Is Sullivan & Cromwell really that bad? Forum

[monsterman]

No I think there is some weight to that. I'm not saying screamers, but an aggressive, demanding person who is unambiguous about what they want and where you stand is much more preferable to me than the passive aggressive person.

It's profoundly stupid because it's a false choice. Believe it or not, you can find employment where you are treated like a human being. If your response to stories about S&C's culture is "But all jobs are humiliating! Just look at Amazon, hurr duuurrrr!" you're objectively an idiot.

I've never worked in biglaw, and the environment described at S&C sounds pretty shitty--not saying its not humiliating there. In an objective sense I'm saying I would prefer the aggressive over the passive aggressive, given the choice. Actually you seem like kind of an aggressive guy, I think I like you.

[soj]

.

[Anonymous User]

the fast pace of NYC practice (with particularly demanding clients in the financial sector), office politics at every level, and identity politics (and insufficient sensitivity to it, even for 2006). .

I think the point that people should take away from this thread is that the bolded matter a lot more, for any firm, than their specific "culture." No matter what they say or tell you, at any of these NY megafirms (included less well regarded firms outside the S+C/Cravath/DPW tier), there are going to be screamers and crappy people. That's because no partners are going to tell a rainmaking partner to cut out the bullshit just to protect some associates most of whom won't be there long enough for people to remember their name, and there are enough associates willing to take the abuse and not quit to staff that person's matters.

In other words there may be slight differences between firms, but it's going to be at the margins.

[Byakuya769]

Once on a preschool field trip a former S&C associate overheard that I was about to start in big law. They made it a point to then talk my ear off about how much I was going to hate it, how I was going to be screamed at, barely see my family and how most of my class would be gone within 18 months.

One year in (at a different firm), and life is pretty good. Never been yelled at, take off when I need to, leave at six 9 days out of ten (sign back on and do a bit of work after dinner). And we've only lost like 6% of our class to other cities for family related reasons...

Either S&C is a different beast or I'm extremely lucky....

[Anonymous User]

I'm a former S&C associate who worked with the partner mentioned in the charney article and although I haven't worked at other biglaw firms, I don't think S&C is worse than other firms. They are all terrible for reasons that firms can't change. And that partner was actually fine to work with (I'm not particularly thick skinned either).

[itbdvorm]

I'm a former S&C associate who worked with the partner mentioned in the charney article and although I haven't worked at other biglaw firms, I don't think S&C is worse than other firms. They are all terrible for reasons that firms can't change. And that partner was actually fine to work with (I'm not particularly thick skinned either).

which one? there are a number of partners mentioned.

[jbagelboy]

I'm a former S&C associate who worked with the partner mentioned in the charney article and although I haven't worked at other biglaw firms, I don't think S&C is worse than other firms. They are all terrible for reasons that firms can't change. And that partner was actually fine to work with (I'm not particularly thick skinned either).

which one? there are a number of partners mentioned.

I'm assuming he means eric Krautheimer. Who is, after all, a "nice guy"

[Anonymous User]

I'm a former S&C associate who worked with the partner mentioned in the charney article and although I haven't worked at other biglaw firms, I don't think S&C is worse than other firms. They are all terrible for reasons that firms can't change. And that partner was actually fine to work with (I'm not particularly thick skinned either).

which one? there are a number of partners mentioned.

I'm assuming he means eric Krautheimer. Who is, after all, a "nice guy"

Yes, that's who I was referring to.

[igo2northwestern]

I think the point that people should take away from this thread is that the bolded matter a lot more, for any firm, than their specific "culture." No matter what they say or tell you, at any of these NY megafirms (included less well regarded firms outside the S+C/Cravath/DPW tier), there are going to be screamers and crappy people.

In other words there may be slight differences between firms, but it's going to be at the margins.

Mm I'm gonna disagree...there are definitely spots where that kind of negative culture is more prevalent. Yes, I think there's some disagreement on what levels of screaming or crazy demands take place, as some S&C attorneys have voiced their positive personal accounts/treatments. But I think the take away here is that there is a decent likelihood that a first year would have these sorts of experiences at S&C. It's no doubt partner/practice group specific, but that said we're just back to the question of frequency of occurrence at the firm right?

