Firms to Avoid Forum

[El Pollito]

Pretty sure he's just a butthurt unemployed 3L, so it's probably best to ignore his idiotic posts ITT.

[Dredd_2017]

What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/

[jarofsoup]

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.

Someone is sensitive. What does this have to do with credit. Do u understand that these firms are not magical job machines? They have bottom lines. Avoiding one firm will not help because any firm can lay off.

[jarofsoup]

Pretty sure he's just a butthurt unemployed 3L, so it's probably best to ignore his idiotic posts ITT.

Me?

[androstan]

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:

quoted for new page

yeah I reread some of the reporting on PB and they are in seriously sorry shape, 0L's take heed

If PB is your only offer you should probably take it but actively continue to interview elsewhere

[androstan]

http://ludostories.com/2014/04/17/fuck-brown-rudnick/

Beautiful. I gotta keep up with ludostories better.

[jarofsoup]

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:

quoted for new page

yeah I reread some of the reporting on PB and they are in seriously sorry shape, 0L's take heed

If PB is your only offer you should probably take it but actively continue to interview elsewhere

Do you think if they do actually merge the summers will come with or be cut?

[Anonymous User]

What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/

I dont know, I don't think its a firm to avoid until we see how they treat this summers class. FWIW they gave everyone who had an offer the chance to accept if it was the only offer, and they asked other people who had multiple offers to look elsewhere so that they wouldnt get into a Brown Rudnic/ Winston/ Paul Hastings situation. Assuming they offer 100% of their summer class I think what they did was the best way out of their situation

[Blindmelon]

How about any NY firm. Secondary city = 2,000 billed on the dot, much lower COL. People in TX biglaw have it made (although they live in TX, so...).

[AntipodeanPhil]

What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/

I dont know, I don't think its a firm to avoid until we see how they treat this summers class. FWIW they gave everyone who had an offer the chance to accept if it was the only offer, and they asked other people who had multiple offers to look elsewhere so that they wouldnt get into a Brown Rudnic/ Winston/ Paul Hastings situation. Assuming they offer 100% of their summer class I think what they did was the best way out of their situation

Kasowitz fired a lot of people in February, so probably a good firm to avoid for that reason alone, but I agree that letting SAs know there's a problem when they still have other options is much better than the alternative.

Regarding Paul Hastings, I thought the issue wasn't that they had some kind of "situation" (e.g., a bad year), and had to no-offer some SAs and fire some people, but that hiring too many SAs and then no-offering a lot of them was basically just their recruiting model for a while (they seem to have changed this year).

[chem]

What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/

I dont know, I don't think its a firm to avoid until we see how they treat this summers class. FWIW they gave everyone who had an offer the chance to accept if it was the only offer, and they asked other people who had multiple offers to look elsewhere so that they wouldnt get into a Brown Rudnic/ Winston/ Paul Hastings situation. Assuming they offer 100% of their summer class I think what they did was the best way out of their situation

Kasowitz fired a lot of people in February, so probably a good firm to avoid for that reason alone, but I agree that letting SAs know there's a problem when they still have other options is much better than the alternative.

Regarding Paul Hastings, I thought the issue wasn't that they had some kind of "situation" (e.g., a bad year), and had to no-offer some SAs and fire some people, but that hiring too many SAs and then no-offering a lot of them was basically just their recruiting model (until this year, when they presumably came to realize how much damage that was doing to their recruiting).

Also read somewhere that there was a large amount of discontent over bonuses. Not compelling direct evidence, but exploding offers, firings in february, and lower than expected bonuses start to paint an outline. Its all speculation though, I have no idea whats going

[Old Gregg]

What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/

I dont know, I don't think its a firm to avoid until we see how they treat this summers class. FWIW they gave everyone who had an offer the chance to accept if it was the only offer, and they asked other people who had multiple offers to look elsewhere so that they wouldnt get into a Brown Rudnic/ Winston/ Paul Hastings situation. Assuming they offer 100% of their summer class I think what they did was the best way out of their situation

(Kasowitz Recruiting)

[Anonymous User]

What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/

I dont know, I don't think its a firm to avoid until we see how they treat this summers class. FWIW they gave everyone who had an offer the chance to accept if it was the only offer, and they asked other people who had multiple offers to look elsewhere so that they wouldnt get into a Brown Rudnic/ Winston/ Paul Hastings situation. Assuming they offer 100% of their summer class I think what they did was the best way out of their situation

Kasowitz fired a lot of people in February, so probably a good firm to avoid for that reason alone, but I agree that letting SAs know there's a problem when they still have other options is much better than the alternative.

Regarding Paul Hastings, I thought the issue wasn't that they had some kind of "situation" (e.g., a bad year), and had to no-offer some SAs and fire some people, but that hiring too many SAs and then no-offering a lot of them was basically just their recruiting model for a while (they seem to have changed this year).

Paul Hastings doesn't purposely over hire and flunk out a portion. But they also aren't going to give douchebags offers just to hit 100%. If you are nice and make an effort you'll get an offer. But dicks and dbags won't.

It sucks for the summers but when your mid levels are decent people you'll love the policy.

[Old Gregg]

Paul Hastings doesn't purposely over hire and flunk out a portion. But they also aren't going to give douchebags offers just to hit 100%. If you are nice and make an effort you'll get an offer. But dicks and dbags won't.

It sucks for the summers but when your mid levels are decent people you'll love the policy.

(Paul Hastings recruiting)

[El Pollito]

.

