Top Law Schools

I have now seen web postings for 4 of its offices (OC, LA, DC, and CHI) looking for more SAs. Might not be a good omen for them.

Anonymous User wrote:I have now seen web postings for 4 of its offices (OC, LA, DC, and CHI) looking for more SAs. get off the ship while you can, folks. We got a stage 2 bingham

If they're looking to hire more SAs, wouldn't it suggest that they're doing alright?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I have now seen web postings for 4 of its offices (OC, LA, DC, and CHI) looking for more SAs. get off the ship while you can, folks. We got a stage 2 bingham

If they're looking to hire more SAs, wouldn't it suggest that they're doing alright?

Not if they didn't have enough to meet their hiring needs. Makes them look desperate (and also shows their whole sharing offices thing is making rounds)

They are not a sound firm.

I know nothing about this firm either way, but I don't get how hiring more SAs = in trouble, unless you mean because 2Ls aren't viewing the firm positively, in which case lol.

I don't get your reasoning. If the firm is failing then why are they hiring more people. Not filling a class is less crumbling then it is poor recruitment practices. Sharing offices should be a better signifier of financial trouble then wanting to hire more people.

They did the same thing last year. I think it's actually part of their hiring strategy.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:I know nothing about this firm either way, but I don't get how hiring more SAs = in trouble, unless you mean because 2Ls aren't viewing the firm positively, in which case lol.

Yeah, I don't get this either. It sort of seems like firms can't win - don't hire, people say you're going down; hire more, people say you're going down.

are they hiring 3Ls???

Chicago had two SAs last summer, OC had 4. Not sure which side of the argument this supports.

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago had two SAs last summer, OC had 4. Not sure which side of the argument this supports.

Oops. Accidental anonymous.

MCFC wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago had two SAs last summer, OC had 4. Not sure which side of the argument this supports.

Oops. Accidental anonymous.

i've heard that the Chicago office is looking to hire more SA's, which i assumed was a sign of growth. Didn't their Chicago office recently hire some new lateral partners? There might just be more work to be done.

cusenation wrote:

MCFC wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago had two SAs last summer, OC had 4. Not sure which side of the argument this supports.

Oops. Accidental anonymous.

i've heard that the Chicago office is looking to hire more SA's, which i assumed was a sign of growth. Didn't their Chicago office recently hire some new lateral partners? There might just be more work to be done.

That analysis isn't tea leafy enough. Surely there's some hidden meaning in this all.

B.B. Homemaker wrote:

cusenation wrote:

MCFC wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago had two SAs last summer, OC had 4. Not sure which side of the argument this supports.

Oops. Accidental anonymous.

i've heard that the Chicago office is looking to hire more SA's, which i assumed was a sign of growth. Didn't their Chicago office recently hire some new lateral partners? There might just be more work to be done.

That analysis isn't tea leafy enough. Surely there's some hidden meaning in this all.

there are tea leaves in everything!!!!

mcs268 wrote:I have now seen web postings for 4 of its offices (OC, LA, DC, and CHI) looking for more SAs. get off the ship while you can, folks. We got a stage 2 bingham

Where? Symplicity?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:I know nothing about this firm either way, but I don't get how hiring more SAs = in trouble, unless you mean because 2Ls aren't viewing the firm positively, in which case lol.

Yeah, I don't get this either. It sort of seems like firms can't win - don't hire, people say you're going down; hire more, people say you're going down.

I know at least in LA, they have had an atrocious yield rate for the SA class, and are now scrambling to fill it. Not sure about the other cities.

That being said, the new office sharing policy certainly isn't a good look. In LA they are the anchor tenant in their own skyscraper, so to me, the fact that they may be in some serious trouble doesn't seem too far fetched.

Anonymous User wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:I know nothing about this firm either way, but I don't get how hiring more SAs = in trouble, unless you mean because 2Ls aren't viewing the firm positively, in which case lol.

Yeah, I don't get this either. It sort of seems like firms can't win - don't hire, people say you're going down; hire more, people say you're going down.

I know at least in LA, they have had an atrocious yield rate for the SA class, and are now scrambling to fill it. Not sure about the other cities.

That being said, the new office sharing policy certainly isn't a good look. In LA they are the anchor tenant in their own skyscraper, so to me, the fact that they may be in some serious trouble doesn't seem too far fetched.

Where did you hear about their yield rate? Also, is that for the upcoming SA class or for SA's returning as full-time associates?

not entirely clear on the office-sharing thing and why it's bad...I'm guessing they're shedding office space in their own tower and it's a sign that things aren't going great financially?

cusenation wrote:not entirely clear on the office-sharing thing and why it's bad...I'm guessing they're shedding office space in their own tower and it's a sign that things aren't going great financially?

Or that they are just cheap as fuck. These leases are expensive as hell. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-1 ... f-law.html

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:I know nothing about this firm either way, but I don't get how hiring more SAs = in trouble, unless you mean because 2Ls aren't viewing the firm positively, in which case lol.

Yeah, I don't get this either. It sort of seems like firms can't win - don't hire, people say you're going down; hire more, people say you're going down.

I know at least in LA, they have had an atrocious yield rate for the SA class, and are now scrambling to fill it. Not sure about the other cities.

That being said, the new office sharing policy certainly isn't a good look. In LA they are the anchor tenant in their own skyscraper, so to me, the fact that they may be in some serious trouble doesn't seem too far fetched.

Where did you hear about their yield rate? Also, is that for the upcoming SA class or for SA's returning as full-time associates?

I heard it from the head of my school's OCS office (they emailed asking for more resumes because their yield rate was way off). In fact, they were setting up screeners with kids that they 1) didn't preselect for OCI, and 2) who they rejected after a screener, and are now giving a second look.

Also, it is in regards to the upcoming SA class.

Anonymous User wrote:

cusenation wrote:not entirely clear on the office-sharing thing and why it's bad...I'm guessing they're shedding office space in their own tower and it's a sign that things aren't going great financially?

Or that they are just cheap as fuck. These leases are expensive as hell. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-1 ... f-law.html

Or they're revamping the floor and need to keep herd all their junior associates onto one floor
I know one of their offices just recently revamped their office.

Much speculation. This can mean anything

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

cusenation wrote:not entirely clear on the office-sharing thing and why it's bad...I'm guessing they're shedding office space in their own tower and it's a sign that things aren't going great financially?

Or that they are just cheap as fuck. These leases are expensive as hell. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-1 ... f-law.html

Or they're revamping the floor and need to keep herd all their junior associates onto one floor
I know one of their offices just recently revamped their office.

Much speculation. This can mean anything

It's happening in more than one office. And from people within PH who posted in another thread, it sounded permanent.

Man, screw redesigns. Back in the day we each got our own building because things like land and gas are cheap and always will be.

Don't most firms have junior associates share offices? Sorry if I'm failing to understand why this is alarming

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

cusenation wrote:not entirely clear on the office-sharing thing and why it's bad...I'm guessing they're shedding office space in their own tower and it's a sign that things aren't going great financially?

Or that they are just cheap as fuck. These leases are expensive as hell. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-1 ... f-law.html

Or they're revamping the floor and need to keep herd all their junior associates onto one floor
I know one of their offices just recently revamped their office.

Much speculation. This can mean anything

No. The sharing is permanent.

Also you don't put juniors all on one floor. It would be a mad house.