Firms to Avoid Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
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.
User avatar
patogordo

Gold
Posts: 4826
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by patogordo » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:10 pm

Dafaq wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:V20 guy again here. Happy to discuss....
.
Thank you for the excellent reply. Certainly dispels the automatic five year guillotine conclusion.
except no one says that and the real answer (which you have predictably ignored) is what DF said.

09042014

Diamond
Posts: 18203
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by 09042014 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:11 pm

patogordo wrote:
rayiner wrote:
patogordo wrote:why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?
Bulge-bracket banks hire entry-level people onto two-year contracts, which are usually not renewed. They also routinely offer only about half their summer classes. The difference is, the rest of the industry doesn't treat you like some sort of pariah just because you didn't get an offer from Morgan Stanley, or were asked to leave after two years.
sorry, i wasn't clear. i meant why don't they have the problem of partners fleeing at the first sign of a drop in profitability.
Like you said earlier, maybe they do. They don't explode, but neither to law firms for the most part. Less than one big one a year for firms.

Some are LLCs you don't have the problem.

Maybe non-compete clauses? Attorneys don't have to worry about htat.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428116
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:12 pm

Dredd_2017 wrote:What about Kasowitz Bensen? They rescinded some offers in 2013 and have apparently cold offered some folks during the last few summers.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/a-rescin ... fer-right/
Agree that Kasowitz should make the list, perhaps with a link to this ATL piece. People were really upset about this earlier this academic year. Regardless of whether you agree with the practice and justifiability of cold offers, prospective OCI candidates should know that Kasowitz's published "100% offer rate" with NALP routinely does not mean the same thing as a 100% offer rate at other firms.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
patogordo

Gold
Posts: 4826
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by patogordo » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:17 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
patogordo wrote:
rayiner wrote:
patogordo wrote:why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?
Bulge-bracket banks hire entry-level people onto two-year contracts, which are usually not renewed. They also routinely offer only about half their summer classes. The difference is, the rest of the industry doesn't treat you like some sort of pariah just because you didn't get an offer from Morgan Stanley, or were asked to leave after two years.
sorry, i wasn't clear. i meant why don't they have the problem of partners fleeing at the first sign of a drop in profitability.
Like you said earlier, maybe they do. They don't explode, but neither to law firms for the most part. Less than one big one a year for firms.

Some are LLCs you don't have the problem.

Maybe non-compete clauses? Attorneys don't have to worry about htat.
oh yea i forgot about non-competes. i was just wondering if there was some cultural difference that made bankers less likely to jump ship. seems like their business is way more portable.

NYSprague

Silver
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by NYSprague » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
wert3813 wrote:
Sgtpeppernyc wrote:To be honest, I find offer rates that are high but less than 100% to be a positive, rather than a negative. While it's all well and good that DPW boasts a 100% offer rate, I've encountered enough shitbirds to know that there have to be people that aren't worthy to work there. When a firm only gives out 95% offers, I at least know that they've deliberated about everyone and made sure to only bring in quality people. And, while I'm not the next Martin Lipton, I'm at least confident that I'm not enough of an ass clown to be in the 5% who didn't get the offer.
Problem is there is at least some evidence that a 5% cut isn't wheening out shitbirds so much as "we hired 5% too many SA's everybody protect you favorite SA."
V20 associate and OCI committee member here. Every firm is different, I guess, but I really can't imagine a "we hired 5% too many SA's" attitude. When you give offers to SA's, you are expecting them to start work at the earliest a year later, and for many of them a year or two later after clerkships. We simply do not know, and can not know, at the end of a summer whether we hired 5% "too many," because to know that we would have to know how much work we are going to have a year later. It just doesn't work that way. And even if we did, 5% is so small that it can easily be absorbed. Much better for us to have you start work and not be busy at first, and then have you ready to jump on the big matter that comes around 4 months later.

The "be the lobster" thing is also BS. I really just don't know of any firm where partners are asked to "protect" summer associates. Of course it is good to have glowing reviews from everyone you work for, but the idea that you have to become the favorite of one specific person or else you're voted off the island is just silly. In other words, we don't say, "gee, we had 30 SAs but only want to hire 29, which one has the fewest friends among the partnership?" Instead, we look at each summer individually. If they are remotely competent and/or remediable, and have not done anything shockingly inappropriate, we offer them.

