:

--Firms absolutely have "cultures" that are meaningfully different from one another.
--Practice groups do too. Sometimes the culture in a certain group can diverge widely from the broader culture at a certain firm.
--The cultural stereotypes for the brand-name firms tend to be accurate on a macro level.
--It will not always be possible to get an accurate sense of a firm's (or group's) culture based on interviews/callbacks.
--That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
--"Try" isn't a license to blindly accept every PR-tidbit that your interviewers sell you. Nor does "try" mean you should decide between multiple offers based solely on your gut feeling. Remember that you are being sold to.
--But if you connected with all eight interviewers at Firm A, and felt stilted in all eight interviewers at Firm B, your inability to "quantify" the difference in fit using a two-colum notepad should not prevent you from giving this factor substantial weight.

I do agree with OP that recent posts along the lines of "I'm leaning towards STB over Cravath because of work-life balance" or "I chose Paul Weiss because they care a lot about mentorship" reflect a startling level of naivete. I also agree that these posts seem more common this OCI cycle. But to the extent that anonymous posters in this thread are urging anyone to completely discount culture and fit (or to attempt to "quantify" it), following that advice would be a mistake.

[objctnyrhnr]

I think one thing that’s lacking in these posts is the fact that the culture that one experiences as an associate at various members of the amlaw100 can vary very widely between specific offices in a given large law firm.

For that reason, all the threads about this V20 having terrible associates/work life balance/whatever just sounds ridiculous. Every experience will be specific to the practice group and individual office. The notion of generalizing to that extent is a bit ridiculous.

That being said, as a general tip to 2Ls looking for a better vibe (I emphasize a very general tip), anecdotally I can tell you that many associates (myself included) have the best experiences at relatively small offices and/or relatively small practice groups at large firms. That said, it’s often tough to become partner....but let’s face it—very few of you are going to become biglaw partners anyway...and if you are serious about it you can always lateral.

My two cents. And please don’t ask follow up regarding region, firm, or practice area.

[enibs]

OP here. Before I go let me give an example of a firm that *doesn't* use bullshit terms like "we're social/drafty" which the person above used. If anyone tells you their firm is "social/drafty" (when in reality biglaw is a highly competitive up-and-out workplace) then run, unless of course if you have no better options.

I've pulled out the "philosophy" of a top-tier firm. Notice how everything they promote about themselves is real.
• we hire only the top students from the nation’s finest law schools, [This is real, they want high class rank and a top school]
• we train our associates through a rigorous rotation of practices, [This is a real thing. You will rotate through departments. The training part I'll leave in the "possible bullshit" category for now, although it's probably a fair statement as you will get on the job training.]
• we elevate partners exclusively from within [THIS IS HUGE. Shitty firms hire lateral partners, good firms promote from within. This can be measured and it's a shame none of the garbage firm rankings do this.]
• and we compensate partners in a lockstep system throughout their careers. [Again, HUGE. Lockstep is a real thing and it affects how people interact with each other]

I was going to pull the same sort of "culture" section from a lower-ranked firm and highlight the bullshit, but on second thought I don't want to get all negative. Any way, I really don't mean to get into an argument so I'm off. Just trying to help 2Ls.

Jeez... just say you got a Cravath offer...

Cravath indoctrination is among the most pernicious. “We elevate partners exclusively from within [THIS IS HUGE.]” Yes, I’d be wary of a firm that does a lot of lateral partner hiring. That said, Cravath takes in over 100 new associates every year and makes about three of them partners eight years later. But they somehow convince most of the 100 that they will be one of three. Is this really any better?

[UVA2B]

This is a weird thread with some bad advice and some egregious anon abuse. Here are a few things that are true:

--Firms absolutely have "cultures" that are meaningfully different from one another.
--Practice groups do too. Sometimes the culture in a certain group can diverge widely from the broader culture at a certain firm.
--The cultural stereotypes for the brand-name firms tend to be accurate on a macro level.
--It will not always be possible to get an accurate sense of a firm's (or group's) culture based on interviews/callbacks.
--That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
--"Try" isn't a license to blindly accept every PR-tidbit that your interviewers sell you. Nor does "try" mean you should decide between multiple offers based solely on your gut feeling. Remember that you are being sold to.
--But if you connected with all eight interviewers at Firm A, and felt stilted in all eight interviewers at Firm B, your inability to "quantify" the difference in fit using a two-colum notepad should not prevent you from giving this factor substantial weight.

