Top Law Schools

--LinkRemoved--

May want to think twice before you bid on this firm.

we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread

booyakasha wrote:we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread

+1

Has L&W redeemed themselves yet or are people still colloquially using the phrase "getting lathamed"?

booyakasha wrote:we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread

good idea

of course we'll have to define "sketchy" narrowly

otherwise we won't have anything left to bid on

doyleoil wrote:

booyakasha wrote:we should use this as a general "firms not to bid on because of their sketchy practices" thread

good idea

of course we'll have to define "sketchy" narrowly

otherwise we won't have anything left to bid on

.

I wish I had something more to contribute.

lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.

Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.

Error. Enter valid parameters to continue.

Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.

Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.

motiontodismiss wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.

Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.

Basically the really good firms and then (surprise!) many of the lower ranked firms that never overhired to begin with.

.

NYAssociate wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.

Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.

Guess again.

At this point, the only firms that come to mind are WLRK, Williams, Munger, and some really selective lit boutiques.

You must be including "stealth layoffs" as "fucking people over."

Almost every firm in the country has done layoffs of some kind. But there are plenty of firms that have managed to get by without deferring or no-offering SAs.

RVP11 wrote:

NYAssociate wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:lol. Shorter way to do this might be to say which firms did not fuck over people.

Skadden Arps.

.....I think that's it.

Guess again.

At this point, the only firms that come to mind are WLRK, Williams, Munger, and some really selective lit boutiques.

You must be including "stealth layoffs" as "fucking people over."

Almost every firm in the country has done layoffs of some kind. But there are plenty of firms that have managed to get by without deferring or no-offering SAs.

Skadden's deferments were known well in advance, not "I know it's August 1st, but you can't start until next year. Sorry"

Long deferral = go somewhere else. Rescinded = those people who didn't quite figure that out.

TheBigMediocre wrote:Has L&W redeemed themselves yet or are people still colloquially using the phrase "getting lathamed"?

Curious on this one too, debating whether to bid on them at all...might be a waste.

TheBigMediocre wrote:Has L&W redeemed themselves yet or are people still colloquially using the phrase "getting lathamed"?

I don't think their method of management has changed in the last two years, and I don't recall any efforts (beyond an admittedly generous stipend that was provided to some victims) to help lathamed first years revive their careers. So no, they haven't redeemed themselves.

On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to use one of fifty bids (probably the last one) on latham.

.

NYAssociate wrote:It's great that people in this thread accept layoffs as a firm "not fucking their associates over," as well as deferments. I guess beggars can't be choosers.

Wow thanks for this contribution

.

Long deferral = go somewhere else. Rescinded = those people who didn't quite figure that out.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

What other job is going to pay you 160k? None. Effectively no biglaw firms hired 3L types last year. Sure, you can keep looking, but then what to you do? Accept the 60k a year job when you have a 160k one sitting on the table? It's not like you can tell the 60k job to wait until you figure out what's going onto the deferral.

If Baker had wanted to rescind their offers, that's their prerogative, but it should have been done this time last year.