Selendy & Gay? Forum

[papaoutai]

Rising 2L at HYS. Spent 1L summer at a v20 firm in NYC and doing a 2-week touchback with them next summer. I definitely want to do litigation but I am not sure about my long-term plans.

I am strongly considering accepting the offer from Selendy & Gay because of their culture, people, public impact work, trial practice, and early substantive experience. I wasn’t really looking into boutiques during OCI and only applied to Selendy out of curiosity so Selendy is the only boutique option I have. I am slightly concerned due to how new the firm is so I am not sure if their current culture and practice can be maintained. Part of me thinks I should just take the risk since I can always go back to my 1L firm if I don’t end up liking them from the summer program. Downside of doing this is that my 1L firm is not headquartered in NYC and thus may not be as highly regarded as other top BigLaw firms. Thoughts? The three BigLaw choices I am strongly considering are Covington DC, Sidley Austin SF, and Kirkland SF. Would appreciate any advice!

[Anonymous User]

Did you like the people there? do they do work that you’re interested in? If yes to both I think it’s worth the risk. You will get an amazing substantive experience.

[QContinuum]

The three BigLaw choices I am strongly considering [in addition to Selendy] are Covington DC, Sidley Austin SF, and Kirkland SF. Would appreciate any advice!

You should first decide which market you want to practice in - NY, DC, or SF. Firm vs. firm usually only makes sense when comparing offices in the same city.

[Anonymous User]

When I interviewed there, I got the impression that you need to be on the good side of the name partners (and the name partner's wife). I don't think any of the other partners matter nearly as much. So if you got along well with them, then that's fine. If you didn't, then avoid at all costs. I personally didn't like one of the name partners, so I didn't pursue this opportunity.

I personally wouldn't want to start at that firm simply because its brand isn't that good in comparison to the elite Manhattan firms (e.g., WLRK/Cravath/DPW/S&C/Cleary, and to a lesser extent, Debevoise/Paul, Weiss). They wanted me because I have a lot of extremely high prestige work on my resume that would help legitimize their firm, and I bet that's true for a lot of their hiring right now. They don't have a brand, so they need to build one.

That's the thing: At every institution, there's people who increase the prestige of the institution, and people who dilute it by being below the median (i.e., they need the prestige of the firm to legitimize themselves). I refuse to work at a place that sucks off the resume branding of its attorneys. I would rather work at a nice firm like DPW or S&C that is consonant with everything else I have done so far (e.g., elite investment bank / T6 law school / elite undergrad).

I would start at Covington D.C. out of your options.

[Anonymous User]

I am strongly considering accepting the offer from Selendy & Gay because of their culture, people, public impact work, trial practice, and early substantive experience.

I don't know anything about Selendy & Gay, but I just wanted to chime in and let you know that you sound indoctrinated. Be very careful with this mindset as it can lead to bad decisions.

[tyroneslothrop1]

When I interviewed there, I got the impression that you need to be on the good side of the name partners (and the name partner's wife). I don't think any of the other partners matter nearly as much. So if you got along well with them, then that's fine. If you didn't, then avoid at all costs. I personally didn't like one of the name partners, so I didn't pursue this opportunity.

I personally wouldn't want to start at that firm simply because its brand isn't that good in comparison to the elite Manhattan firms (e.g., WLRK/Cravath/DPW/S&C/Cleary, and to a lesser extent, Debevoise/Paul, Weiss). They wanted me because I have a lot of extremely high prestige work on my resume that would help legitimize their firm, and I bet that's true for a lot of their hiring right now. They don't have a brand, so they need to build one.

That's the thing: At every institution, there's people who increase the prestige of the institution, and people who dilute it by being below the median (i.e., they need the prestige of the firm to legitimize themselves). I refuse to work at a place that sucks off the resume branding of its attorneys. I would rather work at a nice firm like DPW or S&C that is consonant with everything else I have done so far (e.g., elite investment bank / T6 law school / elite undergrad).

I would start at Covington D.C. out of your options.