I do agree with OP that recent posts along the lines of "I'm leaning towards STB over Cravath because of work-life balance" or "I chose Paul Weiss because they care a lot about mentorship" reflect a startling level of naivete. I also agree that these posts seem more common this OCI cycle. But to the extent that anonymous posters in this thread are urging anyone to completely discount culture and fit (or to attempt to "quantify" it), following that advice would be a mistake.

Agreed to all of this. Anon abuse really muddies the waters for what can be quality advice here. There are very few reasons to pick CSM over WLRK IMO, but there are reasons that could be valid. It's at least worth answering the question.

Edit: mentally merged this thread with the CSM-WLRK thread. Still think this is valid.

[Anonymous User]

OP: It's mind-boggling that *lawyers* would believe that an office complies with an unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable set of beneficial rules ("good culture") that one learns from the firm's "stereotype" or a day-long interview or whatever. I'll continue to believe that firms promoting their "good culture" are bullshitting. You can see this by doing the two-column exercise. Any way, thank you for the discussion and good luck to all!

[UVA2B]

OP: It's mind-boggling that *lawyers* would believe that an office complies with an unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable set of beneficial rules ("good culture") that one learns from the firm's "stereotype" or a day-long interview or whatever. I'll continue to believe that firms promoting their "good culture" are bullshitting. You can see this by doing the two-column exercise. Any way, thank you for the discussion and good luck to all!

Hi! I'm anon abuse. I do everything I can to foment condescension. I am not basing my critique on anything verifiable, and as such, no one can question it. But I've used words like "mind-boggling" and "good culture," with quotations emphasized to suggest this is all BS in order to cement my opinion.

If you want TLS to be a toxic wasteland, please double down. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

[Anonymous User]

OP: It's mind-boggling that *lawyers* would believe that an office complies with an unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable set of beneficial rules ("good culture") that one learns from the firm's "stereotype" or a day-long interview or whatever. I'll continue to believe that firms promoting their "good culture" are bullshitting. You can see this by doing the two-column exercise. Any way, thank you for the discussion and good luck to all!

Hi! I'm anon abuse. I do everything I can to foment condescension. I am not basing my critique on anything verifiable, and as such, no one can question it. But I've used words like "mind-boggling" and "good culture," with quotations emphasized to suggest this is all BS in order to cement my opinion.

If you want TLS to be a toxic wasteland, please double down. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

Out of curiosity, do you work at a firm that promotes its "good culture?"

[UVA2B]

OP: It's mind-boggling that *lawyers* would believe that an office complies with an unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable set of beneficial rules ("good culture") that one learns from the firm's "stereotype" or a day-long interview or whatever. I'll continue to believe that firms promoting their "good culture" are bullshitting. You can see this by doing the two-column exercise. Any way, thank you for the discussion and good luck to all!

Hi! I'm anon abuse. I do everything I can to foment condescension. I am not basing my critique on anything verifiable, and as such, no one can question it. But I've used words like "mind-boggling" and "good culture," with quotations emphasized to suggest this is all BS in order to cement my opinion.

If you want TLS to be a toxic wasteland, please double down. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

Out of curiosity, do you work at a firm that promotes its "good culture?"

No, although the people I know at my firm are generally happy people. Take that for what it’s worth.

I don’t push back when people suggest how hard, cutthroat, and competitive this job can be. But the portion I quoted said nothing substantive, so I called a spade a spade. It’s not that unhappiness doesn’t exist in biglaw, it’s that people egregiously abuse complaining about it anonymously here.

[Anonymous User]

OP: It's mind-boggling that *lawyers* would believe that an office complies with an unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable set of beneficial rules ("good culture") that one learns from the firm's "stereotype" or a day-long interview or whatever. I'll continue to believe that firms promoting their "good culture" are bullshitting. You can see this by doing the two-column exercise. Any way, thank you for the discussion and good luck to all!

Hi! I'm anon abuse. I do everything I can to foment condescension. I am not basing my critique on anything verifiable, and as such, no one can question it. But I've used words like "mind-boggling" and "good culture," with quotations emphasized to suggest this is all BS in order to cement my opinion.

If you want TLS to be a toxic wasteland, please double down. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

Out of curiosity, do you work at a firm that promotes its "good culture?"

No, although the people I know at my firm are generally happy people. Take that for what it’s worth.

I don’t push back when people suggest how hard, cutthroat, and competitive this job can be. But the portion I quoted said nothing substantive, so I called a spade a spade. It’s not that unhappiness doesn’t exist in biglaw, it’s that people egregiously abuse complaining about it anonymously here.