[cookiejar1]

While shades of the above is certainly true I think S&C gets unfairly criticized to the point where people have come to genuinely believe that life as a first year M&A associate at Skadden NYC is so. much. better. than life as an S&C associate.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW, at any firm in the city, it is a giant no-no to shtup people you work with, particularly anyone in your chain of supervision. Not that it doesn't happen, but if a firm suspects there is a relationship they will immediately look into it and if true, they will go ballistic. It's one of the few no-questions-asked fireable offenses. This applies to any sort of sexual relationship - gay, straight, whatever.

[Nekrowizard]

FWIW, at any firm in the city, it is a giant no-no to shtup people you work with, particularly anyone in your chain of supervision. Not that it doesn't happen, but if a firm suspects there is a relationship they will immediately look into it and if true, they will go ballistic. It's one of the few no-questions-asked fireable offenses. This applies to any sort of sexual relationship - gay, straight, whatever.

Yeah, that part didn't sound legit in the least. I find it hard to feel bad for the guy, to be honest. I don't think he came off looking very good in the article. I wonder what he's doing now, but I've never been able to locate a LinkedIn or anything.

[El Pollito]

yeah he came off like a complete psycho

[Anonymous User]

This is the anon former S&C associate from above, posting again now that I have some time. It's weird to defend S&C after the years I spent complaining about it, but I really don't think S&C's culture tolerates screamers any more than other firms the way this thread claims. As others said, your experience is going to be determined by the individuals you work with - it's pretty useless to paint a whole firm as having a certain personality trait. If you're considering S&C, think about the specific partners you'll work with (the associates you met will be gone by the time you get there), the work you'll do, and exit opportunities compared to other firms. I wouldn't base this decision on whether a firm has a reputation for being friendly because that's pretty meaningless and at the end of the day all big firms are basically the same anyway.

[NYU2017abcdefg]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

[smaug]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

bizarre necro w/ an axe to grind

good lawyers at all of those firms, tho actually agree DPW folks can be pretentious

but also lol @ any of these firms being very sustainable for anyone who isn't broken

[lawlorbust]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

lolwut?

[SLS_AMG]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

Lol sounds like someone got rejected by DPW. Also lol @ a 3L acting like s/he has a finger on the pulse of of two firms' reputations in the legal market.

[TLSModBot]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

bizarre necro w/ an axe to grind

good lawyers at all of those firms, tho actually agree DPW folks can be pretentious

but also lol @ any of these firms being very sustainable for anyone who isn't broken

How many firms ARE sustainable for nonbroken people

O'Melveny?

[Nebby]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

Lol sounds like someone got rejected by DPW. Also lol @ a 3L acting like s/he has a finger on the pulse of of two firms' reputations in the legal market.

He's got his ears to the ground, that's why!

[jbagelboy]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

This is a laughably absurd statement

[smaug]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

bizarre necro w/ an axe to grind

good lawyers at all of those firms, tho actually agree DPW folks can be pretentious

but also lol @ any of these firms being very sustainable for anyone who isn't broken

How many firms ARE sustainable for nonbroken people

O'Melveny?

I'm not sure O'Melveny even fits that but yeah good point

[Anonymous User]

It's not worse than other elite NY law firms. It has a GREAT reputation amongst other practitioners which is valuable currency. Certain firms like Davis Polk and Kirkland do not have that reputation. People talk so much shit about DPW lawyers. NOt sure why but may have to do with their pretentiousness...

As everyone else has already said, this is a pretty weird troll move. That said, law students choosing firms do need to be careful re: the DPW echo chamber on TLS. There's a strong cohort of TLSers at that firm and it leads to a lot of propaganda here. Can confirm that multiple posters above work for/have summered at DPW.

[78623089]

How many firms ARE sustainable for nonbroken people

O'Melveny?

more interested in this statement than the dithering about SC v. DPW. Care to elaborate?

[Nebby]

How many firms ARE sustainable for nonbroken people

O'Melveny?

more interested in this statement than the dithering about SC v. DPW. Care to elaborate?

The pace of work is hard to sustain long-term unless you're willing to sacrifice your time to nothing else but work. Most people aren't able to and don't want to. Broken people are not phased by the trivialities of life's possible experiences, therefore they're able to sustain the workload.