LOL!

[Anonymous User]

Maybe its a just because they were getting off the ground but my interview process with them was extremely scattered and unprofessional. I sympathize with the plight, but coupled with how lackluster their departure process was in terms of publicity and controlling their narrative, and the haphazard way they set up the firm, its website, etc., I'd be at least a little concerned about such a young firm

[Anonymous User]

Rising 2L at HYS. Spent 1L summer at a v20 firm in NYC and doing a 2-week touchback with them next summer. I definitely want to do litigation but I am not sure about my long-term plans.

I am strongly considering accepting the offer from Selendy & Gay because of their culture, people, public impact work, trial practice, and early substantive experience. I wasn’t really looking into boutiques during OCI and only applied to Selendy out of curiosity so Selendy is the only boutique option I have. I am slightly concerned due to how new the firm is so I am not sure if their current culture and practice can be maintained. Part of me thinks I should just take the risk since I can always go back to my 1L firm if I don’t end up liking them from the summer program. Downside of doing this is that my 1L firm is not headquartered in NYC and thus may not be as highly regarded as other top BigLaw firms. Thoughts? The three BigLaw choices I am strongly considering are Covington DC, Sidley Austin SF, and Kirkland SF. Would appreciate any advice!

I mean it seems like you should take the Selendy & Gay offer. Since you have the touchback with the v20, it seems virtually risk free, unless I’m missing something. Your other biglaw options won’t be materially different than your v20.

[Anonymous User]

When I interviewed there, I got the impression that you need to be on the good side of the name partners (and the name partner's wife). I don't think any of the other partners matter nearly as much. So if you got along well with them, then that's fine. If you didn't, then avoid at all costs. I personally didn't like one of the name partners, so I didn't pursue this opportunity.

I personally wouldn't want to start at that firm simply because its brand isn't that good in comparison to the elite Manhattan firms (e.g., WLRK/Cravath/DPW/S&C/Cleary, and to a lesser extent, Debevoise/Paul, Weiss). They wanted me because I have a lot of extremely high prestige work on my resume that would help legitimize their firm, and I bet that's true for a lot of their hiring right now. They don't have a brand, so they need to build one.

That's the thing: At every institution, there's people who increase the prestige of the institution, and people who dilute it by being below the median (i.e., they need the prestige of the firm to legitimize themselves). I refuse to work at a place that sucks off the resume branding of its attorneys. I would rather work at a nice firm like DPW or S&C that is consonant with everything else I have done so far (e.g., elite investment bank / T6 law school / elite undergrad).

I would start at Covington D.C. out of your options.

Oh my.

[kiddie114]

is the above quoted a troll, or someone who legit has a full system of of the concept elitism.

[Anonymous User]

At Selendy you will be able to work closely with famous litigators on inportant matters. That’s an experience you won’t get until you’re a sixth year associate at firms like S&C and dpw.

[Anonymous User]

At Selendy you will be able to work closely with famous litigators on inportant matters. That’s an experience you won’t get until you’re a sixth year associate at firms like S&C and dpw.

The idea that you won’t get experience working with famous litigators closely at S&C and DPW is a myth. Those firms work on all kinds of matters and it is not uncommon to see a relatively junior associate working directly with a partner.

OP: I’d be a little way of choosing S+G over an elite biglaw NYC firm’s litigation practice given that their prior success is heavily tied to financial crisis litigation which was a real outlier in terms of the sheer amount of work it generated (dozens, if not hundreds of nine or ten figure securitizations blew the fuck up in 2007/2008 and created such a wave of litigation that it kept entire litigation departments busy for years. For various reasons Quinn was well placed to take a lot of that work). If I were you I’d be interested in knowing whether they will be able to take that experience and turn it into the types of lasting client relationships they can build the firm on, or they will be a serious player when the next big round of litigation comes on.

[Anonymous User]

At Selendy you will be able to work closely with famous litigators on inportant matters. That’s an experience you won’t get until you’re a sixth year associate at firms like S&C and dpw.

