Top Law Schools

I'm interested in lit, but my long-term goal is to go in-house. I also want to be mentored/learn from the best. Thoughts?

Susman pays more, right? Go there. Both will work you to death.

I assume this is for a full-time position, since Susman doesn't do a full SA program and doesn't give full-time offers at the end? If so, I would think go with Susman. Both tops for lit but, from what I've heard, Susman is just in a league of its own in terms of getting early responsibility and making $$$.

Susman, harder to get.

Yes, both are for full-time offers. Susman pays substantially more (almost 100k)

Thanks guys! I was thinking Susman also. I think it's not as well-known as Quinn, but I don't think that should matter when I go in-house.

Anonymous User wrote:Yes, both are for full-time offers. Susman pays substantially more (almost 100k)

Thanks guys! I was thinking Susman also. I think it's not as well-known as Quinn, but I don't think that should matter when I go in-house.

Susman is plenty known where it matters.

Susman. Slightly more hours (relatively speaking), more money, shorter and more realistic partnership track, more selective and better training.

Think about it like this - is it easier to go from Susman to Quinn or Quinn to Susman?

Susman, but this is a comical thread - these are both super hard-charging litigation shops and I don't know why you would want to go to one of them if your endgame is an in-house job.

hlsperson1111 wrote:Susman, but this is a comical thread - these are both super hard-charging litigation shops and I don't know why you would want to go to one of them if your endgame is an in-house job.

Agreed. Also, to the extent that in-house lit opportunities exist, they can be particularly tough to get if you've done a lot of plaintiff-side work, which OP would likely do at Susman. If OP's long-term goal is in-house lit, then OP might be better off at a firm that leans more strongly towards defense-side lit.

rpupkin wrote:

hlsperson1111 wrote:Susman, but this is a comical thread - these are both super hard-charging litigation shops and I don't know why you would want to go to one of them if your endgame is an in-house job.

Agreed. Also, to the extent that in-house lit opportunities exist, they can be particularly tough to get if you've done a lot of plaintiff-side work, which OP would likely do at Susman. If OP's long-term goal is in-house lit, then OP might be better off at a firm that leans more strongly towards defense-side lit.

This was my initial impression to the question too. Most in-house will be hiring at defense shops, not at a boutique like Susman.

As always rpupkin, you confirm my initial impressions on this sort of question.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interested in lit, but my long-term goal is to go in-house. I also want to be mentored/learn from the best. Thoughts?

I'm glad you at least recognized that bolded is essential.

Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on both sides of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.

Anonymous User wrote:Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on both sides of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.

That's what I was thinking. I feel like for any in house lit position, Susman would set me up just fine. I don't see why in house would care if I did defense v. Plaintiffs work since that distinct matters mostly for conflicts check. I also feel that the smaller size of Susman would give a better chance at building relationships with the partners, who can later facilitate my transition to in-house.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on both sides of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.

That's what I was thinking. I feel like for any in house lit position, Susman would set me up just fine. I don't see why in house would care if I did defense v. Plaintiffs work since that distinct matters mostly for conflicts check.

That's not really true for some of the companies that have moved toward larger in-house lit departments. It's not just about conflicts; many companies (particularly the younger tech companies) have strong biases against hiring attorneys who have done plaintiff-side work.

By the way, I am not saying you should avoid Susman for this reason. I would choose Susman over Quinn, and it's not close. (And, frankly, if you have the credentials for Susman, you should have several other lit-focused options besides Quinn.) But doing plaintiff-side work will limit your in-house options.

Anonymous User wrote:Susman and it's not even close. At a lit boutique now and people atmy firm have left to go in house at major positions.

Re: going to defense firms instead--

You aren't going to get major push back trying to go in house from either firm. They are both well regarded and have partners that do plenty of defense work. You'll be getting far more actual lit experience than the big law drones your year at almost all defense side firms. Having experience on both sides of the v makes you far more valuable asset. To the extent contacts are less helpful at first, you'll more than make up for it with actual skills once you start getting in house interviews.

Out of curiosity, do you know of people regularly going in-house from either of these firms? I was under the same impression as rpupkin: in-house lit is hard to land and it's harder to land from a firm where associates are less likely to leave and forge those connections for future laterals.