Which firm would you choose? Forum

[Anonymous User]

all nyc
gibson dunn
skadden
s&c
debevoise

i am interested in litigation work and concerned about work/life balance

i am not asking you to decide for me. i am just trying to get as much info as possible on these firms and as many people's opinions as possible before making my decision.

thanks.

[Anonymous User]

I would choose the one that is the best fit for my personality after going on callback interviews with each of them.

They're all awful fucking NYC mega firms. Gibson sort of doesn't fit in with the crowd, Deb has a reputation for having more humans and fewer lawyers, Skadden has a reputation for being the worst place on earth (fun fact: A non-NYC skadden interviewer at my school's OCI spent a lot of time talking about how their Skadden branch office "Wasn't like the NYC office at all" to try and win people over), and S&C is, er, prestigious? But none of this matters nearly as much as your personal interaction.

I mean, if work life balance is what you're looking for, I would kindly suggest applying to government positions or law firms that aren't within 100 miles of NYC.

[thecilent]

all nyc
gibson dunn
skadden
s&c
debevoise

i am interested in litigation work and concerned about work/life balance

i am not asking you to decide for me. i am just trying to get as much info as possible on these firms and as many people's opinions as possible before making my decision.

thanks.

Skadden. $$

[RVP11]

Drop GDC - their lit's not good enough in NYC compared to the others.

For litigation, I'd say S&C > Skadden > Debevoise.

For QOL, I'd say Debevoise > S&C > Skadden. But they all suck.

[Anonymous User]

thanks for y'all's input so far. (i have to be in nyc so work/life will be tough no matter what)
one additional fact - i'd really like to get a gov't job after a few years at a firm.

[Anonymous User]

Do you already have offers from each of those firms?

[Anonymous User]

thanks for y'all's input so far. (i have to be in nyc so work/life will be tough no matter what)
one additional fact - i'd really like to get a gov't job after a few years at a firm.

(anon from above again)for whatever it's worth, if I were you I'd go to S&C unless you loved Debevoise. Debevoise is much better know for corporate than for litigation. Skadden, on the other hand, is a great firm but has a reputation for being much less selective. Obviously that doesn't matter on the ground, but it may well translate when it comes time to exit (when, how, and wherever that might occur).

[RVP11]

thanks for y'all's input so far. (i have to be in nyc so work/life will be tough no matter what)
one additional fact - i'd really like to get a gov't job after a few years at a firm.

(anon from above again)for whatever it's worth, if I were you I'd go to S&C unless you loved Debevoise. Debevoise is much better know for corporate than for litigation. Skadden, on the other hand, is a great firm but has a reputation for being much less selective. Obviously that doesn't matter on the ground, but it may well translate when it comes time to exit (when, how, and wherever that might occur).

I think this is right. I can't imagine how Skadden is superior to S&C in any way. I would be picking between S&C and Debevoise based largely on my impressions after the callbacks.

[Anonymous User]

thanks for y'all's input so far. (i have to be in nyc so work/life will be tough no matter what)
one additional fact - i'd really like to get a gov't job after a few years at a firm.

(anon from above again)for whatever it's worth, if I were you I'd go to S&C unless you loved Debevoise. Debevoise is much better know for corporate than for litigation. Skadden, on the other hand, is a great firm but has a reputation for being much less selective. Obviously that doesn't matter on the ground, but it may well translate when it comes time to exit (when, how, and wherever that might occur).

I think this is right. I can't imagine how Skadden is superior to S&C in any way. I would be picking between S&C and Debevoise based largely on my impressions after the callbacks.

thanks! any other thoughts would be much appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

Debevoise is NOT a quality of life firm. They like to say they are, but all firms love to say that. In fact, they recently changed all of their recruiting slogans from "we love working here" to "being a success." There was a dramatic shift in the mgmt from selling the firm as a friendly place, to needing people to work 15 hr days regularly "ITE." Worked there and saw how they treated both associates and staff. If you're looking for quality of life, none of these firms will offer that, unfortunately.

[Anonymous User]

Debevoise is NOT a quality of life firm. They like to say they are, but all firms love to say that. In fact, they recently changed all of their recruiting slogans from "we love working here" to "being a success." There was a dramatic shift in the mgmt from selling the firm as a friendly place, to needing people to work 15 hr days regularly "ITE." Worked there and saw how they treated both associates and staff. If you're looking for quality of life, none of these firms will offer that, unfortunately.

thanks for the scoop.

[Anonymous User]

Rofl @ 'litigation' and 'work/life balance' as if the two can co-exist.

[Anonymous User]

Rofl @ 'litigation' and 'work/life balance' as if the two can co-exist.

why do you say that? obviously if you are doing a trial but otherwise can't you have some balance?

[Anonymous User]

I think it depends what you mean by balance. You'll rarely be on trial (since this doesn't happen often), but there will still be many time-consuming urgent tasks regarding depositions, pre-trial motions, and so on. Expect constant late-night emergencies. Even as a litigation paralegal in a small boutique, there were constant late-night emergencies -- and I never even went to trial. I'd often work 70-90 hours a week, having nothing to do with a trial.

[imchuckbass58]

Drop GDC - their lit's not good enough in NYC compared to the others.

I would disagree with this. Generally speaking, GDC's lit department is one of the best in the country. Look at all the cases they've tried recently - Citizens United, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Dukes v. Wal-mart (the 1.6 million member class action), Chevron v. Ecuador, and the Intel-AMD antitrust case, to name a few.

Granted a good portion of these cases are coming out of the DC appellate department, but several (Chevron, Dukes, Perry) are NY or LA based, and NY is there biggest office, as well as home to both litigation heads.

I'm not saying you should definitely go to GDC, but I would disagree that you should count them out because "their lit isn't good enough in NYC."

Edit: They also won litigation department of the year in the American Lawyer.

[BruceWayne]

Rofl @ 'litigation' and 'work/life balance' as if the two can co-exist.

If you are talking about the typical massive "up or out' in 3 years doc review "litigation" firm that TLS focuses on because of vault.com then you are correct. But there are other firms that do not have high vault rankings (but that people in the legal community know are actually just as selective and desirable to work at) where you can have a good QOL, actually have a chance to make partner, and get substantive experience. Admittedly NYC is much shorter on these firms than other markets but they do exist. Patterson Belknap would be the perfect example of such a NYC firm. People say the hours are manageable, you get real litigation experience (not just doc review), and you have a legitimate chance at making partner.

[Anonymous User]

bump -
anyone else have thoughts on these firms?
skadden
debevoise
s&c

i don't have many friends at firms now soits hard to get the inside scoop...
thanks!

[NYAssociate]

.