The idea that you won’t get experience working with famous litigators closely at S&C and DPW is a myth. Those firms work on all kinds of matters and it is not uncommon to see a relatively junior associate working directly with a partner.

OP: I’d be a little way of choosing S+G over an elite biglaw NYC firm’s litigation practice given that their prior success is heavily tied to financial crisis litigation which was a real outlier in terms of the sheer amount of work it generated (dozens, if not hundreds of nine or ten figure securitizations blew the fuck up in 2007/2008 and created such a wave of litigation that it kept entire litigation departments busy for years. For various reasons Quinn was well placed to take a lot of that work). If I were you I’d be interested in knowing whether they will be able to take that experience and turn it into the types of lasting client relationships they can build the firm on, or they will be a serious player when the next big round of litigation comes on.

I understand the notion that their prior success was tied to the financial crisis, but I think it might be slightly overstated. Faith Gay to my knowledge hasn't done much if any of that sort of work, and neither did Jennifer Selendy (she was at Kirkland). Christine Chung seems to be a pretty prominent white collar lawyer (U.S. v. Zarrab, Rajaratnam) based on Preet Bharara's podcast lol. I'm not tremendously familiar with the work of the other partners, but I don't think it makes sense to chalk them up as a one trick pony...

[Bubbles1012]

When I interviewed there, I got the impression that you need to be on the good side of the name partners (and the name partner's wife). I don't think any of the other partners matter nearly as much. So if you got along well with them, then that's fine. If you didn't, then avoid at all costs. I personally didn't like one of the name partners, so I didn't pursue this opportunity.

I personally wouldn't want to start at that firm simply because its brand isn't that good in comparison to the elite Manhattan firms (e.g., WLRK/Cravath/DPW/S&C/Cleary, and to a lesser extent, Debevoise/Paul, Weiss). They wanted me because I have a lot of extremely high prestige work on my resume that would help legitimize their firm, and I bet that's true for a lot of their hiring right now. They don't have a brand, so they need to build one.

That's the thing: At every institution, there's people who increase the prestige of the institution, and people who dilute it by being below the median (i.e., they need the prestige of the firm to legitimize themselves). I refuse to work at a place that sucks off the resume branding of its attorneys. I would rather work at a nice firm like DPW or S&C that is consonant with everything else I have done so far (e.g., elite investment bank / T6 law school / elite undergrad).

I would start at Covington D.C. out of your options.

You must be a troll right? I mean, a person this insufferable can’t actually exist...

[Anonymous User]

Can't speak to your impression of course, but personally I found my S&G screener extremely unpleasant and ended up declining my callback. Strong vibes that they don't have their shit together.

[Anonymous User]

Can't speak to your impression of course, but personally I found my S&G screener extremely unpleasant and ended up declining my callback. Strong vibes that they don't have their shit together.

Agreed. They tried to reschedule my callback the day before.

[Anonymous User]

Did you like the people there? do they do work that you’re interested in? If yes to both I think it’s worth the risk. You will get an amazing substantive experience.

I don't understand how anyone can possibly predict this. The firm is less than a year old. Just because they have a website that says they're committed to giving associates early substantive experience doesn't mean that it's going to happen.

[Anonymous User]

Did you like the people there? do they do work that you’re interested in? If yes to both I think it’s worth the risk. You will get an amazing substantive experience.

I don't understand how anyone can possibly predict this. The firm is less than a year old. Just because they have a website that says they're committed to giving associates early substantive experience doesn't mean that it's going to happen.

I was able to confirm that junior associates got unparalleled substantive experiences at SG during CBs. They are so small that they can’t help but trust junior associates with big tasks. They also outsource doc review.

[papaoutai]

OP here. Thanks everyone for your thoughts and suggestions. Reading some of the comments is helping me think more clearly about what I care about the most.

