Susman Godfrey 5th Year Associate - AMA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any chance Susman opens an office in Chicago, or any more offices in general? I'd like to work for an elite lit boutique but I'm not wild about leaving the Midwest and Bartlit Beck is probably a bit above what I'm capable of getting.

[Anonymous User]

What type of credentials from HLS would typically catch the firm's eye?

[SG-Lawyer]

Any chance Susman opens an office in Chicago, or any more offices in general? I'd like to work for an elite lit boutique but I'm not wild about leaving the Midwest and Bartlit Beck is probably a bit above what I'm capable of getting.

No plans to open any other offices as of right now, though I’m lobbying for South Beach

[SG-Lawyer]

What type of credentials from HLS would typically catch the firm's eye?

We really do look at each candidate holistically. And each interviewer probably has different personal fave criteria. I generally would like to see (1) some DS and materially more Hs than Ps and (2) a strong desire to be a trial lawyer. Being well spoken in the interview goes a long way with me.

There’s really no formula. You should apply if you went to Harvard, have a clerkship, and want to be a trial lawyer.

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Any chance Susman opens an office in Chicago, or any more offices in general? I'd like to work for an elite lit boutique but I'm not wild about leaving the Midwest and Bartlit Beck is probably a bit above what I'm capable of getting.

Not sure why you'd think you have a better shot at Susman than at Bartlit Beck, except maybe Bartlit Beck hires fewer associates so statistically your chances are lower?

Question for OP, which law firms have impressed you?

[DanielPWhite]

OP what would be your dream job, if you didn't have to be a lawyer?

[SG-Lawyer]

OP what would be your dream job, if you didn't have to be a lawyer?

Formula 1 driver? I don't know. I legit love the competition/fight involved with being a trial lawyer. Can't really imagine ever wanting to retire either.

[Anonymous User]

Any chance Susman opens an office in Chicago, or any more offices in general? I'd like to work for an elite lit boutique but I'm not wild about leaving the Midwest and Bartlit Beck is probably a bit above what I'm capable of getting.

Not sure why you'd think you have a better shot at Susman than at Bartlit Beck, except maybe Bartlit Beck hires fewer associates so statistically your chances are lower?

Question for OP, which law firms have impressed you?

Bartlit Beck mostly hires SCOTUS clerks for its Chicago office, though it has a soft spot for people with elite military and athletic backgrounds. Its current associates are two SCOTUS clerks, a recent Thapar clerk who won the Rhodes who will probably inevitably clerk on SCOTUS, a Marine who was a former Division 1 athlete, and one other. Susman is much more normal, it takes a decent number of people from my law school every year.

[SG-Lawyer]

Any chance Susman opens an office in Chicago, or any more offices in general? I'd like to work for an elite lit boutique but I'm not wild about leaving the Midwest and Bartlit Beck is probably a bit above what I'm capable of getting.

Not sure why you'd think you have a better shot at Susman than at Bartlit Beck, except maybe Bartlit Beck hires fewer associates so statistically your chances are lower?

Question for OP, which law firms have impressed you?

For Chicago Bartlit Beck is ~75% SCOTUS clerks iirc; the recent exceptions I know of had elite military or athletic backgrounds. Susman is much more normal, it takes a decent number of people from my law school every year.

Yes we do hire from your school (pretty sure I know which one it is).

And the two firms probably have the same number of SCOTUS clerks, we just have more people overall. There's only so many you can hire each year.

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Any chance Susman opens an office in Chicago, or any more offices in general? I'd like to work for an elite lit boutique but I'm not wild about leaving the Midwest and Bartlit Beck is probably a bit above what I'm capable of getting.

Not sure why you'd think you have a better shot at Susman than at Bartlit Beck, except maybe Bartlit Beck hires fewer associates so statistically your chances are lower?

Question for OP, which law firms have impressed you?

For Chicago Bartlit Beck is ~75% SCOTUS clerks iirc; the recent exceptions I know of had elite military or athletic backgrounds. Susman is much more normal, it takes a decent number of people from my law school every year.

I see 6 Chicago associates on their website, likely cause Bartlit Beck is structured in a way where a majority of attorneys are partners, and only 1 was a Thomas clerk. 2 have no clerkships. You're probably more likely to get a job at Susman than Bartlit Beck, but my guess is because Susman simply hires more new associates than Bartlit Beck.

A small random sampling of their Chicago partners makes me think that their SCOTUS clerk % is far lower than 75%.

[Anonymous User]

Any chance Susman opens an office in Chicago, or any more offices in general? I'd like to work for an elite lit boutique but I'm not wild about leaving the Midwest and Bartlit Beck is probably a bit above what I'm capable of getting.

Not sure why you'd think you have a better shot at Susman than at Bartlit Beck, except maybe Bartlit Beck hires fewer associates so statistically your chances are lower?

Question for OP, which law firms have impressed you?

For Chicago Bartlit Beck is ~75% SCOTUS clerks iirc; the recent exceptions I know of had elite military or athletic backgrounds. Susman is much more normal, it takes a decent number of people from my law school every year.

