S&C experiences? Forum

[911 crisis actor]

...

[itbdvorm]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

Just out of curiosity, assume, arguendo that you're right (you're not, of course) that S&C doesn't take fit into account. Lets say all these dangerously antisocial beasts show up to work. And let say, like others assert, at S&C, you work endless hours with your peers.

How, pray tell, do these antisocial aspergers cases survive in an intense, 24/7 team project environment?

The answer, of course, is that they don't last. Necessarily, if you don't play well with others, you will not last anywhere, and that includes S&C.

Unless, of course, you do well enough for the people above you to like you. Then you last forever and make life for those below you miserable.

[SLS_AMG]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

Just out of curiosity, assume, arguendo that you're right (you're not, of course) that S&C doesn't take fit into account. Lets say all these dangerously antisocial beasts show up to work. And let say, like others assert, at S&C, you work endless hours with your peers.

How, pray tell, do these antisocial aspergers cases survive in an intense, 24/7 team project environment?

The answer, of course, is that they don't last. Necessarily, if you don't play well with others, you will not last anywhere, and that includes S&C.

Lol doesn't S&C have like the highest attrition of any V20?

[Anonymous User]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

Just out of curiosity, assume, arguendo that you're right (you're not, of course) that S&C doesn't take fit into account. Lets say all these dangerously antisocial beasts show up to work. And let say, like others assert, at S&C, you work endless hours with your peers.

How, pray tell, do these antisocial aspergers cases survive in an intense, 24/7 team project environment?

The answer, of course, is that they don't last. Necessarily, if you don't play well with others, you will not last anywhere, and that includes S&C.

Lol doesn't S&C have like the highest attrition of any V20?

Not to my knowledge. I'm a fifth year and our attrition is shockingly low. If there's a source for the proposition that S&Cs attrition is generally higher than average, I'll gladly be corrected.

Generally (in case its not obvious) I find the whole "S&C IS THE WORSTEST!" thing to be bizarre and contrary to my personal experience. My suspicion is that its basically a meme / rumor thing that has taken on a life of its own. This is not to say that S&C is a utopia or that there aren't assholes here, because there are (though no more than there were in law school generally, and law school was fallow ground for world class assholes). But my experience here is certainly no worse - and in many ways, much better - than the experiences of my friends at peer firms. So either the ritual sacrifice of innocent young associates is happening right under my nose, and I've just missed it somehow, or there's a whole lot of "my sister's cousin's friend said that they spank first years!" going on, which is a bit more likely IMO.

[Tiago Splitter]

I'm a fifth year and our attrition is shockingly low. If there's a source for the proposition that S&Cs attrition is generally higher than average, I'll gladly be corrected.

This is now several years old, but it shows that people aren't just pulling this stuff from thin air:

But last February, the partners at Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that problems at its firm had become particuarly acute. A 74-page PowerPoint presentation entitled “Recruiting, Associate Morale and Retention” showed that associates were leaving the law firm in droves: S&C lost 31% of its associates in 2004; 30% in 2005. (The average associate attrition rate for law firms of 501 or more attorneys from 2002 to 2004 was 19%, according to a NALP study.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/01/24/sul ... te-morale/

droves

[Anonymous User]

I'm a fifth year and our attrition is shockingly low. If there's a source for the proposition that S&Cs attrition is generally higher than average, I'll gladly be corrected.

This is now several years old, but it shows that people aren't just pulling this stuff from thin air:

But last February, the partners at Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that problems at its firm had become particuarly acute. A 74-page PowerPoint presentation entitled “Recruiting, Associate Morale and Retention” showed that associates were leaving the law firm in droves: S&C lost 31% of its associates in 2004; 30% in 2005. (The average associate attrition rate for law firms of 501 or more attorneys from 2002 to 2004 was 19%, according to a NALP study.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/01/24/sul ... te-morale/

droves

To be fair, that was 10 years ago. A third of the partnership of a firm changes in that time, and about 95% of the associates turnover.

[Tiago Splitter]

I would have gone with "firms of 501+ doesn't necessarily equate to peers of S&C" there.

[jbagelboy]

I would have gone with "firms of 501+ doesn't necessarily equate to peers of S&C" there.

On this note, I would guess Cravath has similar attrition, esp with the even more limited partnership prospects

[Anonymous User]

I would have gone with "firms of 501+ doesn't necessarily equate to peers of S&C" there.

On this note, I would guess Cravath has similar attrition, esp with the even more limited partnership prospects

Someone told me that the last lit partner that was made there was the only lit associate left in his year.

