Top Law Schools

What are people's thoughts on PH? Is it seen as an impressive firm/are there good exit options?

As someone going as a SA next year to a smaller office of theirs I generally saw a pretty good reputation but be aware that they are not too concerned about the 100% offer rate--they frequently go down to 90% or so some years.

I heard from a few sources (current attorneys) that its a sweat shop, and more so than its peer firms. im not sure why, and take this with a grain of salt as these attorneys don't currently work there (nor have they) but that is the consensus in my social circle. not sure why, perhaps working across from them

no, it's not seen as an impressive firm. it's a middling McFirm with a smattering of mediocre to decent practice areas. at my t14, the only people i know heading to paul hastings are people who were median or below for whom paul hastings was their only offer out of OCI.

the fact that the firm won't hesitate to no offer people from their summer program makes it an especially dangerous choice. i'd avoid unless you had literally no other options.

Just to clear up some misinformation. They've given 100 % offers the past two summers and were above 95 % the year before that (2014) with two no-offers coming in smaller offices. It's your usual biglaw firm with active practice areas in all the usual big law practice areas. The associates get paid market and the partners make millions. Obviously posters like the above have decided it's a reject law firm that takes whomever but it's probably not too different from other law firms at the end of the day.

Full disclosure: summered at PH in 2016, did have other offers, and was above median (their cutoffs are about in line with most other biglaw firms at my school). It was a bit embarrassing for my parents of course to have to accept that their offspring ended up at such a middling firm.

solid firm - not any one strong practice area that really sticks out at you but a solid smattering of practices across the board. jack of all trades - master of none type firm. you could definitely do worse than PH.

NY

Corporate/M&A: Highly Regarded (Band 3)
Intellectual Property: Patent (Band 2)
Intellectual Property: Trade Mark & Copyright (Band 3)
Labor & Employment (Band 3)
Latin American Investment (Band 2)
Litigation: General Commercial: Highly Regarded (Band 3)
Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (Recognised Practitioner)
Real Estate: Mainly Dirt (Band 3)
Tax (Recognised Practitioner)

Wild Card wrote:NY

Corporate/M&A: Highly Regarded (Band 3)
Intellectual Property: Patent (Band 2)
Intellectual Property: Trade Mark & Copyright (Band 3)
Labor & Employment (Band 3)
Latin American Investment (Band 2)
Litigation: General Commercial: Highly Regarded (Band 3)
Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (Recognised Practitioner)
Real Estate: Mainly Dirt (Band 3)
Tax (Recognised Practitioner)

Right - not a clear strong practice area but solid across the board

I work at PH. I've enjoyed my experience so far, and people that have left here from my department have had pretty good exit options in-house.

Honestly though, with respect to the 100% offer rate, do you guys ever wonder if maybe the people who got no-offered DESERVED the no-offer? I don't really know anything about people who got no-offered at PH, but I summered at two different firms and some summer associates deserved to be no-offered. I can tell you that if there was a no-offer, PH is not the type of place to just no-offer someone for no reason. I'm pretty sure that applies to most other law firms too.

kennethellenparcell wrote:I work at PH. I've enjoyed my experience so far, and people that have left here from my department have had pretty good exit options in-house.

Honestly though, with respect to the 100% offer rate, do you guys ever wonder if maybe the people who got no-offered DESERVED the no-offer? I don't really know anything about people who got no-offered at PH, but I summered at two different firms and some summer associates deserved to be no-offered. I can tell you that if there was a no-offer, PH is not the type of place to just no-offer someone for no reason. I'm pretty sure that applies to most other law firms too.

I'm going there next summer and it wasn't my only offer. The people not getting an offer probably 'deserved' it, but the thing is as someone who doesn't know if I will deserve an offer its nicer to have a cold offer where at least I can say to 3L OCI I received one.

