First off, I’m not deciding on an SA position. Both are for NY. This is a lateral question. I liked the people I met at Hughes Hubbard more but it seems like the firm has been struggling (didn’t match Cravath, falling PPP and RPL, mass layoffs in 2017).
Baker McKenzie pays market, seems fairly healthy, but I’ve heard it is a sweatshop.
I know baker is stronger for corporate, but I feel like Hughes Hubbard would be a better fit long-term.
If it matters at all, I’m also “considering” Hogan (didn’t like the team that much).
Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Bump. Anyone?
-
Wubbles
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:55 pm
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Baker pays more and is a better overall firm, but fit can only be determined by you if that is what you're deciding on
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Op here.
Do you know if it’s true that Baker doesn’t pay market bonus until 2200 hours?
Do you know if it’s true that Baker doesn’t pay market bonus until 2200 hours?
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
No clue. I'd go with Baker or Hogan though if it mattersAnonymous User wrote:Op here.
Do you know if it’s true that Baker doesn’t pay market bonus until 2200 hours?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
I believe Baker pays market bonus at 2000 hours, allowing 50 hours pro bono toward the minimum. There was an issue a year or two ago about bonus requirements, and the firm has since backed off that. This was my understanding when I interviewed with Baker.Anonymous User wrote:Op here.
Do you know if it’s true that Baker doesn’t pay market bonus until 2200 hours?
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Thanks for the responses! I guess Hughes Hubbard is not that great a firm
