Top Law Schools

reputation?

search function?

Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

I'm sure the associates really appreciated the honesty.

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

sounds like a firm that makes it rain. I'm actually surprised I saw several attorneys from T2 schools. So its not completely hopeless for T2 students?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

sounds like a firm that makes it rain. I'm actually surprised I saw several attorneys from T2 schools. So its not completely hopeless for T2 students?

They love having a few workhorses to boss around before canning them. You're golden.

JazzOne wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

sounds like a firm that makes it rain. I'm actually surprised I saw several attorneys from T2 schools. So its not completely hopeless for T2 students?

They love having a few workhorses to boss around before canning them. You're golden.

I wonder if the associates last a year

Also, they were founded in 1792.

JazzOne wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

I'm sure the associates really appreciated the honesty.

Well, given that every firm laid people off (with a few very rare exceptions), would you prefer that they doctor up a case and tell you it's your fault, or tell you (and future potential employers) that you had nothing to do with it, and that it was just the economy.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

sounds like a firm that makes it rain. I'm actually surprised I saw several attorneys from T2 schools. So its not completely hopeless for T2 students?

The former managing partner is a T2 grad.

As for the firm, the culture is rude and arrogant, even by biglaw standards. They're the "bottom" in the "race to the bottom." http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/22/a-l ... der-chair/
http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLL ... 0682662248

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

sounds like a firm that makes it rain. I'm actually surprised I saw several attorneys from T2 schools. So its not completely hopeless for T2 students?

The former managing partner is a T2 grad.

As for the firm, the culture is rude and arrogant, even by biglaw standards. They're the "bottom" in the "race to the bottom."

Funny how the NYC firms with the most Cardozo-ish people are also the sweatshoppiest sweatshops.

Renzo wrote:

JazzOne wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

I'm sure the associates really appreciated the honesty.

Well, given that every firm laid people off (with a few very rare exceptions), would you prefer that they doctor up a case and tell you it's your fault, or tell you (and future potential employers) that you had nothing to do with it, and that it was just the economy.

Right, there are exceptions. I have offers from two firms that didn't engage in mass layoffs. I'd rather work for a firm that stands by its hiring decisions. Actually, I'd rather work for a firm that makes financially sound hiring decisions to begin with.

JazzOne wrote:

Renzo wrote:

JazzOne wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hard-working, crazy profitable, shark tank. They saw the crash coming and threw associates overboard before almost every other firm, but did it openly without pretending it was "performance based."

I'm sure the associates really appreciated the honesty.

Well, given that every firm laid people off (with a few very rare exceptions), would you prefer that they doctor up a case and tell you it's your fault, or tell you (and future potential employers) that you had nothing to do with it, and that it was just the economy.

Right, there are exceptions. I have offers from two firms that didn't engage in mass layoffs. I'd rather work for a firm that stands by its hiring decisions. Actually, I'd rather work for a firm that makes financially sound hiring decisions to begin with.

But since nearly every firm laid people off, most people fortunate enough to get offers won't have that choice--they'll get to pick among firms that laid people off, and have to decide if it's better to work for a firm that responded to the economy, or one that responded to the economy and blamed it on the victims.

As an aside, I had an offer from a firm that said they didn't do layoffs--but the AmLaw data, layoff tracker, etc. said otherwise. Many of the firms that say they didn't engage in layoffs lie.

This firm sounds exciting.

Anonymous User wrote:This firm sounds exciting.

THey were the TITS when securitization was still a thing. So, basically, they broke they economy.

Renzo wrote:But since nearly every firm laid people off, most people fortunate enough to get offers won't have that choice--they'll get to pick among firms that laid people off, and have to decide if it's better to work for a firm that responded to the economy, or one that responded to the economy and blamed it on the victims.

As an aside, I had an offer from a firm that said they didn't do layoffs--but the AmLaw data, layoff tracker, etc. said otherwise. Many of the firms that say they didn't engage in layoffs lie.

Yeah, I researched the firms' claims independently. You're right though; there are very few of these firms. However, it was important to me to find them, and I actively pursued firms with conservative business models. Some people probably didn't give a damn about that. They just kept their eye on that first-year salary. One of the firms I have an offer with has no buy in for partnership either. These firms are out there, but few people care enough to research it.

Anonymous User wrote:Also, they were founded in 1792.

This doesn't surprise me. They have the WASPiest sounding law firm name I've ever heard.

SBL wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Also, they were founded in 1792.

This doesn't surprise me. They have the WASPiest sounding law firm name I've ever heard.

No doubt. It's gotta be the most syllables in a biglaw name.

Disclaimer: If you want to last beyond two years, any big law firm will be a sweatshop.

What makes CWT the worst sweatshop is that you do all the work for no upside. Bonuses follow the market, regardless of how much you bill. The partnership prospects are almost nil, because the firm has a model of bringing in rainmakers from other firms rather than promoting from within. The firm's business model depends on hammering associates: Without a high PPP, profits that came to CWT have no incentive to be there.

It's almost like Quinn, except Quinn is more prestigious and the type of work you do might make up for it. It's as bad as Sullivan & Cromwell and Davis Polk, except the latter two compensate for it with unbeatable exit options and at least a 1% chance at partnership. Also, their business models do not depend on hammering their associates as much (most of their partners are homegrown, and stick together for reasons aside from money, so defections aren't nearly as probable).

Right, there are exceptions. I have offers from two firms that didn't engage in mass layoffs. I'd rather work for a firm that stands by its hiring decisions. Actually, I'd rather work for a firm that makes financially sound hiring decisions to begin with.

...on the other hand, keeping idle associates on board for the mere purpose of making you feel better (and keeping you fed) is also a fiscally terrible decision for a firm to make.

I actively pursued firms with conservative business models. Some people probably didn't give a damn about that. They just kept their eye on that first-year salary. One of the firms I have an offer with has no buy in for partnership either. These firms are out there, but few people care enough to research it.

There is almost always a trade-off for any firm. If you're making a market salary, you will have to earn it.

Anonymous User wrote:

Right, there are exceptions. I have offers from two firms that didn't engage in mass layoffs. I'd rather work for a firm that stands by its hiring decisions. Actually, I'd rather work for a firm that makes financially sound hiring decisions to begin with.

...on the other hand, keeping idle associates on board for the mere purpose of making you feel better (and keeping you fed) is also a fiscally terrible decision for a firm to make.

True. That's why I sought out firms with conservative business models that didn't hire a glut of lawyers to begin with. Some firms were leanly staffed even in the boom years.

Anonymous User wrote:

I actively pursued firms with conservative business models. Some people probably didn't give a damn about that. They just kept their eye on that first-year salary. One of the firms I have an offer with has no buy in for partnership either. These firms are out there, but few people care enough to research it.

There is almost always a trade-off for any firm. If you're making a market salary, you will have to earn it.

Of course. You don't get something for nothing. I'm just not willing to praise a firm for honesty regarding layoffs when they have the option of engaging in more conservative practices rather than sticking it to the noobs when things don't go according to plan. I guess I'm overly sympathetic to the associates since I am about to be one.

At any rate, we can't be picky in this economy. If all my offers were from firms that kicked the associates, I'd be right in line for the next kicking.