I've been there and I felt that way too going into the summer. If it makes you feel better, what I mean by not "deserving" one's offer means that these people didn't make an effort to go to social events, often didn't meet their deadlines on assignments, didn't put much effort into their assignments - that type of thing. I've been through two summer programs, and I think that if you put in effort to get your offer, people will recognize that.

i get that people want to homer for their own law school (vandy w/ 60k is a great option! everyone gets a job!) or their own law firm (paul hastings is a great place! i love it here! i had other options! dont worry about offers rates!), as fucking pathetic as it may be. but just realize that it's not like homering for your shitty hometown baseball team. you're potentially fucking with people's careers, financial future, and lives here.

it's undeniably true that paul hastings has a history of no offering people in their summer class. and these no offers werent just in the 08-09 crisis periods. just as recently as 2012, paul hastings no offered 12 out of 70 people across the firm. in the NY office alone, 3 got no offered out of 16. even in 2011 the NY office was not at 100% offer. and in 2014, they were at 95% or whatever firm-wide.

without having been there at the firm during those periods, it's impossible to know whether those people truly "deserved" to get no offered or not. but firms generally do not no-offer unless something extreme happens. fucking skadden and paul weiss hire 100+ summers and still offer everyone. the fact that paul hastings still managed to no offer people across multiple offices over at least 2 different periods (post-recession) in such a small class should absolutely raise concerns.

Anonymous User wrote:i get that people want to homer for their own law school (vandy w/ 60k is a great option! everyone gets a job!) or their own law firm (paul hastings is a great place! i love it here! i had other options! dont worry about offers rates!), as fucking pathetic as it may be. but just realize that it's not like homering for your shitty hometown baseball team. you're potentially fucking with people's careers, financial future, and lives here.

it's undeniably true that paul hastings has a history of no offering people in their summer class. and these no offers werent just in the 08-09 crisis periods. just as recently as 2012, paul hastings no offered 12 out of 70 people across the firm. in the NY office alone, 3 got no offered out of 16. even in 2011 the NY office was not at 100% offer. and in 2014, they were at 95% or whatever firm-wide.

without having been there at the firm during those periods, it's impossible to know whether those people truly "deserved" to get no offered or not. but firms generally do not no-offer unless something extreme happens. fucking skadden and paul weiss hire 100+ summers and still offer everyone. the fact that paul hastings still managed to no offer people across multiple offices over at least 2 different periods (post-recession) in such a small class should absolutely raise concerns.

That's fine, but that was also a few years ago now which makes it less risky of an option now. If you are concerned that they were 80-something % offer rate in 2012 then fine, don't go there. Nobody is saying it is Paul Weiss.

And your concern is a bit misplaced. Nobody here has advocated someone should accept a Paul Hastings offer over anybody else in this thread. You are the one saying to only go there if there are literally no other options on the table, which may in fact include firms that have made no offers more recently.

Anonymous User wrote:i get that people want to homer for their own law school (vandy w/ 60k is a great option! everyone gets a job!) or their own law firm (paul hastings is a great place! i love it here! i had other options! dont worry about offers rates!), as fucking pathetic as it may be. but just realize that it's not like homering for your shitty hometown baseball team. you're potentially fucking with people's careers, financial future, and lives here.

it's undeniably true that paul hastings has a history of no offering people in their summer class. and these no offers werent just in the 08-09 crisis periods. just as recently as 2012, paul hastings no offered 12 out of 70 people across the firm. in the NY office alone, 3 got no offered out of 16. even in 2011 the NY office was not at 100% offer. and in 2014, they were at 95% or whatever firm-wide.

without having been there at the firm during those periods, it's impossible to know whether those people truly "deserved" to get no offered or not. but firms generally do not no-offer unless something extreme happens. fucking skadden and paul weiss hire 100+ summers and still offer everyone. the fact that paul hastings still managed to no offer people across multiple offices over at least 2 different periods (post-recession) in such a small class should absolutely raise concerns.

Well aren't you a pleasant pear. I really don't have an incentive to "homer" for my law firm, but I've always thought that the 100% offer thing as a criteria for choosing a firm is a little silly. I personally think that given multiple choices, people should pick the firm that they feel best fits their career goals, their personalities, and their area of interest (and also the one with no minimum billable requirement). That's what i did (except for the no minimum billable requirement part ). I do completely understand the comfort that the 100% offer rate provides to people who are nervously trying to pick a summer program and get a full-time job. But I really want to reiterate that based on my observations and experiences, firms don't no-offer for no reason.

