Is Sullivan & Cromwell really that bad? Forum

[dixiecupdrinking]

Getting "thank you" or "nice job" or even "sorry for blowing up your weekend" goes a long way toward maintaining your morale in this job.

They were definitely not put up to this by recruiting and definitely care about you as an individual applicant.

So, one of the reasons we like firms like DPW and STB is because they say "nice job" and "sorry", but when S&C does something nice it's a recruiting trick. Try harder, guys.

There's an obvious difference between how you treat a law student you're recruiting and a full time associate.

I can only assume the people who get so upset about S&C's reputation are 2Ls or 3Ls with offers who are trying to ease their own concerns. Who gives a shit otherwise?

[Anonymous User]

I'm the anon paralegal from above, and no, I'm not flaming or trying to mislead anyone. Admittedly, I was assigned to cases with fantastic people and a lot of it comes down to luck when you're assigned to cases. There are definitely some assholes and some cases that I would not want to be on (from what my friends told me) but I don't think that would be different at any big firm.

S&C gets a bad rap on here that I just don't think is completely deserved, or completely specific to S&C. A lot of people who are miserable there would be miserable at any big firm.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a junior at S&C. A few years ago I accepted my offer with some trepidation given the crap that people here on TLS say about it, particularly that long story about the shoulder bag they always trot out. I can say that biglaw is absolutely no fun, as everyone says, but I literally can't imagine the things happening that people on here say happen. Maybe the stories are from a different time, maybe there's a particular partner or practice group that terrorized someone, I don't know. I haven't worked at a different firm, so I don't know what things are like elsewhere other than anecdotally, but everyone I've worked with at S&C is professional and kind. Yes, sometimes you're working a lot. I've done a few all nighters. I've also had partners and senior associates apologize for keeping me late or making me work on weekends, and I've had partners call me to thank me afterwards for doing so. (Obviously it would be ideal to not have to work nights and weekends, but that's not in the cards with a biglaw job.) No one has ever made fun of me instead of thanked me for doing a task.

Anyway, like I said I can't speak to other firms but I wouldn't go to Skadden or DPW or Wachtell whatever because of these horror stories (there are about 160,000 other reasons to choose Wachtell but that's a different story).

[Babum]

But really it's prob not worse than skadden

That second message just made it. You should be getting more recognition for it

[Anonymous User]

About a year in, a couple of your classmates will crack and start talking about how much the job sucks. They'll very likely have gone to Yale Law School. You'll joke that they couldn't hack it when they leave the firm for a clerkship, or an academic position or to go to a firm in another city.

Do people lateral markets after only a year?

Asking as a beginning 1st year at a v5...you can tell my head is in the right place.

[El Pollito]

About a year in, a couple of your classmates will crack and start talking about how much the job sucks. They'll very likely have gone to Yale Law School. You'll joke that they couldn't hack it when they leave the firm for a clerkship, or an academic position or to go to a firm in another city.

Do people lateral markets after only a year?

Asking as a beginning 1st year at a v5...you can tell my head is in the right place.

not common. as you can imagine, first year laterals aren't particularly desirable.

[krads153]

I've only known one person who was at S&C and he's kind of a dick.

But then so are a lot of biglawyers everywhere....

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

Getting "thank you" or "nice job" or even "sorry for blowing up your weekend" goes a long way toward maintaining your morale in this job.

They were definitely not put up to this by recruiting and definitely care about you as an individual applicant.

So, one of the reasons we like firms like DPW and STB is because they say "nice job" and "sorry", but when S&C does something nice it's a recruiting trick. Try harder, guys.

V10s TLS likes: CSM, DPW, STB
V10s TLS dislikes: S&C, Skadden, Cleary, Kirkland, Latham

[smaug]

Please point out this widespread Cleary dislike.

To the others, well yeah . . .

[Anonymous User]

Please point out this widespread Cleary dislike.

To the others, well yeah . . .

Latham and S&C I understand, but why Skadden and Kirkland?

[RaceJudicata]

neutral on Simpson and Weil?

[Anonymous User]

I have obviously not worked at these places, but the people from my school going to DPW and STB are much douchier than the people I know going to the other "disliked" firms listed above. The people I met during interviews were also meh from those firms. This is clearly anecdotal data, but firms generally try to send their more likeable/personable people to interviews to be the face of the firm during on-campus recruiting.