If there are offerees who decline us because we didn't offer 100% the year before, it's only unfortunate because I wish I could tell them more about why we didn't offer 100%. It's always, always, because one or two people literally did not complete work assigned to them (without any explanation), and/or because one or two people got way too drunk at more than one social event and did or said awkward or inappropriate things to other SAs, associates, or partners. (Note the "more than one." It's sort of like The Importance of Being Earnest -- to drink too much at one social event is regarded as unfortunate, to drink too much at every social occasion looks like bad judgment.)
At your firm, an email or a favorable mention from a senior partner isn't enough to get someone an offer? I know that happens at my firm. The converse is true, if a senior partner doesn't like you, you are sunk unless someone gets them to change their mind.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428116
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:40 pm

NYSprague wrote:At your firm, an email or a favorable mention from a senior partner isn't enough to get someone an offer? I know that happens at my firm. The converse is true, if a senior partner doesn't like you, you are sunk unless someone gets them to change their mind.
Yeah, just not the way it works for us. Only caveat to that is that if a senior partner likes you, then it's unlikely that you've done the things that would cause someone not to get an offer. But it's the decent work and not the single favorable mention that gets you the offer. Same goes for the converse. Whatever you did to get a rainmaker to dislike you so much that he goes out of his way to tell the hiring committee about it is probably a symptom of a broader issue with your work.

User avatar
84651846190

Gold
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by 84651846190 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:5. Finally, I have tried to word it in a way that does not mean that those who get cut are not capable. We have hired people who have been cut from other firms, and honestly can't tell why they got let go. I think the only answer to that puzzle is that sometimes you get caught in a bad cycle, where a slowdown in work leads to you not being seen as desirable, preventing you from breaking the slowdown that you had no part in causing. It's sad and unfair, but it happens, and moving to a different firm can break that.
I'm not so sure the bolded really happens as much as associates think it happens. Associates, myself included, are incredibly paranoid about how they're perceived by partners. As soon as work slows down, associates have a tendency to think they've fucked up bigtime, they have no friends at the firm, etc. The reality is that a lot of this shit boils down to luck: you happen to be on a partner's radar at the right time, get staffed on a great case, get great experience, etc. I doubt that any associate is ever *actually* "prevented" from breaking a slowdown because they are perceived as a pariah. You're usually only perceived as a pariah if you lack self-confidence and get desperate (two things that are entirely in your control). If you act like you've been busy as fuck and talk up your past experience, partners will want to work with you. They're too busy to give a fuck about whether you've been slow over the past couple of weeks.

NYSprague

Silver
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by NYSprague » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
NYSprague wrote:At your firm, an email or a favorable mention from a senior partner isn't enough to get someone an offer? I know that happens at my firm. The converse is true, if a senior partner doesn't like you, you are sunk unless someone gets them to change their mind.
Yeah, just not the way it works for us. Only caveat to that is that if a senior partner likes you, then it's unlikely that you've done the things that would cause someone not to get an offer. But it's the decent work and not the single favorable mention that gets you the offer. Same goes for the converse. Whatever you did to get a rainmaker to dislike you so much that he goes out of his way to tell the hiring committee about it is probably a symptom of a broader issue with your work.
I suppose the senior partners are looking for super stars. They won't care much about the average summer.

User avatar
84651846190

Gold
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by 84651846190 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:V20 associate and OCI committee member here. Every firm is different, I guess, but I really can't imagine a "we hired 5% too many SA's" attitude. When you give offers to SA's, you are expecting them to start work at the earliest a year later, and for many of them a year or two later after clerkships. We simply do not know, and can not know, at the end of a summer whether we hired 5% "too many," because to know that we would have to know how much work we are going to have a year later. It just doesn't work that way. And even if we did, 5% is so small that it can easily be absorbed. Much better for us to have you start work and not be busy at first, and then have you ready to jump on the big matter that comes around 4 months later.
Of course they're not worried about over-hiring by 5%. However, I know from personal experience that business needs affect SA hiring. When a top rainmaker leaves unexpectedly, you no longer need 2x SAs. You might only need x SAs. Usually the firm doesn't no offer 50% when it's in this situation, but it's certainly possible they could no offer one or two based on changing business needs.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
patogordo

Gold
Posts: 4826
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by patogordo » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:57 pm