I also think that unless you are extremely aspie and you know it, you shouldn't have a problem getting an offer. I definitely know of stories at firms with 100% offer rates who later regret that because there are some really terrible, lazy personalities that work there because the firm was worried about the less than 100% offer rate reflecting poorly on them. Honestly, big law hiring drives me a little crazy. This is like one of the only industries where horrible people get offered a high six figure job because the firm is afraid of appearing on ATL and also one of the only industries where firms have to project need out two years ahead of time when they don't even know what their need is going to be.

kennethellenparcell wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:i get that people want to homer for their own law school (vandy w/ 60k is a great option! everyone gets a job!) or their own law firm (paul hastings is a great place! i love it here! i had other options! dont worry about offers rates!), as fucking pathetic as it may be. but just realize that it's not like homering for your shitty hometown baseball team. you're potentially fucking with people's careers, financial future, and lives here.

it's undeniably true that paul hastings has a history of no offering people in their summer class. and these no offers werent just in the 08-09 crisis periods. just as recently as 2012, paul hastings no offered 12 out of 70 people across the firm. in the NY office alone, 3 got no offered out of 16. even in 2011 the NY office was not at 100% offer. and in 2014, they were at 95% or whatever firm-wide.

without having been there at the firm during those periods, it's impossible to know whether those people truly "deserved" to get no offered or not. but firms generally do not no-offer unless something extreme happens. fucking skadden and paul weiss hire 100+ summers and still offer everyone. the fact that paul hastings still managed to no offer people across multiple offices over at least 2 different periods (post-recession) in such a small class should absolutely raise concerns.

Well aren't you a pleasant pear. I really don't have an incentive to "homer" for my law firm, but I've always thought that the 100% offer thing as a criteria for choosing a firm is a little silly. I personally think that given multiple choices, people should pick the firm that they feel best fits their career goals, their personalities, and their area of interest (and also the one with no minimum billable requirement). That's what i did (except for the no minimum billable requirement part ). I do completely understand the comfort that the 100% offer rate provides to people who are nervously trying to pick a summer program and get a full-time job. But I really want to reiterate that based on my observations and experiences, firms don't no-offer for no reason.

I also think that unless you are extremely aspie and you know it, you shouldn't have a problem getting an offer. I definitely know of stories at firms with 100% offer rates who later regret that because there are some really terrible, lazy personalities that work there because the firm was worried about the less than 100% offer rate reflecting poorly on them. Honestly, big law hiring drives me a little crazy. This is like one of the only industries where horrible people get offered a high six figure job because the firm is afraid of appearing on ATL and also one of the only industries where firms have to project need out two years ahead of time when they don't even know what their need is going to be.

*NOTE* be particularly cautious reading ATL these days. Without a comment section, the articles with upbeat "inside information" are not so irregularly leaked by Partners/In-house recruiters (there may be key details left out).

As to Paul Hastings, have heard good things about NYC and LA. Perfectly fine firm, I chose a 100% offer firm and it would have worked out better if I did not, but I don't regret it--I would make the same decision every time, take the sure thing.

kennethellenparcell wrote:
Well aren't you a pleasant pear. I really don't have an incentive to "homer" for my law firm, but I've always thought that the 100% offer thing as a criteria for choosing a firm is a little silly. I personally think that given multiple choices, people should pick the firm that they feel best fits their career goals, their personalities, and their area of interest (and also the one with no minimum billable requirement). That's what i did (except for the no minimum billable requirement part ). I do completely understand the comfort that the 100% offer rate provides to people who are nervously trying to pick a summer program and get a full-time job. But I really want to reiterate that based on my observations and experiences, firms don't no-offer for no reason.

