Top Law Schools

Any thoughts on the firm/office/financial stability/work? As one of SF's older/larger law firms, how are they viewed in the region? Still waiting to hear, but would strongly consider them if offered. Leaning transactional.

Thanks!

Shameless bump. Any thoughts?

I know people who were laid off, but then again, that's the economy. I don't have anything specific, other than that no one I talked to in the Bay Area said anything positive about them -- comments ranged from very negative to neutral, and they were one of very few SF firms that I chose not to bid on at OCI. But, I don't pretend to be all-knowledgeable about this.

Anonymous User wrote:I know people who were laid off, but then again, that's the economy. I don't have anything specific, other than that no one I talked to in the Bay Area said anything positive about them -- comments ranged from very negative to neutral, and they were one of very few SF firms that I chose not to bid on at OCI. But, I don't pretend to be all-knowledgeable about this.

Out of curiosity, what kind of comments? I know a lot of firms have done layoffs, so if it relates to that - probably not a huge deterrent. People seemed genuinely happy at the office, so I'm wondering if that is actually the case. Can you share any specifics? Thanks!

I dont *really* know what I'm talking about, but having bid on and interviewed with numerous norcal firms, my understanding is that pillsbury is not well regarded. It is supposedly not in the best financial shape, had a series of rocky mergers, and has unhappy associates (see survey). I'd avoid if possible.

I agree with the post above me. Pillsbury is the first firm that people think will go under when the economy hits hard economic terms.

Talking to a friend who worked there, office politics are worse than normal. The litigators in the place hate it there. Because I heard all of these things, I did not bid on them, so take it with a grain of salt that I never met the people there.

I was anonymous poster #3... I've heard the same things basically as the above anonymous posters have. At best what I've heard is that they're a "typical BigLaw firm and yeah everyone's struggling in this economy, etc."

My personal read on it is that based on what I've heard/studied, I just don't think they're as competitive with MoFo, Orrick, etc. for "traditional" San Francisco work -- which is a steadily declining market anyway -- and they barely even factor into the competition for tech-driven work.

Anonymous User wrote:I dont *really* know what I'm talking about, but having bid on and interviewed with numerous norcal firms, my understanding is that pillsbury is not well regarded. It is supposedly not in the best financial shape, had a series of rocky mergers, and has unhappy associates (see survey). I'd avoid if possible.

where could i find these surveys?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I dont *really* know what I'm talking about, but having bid on and interviewed with numerous norcal firms, my understanding is that pillsbury is not well regarded. It is supposedly not in the best financial shape, had a series of rocky mergers, and has unhappy associates (see survey). I'd avoid if possible.

where could i find these surveys?

Google "mid-level associate satisfaction survey" - pillsbury is pretty low. I think this is a pretty important metric, as mid-levels have been around for awhile and generally know whats going on.

Anonymous User wrote:Google "mid-level associate satisfaction survey" - pillsbury is pretty low. I think this is a pretty important metric, as mid-levels have been around for awhile and generally know whats going on.

Pillsbury's performance on the survey looked pretty average to me, at least in SF. There were many who fared worse. Also, the response rates are very low--GDC was rated the highest based on 5 responses. Pillsbury had many more, but still fewer than 20. It could be an important metric, but I wouldn't put too much weight on that given the implementation.

I really enjoyed the people I met in the SF office.