I actually went into my callback with them not expecting too much and was pleasantly surprised. Because of the reception they hosted after my callback, I got to meet with most lawyers at the firm. All the associates I talked to lateraled out of elite nyc firms and they all described their experience at S&G as being much more pleasant and substantive (e.g. writing the first draft of a summary judgment by oneself as a third year). This is supported by the fact that grunt work is outsourced to staff attorneys at the firm. I also got the sense that the partners genuinely care about associate development, giving associates early client contact and investing in a full-time consultant whose entire job is to help the associates get better at their jobs.

I also got to talk for an extended period of time with Philipe Selendy and he told me he decided to leave Quinn because he thought Quinn was too money-driven, impersonal, expansionist, and not at all paying attention to its social impact. Other people I talked to also liked the fact that they don't represent industries (wall street, fossil fuel etc.) that do shitty things to people and with whom their values don't align. While I realize private practice is no public interest work, I'd like the moral comfort of knowing that my practice is not actively making the world a worse place.

While I am normally a risk-averse people, I also find the prospect of growing together with a young firm really exciting. I think I am going to go ahead and accept the offer from Selendy & Gay. Thanks everyone! I will report back my experience after next summer.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks everyone for your thoughts and suggestions. Reading some of the comments is helping me think more clearly about what I care about the most.

I actually went into my callback with them not expecting too much and was pleasantly surprised. Because of the reception they hosted after my callback, I got to meet with most lawyers at the firm. All the associates I talked to lateraled out of elite nyc firms and they all described their experience at S&G as being much more pleasant and substantive (e.g. writing the first draft of a summary judgment by oneself as a third year). This is supported by the fact that grunt work is outsourced to staff attorneys at the firm. I also got the sense that the partners genuinely care about associate development, giving associates early client contact and investing in a full-time consultant whose entire job is to help the associates get better at their jobs.

I also got to talk for an extended period of time with Philipe Selendy and he told me he decided to leave Quinn because he thought Quinn was too money-driven, impersonal, expansionist, and not at all paying attention to its social impact. Other people I talked to also liked the fact that they don't represent industries (wall street, fossil fuel etc.) that do shitty things to people and with whom their values don't align. While I realize private practice is no public interest work, I'd like the moral comfort of knowing that my practice is not actively making the world a worse place.

While I am normally a risk-averse people, I also find the prospect of growing together with a young firm really exciting. I think I am going to go ahead and accept the offer from Selendy & Gay. Thanks everyone! I will report back my experience after next summer.

I had the exact same impression, and I think I'm going to take my offer as well. See you next summer!

[smokeylarue]

I'm sad to admit that I could never work at a place called Selendy and GAY because my friends are immature and I would never heard the end of it.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks everyone for your thoughts and suggestions. Reading some of the comments is helping me think more clearly about what I care about the most.

I actually went into my callback with them not expecting too much and was pleasantly surprised. Because of the reception they hosted after my callback, I got to meet with most lawyers at the firm. All the associates I talked to lateraled out of elite nyc firms and they all described their experience at S&G as being much more pleasant and substantive (e.g. writing the first draft of a summary judgment by oneself as a third year). This is supported by the fact that grunt work is outsourced to staff attorneys at the firm. I also got the sense that the partners genuinely care about associate development, giving associates early client contact and investing in a full-time consultant whose entire job is to help the associates get better at their jobs.

I also got to talk for an extended period of time with Philipe Selendy and he told me he decided to leave Quinn because he thought Quinn was too money-driven, impersonal, expansionist, and not at all paying attention to its social impact. Other people I talked to also liked the fact that they don't represent industries (wall street, fossil fuel etc.) that do shitty things to people and with whom their values don't align. While I realize private practice is no public interest work, I'd like the moral comfort of knowing that my practice is not actively making the world a worse place.

While I am normally a risk-averse people, I also find the prospect of growing together with a young firm really exciting. I think I am going to go ahead and accept the offer from Selendy & Gay. Thanks everyone! I will report back my experience after next summer.

I had the exact same impression, and I think I'm going to take my offer as well. See you next summer!