I also think that unless you are extremely aspie and you know it, you shouldn't have a problem getting an offer. I definitely know of stories at firms with 100% offer rates who later regret that because there are some really terrible, lazy personalities that work there because the firm was worried about the less than 100% offer rate reflecting poorly on them. Honestly, big law hiring drives me a little crazy. This is like one of the only industries where horrible people get offered a high six figure job because the firm is afraid of appearing on ATL and also one of the only industries where firms have to project need out two years ahead of time when they don't even know what their need is going to be.

we just have completely different risk tolerances. frankly, i think you (general you) are insane if offer rate is not a criterion for choosing a firm. i mean, if you come from money and debt is not an issue then all this is pointless, go nuts and do w/e you want.

but if not, the two bolded above dont really align IMO. it's precisely b/c you're hired for a job 2 years in advance that you should ABSOLUTELY factor in offer rates when deciding between firms. you have zero clue what the market will look like 2 years from now and what practice areas will need bodies or not. with that and the bimodal distribution of legal salaries in mind, you would be doing yourself a HUGE favor to choose the firm that has a history of consistent 100% offer rates. it shouldn't be the only factor, but to outright dismiss that as a criterion as you suggested above is insane.

i brought up paul weiss earlier not to prestige-whore and belittle paul hastings. separate from the issue of whether paul hastings is a mediocre firm or not is just the question of whether or not it's consistently a 100% offer firm. there are firms out there from the tip top to the likes of willkie farr that wear their 100% offer rates like a badge of honor. for paul hastings that's clearly not a priority and recent data support that. like i said, firms no-offer for extreme reasons and we're not in disagreement there. but paul hastings has a history of no offering a handful of summers in its relatively tiny summer classes in at least 3 of the last 5 years. either paul hastings is doing a really shitty job in hiring "aspie" people that "deserve" to get fired and paul weiss has a sick recruiting system that manages to get 120+ "non-aspie" people year after year or paul hastings is just a firm that doesn't place as much of an emphasis on 100% offers. the numbers are out there. draw your own conclusions.

Anonymous User wrote:

kennethellenparcell wrote:
Well aren't you a pleasant pear. I really don't have an incentive to "homer" for my law firm, but I've always thought that the 100% offer thing as a criteria for choosing a firm is a little silly. I personally think that given multiple choices, people should pick the firm that they feel best fits their career goals, their personalities, and their area of interest (and also the one with no minimum billable requirement). That's what i did (except for the no minimum billable requirement part ). I do completely understand the comfort that the 100% offer rate provides to people who are nervously trying to pick a summer program and get a full-time job. But I really want to reiterate that based on my observations and experiences, firms don't no-offer for no reason.

I also think that unless you are extremely aspie and you know it, you shouldn't have a problem getting an offer. I definitely know of stories at firms with 100% offer rates who later regret that because there are some really terrible, lazy personalities that work there because the firm was worried about the less than 100% offer rate reflecting poorly on them. Honestly, big law hiring drives me a little crazy. This is like one of the only industries where horrible people get offered a high six figure job because the firm is afraid of appearing on ATL and also one of the only industries where firms have to project need out two years ahead of time when they don't even know what their need is going to be.

we just have completely different risk tolerances. frankly, i think you (general you) are insane if offer rate is not a criterion for choosing a firm. i mean, if you come from money and debt is not an issue then all this is pointless, go nuts and do w/e you want.

but if not, the two bolded above dont really align IMO. it's precisely b/c you're hired for a job 2 years in advance that you should ABSOLUTELY factor in offer rates when deciding between firms. you have zero clue what the market will look like 2 years from now and what practice areas will need bodies or not. with that and the bimodal distribution of legal salaries in mind, you would be doing yourself a HUGE favor to choose the firm that has a history of consistent 100% offer rates. it shouldn't be the only factor, but to outright dismiss that as a criterion as you suggested above is insane.

i brought up paul weiss earlier not to prestige-whore and belittle paul hastings. separate from the issue of whether paul hastings is a mediocre firm or not is just the question of whether or not it's consistently a 100% offer firm. there are firms out there from the tip top to the likes of willkie farr that wear their 100% offer rates like a badge of honor. for paul hastings that's clearly not a priority and recent data support that. like i said, firms no-offer for extreme reasons and we're not in disagreement there. but paul hastings has a history of no offering a handful of summers in its relatively tiny summer classes in at least 3 of the last 5 years. either paul hastings is doing a really shitty job in hiring "aspie" people that "deserve" to get fired and paul weiss has a sick recruiting system that manages to get 120+ "non-aspie" people year after year or paul hastings is just a firm that doesn't place as much of an emphasis on 100% offers. the numbers are out there. draw your own conclusions.