Meanwhile, all of my classmates going to the "disliked" firms are smart but chill, although the Skadden people are pretty intense and broey.

[smaug]

Please point out this widespread Cleary dislike.

To the others, well yeah . . .

Latham and S&C I understand, but why Skadden and Kirkland?

They both have a reputation of being intense, hard-driving and a little sweatshop-y. None of these firms are going to be a cakewalk but TLS tends to prefer the more genteel of the group. I think that was also true at my law school: Folks generally preferred Cravath, DPW, STB, Cleary among the V10.

Skadden and Kirkland don't really fit that bill.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[Anonymous User]

Full disclosure: accepted S&C.

I didn't get the sense that it was worse than any other firm during the callback or at any of the receptions/dinners/whatevers, nor did I get that sense when I spoke to some former associates. Everybody pretty much said that the problems with S&C are the same problems any biglaw firm has. Most also emphasized that the people you work with have a much greater impact on your experience than anything else. I think it's reasonable to believe that S&C may have more screamers than other firms (although the only thing that I can base this on is their attrition in the mid-2000s). At my school S&C was also the most grade-selective of the non-WLRK V5, had very close to a 100% CB/offer ratio, and their yield was about the same as DPW/CSM, much higher than STB/Skadden.

For what it's worth, I thought Cleary probably had the best people and generally put on the best face, while CSM had by far the most obnoxious group. DPW/STB/Skadden were all fine.

[jbagelboy]

Full disclosure: accepted S&C.

I didn't get the sense that it was worse than any other firm during the callback or at any of the receptions/dinners/whatevers, nor did I get that sense when I spoke to some former associates. Everybody pretty much said that the problems with S&C are the same problems any biglaw firm has. Most also emphasized that the people you work with have a much greater impact on your experience than anything else. I think it's reasonable to believe that S&C may have more screamers than other firms (although the only thing that I can base this on is their attrition in the mid-2000s). At my school S&C was also the most grade-selective of the non-WLRK V5, had very close to a 100% CB/offer ratio, and their yield was about the same as DPW/CSM, much higher than STB/Skadden.

For what it's worth, I thought Cleary probably had the best people and generally put on the best face, while CSM had by far the most obnoxious group. DPW/STB/Skadden were all fine.

Interesting. At CLS, taking several years into consideration, S&C has a lower yield, with DPW and CSM the highest, followed by Cleary and STB. Wachtell is clearly an outlier since it gives far fewer offers than these other firms.

S&C also offers a few less people than CSM or DPW since their grade cutoff is a little sharper

[El Pollito]

Full disclosure: accepted S&C.

I didn't get the sense that it was worse than any other firm during the callback or at any of the receptions/dinners/whatevers, nor did I get that sense when I spoke to some former associates. Everybody pretty much said that the problems with S&C are the same problems any biglaw firm has. Most also emphasized that the people you work with have a much greater impact on your experience than anything else. I think it's reasonable to believe that S&C may have more screamers than other firms (although the only thing that I can base this on is their attrition in the mid-2000s). At my school S&C was also the most grade-selective of the non-WLRK V5, had very close to a 100% CB/offer ratio, and their yield was about the same as DPW/CSM, much higher than STB/Skadden.

For what it's worth, I thought Cleary probably had the best people and generally put on the best face, while CSM had by far the most obnoxious group. DPW/STB/Skadden were all fine.

Interesting. At CLS, taking several years into consideration, S&C has a lower yield, with DPW and CSM the highest, followed by Cleary and STB. Wachtell is clearly an outlier since it gives far fewer offers than these other firms.

S&C also offers a few less people than CSM or DPW since their grade cutoff is a little sharper

prob bc s&c offers 90% of people who hit their grade cutoff

[soj]

.

[Old Gregg]

the most telling part of the charney v. sullivan & cromwell controversy imo isn't the alleged homophobia (the incident was now 9 years ago), but how associates who later interviewed were all "uhh those partners aren't homophobic, they're just awful to every associate " as though charney's allegations, which are pretty terrible if true, were pretty much par for the course for what to expect from the partners accused by charney (who are still at the firm). partners (esp rainmakers) at all law firms routinely get away with bad behavior, but i suspect the firm culture enables this behavior more so than at other firms.