[911 crisis actor]

But last February, the partners at Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that problems at its firm had become particuarly acute. A 74-page PowerPoint presentation entitled “Recruiting, Associate Morale and Retention” showed that associates were leaving the law firm in droves: S&C lost 31% of its associates in 2004; 30% in 2005. (The average associate attrition rate for law firms of 501 or more attorneys from 2002 to 2004 was 19%, according to a NALP study.)

You'll have lunch with Rodge and he'll tell you that business is good and that he's listening to associates' concerns about quality of life issues. You'll notice that some of the senior associates visibly roll their eyes at each other when this comes up, but you won't mind that much because, really, what other firm's managing partner regulalry has lunch with associates to hear their concerns (and takes notes!)

[Anonymous User]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

Just out of curiosity, assume, arguendo that you're right (you're not, of course) that S&C doesn't take fit into account. Lets say all these dangerously antisocial beasts show up to work. And let say, like others assert, at S&C, you work endless hours with your peers.

How, pray tell, do these antisocial aspergers cases survive in an intense, 24/7 team project environment?

The answer, of course, is that they don't last. Necessarily, if you don't play well with others, you will not last anywhere, and that includes S&C.

I believe the CB-to-offer ratio at CLS is over 90%. Also, offers are made on the spot. How would this indicate anything other than the fact that S&C doesn't consider personalities?

And while this is just an anecdote, I got an S&C CB despite not answering a single question in my interview. The interviewer literally just talked about himself for 20 minutes.

[v5junior]

All of these things are such bad reasons for choosing law firms.

All of you make it seem like every single person at S&C is aspie, which obviously isn't true, and 0 people at the rest of the V10 are aspie, which obviously isn't true. At the end of the day, your experience will be dictated by which deal teams/partners/whatever you are assigned to--which will be completely random, and a small cross-section of the people at the firm. You could very easily end up with aspies at DPW or chill sociable bros at S&C. Highly unlikely that there are (a) consistent (b) statistically significant and (c) meaningful differences in the frequency/severity of awkwardness at any of these firms.

And then all the arguments about crazy insignificant differences in practice group prestige. Really? Do you think Vault (X) law firm's client is going to check your vault/chambers ranking before hiring you? Someone in this thread is even trying to draw distinctions within chambers bands? Like some recruiter is going to hire a DPW associate over a Cleary associate for a cap markets position just because "DPW = cap markets duh" is an internet meme? Because you're going to have SUCH a different experience as an associate at SullCrom on the Allied Minds IPO compared to the associate experience at DPW on the Synchrony Financial IPO?

Perhaps when you graduate law school and enter the real world, you'll realize that businesses don't lend themselves to rankings, and your experience/"exit options" will be determined by luck/hard work more than your law firm's vault prestige.

[v5junior]

If you liked your CB/offer dinner/whatever at SullCrom more than the other ones you have been to, think the areas they have practice groups in are sufficient to satisfy your interests, and like the idea of working in FiDi, then take your offer. Ignore the trolls.

[SLS_AMG]

All of these things are such bad reasons for choosing law firms.

All of you make it seem like every single person at S&C is aspie, which obviously isn't true, and 0 people at the rest of the V10 are aspie, which obviously isn't true. At the end of the day, your experience will be dictated by which deal teams/partners/whatever you are assigned to--which will be completely random, and a small cross-section of the people at the firm. You could very easily end up with aspies at DPW or chill sociable bros at S&C. Highly unlikely that there are (a) consistent (b) statistically significant and (c) meaningful differences in the frequency/severity of awkwardness at any of these firms.

And then all the arguments about crazy insignificant differences in practice group prestige. Really? Do you think Vault (X) law firm's client is going to check your vault/chambers ranking before hiring you? Someone in this thread is even trying to draw distinctions within chambers bands? Like some recruiter is going to hire a DPW associate over a Cleary associate for a cap markets position just because "DPW = cap markets duh" is an internet meme? Because you're going to have SUCH a different experience as an associate at SullCrom on the Allied Minds IPO compared to the associate experience at DPW on the Synchrony Financial IPO?

Perhaps when you graduate law school and enter the real world, you'll realize that businesses don't lend themselves to rankings, and your experience/"exit options" will be determined by luck/hard work more than your law firm's vault prestige.

Great first post debunking the importance of Vault prestige, Mr.

v5junior

v5junior

v5junior

[WhiskeynCoke]

Perhaps when you graduate law school and enter the real world, you'll realize that businesses don't lend themselves to rankings, and your experience/"exit options" will be determined by luck/hard work more than your law firm's vault prestige.

