Top Law Schools

[quote="Desert Fox"][/quote]

Anonymous User wrote:All NY, all transactional. Here are my most important considerations:

• I'm not sure exactly what kind of transactional work I want to do long term, so I don't want to pigeonhole myself into one practice area or anything.
• I want to make sure I'll be able to lateral to my home state (CO) in a few years.
• I'm very risk averse with this, so job security is probably my #1 consideration.

Got the offers this week and haven't had much time to process, so I'd love to hear any and all opinions on the firms individually or their relative merits. Thank you!

NOTE: Asking for a friend.

If you like job security, run away from Bingham (it's a sinking ship).

Greenberg is notorious for no-offers and being a sweatshop, especially in NY.

Don't know too much about S&K, but I would avoid Bingham and Greenberg if I could.

Heard about no-offers at Greenberg NY as well, oddly its not up on NALP yet though.

Definitely Bingham. Avoid Greenberg

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:All NY, all transactional. Here are my most important considerations:

• I'm not sure exactly what kind of transactional work I want to do long term, so I don't want to pigeonhole myself into one practice area or anything.
• I want to make sure I'll be able to lateral to my home state (CO) in a few years.
• I'm very risk averse with this, so job security is probably my #1 consideration.

Got the offers this week and haven't had much time to process, so I'd love to hear any and all opinions on the firms individually or their relative merits. Thank you!

NOTE: Asking for a friend.

If you like job security, run away from Bingham (it's a sinking ship).

Greenberg is notorious for no-offers and being a sweatshop, especially in NY.

This (especially Bingham from my intel in Boston).

.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/09/17/aki ... ring-team/


(Managing) Partner(s) fleeing after a year of declining profits, and merger talks regarding two firms with lower associate:partner ratios than Bingham --> the firm is in severe trouble and the Bingham summers may get axed in the shuffle.

Regardless of practice interest, I think secure employment concerns counsel against Bingham.

You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.

Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here.

And the problem with S&K is that they pretty much only do investment management stuff, which I'm not sure I want to specialize in.

Is this true? There website seems to indicate that they do some maritime, corp finance, bankruptcy and even litigation.

Anonymous User wrote:You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.

Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.

No lateral options from GT? That's ridiculous...do you have a source other than personal anecdotes by chance?

Disclaimer: Not OP, and do not work at GT

Anonymous User wrote:You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.

Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.

I think the first part of this post is a bit extreme and unwarranted but I would agree with the second part.

I would say SewKis because I'd be pretty worried going to Bingham right now and I don't really know anything about GT. The biggest problem with S&K, in my limited understanding, is that they do a ton of 40 Act stuff and a ton of shipping. If you want to move back to CO, I would be a little bit concerned about having transferrable skills (I don't really know the Denver economy, but I can't imagine it's huge on shipping or IF work - may be totally off base here). FWIW, S&K has had 100% offers for a while AFAIK

Seward for sure out of those for reasons people already said

.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here.

So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.

Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?

jesus that's exactly what everyone has already said ITT
if you want to roll those dice, fine, but don't expect anyone here to endorse that move

Anonymous User wrote:OP here.

So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.

Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?

Have you seen this from today?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/ ... PO20140917

Anonymous User wrote:OP here.

So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.

Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?

Your choice, but everyone on TLS will tell you to avoid Bingham at all costs. There is a very, very high chance many summers will be no-offered compared to financially secure firms. I don't even think Bingham should be part of the discussion.

Then between Greenberg and Seward, it comes down to sweatshop vs. doing work you're not thrilled about. Personally, I would go with the work I'm not super interested in, and network as much as possible. You could also try to join a smaller, albeit, more interesting practice area.

I would echo the earlier post that basically said your options are...subpar.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here.

So after the CB's, Bingham was my to choice. I think it lines up with my goals better than Seward and isn't as godawful a sweatshop as Greenberg.

Are the financial tea leaves pointing so strongly to disaster for Bingham to cancel that out? Isn't it possible that a merger with Morgan Lewis could make the firm way stronger?

Your choice, but everyone on TLS will tell you to avoid Bingham at all costs. There is a very, very high chance many summers will be no-offered compared to financially secure firms. I don't even think Bingham should be part of the discussion.

Then between Greenberg and Seward, it comes down to sweatshop vs. doing work you're not thrilled about. Personally, I would go with the work I'm not super interested in, and network as much as possible. You could also try to join a smaller, albeit, more interesting practice area.

I would echo the earlier post that basically said your options are...subpar.

Greenberg. You can get a pretty broad experience and they have an office in Colorado. Not sure where the sweatshop rep comes from. The no lateral options part is false, but I'd imagine the lateral options thing depends more on the group you work with at any of these firms than anything else.

Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.

If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.

Go to one of the two other options. My god.

Anonymous User wrote:Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.

If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.

Go to one of the two other options. My god.

THIS.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.

If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.

Go to one of the two other options. My god.

THIS.

180
But seriously, friends don't let friends Bingham.

/someone who had CBs at Ropes/WH/GP/Skadden Boston

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Also posting from the Boston market, but with plenty of knowledge in NY.

If you actually read the posts here, the incredibly ugly article that was so kindly linked to you, AND did some of your own independent research about Bingham's financial troubles...and you STILL are asking "are you sure Bingham won't be OK?", then I don't know what to tell you. What are you waiting for? A statement from the managing director that says "we are officially effed?" Good luck to you, if you're still not turned off by Bingham. I can't think of a single person in the industry who thinks it's a smart idea to go to Bingham right now.

Go to one of the two other options. My god.

THIS.

Saddest sight at our OCI this year was a returning 3L who got no-offered from Bingham after being completely gung-ho for them the past year. And he's an incredibly smart, chill dude whom I guarantee didn't fuck anything up over the summer.

Don't go to Bingham.

I would take Bingham and hope that they merge soon with Morgan Lewis.

Anonymous User wrote:I would take Bingham and hope that they merge soon with Morgan Lewis.

Rumor has it MLB ain't doin so hot either. Tethering one sinking ship to another won't solve much.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:You have no good options, and most importantly, none of these places give you particularly portable training if you want to lateral.

Personally, I'd do SewKiss. Get yourself hooked up with some of their 40 Act work. There are definitely funds / managers in CO that will be in the market for someone with good 40 Act training, which you'll have coming from there.

No lateral options from GT? That's ridiculous...do you have a source other than personal anecdotes by chance?

Disclaimer: Not OP, and do not work at GT

I mean, you're not going to starve, but none of these places will give you a resume that moves the needle. I'd choose S&K because their 40 Act practice is actually very good and there are folks in flyover states (i.e. CO) that will pay for that kind of knowledge. Coming from a GT, you're just the 18th best resume that crosses a desk for any job.

Going to Bingham right now would be so ill-advised that it is not worth discussing.