Proskauer v. Sheppard Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 431118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Proskauer v. Sheppard
Simple vote. Both CA offices. Primarily interested in Litigation.
-
YourCaptain
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 pm
Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard
If LA offices; SM for Lit, Proskauer for Corp
Congrats!
Congrats!
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 431118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard
I personally liked Proskauer better and loved the people I met in their lit department.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 431118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard
reasons?
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 431118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard
bumpity bump bump
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 431118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard
Sheppard mullin because it pays lockstep, yet the hourly requirement (1950) is a genuine one. You can meet it and no one will bother you.
Also, Sheppard is doing great lately in terms of profitability, and reports are that it has no long term debt to speak of. At this point it is attracting, not losing partners, and climbed ten spots on the v100 rankings last year.
Finally, Sheppard because it has one of the best summer programs in the country, and is known for putting a lot into young associate development.
Also, Sheppard is doing great lately in terms of profitability, and reports are that it has no long term debt to speak of. At this point it is attracting, not losing partners, and climbed ten spots on the v100 rankings last year.
Finally, Sheppard because it has one of the best summer programs in the country, and is known for putting a lot into young associate development.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 431118
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Proskauer v. Sheppard
It's lockstep only for partnership track employees, right? <edit> (i.e., not lockstep) <edit> I heard you need ~2100. The partners in the practice group I interviewed with were really cool. The firm has brand name appeal in CA (even if the boys on Wallstreet haven't heard of it). Excited for May (but not LA).Anonymous User wrote:Sheppard mullin because it pays lockstep, yet the hourly requirement (1950) is a genuine one. You can meet it and no one will bother you.
Also, Sheppard is doing great lately in terms of profitability, and reports are that it has no long term debt to speak of. At this point it is attracting, not losing partners, and climbed ten spots on the v100 rankings last year.
Finally, Sheppard because it has one of the best summer programs in the country, and is known for putting a lot into young associate development.