I see 6 Chicago associates on their website, likely cause Bartlit Beck is structured in a way where a majority of attorneys are partners, and only 1 was a Thomas clerk. 2 have no clerkships. You're probably more likely to get a job at Susman than Bartlit Beck, but my guess is because Susman simply hires more new associates than Bartlit Beck.

A small random sampling of their Chicago partners makes me think that their SCOTUS clerk % is far lower than 75%.

You missed a Kennedy clerk, but yeah I edited quickly after realizing it was lower than I remembered. It's less crazy for their more senior attorneys, many of whom came from Kirkland; I mean Bartlit and Beck themselves didn't clerk on SCOTUS.

[Anonymous User]

PM sent SG Lawyer

[Anonymous User]

Anon because I'm still clerking (d.ct and coa) and want to keep a low profile.

Is it possible for an associate to do a mix of trial and appellate work at Susman? I know Susman does handle appeals, but most of the work is trial. Ideally I'd like to maintain at least some appellate work--be it pro bono or billable--but I also really loved my district court and law firm trial experience, so a mix would be ideal. Along those lines, is it realistic for a non-SCOTUS clerk (but 2/9/DC) to get to handle appellate work?

What is the pro bono structure like? Would it be possible to handle pro bono appellate matters?

Thanks very much for doing this.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for doing this OP. In terms of the cases SG typically sources, is it still mostly plaintiff side or has defense side work increased in your time at the firm?

And when it comes to hiring, do political views factor into the equation at all? Reason I ask is that SG has a reputation of being very liberal, which sort of makes sense given the nature of suing large corporations etc. on the plaintiff side. But I’m wondering if competitive candidates who clerk for a conservative judge and did FedSoc in LS are viewed differently compared to candidates with liberal Bona Fides.

[SG-Lawyer]

Anon because I'm still clerking (d.ct and coa) and want to keep a low profile.

Is it possible for an associate to do a mix of trial and appellate work at Susman? I know Susman does handle appeals, but most of the work is trial. Ideally I'd like to maintain at least some appellate work--be it pro bono or billable--but I also really loved my district court and law firm trial experience, so a mix would be ideal. Along those lines, is it realistic for a non-SCOTUS clerk (but 2/9/DC) to get to handle appellate work?

We don't really assign work that way. 1) we don't do a lot of one-off appeals, in part because they aren't particularly lucrative. 2) when we do appeals, it's usually because we were trial counsel and are protecting our judgment (or appealing an adverse ruling). In that instance, someone on the original trial team will handle the appellate argument, because they'll know the case the best. Unlikely we would source a specific lawyer not on the team simply because they clerked for the supreme court.

What is the pro bono structure like? Would it be possible to handle pro bono appellate matters?

Absolutely. I believe state and federal appellate courts have pro bono opportunities. We give credit for pro bono hours.

Thanks very much for doing this.

[Anonymous User]

Mods: any reason my PMs are now stuck in outbox instead of going through?

[nixy]

Mods: any reason my PMs are now stuck in outbox instead of going through?

They sit in your outbox until the recipient has read them.

[Anonymous User]

Mods: any reason my PMs are now stuck in outbox instead of going through?

They sit in your outbox until the recipient has read them.

Thank you!

[SG-Lawyer]

Thanks for doing this OP. In terms of the cases SG typically sources, is it still mostly plaintiff side or has defense side work increased in your time at the firm?

I don't have the official numbers in front of me (though I'm sure I could , but it feels like slightly more plaintiff. My first trial was defense side and my docket is currently mixed at the moment.

And when it comes to hiring, do political views factor into the equation at all? Reason I ask is that SG has a reputation of being very liberal, which sort of makes sense given the nature of suing large corporations etc. on the plaintiff side. But I’m wondering if competitive candidates who clerk for a conservative judge and did FedSoc in LS are viewed differently compared to candidates with liberal Bona Fides.

Doesn't matter. We have associates who are members of fed soc and attend the annual gala every year. Take a look at our firm profiles. Plenty of lawyers who clerked for very conservative judges like Edith Jones, Jerry Smith, and Tim Tymkovich.

[Harryberry323]

Hey SG-Lawyer, considering taking an 'unpaid/volunteer' clerkship with an Art III. Are those considered valid clerkships for the SG's purposes in hiring associates?

Alternatively, also would definitely welcome a staff attorney position out of school if that would be possible. any advice on those positions for graduating 3Ls who are interested?

Thanks so much!

[Anonymous User]

How will Susman handle the COVID-19 downturn? Is Susman better positioned than other lit boutiques? Any chances of canceling incoming associates' offers or reducing bonuses?

[Anonymous User]

Do you think the hardline Article III requirement is problematic at all? Speaking from a very specific grudge about it since I'm an international who got told after a callback basically "we think you're great, but probably can't get a federal clerkship, let us know if you do" and subsequently got a Delaware clerkship that has higher requirements than most district courts and was seemingly treated as equivalent to basically a CoA from what I could tell during clerkship hiring (Kellogg, Keker, Munger, Bartlit, etc. all seemed to think it was sufficient).