I'm a little confused by this. You make it sound like PH has been no-offering people all the time, which is just not true. I don't remember the last time my office no-offered someone. In any case, no I don't come from money at all. And yes, I do think relying on the 100% offer rate as a very important criteria is a little silly (in retrospect). If I had done that, I am positive that I wouldn't be satisfied with my career choice or my choice of firm. In fact, I think I likely would have ended up in one of those giant summer classes in NYC which really wouldn't suit me. However, when I was choosing between summer programs, I definitely admit that the offer rate did matter to me because I am risk-averse too. I'm just trying to convey to people in a general sense that a non-100% offer rate really does not mean that YOU are at risk of not receiving an offer if you put in the effort and work. So unless there are other warning signs (e.g. the firm's not that profitable, mass partner defection), you really shouldn't rely on offer rate too much.

You kind of seem like you have some sort of weird, personal issue with PH. I've seen how the recruiting process works from the other side now and I really feel like 100% offer rates are more of a badge of fear, not a badge of honor.

Also, just because a firm maintains a 100% offer rate doesn't mean it won't let you go down the line in a mass layoff. See: Latham and Weil.

Nevermidn

The defensiveness is pretty funny. It's just a job, guys. It's not a personal attack when people say negative things about your firm.

kennethellenparcell wrote:I work at PH. I've enjoyed my experience so far, and people that have left here from my department have had pretty good exit options in-house.

Honestly though, with respect to the 100% offer rate, do you guys ever wonder if maybe the people who got no-offered DESERVED the no-offer? I don't really know anything about people who got no-offered at PH, but I summered at two different firms and some summer associates deserved to be no-offered. I can tell you that if there was a no-offer, PH is not the type of place to just no-offer someone for no reason. I'm pretty sure that applies to most other law firms too.

I'm one of those people who have been no-offered by PH within the past 4 years.
Let me first say, I respect your personal opinion and am glad to hear that you've enjoyed your experience at PH so far, and sincerely hope that continues for you.

As for myself, I thought (as well as my fellow summer associates did, upon our conversations afterwards) that I blended in with the office very well, attended every office event, never missed a deadline, and handed in good work product - all of which were confirmed in my mid-point and exit interview. There were a few criticisms about a couple of assignments, but nothing more than any other SA had experienced, and there was absolutely no indication at any point throughout the summer that I would be no-offered, which came as a massive blow.
Now, I wasn't on the PH hiring committee, so who knows if there was in fact some spectacular mistake or error that I made which made me "deserve" the no-offer (although I'd imagine that they would have told me of any such mistakes when they gave me the no-offer notice), but all I can say is that so far at my current firm, I have never heard from any partner or more senior-level associate that my work product is anything but either expectedly average (for a junior associate) or excellent. And since I didn't have any work experience between my PH SA and current position, I can't imagine that my work product had any chance for massive improvement in between.
(I'd also like to think that my personality isn't "aspie" or otherwise unpleasant, but... I guess that's for others to decide! All I can say is that nobody seemed to particularly dislike going out for lunch or coffee breaks with me :/)

I'm not here to diss PH or tell people to refrain from applying or accepting an offer there. I did enjoy my summer experience, and my friends who currently work at various offices of PH all enjoy their work and office environment. But I just felt the need to say that that PH no-offer remained a giant black mark on every single job interview that I had during my 3L job search, and made it almost impossible for me to re-enter into the biglaw market. I had other offers for an SA but chose PH because I liked them the best & because they had the strongest practice in my field of interest out of the firms that I had an offer from - but even now, although I'm very happy at my law firm, I still regret not choosing a different firm for my SA (one with a 100% offer rate). I would have probably saved a lot of heartache and misery during my 3L year. Just my two cents.

kennethellenparcell wrote:
You make it sound like PH has been no-offering people all the time

Quite a straw man you got going here. The previous poster actually said they only no-offered a handful of summers

kennethellenparcell wrote:
which is just not true.