Clearly S&G plants. There was nothing nice about interviewing at that firm and I'm shocked anyone could have thought otherwise. Yes, people lateraled from elite NYC firms, but that's exactly the point that was being made earlier: S&G feels the need to hire prestigious resumes because they have no prestige of their own. It means nothing to be an S&G associate. S&G has to point to associates from other objectively prestigious firms to attract talent. Why not just go to those other objectively prestigious firms that can carry you anywhere in the industry? I would feel like I was throwing away my resume if I were to go to S&G out of law school.

And note that's another difference: those attorneys from elite law firms will always have that branding on their resume. What firm you go to immediately out of school is extremely important because it is presumed that such firm is the very best you could have done. If S&G doesn't work out, do you really want anyone who looks at your resume to think that you didn't have offers from elite New York law firms?

[Anonymous User]

S&G has to point to associates from other objectively prestigious firms to attract talent.

Lol @ "objectively prestigious" - prestige ain't all it's cracked up to be. A good number of folks at my old firm (a prestigious NYC boutique in its own right) have never even heard of most of the V10.

As for S&G having to "point to associates from other firms" to attract talent, obv. any new firm getting off the ground has to get talent from elsewhere, since they haven't had time yet to grow talent in-house.

[Anonymous User]

I actually think this question boils down to a pretty simple but quite personal question: How much do you want to be a litigator? Is it your calling? Or do you see it as a means to an end?

I think S&G sounds tremendously exciting if you know that you want to practice law at a high level for a substantial part of your career. There’s value to getting in early. I think the attraction of growing with a firm is obvious — I am personally quite jealous of the opportunity! If it doesn’t work out and you want to lateral, S&G is not an unknown quantity amongst litigators. You’ll be able to move.

If you want to pay off debt ASAP and go in house, S&G is probably a bad choice.

[tyroneslothrop1]

OP here. Thanks everyone for your thoughts and suggestions. Reading some of the comments is helping me think more clearly about what I care about the most.

I actually went into my callback with them not expecting too much and was pleasantly surprised. Because of the reception they hosted after my callback, I got to meet with most lawyers at the firm. All the associates I talked to lateraled out of elite nyc firms and they all described their experience at S&G as being much more pleasant and substantive (e.g. writing the first draft of a summary judgment by oneself as a third year). This is supported by the fact that grunt work is outsourced to staff attorneys at the firm. I also got the sense that the partners genuinely care about associate development, giving associates early client contact and investing in a full-time consultant whose entire job is to help the associates get better at their jobs.

I also got to talk for an extended period of time with Philipe Selendy and he told me he decided to leave Quinn because he thought Quinn was too money-driven, impersonal, expansionist, and not at all paying attention to its social impact. Other people I talked to also liked the fact that they don't represent industries (wall street, fossil fuel etc.) that do shitty things to people and with whom their values don't align. While I realize private practice is no public interest work, I'd like the moral comfort of knowing that my practice is not actively making the world a worse place.

While I am normally a risk-averse people, I also find the prospect of growing together with a young firm really exciting. I think I am going to go ahead and accept the offer from Selendy & Gay. Thanks everyone! I will report back my experience after next summer.

I had the exact same impression, and I think I'm going to take my offer as well. See you next summer!

Clearly S&G plants. There was nothing nice about interviewing at that firm and I'm shocked anyone could have thought otherwise. Yes, people lateraled from elite NYC firms, but that's exactly the point that was being made earlier: S&G feels the need to hire prestigious resumes because they have no prestige of their own. It means nothing to be an S&G associate. S&G has to point to associates from other objectively prestigious firms to attract talent. Why not just go to those other objectively prestigious firms that can carry you anywhere in the industry? I would feel like I was throwing away my resume if I were to go to S&G out of law school.

And note that's another difference: those attorneys from elite law firms will always have that branding on their resume. What firm you go to immediately out of school is extremely important because it is presumed that such firm is the very best you could have done. If S&G doesn't work out, do you really want anyone who looks at your resume to think that you didn't have offers from elite New York law firms?

Why is John Quinn posting in this TLS thread?