Firms that force associates who want litigation into corporate Forum

[Anonymous User]

Have a friend at Willkie who wanted to do IP lit and was placed in the IP lit group, yet was exclusively given IP transactional work (mostly doing due diligence support for M&A deals).

[thisismytlsuername]

Would they prefer to get laid off?

[Anonymous User]

Would they prefer to get laid off?

Not the person you’re replying to, but of course not. I think the point of this thread is that many would factor practice group placement into their choice of firm (assuming they have multiple options).

I’m a current SA, and certain offices of my firm hire by practice group, and other offices do not.

[Anonymous User]

Are there firms notorious in the corporate practice that force associates into groups/specialities they don’t want?

[Anonymous User]

I will +1 that Fried Frank does this; a partner told me so.

Any word on whether SullCrom or Davis Polk & Wardwell do this?

Can confirm FF has done this, but they've also let people switch from corporate to lit. Not sure how often people ask to switch and are told no though.

[Anonymous User]

I will +1 that Fried Frank does this; a partner told me so.

Any word on whether SullCrom or Davis Polk & Wardwell do this?

Can confirm FF has done this, but they've also let people switch from corporate to lit. Not sure how often people ask to switch and are told no though.

DPW did this on a 3 month temporary basis in 2020 for 6-7 incoming lit associates. Exception, not the norm, and 3 months is really nbd.

[Anonymous User]

Would they prefer to get laid off?

Not the person you’re replying to, but of course not. I think the point of this thread is that many would factor practice group placement into their choice of firm (assuming they have multiple options).

I’m a current SA, and certain offices of my firm hire by practice group, and other offices do not.

Exactly. When I was an SA at a firm that made “firm-wide” offers, I made it very clear that I only wanted to be in the litigation group. And in response to what I would do if I didn’t get litigation, I said frankly that I would immediately look elsewhere. I went to a T6 and felt comfortable that I’d be able to get something else in that unlikely event. Litigation vs corporate are totally different and might as well be different industries. Don’t let the firm make that choice for you if you want to do litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Pretty sure if you're post clerkship you're going to be in litigation (or white collar etc). Not that many clerks out there and you have relevant experience others lack. If you're concerned, reach out to the firm and find out, and look for another firm if you don't get the reassurances.

As for list of firms that hire summers by group (broadly speaking), this information should be available via your OCI. I know we got separate GPA information about a few firms by lit/Corp. I think Kirkland, Sidley, Mayer Brown and maybe a couple of others.

Also re being shifted within transactional, I have seen this happen at least from M&A -> finance.

That’s reassuring. It would be odd to pay a bonus, give credit, and then reassign the associate to transactional work—especially a transactional practice where they’re supposed to be a 2nd/3rd year because of credit.

[Anonymous User]

Are there firms notorious in the corporate practice that force associates into groups/specialities they don’t want?

DPW is known for its "flourish where we plant you" mentality. I believe it's actually a line that leadership will tell summers and juniors. It really probably just means "someone has to do finance and you lost the lottery."

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

Purely based on reputation/numbers and not any inside information, Paul Weiss is the most litigation focused of the three. DPW and S&C have good litigation practices, but I'd feel safer picking a firm that is less corporate focused.

That said, I was interested in litigation and almost picked S&C NYC, and throughout the recruiting process there was no question as to where I would end up. FWIW I landed at firm that specializes more in the type of litigation I wanted to do, but I really liked S&C.

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

Purely based on reputation/numbers and not any inside information, Paul Weiss is the most litigation focused of the three. DPW and S&C have good litigation practices, but I'd feel safer picking a firm that is less corporate focused.

That said, I was interested in litigation and almost picked S&C NYC, and throughout the recruiting process there was no question as to where I would end up. FWIW I landed at firm that specializes more in the type of litigation I wanted to do, but I really liked S&C.

Literally earlier in this thread, someone said Paul, Weiss did this. Of the three, only S&C hasn’t been mentioned here, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did this too.

[Anonymous User]

What’s the best way to avoid finance staffing as a junior? If you just say no, will you be frozen out of everything? I hate it and am already considering lateraling. Reviews are top of my class.

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

Purely based on reputation/numbers and not any inside information, Paul Weiss is the most litigation focused of the three. DPW and S&C have good litigation practices, but I'd feel safer picking a firm that is less corporate focused.

That said, I was interested in litigation and almost picked S&C NYC, and throughout the recruiting process there was no question as to where I would end up. FWIW I landed at firm that specializes more in the type of litigation I wanted to do, but I really liked S&C.