Look, all of us going through OCI at the time saw the amount of no-offers on NALP. So what, NALP was lying? Just a part of the industry's continuing efforts to not recognize Paul Hastings as the legal powerhouse it is, right??

kennethellenparcell wrote:
In fact, I think I likely would have ended up in one of those giant summer classes in NYC

Wow. It's one thing to like your firm. It's another thing to pat yourself on the back for turning down a Skadden/S&C/Paul Weiss for the likes of Paul Hastings. PH is just as much a sweatshop as the rest of those firms, AND no-offers summer associates. It's a great firm, sure, but don't make it seem like you pulled off some genius career move by going to PH instead of white & case or something

kennethellenparcell wrote:
I'm just trying to convey to people in a general sense that a non-100% offer rate really does not mean that YOU are at risk of not receiving an offer if you put in the effort and work.

in my summer associate class, there was one summer who was no-offered. He was a hard worker and attended every event. His only sin was that he was just an all-around awkward guy. It was bullshit.



ETA: To the poster above, I''m sorry you had to go through that dude. Good to hear you landed on your feet - and, seriously, fuck PH for leaving you in the dark like that

Ok, this post is caveated by the fact I am in the UK market, and was, until recently job searching in London.

With that being said, I really don't see the issue with no offering students? The summer associate position is not a job offer, else it would be an associate offer. Why do you think they run these programs? It is entirely to vet candidates for associate positions and, in agreeance with a the PH poster above, I do believe some firms are too scared of their 100% offer rate which in recent times becomes so publicised. I would be willing to bet when SA roles were first offered (and things like ATL and NALP not so prevalent) no firms were achieving 100% as SA roles are there to vet candidates.

I mentioned I was in the UK market because the summer associate classes in law firms there (even in the US offices of law firms) take on far more summer associates than they need and the summer is a vetting and competitive process. Surely, that is precisely what the summer is for? For example, Cleary in London take on 48 summers for just 15 full time places. My firm (also a US outpost) took on around 20 summers for 4 full time places.

Granted, in the UK these "summers" last for 2-3 weeks and so students can line up a couple or several if they are savvy about it and even, as I did, summer again the following year if you weren't successful first time round (and with numbers like the above, it is not surprising many are not).

So my 2 cents I guess is I don't understand the big issue with 100% offer rates. SA positions are there to vet you and although I understand in the US job market summer positions are more a "one bite of the apple" thing the ratio of those BigLaw firms take as SAs vs the full-time associates they (project they'll) need is a lot more favourable in the US.

Anonymous User wrote:Ok, this post is caveated by the fact I am in the UK market, and was, until recently job searching in London.

With that being said, I really don't see the issue with no offering students? The summer associate position is not a job offer, else it would be an associate offer. Why do you think they run these programs? It is entirely to vet candidates for associate positions and, in agreeance with a the PH poster above, I do believe some firms are too scared of their 100% offer rate which in recent times becomes so publicised. I would be willing to bet when SA roles were first offered (and things like ATL and NALP not so prevalent) no firms were achieving 100% as SA roles are there to vet candidates.

I mentioned I was in the UK market because the summer associate classes in law firms there (even in the US offices of law firms) take on far more summer associates than they need and the summer is a vetting and competitive process. Surely, that is precisely what the summer is for? For example, Cleary in London take on 48 summers for just 15 full time places. My firm (also a US outpost) took on around 20 summers for 4 full time places.

Granted, in the UK these "summers" last for 2-3 weeks and so students can line up a couple or several if they are savvy about it and even, as I did, summer again the following year if you weren't successful first time round (and with numbers like the above, it is not surprising many are not).

So my 2 cents I guess is I don't understand the big issue with 100% offer rates. SA positions are there to vet you and although I understand in the US job market summer positions are more a "one bite of the apple" thing the ratio of those BigLaw firms take as SAs vs the full-time associates they (project they'll) need is a lot more favourable in the US.

Apologies for the appalling grammar in this - the only excuse I can give is I was being attacked by a savage group of foxes at the time.

PH increased their summer program from 65 to 100 in 2016 and gave offers to everybody. It is unlikely they hired 100 all stars, so I would bet that they have changed their approach, after getting caught making recessionary no offers after most firms stopped, to being shamed into giving out 100 % offers. Stuff like ATL and even TLS can make a difference if firms are worried they won't get any 2Ls to come to their firm. That stuff is more public these days. Regardless, the no offer concerns there seem to be largely in the past.