I completely agree with your observations about the meaningless of Vault prestige, "V5junior."

(I really do think Vault rank is way too obsessed-over but just couldn't resist the comical irony here.)

[v5junior]

Perhaps when you graduate law school and enter the real world, you'll realize that businesses don't lend themselves to rankings, and your experience/"exit options" will be determined by luck/hard work more than your law firm's vault prestige.

I completely agree with your observations about the meaningless of Vault prestige, "V5junior."

(I really do think Vault rank is way too obsessed-over but just couldn't resist the comical irony here.)

I thought it was better when it was more subtle...but thank you for the emphasis.

[2014]

All of these things are such bad reasons for choosing law firms.

All of you make it seem like every single person at S&C is aspie, which obviously isn't true, and 0 people at the rest of the V10 are aspie, which obviously isn't true. At the end of the day, your experience will be dictated by which deal teams/partners/whatever you are assigned to--which will be completely random, and a small cross-section of the people at the firm. You could very easily end up with aspies at DPW or chill sociable bros at S&C. Highly unlikely that there are (a) consistent (b) statistically significant and (c) meaningful differences in the frequency/severity of awkwardness at any of these firms.

And then all the arguments about crazy insignificant differences in practice group prestige. Really? Do you think Vault (X) law firm's client is going to check your vault/chambers ranking before hiring you? Someone in this thread is even trying to draw distinctions within chambers bands? Like some recruiter is going to hire a DPW associate over a Cleary associate for a cap markets position just because "DPW = cap markets duh" is an internet meme? Because you're going to have SUCH a different experience as an associate at SullCrom on the Allied Minds IPO compared to the associate experience at DPW on the Synchrony Financial IPO?

Perhaps when you graduate law school and enter the real world, you'll realize that businesses don't lend themselves to rankings, and your experience/"exit options" will be determined by luck/hard work more than your law firm's vault prestige.

Strange DPW fixation here

[v5junior]

All of these things are such bad reasons for choosing law firms.

All of you make it seem like every single person at S&C is aspie, which obviously isn't true, and 0 people at the rest of the V10 are aspie, which obviously isn't true. At the end of the day, your experience will be dictated by which deal teams/partners/whatever you are assigned to--which will be completely random, and a small cross-section of the people at the firm. You could very easily end up with aspies at DPW or chill sociable bros at S&C. Highly unlikely that there are (a) consistent (b) statistically significant and (c) meaningful differences in the frequency/severity of awkwardness at any of these firms.

And then all the arguments about crazy insignificant differences in practice group prestige. Really? Do you think Vault (X) law firm's client is going to check your vault/chambers ranking before hiring you? Someone in this thread is even trying to draw distinctions within chambers bands? Like some recruiter is going to hire a DPW associate over a Cleary associate for a cap markets position just because "DPW = cap markets duh" is an internet meme? Because you're going to have SUCH a different experience as an associate at SullCrom on the Allied Minds IPO compared to the associate experience at DPW on the Synchrony Financial IPO?

Perhaps when you graduate law school and enter the real world, you'll realize that businesses don't lend themselves to rankings, and your experience/"exit options" will be determined by luck/hard work more than your law firm's vault prestige.

Strange DPW fixation here

Was just sticking with the cap markets meme. Replace that with Skadden/Cravath/STB m&a, makes no difference. The point is they are worthless memes.

[Anonymous User]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

Just out of curiosity, assume, arguendo that you're right (you're not, of course)

Of course I'm right. S&C cannot possibly take fit into account other than dinging people who literally sit there slackjawed in their interviews given their callback to offer ratio. You, of course, have not even attempted to refute that S&C's CB->offer rate is well over 90%, a statistic that the firm revels in rather than denying when asked.

that S&C doesn't take fit into account. Lets say all these dangerously antisocial beasts show up to work. And let say, like others assert, at S&C, you work endless hours with your peers.

How, pray tell, do these antisocial aspergers cases survive in an intense, 24/7 team project environment?

The answer, of course, is that they don't last. Necessarily, if you don't play well with others, you will not last anywhere, and that includes S&C.