Literally earlier in this thread, someone said Paul, Weiss did this. Of the three, only S&C hasn’t been mentioned here, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did this too.

From my summer, it seemed like they were proactive about giving people interested in both access to both sorts of work and that offers are not given pegged to a group. I havent heard of people being forced one side or another though.

[Anonymous User]

I was told that DPW never does this.

They most definitely do. Like earlier poster said, its generally for a short stint (~3 months or so) until the work from practice group slows down a bit, but they surely do.

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

Purely based on reputation/numbers and not any inside information, Paul Weiss is the most litigation focused of the three. DPW and S&C have good litigation practices, but I'd feel safer picking a firm that is less corporate focused.

That said, I was interested in litigation and almost picked S&C NYC, and throughout the recruiting process there was no question as to where I would end up. FWIW I landed at firm that specializes more in the type of litigation I wanted to do, but I really liked S&C.

Literally earlier in this thread, someone said Paul, Weiss did this. Of the three, only S&C hasn’t been mentioned here, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did this too.

S&C does not do this.

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

Purely based on reputation/numbers and not any inside information, Paul Weiss is the most litigation focused of the three. DPW and S&C have good litigation practices, but I'd feel safer picking a firm that is less corporate focused.

That said, I was interested in litigation and almost picked S&C NYC, and throughout the recruiting process there was no question as to where I would end up. FWIW I landed at firm that specializes more in the type of litigation I wanted to do, but I really liked S&C.

That's very much not true about Paul Weiss anymore. Corporate has become more of a driver of their revenue.

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW and Paul, Weiss and set on lit. Which one is safer to ensure I get lit?

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

Purely based on reputation/numbers and not any inside information, Paul Weiss is the most litigation focused of the three. DPW and S&C have good litigation practices, but I'd feel safer picking a firm that is less corporate focused.

That said, I was interested in litigation and almost picked S&C NYC, and throughout the recruiting process there was no question as to where I would end up. FWIW I landed at firm that specializes more in the type of litigation I wanted to do, but I really liked S&C.

That's very much not true about Paul Weiss anymore. Corporate has become more of a driver of their revenue.

I didn't say they were litigation focused, I said the most litigation focused of the three. Of course corporate is more profitable.

[Excellent117]

Would they prefer to get laid off?

Yes, if I wanted to pursue a litigation career and was being forced into a corporate group, I would much prefer to be laid off. Better that than finding myself stuck in a practice I despised now and moving forward.

[thisismytlsuername]

Would they prefer to get laid off?

Yes, if I wanted to pursue a litigation career and was being forced into a corporate group, I would much prefer to be laid off. Better that than finding myself stuck in a practice I despised now and moving forward.

...you can quit?

[Anonymous User]

For what it's worth I'm a summer associate at DPW and we're starting to get offers after our final review and what happens is the reviewing Partner gives offer and they're like what group do you want and then they mark something down and then say if you change your mind tell us by the spring. I also heard that DPW had some lit associates do a bit of corporate work for a few months but that was allegedly by random and a temporary thing.

[Excellent117]

Would they prefer to get laid off?

Yes, if I wanted to pursue a litigation career and was being forced into a corporate group, I would much prefer to be laid off. Better that than finding myself stuck in a practice I despised now and moving forward.

...you can quit?

Why would you do their job for them and let them get out of paying severance?

[thisismytlsuername]

Would they prefer to get laid off?

Yes, if I wanted to pursue a litigation career and was being forced into a corporate group, I would much prefer to be laid off. Better that than finding myself stuck in a practice I despised now and moving forward.

...you can quit?

Why would you do their job for them and let them get out of paying severance?

lol fair. Most people don't like getting fired though.

[Anonymous User]

Deciding between DPW, S&C and Paul Weiss. Which of those is the greatest and least offender of this?

I was told that DPW never does this. If I want lit what’s my safest bet?

Purely based on reputation/numbers and not any inside information, Paul Weiss is the most litigation focused of the three. DPW and S&C have good litigation practices, but I'd feel safer picking a firm that is less corporate focused.

That said, I was interested in litigation and almost picked S&C NYC, and throughout the recruiting process there was no question as to where I would end up. FWIW I landed at firm that specializes more in the type of litigation I wanted to do, but I really liked S&C.

Literally earlier in this thread, someone said Paul, Weiss did this. Of the three, only S&C hasn’t been mentioned here, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did this too.

S&C does not do this.

FWIW, a few years ago, S&C did make a bunch of corporate juniors do litigation for a few months' time. Not quite the question presented, but it's not as if S&C is above this sort of behavior.