NYSprague wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
NYSprague wrote:At your firm, an email or a favorable mention from a senior partner isn't enough to get someone an offer? I know that happens at my firm. The converse is true, if a senior partner doesn't like you, you are sunk unless someone gets them to change their mind.
Yeah, just not the way it works for us. Only caveat to that is that if a senior partner likes you, then it's unlikely that you've done the things that would cause someone not to get an offer. But it's the decent work and not the single favorable mention that gets you the offer. Same goes for the converse. Whatever you did to get a rainmaker to dislike you so much that he goes out of his way to tell the hiring committee about it is probably a symptom of a broader issue with your work.
I suppose the senior partners are looking for super stars. They won't care much about the average summer.
superstar SA here (most dinners attended, MVP of firm volleyball game, placed in managing partner's foursome on golf outing), i can confirm that this is true.

bk1

Diamond
Posts: 20063
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by bk1 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:59 pm

patogordo wrote:superstar SA here (most dinners attended, MVP of firm volleyball game, placed in managing partner's foursome on golf outing), i can confirm that this is true.
:lol:

NYSprague

Silver
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by NYSprague » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:15 pm

bk1 wrote:
patogordo wrote:superstar SA here (most dinners attended, MVP of firm volleyball game, placed in managing partner's foursome on golf outing), i can confirm that this is true.
:lol:
No one ever doubted your superstar specialness.
(Though in my firm it means the senior partner read your work, had you sit in on a few meetings and doesn't think you are a moron. Which given their high level of impatience doesn't happen often.)
Last edited by NYSprague on Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rayiner

Platinum
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by rayiner » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:16 pm

patogordo wrote:
rayiner wrote:
patogordo wrote:why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?
Bulge-bracket banks hire entry-level people onto two-year contracts, which are usually not renewed. They also routinely offer only about half their summer classes. The difference is, the rest of the industry doesn't treat you like some sort of pariah just because you didn't get an offer from Morgan Stanley, or were asked to leave after two years.
sorry, i wasn't clear. i meant why don't they have the problem of partners fleeing at the first sign of a drop in profitability.
Because running a hedge fund takes a lot of capital, while running a law practice takes very little. A partner with portable business can take a few associates with him to another firm and not miss a beat. If someone leaves a hedge fund, they need to either raise capital, or convince someone to let them use their capital.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428116
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:05 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:V20 associate and OCI committee member here. Every firm is different, I guess, but I really can't imagine a "we hired 5% too many SA's" attitude. When you give offers to SA's, you are expecting them to start work at the earliest a year later, and for many of them a year or two later after clerkships. We simply do not know, and can not know, at the end of a summer whether we hired 5% "too many," because to know that we would have to know how much work we are going to have a year later. It just doesn't work that way. And even if we did, 5% is so small that it can easily be absorbed. Much better for us to have you start work and not be busy at first, and then have you ready to jump on the big matter that comes around 4 months later.
Of course they're not worried about over-hiring by 5%. However, I know from personal experience that business needs affect SA hiring. When a top rainmaker leaves unexpectedly, you no longer need 2x SAs. You might only need x SAs. Usually the firm doesn't no offer 50% when it's in this situation, but it's certainly possible they could no offer one or two based on changing business needs.
I don't disagree with your general principle that business needs affect SA hiring, but I can tell you that my firm takes the view that we took those needs into account on the front end, when we hired the SAs, not on the back end when we make offers at the end of the summer. (To be fair, I'm at the biggest office of a huge firm, so even our biggest rainmaker does not control 5% of firm revenue.) I think most top firms take this view, which is why most of the biggest firms shrunk their summer classes after the 2008 downturn, but did not make massive no-offers.

I guess what I’m trying to say is in response to the applicants who think that a firm that offers 50/50 summers is “better” or “less risky” than a firm that offers 48 or 49/50 is that that the latter firm did not no-offer for economic reasons. One summer associate offer here and there simply does not affect the bottom line. Among other things, we already have no control over whether people accept our offers or clerk or whatever, so that 1/50 is pitifully marginal.

NYSprague

Silver
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by NYSprague » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:14 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:V20 associate and OCI committee member here. Every firm is different, I guess, but I really can't imagine a "we hired 5% too many SA's" attitude. When you give offers to SA's, you are expecting them to start work at the earliest a year later, and for many of them a year or two later after clerkships. We simply do not know, and can not know, at the end of a summer whether we hired 5% "too many," because to know that we would have to know how much work we are going to have a year later. It just doesn't work that way. And even if we did, 5% is so small that it can easily be absorbed. Much better for us to have you start work and not be busy at first, and then have you ready to jump on the big matter that comes around 4 months later.
Of course they're not worried about over-hiring by 5%. However, I know from personal experience that business needs affect SA hiring. When a top rainmaker leaves unexpectedly, you no longer need 2x SAs. You might only need x SAs. Usually the firm doesn't no offer 50% when it's in this situation, but it's certainly possible they could no offer one or two based on changing business needs.
I don't disagree with your general principle that business needs affect SA hiring, but I can tell you that my firm takes the view that we took those needs into account on the front end, when we hired the SAs, not on the back end when we make offers at the end of the summer. (To be fair, I'm at the biggest office of a huge firm, so even our biggest rainmaker does not control 5% of firm revenue.) I think most top firms take this view, which is why most of the biggest firms shrunk their summer classes after the 2008 downturn, but did not make massive no-offers.

