Page 1 of 1
Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:25 pm
by Anonymous User
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).
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:48 pm
by Anonymous User
Bump. Anyone?
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:05 pm
by Wubbles
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
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:58 pm
by Anonymous User
Op here.
Do you know if it’s true that Baker doesn’t pay market bonus until 2200 hours?
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:41 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Op here.
Do you know if it’s true that Baker doesn’t pay market bonus until 2200 hours?
No clue. I'd go with Baker or Hogan though if it matters
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:59 pm
by Anonymous User
Anonymous User wrote:Op here.
Do you know if it’s true that Baker doesn’t pay market bonus until 2200 hours?
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.
Re: Hughes Hubbard v Baker McKenzie
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:41 pm
by Anonymous User
Thanks for the responses! I guess Hughes Hubbard is not that great a firm