The first substantive statement was that lawyers, whose profession is rules, should be the last to believe that an office has a "good culture" (a beneficial set of rules that are unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable) which they can discover via a "stereotype" or on an interview. The second substantive statement was that you can confirm this by using the two-column test of earlier. Let's end this here. Good luck to all.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I'm glad someone flagged this. Seriously. I had also noticed that 2Ls were choosing firms based on fairly arbitrary considerations. If the next generation of high-quality 2Ls make stupid and arbitrary decisions, based on ambiguous, and honestly entirely made up considerations, it kind of makes you wonder whether the currently elite firms will even still be elite in a decade, maybe even less?

[oblig.lawl.ref]

OP here. Before I go let me give an example of a firm that *doesn't* use bullshit terms like "we're social/drafty" which the person above used. If anyone tells you their firm is "social/drafty" (when in reality biglaw is a highly competitive up-and-out workplace) then run, unless of course if you have no better options.

I've pulled out the "philosophy" of a top-tier firm. Notice how everything they promote about themselves is real.
• we hire only the top students from the nation’s finest law schools, [This is real, they want high class rank and a top school]
• we train our associates through a rigorous rotation of practices, [This is a real thing. You will rotate through departments. The training part I'll leave in the "possible bullshit" category for now, although it's probably a fair statement as you will get on the job training.]
• we elevate partners exclusively from within [THIS IS HUGE. Shitty firms hire lateral partners, good firms promote from within. This can be measured and it's a shame none of the garbage firm rankings do this.]
• and we compensate partners in a lockstep system throughout their careers. [Again, HUGE. Lockstep is a real thing and it affects how people interact with each other]

I was going to pull the same sort of "culture" section from a lower-ranked firm and highlight the bullshit, but on second thought I don't want to get all negative. Any way, I really don't mean to get into an argument so I'm off. Just trying to help 2Ls.

Lol omg this is absolutely perfect. Guys, this person is a Cravath first year, guys.

[Anonymous User]

OP didn't have the grades for WLRK?

[Anonymous User]

OP didn't have the grades for WLRK?

WLRK is a TTT that hires laterals. THIS WAS HUGE for OP choosing Cravath.

[BlackAndOrange84]

OP: It's mind-boggling that *lawyers* would believe that an office complies with an unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable set of beneficial rules ("good culture") that one learns . . . .

Yeah, because there's no such thing in every other kind of human organization and society, so why would such unspoken norms exist and vary among law firms and be observed by their members?

Look, your narrow argument to be cautious about unsubstantiated claims of good "firm culture" has some merit, but your broader claim is so moronic that it makes me wonder whether you're a troll. Either way, quit the anon abuse and stop being such an aggressive moron.

[Pneumonia]

The first substantive statement was that lawyers, whose profession is rules, should be the last to believe that an office has a "good culture" (a beneficial set of rules that are unwritten, unverifiable and often inarticulable) which they can discover via a "stereotype" or on an interview. The second substantive statement was that you can confirm this by using the two-column test of earlier. Let's end this here. Good luck to all.

To your first point, no one is saying that the brand-name firms have environments that are objectively better or worse for every single person. That can be true of individual practice groups, but rarely of entire firms, and definitely not of any of the firms being discussed in this thread. Instead, the point is that the environments are objectively different and that it isn't wrong for an applicant to weigh those differences in deciding where to work. Also, I'm not going to define "culture" for you, but "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms would be a good working start. Again, no one is saying that any firm has an objectively "beneficial set of rules" that work in every associate's favor. Only that firms, and in particular, individual practice groups and offices, have different norms.

Second, your repeated suggestion of a two-column test is misplaced. Things like compensation, partnership prospects, etc., are all easily quantifiable. But for the top firms (excluding WLRK), they are also equivalent from an applicant's perspective. That is why a lot of applicants rightly consider a firm's culture, both observational and reputational, when deciding where to land. If someone felt strained and stiff in every personal interaction they had with a certain firm's attorneys, their inability to quantify exactly why won't magically make those interactions any easier in the future should they choose to take your advice and ignore the interpersonal aspects of office work.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not going to define "culture" for you, but "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms would be a good working start. . . . If someone felt strained and stiff in every personal interaction they had with a certain firm's attorneys, their inability to quantify exactly why won't magically make those interactions any easier in the future should they choose to take your advice and ignore the interpersonal aspects of office work.

OP: I guess it's good that people who believe in the existence of "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms, which they learn based on a few short-lived interactions with possible hustlers (who they may never see again, as earlier posts explained), are all attracted to certain firms. Good luck to all. Again let's end this here.