I guess what I’m trying to say is in response to the applicants who think that a firm that offers 50/50 summers is “better” or “less risky” than a firm that offers 48 or 49/50 is that that the latter firm did not no-offer for economic reasons. One summer associate offer here and there simply does not affect the bottom line. Among other things, we already have no control over whether people accept our offers or clerk or whatever, so that 1/50 is pitifully marginal.
50/50 is always better. In defending your own "huge firm" you are missing the bigger reality. My firm has had 100% offers for years,with a larger summer class, but that doesn't mean I can't see how risky it is to take an offer at a firm that has less than 100% offers.

Getting a no offer effectively ends the biglaw chances of a summer associate. Firms should do everything they can to avoid this and it is one reason why cold offers are a real thing at some firms. It is possible you are arrogant enough to believe this kids don't "deserve" to be biglaw associates, but that is ridiculous.

There is no question that firms like Winston and Brown Rudnick are under financial stress. No offers are related to financial health, cutting people or not hiring them in the first place, is the easiest way to cut costs. I forget how much each new associate actually costs in terms of benefits, but it is a significant number if a firm is worried about the bottom line and not having enough work. Firms have not been able to forecast perfectly what the recovery will look like for them, so no offering people can simply be a money saving move.

Maybe your firm needs to look at the message it is sending by not giving 100% offers. No offering people that you have room to hire is always going to scare off summer associates that have other options. Possibly you don't care, and that is fine, but don't try to convince people that it is NBD because those summers sucked. The risk of a no offer is too high to take when there are other options.

Also, the reason your firm cant explain why they didn't hire people is for very good HR reasons. Trashing no offered summers on a forum in defense of your firm isn't the best look.

jarofsoup

Gold
Posts: 2145
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by jarofsoup » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:51 am

Cooley and Mofo usually no offer 1 or more people and do just fine. I feel this odd sense of entitlement in your post. Why should they be guarented a job? If they are a poor performer, or grades drop?

I don't think firms really care what the summers think.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428116
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:14 am

rayiner wrote:
patogordo wrote:
rayiner wrote:
patogordo wrote:why don't hedge funds have this problem? or maybe they do?
Bulge-bracket banks hire entry-level people onto two-year contracts, which are usually not renewed. They also routinely offer only about half their summer classes. The difference is, the rest of the industry doesn't treat you like some sort of pariah just because you didn't get an offer from Morgan Stanley, or were asked to leave after two years.
sorry, i wasn't clear. i meant why don't they have the problem of partners fleeing at the first sign of a drop in profitability.
Because running a hedge fund takes a lot of capital, while running a law practice takes very little. A partner with portable business can take a few associates with him to another firm and not miss a beat. If someone leaves a hedge fund, they need to either raise capital, or convince someone to let them use their capital.
Because hedge funds and law firms have nothing in common? I mean how different can two business models be? How do you even define profitability for a hedge fund? P/L? Dividends paid out? AUM? And when AUM declines in material amounts because of redemption (due to enforcement actions, market turns, sub-market performance, etc), I bet there are PMs running for the door if they get the chance and their strategy is being recruited elsewhere.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


NYSprague

Silver
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by NYSprague » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:Cooley and Mofo usually no offer 1 or more people and do just fine. I feel this odd sense of entitlement in your post. Why should they be guarented a job? If they are a poor performer, or grades drop?

I don't think firms really care what the summers think.
I agree that firms don't care. I was saying that 50/50 is a better option for summers and that, in fact, no offers can be a result or response to financial pressure.

09042014

Diamond
Posts: 18203
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by 09042014 » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:25 am

Historical 100% is way different than them offering 100% last year. Plenty of firms will no offer people if there is a reason, but offer all if there isn't. The difference between a 48/50 and a 50/50 in any given year is just who had two sperglords.