This really isn't unique to any firm. The last thing you want to do is piss off a rainmaker. Doesn't matter that it's S&C in this instance. It's really just one of the few incidences made public amid a ton of other shit at all other firms that never meet public scrutiny.

[Anonymous User]

Full disclosure: accepted S&C.

I didn't get the sense that it was worse than any other firm during the callback or at any of the receptions/dinners/whatevers, nor did I get that sense when I spoke to some former associates. Everybody pretty much said that the problems with S&C are the same problems any biglaw firm has. Most also emphasized that the people you work with have a much greater impact on your experience than anything else. I think it's reasonable to believe that S&C may have more screamers than other firms (although the only thing that I can base this on is their attrition in the mid-2000s). At my school S&C was also the most grade-selective of the non-WLRK V5, had very close to a 100% CB/offer ratio, and their yield was about the same as DPW/CSM, much higher than STB/Skadden.

For what it's worth, I thought Cleary probably had the best people and generally put on the best face, while CSM had by far the most obnoxious group. DPW/STB/Skadden were all fine.

Interesting. At CLS, taking several years into consideration, S&C has a lower yield, with DPW and CSM the highest, followed by Cleary and STB. Wachtell is clearly an outlier since it gives far fewer offers than these other firms.

S&C also offers a few less people than CSM or DPW since their grade cutoff is a little sharper

Cleary had a similar (if slightly lower) yield to CSM/DPW/S&C. I dunno why STB and Skadden are so unpopular here.

[ForgotMyPassword]

http://nymag.com/news/features/28515/

the most telling part of the charney v. sullivan & cromwell controversy imo isn't the alleged homophobia (the incident was now 9 years ago), but how associates who later interviewed were all "uhh those partners aren't homophobic, they're just awful to every associate " as though charney's allegations, which are pretty terrible if true, were pretty much par for the course for what to expect from the partners accused by charney (who are still at the firm). partners (esp rainmakers) at all law firms routinely get away with bad behavior, but i suspect the firm culture enables this behavior more so than at other firms.

This is the salient detail to take from the case. Whether or not he was discriminated against for being gay, the partners acted in an abhorrent fashion. The fact that NYC corporate summers / associates find this par for the course tells me I made the right choice....

[Big Dog]

the partners acted in an abhorrent fashion.

I got news for y'all: there are such senior manager-jerks at nearly every company, particularly on the finance side of the Street. Even in today's so-called "cool" companies: go check out the new movie, Steve Jobs; I understand that Jeff Bezos is not all warm and fuzzy either.

Personally, I'd much rather have a screamer as a boss than a passive aggressive or even worse -- two-faced, one. At least with the former, you know where you stand.

[Cogburn87]

the partners acted in an abhorrent fashion.

I got news for y'all: there are such senior manager-jerks at nearly every company, particularly on the finance side of the Street. Even in today's so-called "cool" companies: go check out the new movie, Steve Jobs; I understand that Jeff Bezos is not all warm and fuzzy either.

Personally, I'd much rather have a screamer as a boss than a passive aggressive or even worse -- two-faced, one. At least with the former, you know where you stand.

This is profoundly stupid.

[monsterman]

the partners acted in an abhorrent fashion.

I got news for y'all: there are such senior manager-jerks at nearly every company, particularly on the finance side of the Street. Even in today's so-called "cool" companies: go check out the new movie, Steve Jobs; I understand that Jeff Bezos is not all warm and fuzzy either.

Personally, I'd much rather have a screamer as a boss than a passive aggressive or even worse -- two-faced, one. At least with the former, you know where you stand.

This is profoundly stupid.

No I think there is some weight to that. I'm not saying screamers, but an aggressive, demanding person who is unambiguous about what they want and where you stand is much more preferable to me than the passive aggressive person.

[Cogburn87]

No I think there is some weight to that. I'm not saying screamers, but an aggressive, demanding person who is unambiguous about what they want and where you stand is much more preferable to me than the passive aggressive person.

It's profoundly stupid because it's a false choice. Believe it or not, you can find employment where you are treated like a human being. If your response to stories about S&C's culture is "But all jobs are humiliating! Just look at Amazon, hurr duuurrrr!" you're objectively an idiot.