I'm fairly happy with where I ended up, but a boutique in Seattle was literally my dream.

[QContinuum]

Do you think the hardline Article III requirement is problematic at all? Speaking from a very specific grudge about it since I'm an international who got told after a callback basically "we think you're great, but probably can't get a federal clerkship, let us know if you do" and subsequently got a Delaware clerkship that has higher requirements than most district courts and was seemingly treated as equivalent to basically a CoA from what I could tell during clerkship hiring (Kellogg, Keker, Munger, Bartlit, etc. all seemed to think it was sufficient).

I'm fairly happy with where I ended up, but a boutique in Seattle was literally my dream.

Not the OP and not a Susman associate, but from my disinterested perspective I don't think it's "problematic" in a moral sense to have an A3 clerkship requirement. They are an elite federal-court litigation boutique, and A3 clerkships generally give folks good training, good connections, and a good look at the "other side" of the bench, so it makes sense to require one. Sure, there are some judges who are awful mentors, and don't really offer any training or mentoring or even connections to their clerks, but on the whole it probably still makes sense to require an A3 clerkship, then filter out folks from there, because the vast majority of A3 clerkships are helpful (if the vast majority weren't helpful, they wouldn't be nearly as sought-after as they are).

As for hiring non-citizens, many firms are hesitant to do so due to the inherent uncertainty associated with the H-1B lottery, so Susman likely doesn't really care that their A3 clerkship requirement has the side effect of ruling out most non-U.S. citizen applicants.

I'll also note that it's still possible, if tricky, for non-U.S. citizens to land an A3 clerkship. A3 clerkships (both District and 1/9 CoA) in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are open to non-citizens. (As are the federal courts in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but those are A4 courts so may not satisfy Susman's requirement. Puerto Rico is A3. Interested to hear if Susman has ever considered an applicant with an A4, but not A3, clerkship - I imagine the experience clerking in the USVI probably isn't too different than a District Court clerkship in PR.)

[Anonymous User]

Do you think the hardline Article III requirement is problematic at all? Speaking from a very specific grudge about it since I'm an international who got told after a callback basically "we think you're great, but probably can't get a federal clerkship, let us know if you do" and subsequently got a Delaware clerkship that has higher requirements than most district courts and was seemingly treated as equivalent to basically a CoA from what I could tell during clerkship hiring (Kellogg, Keker, Munger, Bartlit, etc. all seemed to think it was sufficient).

I'm fairly happy with where I ended up, but a boutique in Seattle was literally my dream.

Not the OP and not a Susman associate, but from my disinterested perspective I don't think it's "problematic" in a moral sense to have an A3 clerkship requirement. They are an elite federal-court litigation boutique, and A3 clerkships generally give folks good training, good connections, and a good look at the "other side" of the bench, so it makes sense to require one. Sure, there are some judges who are awful mentors, and don't really offer any training or mentoring or even connections to their clerks, but on the whole it probably still makes sense to require an A3 clerkship, then filter out folks from there, because the vast majority of A3 clerkships are helpful (if the vast majority weren't helpful, they wouldn't be nearly as sought-after as they are).

As for hiring non-citizens, many firms are hesitant to do so due to the inherent uncertainty associated with the H-1B lottery, so Susman likely doesn't really care that their A3 clerkship requirement has the side effect of ruling out most non-U.S. citizen applicants.

I'll also note that it's still possible, if tricky, for non-U.S. citizens to land an A3 clerkship. A3 clerkships (both District and 1/9 CoA) in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are open to non-citizens. (As are the federal courts in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but those are A4 courts so may not satisfy Susman's requirement.)

The H1B problem isn't applicable to me as I'm here under TN, but you're right that it probably does factor in their lack of concern. I'm aware of the Alaska et al exception, I actually got to like round 4 of Kleinfeld's ridiculous process.

I should say that it's not so much that I think the clerkship requirement is problematic, just that it's a bit arbitrary of a line. Like, does anyone seriously think that the clerkship for random Dakota district judge is close to Del SSC/Chancery/California SSC/etc.? Obviously I'm biased here, but I think they could broaden the category without losing anything.

[QContinuum]

The H1B problem isn't applicable to me as I'm here under TN, but you're right that it probably does factor in their lack of concern. I'm aware of the Alaska et al exception, I actually got to like round 4 of Kleinfeld's ridiculous process.

I should say that it's not so much that I think the clerkship requirement is problematic, just that it's a bit arbitrary of a line. Like, does anyone seriously think that the clerkship for random Dakota district judge is close to Del SSC/Chancery/California SSC/etc.? Obviously I'm biased here, but I think they could broaden the category without losing anything.

Ah, sorry you got stuck in the Kleinfeld grinder! I actually have a friend who clerked for him and had a terrific experience, but his interview process is something else for sure.

Agree that CA Supreme Court is at least as hard to get as an A3 district clerkship in some random rural region, but a state supreme court, or Del Chancery for that matter, probably offers a pretty different experience from a federal district clerkship. Still, agree that probably makes sense to loosen the A3 clerkship requirement a bit.