Page 1 of 1
Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:09 pm
by Anonymous User
Thanks folks.
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:46 pm
by Anonymous User
Dechert. Pillsbury is a TTT in decline.
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:13 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Dechert. Pillsbury is a TTT in decline.
OP here. Any particular reason for this? I know the firm considered breaking away from lockstep a few years ago. Anything else?
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:25 pm
by Anonymous User
do your homework - pillsbury is definitely having financial issues. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:
(1) still deferring the class of 2011
(2) canceled their summer program in those acclaimed west coast offices (definitely a red flag if you want to go back there)
(3) salary cuts/freezes
(4) layoffs, more deferrals, etc.
so yeah, between these two dechert wins on firm health alone.
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:28 pm
by Anonymous User
Dechert is growing and profitable while Pillsbury might not even exist in a few years. Definitely Dechert.
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:36 pm
by Old Gregg
. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:
Why? If the floor is sitting empty, no point in paying for unused space.
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:44 pm
by Nicholasnickynic
Fresh Prince wrote:. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:
Why? If
the floor is sitting empty, no point in paying for unused space.
Why's that? 'Nuff said.
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:59 pm
by Old Gregg
Nicholasnickynic wrote:Fresh Prince wrote:. the fact that they rent out the top floor of their (small) office in DC should only complement this:
Why? If
the floor is sitting empty, no point in paying for unused space.
Why's that? 'Nuff said.
lol not really. It's hard to estimate your real estate needs as a law firm, especially long term.
Re: Pillsbury v. Dechert
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:05 pm
by koalatriste
right, but they could lease out any floor. the top floor is the most expensive and reflects an increased need for cash. but, nonetheless, the other things such as the seemingly endless deferrals should be more of a red flag . . .