[nixy]

I'm not going to define "culture" for you, but "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms would be a good working start. . . . If someone felt strained and stiff in every personal interaction they had with a certain firm's attorneys, their inability to quantify exactly why won't magically make those interactions any easier in the future should they choose to take your advice and ignore the interpersonal aspects of office work.

OP: I guess it's good that people who believe in the existence of "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms, which they learn based on a few short-lived interactions with possible hustlers (who they may never see again, as earlier posts explained), are all attracted to certain firms. Good luck to all. Again let's end this here.

I don't get why you're fighting so hard against everyone else in this thread. I don't think anyone who is saying that there are "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable norms" is *also* saying that 2Ls can actually figure out what they are through the interview process. I think everyone here would suggest that you *can't* learn that through interviewing. But there's a difference between saying "you can't learn a firm's culture through the interview process so don't weight it heavily compared to what you can objectively measure," and "firms don't have different cultures/firm cultures don't influence your success/comfort in a job." And no one is saying that you should buy firms' own self-promotion of their culture, either.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not going to define "culture" for you, but "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms would be a good working start. . . . If someone felt strained and stiff in every personal interaction they had with a certain firm's attorneys, their inability to quantify exactly why won't magically make those interactions any easier in the future should they choose to take your advice and ignore the interpersonal aspects of office work.

OP: I guess it's good that people who believe in the existence of "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms, which they learn based on a few short-lived interactions with possible hustlers (who they may never see again, as earlier posts explained), are all attracted to certain firms. Good luck to all. Again let's end this here.

I don't get why you're fighting so hard against everyone else in this thread. I don't think anyone who is saying that there are "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable norms" is *also* saying that 2Ls can actually figure out what they are through the interview process. I think everyone here would suggest that you *can't* learn that through interviewing. But there's a difference between saying "you can't learn a firm's culture through the interview process so don't weight it heavily compared to what you can objectively measure," and "firms don't have different cultures/firm cultures don't influence your success/comfort in a job." And no one is saying that you should buy firms' own self-promotion of their culture, either.

OP: Yes, firms have "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms or "culture" that you learn about *somehow* and you should make important decisions based on it. Got it. Thank you. Please end this here.

Good luck to all.

[nixy]

I'm not going to define "culture" for you, but "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms would be a good working start. . . . If someone felt strained and stiff in every personal interaction they had with a certain firm's attorneys, their inability to quantify exactly why won't magically make those interactions any easier in the future should they choose to take your advice and ignore the interpersonal aspects of office work.

OP: I guess it's good that people who believe in the existence of "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms, which they learn based on a few short-lived interactions with possible hustlers (who they may never see again, as earlier posts explained), are all attracted to certain firms. Good luck to all. Again let's end this here.

I don't get why you're fighting so hard against everyone else in this thread. I don't think anyone who is saying that there are "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable norms" is *also* saying that 2Ls can actually figure out what they are through the interview process. I think everyone here would suggest that you *can't* learn that through interviewing. But there's a difference between saying "you can't learn a firm's culture through the interview process so don't weight it heavily compared to what you can objectively measure," and "firms don't have different cultures/firm cultures don't influence your success/comfort in a job." And no one is saying that you should buy firms' own self-promotion of their culture, either.

OP: Yes, firms have "unwritten, unverifiable, and often inarticulable" norms or "culture" that you learn about *somehow* and you should make important decisions based on it. Got it. Thank you. Please end this here.

Good luck to all.

Did you even read what I wrote???? I said expressly that 2Ls *can't* figure that out in the interview process, which of course means they shouldn't base important decisions on it. Don't put words in people's mouths.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

The most ironic thing about this thread is that OP accidentally added evidence to the argument that many firms have some level of distinct culture, while trying to refute it.

1Ls take note of Cravath's culture in all its glory, from the perspective of one rising 2L, summer associate or first year fanboy/girl.

All time great thread. Thank you OP.

[Anonymous User]

The most ironic thing about this thread is that OP accidentally added evidence to the argument that many firms have some level of distinct culture, while trying to refute it.

1Ls take note of Cravath's culture in all its glory, from the perspective of one rising 2L, summer associate or first year fanboy/girl.

All time great thread. Thank you OP.

OP: My point was that its culture statement had no bullshit. All real, verifiable, observable things. That's all I'm saying. Identify bullshit and be careful. I was going to paste the bs-ridden culture statement of another firm but decided not to. Good luck.