[AntipodeanPhil]

Regarding Paul Hastings, I thought the issue wasn't that they had some kind of "situation" (e.g., a bad year), and had to no-offer some SAs and fire some people, but that hiring too many SAs and then no-offering a lot of them was basically just their recruiting model for a while (they seem to have changed this year).

Paul Hastings doesn't purposely over hire and flunk out a portion. But they also aren't going to give douchebags offers just to hit 100%. If you are nice and make an effort you'll get an offer. But dicks and dbags won't.

It sucks for the summers but when your mid levels are decent people you'll love the policy.

Either this is flagrantly false, or Paul Hastings hires a lot of dicks and douchebags. Until last year.

In 2012, for example, the firm-wide offer rate was 58/70. So they hired 17% dicks and douchebags that year? Either way, there's something seriously wrong with their recruiting.

[El Pollito]

Regarding Paul Hastings, I thought the issue wasn't that they had some kind of "situation" (e.g., a bad year), and had to no-offer some SAs and fire some people, but that hiring too many SAs and then no-offering a lot of them was basically just their recruiting model for a while (they seem to have changed this year).

Paul Hastings doesn't purposely over hire and flunk out a portion. But they also aren't going to give douchebags offers just to hit 100%. If you are nice and make an effort you'll get an offer. But dicks and dbags won't.

It sucks for the summers but when your mid levels are decent people you'll love the policy.

Either this is flagrantly false, or Paul Hastings hires a lot of dicks and douchebags. Until last year.

In 2012, for example, the firm-wide offer rate was 58/70. So they hired 17% dicks and douchebags that year? Either way, there's something seriously wrong with their recruiting.

What?

[Anonymous User]

Regarding Paul Hastings, I thought the issue wasn't that they had some kind of "situation" (e.g., a bad year), and had to no-offer some SAs and fire some people, but that hiring too many SAs and then no-offering a lot of them was basically just their recruiting model for a while (they seem to have changed this year).

Paul Hastings doesn't purposely over hire and flunk out a portion. But they also aren't going to give douchebags offers just to hit 100%. If you are nice and make an effort you'll get an offer. But dicks and dbags won't.

It sucks for the summers but when your mid levels are decent people you'll love the policy.

Either this is flagrantly false, or Paul Hastings hires a lot of dicks and douchebags. Until last year.

In 2012, for example, the firm-wide offer rate was 58/70. So they hired 17% dicks and douchebags that year? Either way, there's something seriously wrong with their recruiting.

Look at your law school class. A hell of a lot more than 13% are dicks.

I'm not saying there is nothing to worry about. Because the offer rate is historically around 90%. That's significantly lower than peer firms. It's definitely more dangerous. But it isn't financial.

I'd say if you are a nice person you'd have no problem. But dbags and aspies never think they are a problem. Hell if I would have know I probably wouldn't have come here. But I'm glad they do it.

[Anonymous User]

What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/

I dont know, I don't think its a firm to avoid until we see how they treat this summers class. FWIW they gave everyone who had an offer the chance to accept if it was the only offer, and they asked other people who had multiple offers to look elsewhere so that they wouldnt get into a Brown Rudnic/ Winston/ Paul Hastings situation. Assuming they offer 100% of their summer class I think what they did was the best way out of their situation

Kasowitz fired a lot of people in February, so probably a good firm to avoid for that reason alone, but I agree that letting SAs know there's a problem when they still have other options is much better than the alternative.

Regarding Paul Hastings, I thought the issue wasn't that they had some kind of "situation" (e.g., a bad year), and had to no-offer some SAs and fire some people, but that hiring too many SAs and then no-offering a lot of them was basically just their recruiting model for a while (they seem to have changed this year).

Paul Hastings doesn't purposely over hire and flunk out a portion. But they also aren't going to give douchebags offers just to hit 100%. If you are nice and make an effort you'll get an offer. But dicks and dbags won't.

It sucks for the summers but when your mid levels are decent people you'll love the policy.

Just because you were lucky enough to get an offer doesn't mean that everyone they no offered was a douchebag

[El Pollito]

I think el pollito is big on making assumptions and insulting people.

Please tell me more.

[Old Gregg]

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/nationwi ... n-round-3/

[jarofsoup]

I think el pollito is big on making assumptions and insulting people.

Please tell me more.

You called me a butthurt unemployed 3L (I think). But I am not unemployed. I am just butthurt.

[Anonymous User]

Nope

[Old Gregg]

Even your firm laid people off in 2009. We are talking post crash.

That's what i thought, but your now deleted post didn't have that qualification.

This is why this thread is stupid. If you include the recession, you should avoid all firms except WLRK because all firms but them did some pretty bad shit (and, arguably, getting axed early on from Latham with generous severance is superior to getting stealthed from a V5 and being thrown into the weeds with poor severance). If you don't, then you miss out on firms that did some pretty bad shit during the recession and should be remembered for it.

Bottom line is if you're considering an offer from a firm, this thread won't save you any more than a google and ATL and general TLS search would. More to the point, there's no reason why a firm one thought to be "safe" would not suddenly Latham associates given the particular economics of the firm and the sort of practices they rely on. It's pretty hard to predict when such specific events will occur.

[IAFG]

Just because you were lucky enough to get an offer doesn't mean that everyone they no offered was a douchebag

Yeah but we have met the people who got no offered.

I can honestly say no one in my LS class who got no offered were dickbags, but I also know the people who got no offered at a peer firm in my market had it coming.