As I made obvious, not everyone at S&C is "dangerously antisocial". But you don't have to be "dangerously antisocial" to get dinged for fit at DPW/STB/Cleary/Skadden. You just have to come across as a pompous douchebag. And S&C has a disproportionately large number of those. And, no, they don't get fired--partners don't care, and typically don't even know (a problem shared across firms but especially acute at S&C). In fact, this is S&C's central problem--too many inflated egos in the associate ranks, too many screamers among the partners, generally a much higher rate of emotional abusiveness than you'll find at any other peer firm. Their attrition rate isn't much different from Cravath's, but Cravath works people to death, a lot harder than any of the other top corporate firms (except Wachtell, of course, but at least they're paid for it). S&C just abuses people until they leave.

[Old Gregg]

There is no way a 20 minute screener and a 2 and a half hour callback interview can yield any useful information about a candidate's personality (or a firm's, for that matter). This is very much unlike traditional interviews for high paying jobs, that involve case interviews, behavioral shit, etc.

That doesn't mean that S&C is a firm full of aspies. It just means that personality standards are low. It speaks nothing to the overall quality of personalities that end up at the firm.

[bearsfan23]

There is no way a 20 minute screener and a 2 and a half hour callback interview can yield any useful information about a candidate's personality (or a firm's, for that matter). This is very much unlike traditional interviews for high paying jobs, that involve case interviews, behavioral shit, etc.

That doesn't mean that S&C is a firm full of aspies. It just means that personality standards are low. It speaks nothing to the overall quality of personalities that end up at the firm.

Right but you can learn a lot more about a person's personality and ability to interact with others in a Callback than you can in a 20 minute screener. And it seems like most of S&C's negative rep comes, not from anything to do with the actual work of the firm, but from the fact that they offer virtually everybody who gets a CB.

Personally, I really don't understand why their not at least a little more selective at the CB stage. Right now, they're kind've like a girl who fucks on the first date. Sure its great to know that you're getting some, but it may not be healthy for the long-term relationship

[Old Gregg]

And it seems like most of S&C's negative rep comes

Oh don't worry about that. S&C's negative rep comes from many other places...

[Anonymous User]

Raise your hand if you actually work at S&C and/or have something stronger than anecdotal evidence.

[Old Gregg]

Raise your hand if you actually work at S&C and/or have something stronger than anecdotal evidence.

Raise your hand for anonymous abuse?

All of the top tier NYC firms are terrible places to work. Best to accept it now.

[Anonymous User]

There is no way a 20 minute screener and a 2 and a half hour callback interview can yield any useful information about a candidate's personality (or a firm's, for that matter). This is very much unlike traditional interviews for high paying jobs, that involve case interviews, behavioral shit, etc.

That doesn't mean that S&C is a firm full of aspies. It just means that personality standards are low. It speaks nothing to the overall quality of personalities that end up at the firm.

Right but you can learn a lot more about a person's personality and ability to interact with others in a Callback than you can in a 20 minute screener. And it seems like most of S&C's negative rep comes, not from anything to do with the actual work of the firm, but from the fact that they offer virtually everybody who gets a CB.

Personally, I really don't understand why their not at least a little more selective at the CB stage. Right now, they're kind've like a girl who fucks on the first date. Sure its great to know that you're getting some, but it may not be healthy for the long-term relationship

After going through the recruiting process I don't really agree with the whole S&C only takes anti-social freaks and thus they have horrible QoL line. I think people might be mildly more introverted but then again they are a more universally "high achieving" group in the law school, already prone to introversion. And to speak against this trend, one of my most socially acclimated and interesting classmates is headed there. Although if I wanted to work somewhere for the sex life, yeah, I'd probably look elsewhere but that's an absurd metric for serious professional development.

If I knew I wanted to do M&A work I'm not sure there are other market-paying places in NY I would take over S&C - mostly because I think the two year open period completely knocks the 18-24 mo rotation structure out of the park (maybe Simpson for fin institutions/PE). I thought Cravath attorneys, and partners more specifically, had far more personality disorders *on average* than Sullivan's. But somehow they evade the same sanctioning rhetoric on the boards. Not every S&C associate was my favorite person, and some will be awkward, but seriously?, we are talking about law students and attorneys - not known for their social graces or bedtime manner in the first place. The industry is ripe with toolbags.

As a final point to the "oh but they offer everyone," keep in mind at most top schools S&C winds up offering about the same number of people as Cravath, Cleary, Simpson, ect. so it's not like they are throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Contributing to this, 1) if you were really fucking weird you wouldn't get the callback - not every T14 top 10% student gets one, and they are more selective about who they CB - and 2) their hiring model, for all its perceived flaws, clearly doesn't flop from a profitability/quality of work standpoint.