User avatar
rayiner

Platinum
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by rayiner » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:03 am

Anonymous User wrote: Because hedge funds and law firms have nothing in common? I mean how different can two business models be? How do you even define profitability for a hedge fund? P/L? Dividends paid out? AUM? And when AUM declines in material amounts because of redemption (due to enforcement actions, market turns, sub-market performance, etc), I bet there are PMs running for the door if they get the chance and their strategy is being recruited elsewhere.
Sure, there's lots of other differences, but what makes law firms so fundamentally fragile is that all their capital walks out the door every night. If profits decline and some rainmaker leaves, which causes profits to decline further, there's an intense game-theoretic pressure for everyone else to leave as well so they're not the last ones holding the bag. Companies in other industries face similar pressures, for example tech companies worry about mass exodus of talent, but there isn't this same viscous cycle because the companies have real capital that fleeing parties can't take away.

User avatar
Dafaq

Bronze
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by Dafaq » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:50 pm

I wonder if the firm(s) no-offers we’ve all read about recently targeted the perceived lessor productive SAs or those attending lessor ranked schools. I doubt if any firm wants Yale, Columbia, Penn, etc. to go ape crazy on their no-offers. Looking at this from a Texas firm’s perspective, I can’t imagine a UT SA being no-offered against a Tex Wesleyan SA (or whatever they call themselves now).

This is obviously pure speculation since there is no way to know other than hope your school brand might offer some level of greater protection.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


run26.2

Silver
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by run26.2 » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:02 pm

The other comments in the thread indicate that decisions are based, in large part, on professional and social aptitude, not on school brand. Firms aren't sitting there thinking "I hope Columbia doesn't notice that we no-offered 2 of their students." Unless a firm did something egregious, if they routinely hire dozens of SAs, it is unlikely that even a top school would not invite them back.

Schools (and students) realize that no-offers are generally related to the factors mentioned, or to overall business conditions. In the latter case, again, it would be more likely that the firm would keep an associate that showed more promise over one coming from a higher-ranked school. It is counter-intuitive to higher someone who seems less able to do the work or fit in when your firm is admittedly struggling.

User avatar
Dafaq

Bronze
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by Dafaq » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:27 pm

That logic makes sense. However, in cases where there are +10 SAs my assumption is 1 or 2 are superstars and 1 or 2 are underachievers. The rest are basically tied. I believe that the school brand might play a deciding role in breaking the ties. Maybe there is someone ITT with experience that can shed some light on this possibility.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29293
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by A. Nony Mouse » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:35 pm

Dafaq wrote:That logic makes sense. However, in cases where there are +10 SAs my assumption is 1 or 2 are superstars and 1 or 2 are underachievers. The rest are basically tied. I believe that the school brand might play a deciding role in breaking the ties. Maybe there is someone ITT with experience that can shed some light on this possibility.
But you're making that up out of whole cloth. Once someone gets hired, they've been deemed worthy of employment - if the school wasn't seen as worthy they wouldn't hire from it. Besides, what if you have a major partner who went to that non-T14 school? It just seems like you want to think your school can protect you.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428116
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to Avoid

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:43 pm

The other comments in the thread indicate that decisions are based, in large part, on professional and social aptitude, not on school brand. Firms aren't sitting there thinking "I hope Columbia doesn't notice that we no-offered 2 of their students." Unless a firm did something egregious, if they routinely hire dozens of SAs, it is unlikely that even a top school would not invite them back.
At least from a large Texas firm, this is not quite accurate. In a recent year, the recruiting committee made no-offer recommendations on 2 HYS summers (same school). They were told to choose one because we weren't going to go back to that school having no-offered 2 of their students (there were multiple other summers from that school that were given offers, so it wasn't a case of going 0 for 2).
Looking at this from a Texas firm’s perspective, I can’t imagine a UT SA being no-offered against a Tex Wesleyan SA (or whatever they call themselves now).
This is also not the way things are done. Each summer is evaluated on an individual basis. If 20/20 summers work out, all get offers. If there are 3 out of 20 that through a combo of brushing off work assignments (or delivery extremely poor work product) or multiple occurrences of inappropriate social behavior, look like they won't work out, then either those 3 get no offered, or (as I described above) one or more of them get offers regardless. I have not seen a situation where somebody was no-offered because we wanted to offer only 17/20, the 3 summers who were no-offered were Harvard, UT and SMU and we decided, to switch the no-offer from the UT summer to a Tex Wesleyan SA because UT is a better school.

In general Texas firms no offer a small, but non-zero percent of the summer class most years. However, we also tend not to churn through associates quite as quickly as the NY firms, so if we hire someone who we think won't work out, it's a little more of an issue.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”