Susman Godfrey 5th Year Associate - AMA Forum

[SG-Lawyer]

100% of the first years I started with are still here. And 100% made partner. We are not like normal big law.

Just mathematically, I don’t see how this could be typical. If you assume 1:1 leverage and start with, say, five partners and five associates, you’d have over five thousand lawyers at the firm after 10 years of making people partner (i.e., 2 * (5 * 2 ^ 9)). So what’s the typical winnowing mechanism? People leaving before they are up for partner, or people being voted down when they come up?

The firm does have more partners than associates. Lots of people also leave voluntarily.

Hadn’t realized the firm had more partners than associates. They must work a ton. Would seem to affect the calculus/desirability of staying and working for life as a partner, I’d think?

Partners work as much or as little as they want. We circulate hours for every lawyer each month. Partners work far less than associates.

Not questioning you, just curious - if the firm is negatively leveraged and partners aren't doing as much work as associates, who's handling the nuts and bolts of litigation?

I think your question implicitly assumes that partners aren't working as much as associates on a particular case. I may be on more cases than an associate, but I may be focusing my time on a particular case. So I may be working as much or more than an associate on a particular case. Conversely, I have cases that are primarily run by associates because they can handle it. They copy me on all emails so I can keep tabs, but they're running the case and shooting me things to approve when necessary.

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity what would you say is the average compensation for a partner there?

And one other question, any WashU alumni there?

Edit- sorry didn’t see it had been asked. Question about WashU I’m still curious about though.

[SG-Lawyer]

Out of curiosity what would you say is the average compensation for a partner there?

And one other question, any WashU alumni there?

Edit- sorry didn’t see it had been asked. Question about WashU I’m still curious about though.

I don't know every lawyer's educational background, but none jump out in my mind. Take a look out our site. You can sort by school.

We don't publicly disclose partner comp. But it is very good to be a Susman Godfrey partner. You make money based on whether you bring in the case or work on someone else's case; more for the former. Seniority is not taken into account. So the incentive is to bring in good cases and the sky is the limit in terms of your ultimate compensation, even for a young partner. If you purely work on other partners' cases, you still do quite well. This year, I should end up making significantly more than my friends who are young partners at traditional big law firms.

[thisismytlsuername]

PPP was $2.4 mil in 2020: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/01 ... g-partner/

[SG-Lawyer]

PPP was $2.4 mil in 2020: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/01 ... g-partner/

I doubt that's accurate. Articles are usually wildly off.

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity what would you say is the average compensation for a partner there?

And one other question, any WashU alumni there?

Edit- sorry didn’t see it had been asked. Question about WashU I’m still curious about though.

I don't know every lawyer's educational background, but none jump out in my mind. Take a look out our site. You can sort by school.

We don't publicly disclose partner comp. But it is very good to be a Susman Godfrey partner. You make money based on whether you bring in the case or work on someone else's case; more for the former. Seniority is not taken into account. So the incentive is to bring in good cases and the sky is the limit in terms of your ultimate compensation, even for a young partner. If you purely work on other partners' cases, you still do quite well. This year, I should end up making significantly more than my friends who are young partners at traditional big law firms.

Gotcha. I’ve worked in sales all my life and frankly I’m tired of it, but if you can make a lot even working on other partners success then this firm will be my goal, even if it’s one of the hardest to get into. I know you said y’all look at work experience- hopefully working throughout all my college will help when it’s time to apply.

[thisismytlsuername]

PPP was $2.4 mil in 2020: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/01 ... g-partner/

I doubt that's accurate. Articles are usually wildly off.

You're saying that a PR puff piece that Susman set up and gave interviews for which has financial figures from a self-reported survey are "wildly off"? Interesting.

[SG-Lawyer]

PPP was $2.4 mil in 2020: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/01 ... g-partner/

I doubt that's accurate. Articles are usually wildly off.

You're saying that a PR puff piece that Susman set up and gave interviews for which has financial figures from a self-reported survey are "wildly off"? Interesting.

First, I didn't say that specific article was wildly off. I said articles are usually wildly off. Second, the financial figures in that article did not originate from SG. The author of the article added them in from a different article, which estimated SG's revenue and PPP. As I said before, we don't publicly disclose our financials, so any PPP figures you see online are just third-party estimates.

[Anonymous User]

Since most people going to SG are already experienced (biglaw, clerkships, prosecutors, etc.), do interviews for SG's summer associate program differ significantly. Are you primarily looking for interest in trial work, strong writing, etc. Are there any specific characteristics that you look for that you think make people strong candidates or potentially strong litigators?

[thisismytlsuername]

PPP was $2.4 mil in 2020: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/01 ... g-partner/

I doubt that's accurate. Articles are usually wildly off.

You're saying that a PR puff piece that Susman set up and gave interviews for which has financial figures from a self-reported survey are "wildly off"? Interesting.

First, I didn't say that specific article was wildly off. I said articles are usually wildly off. Second, the financial figures in that article did not originate from SG. The author of the article added them in from a different article, which estimated SG's revenue and PPP. As I said before, we don't publicly disclose our financials, so any PPP figures you see online are just third-party estimates.

Well, no one can accuse you of pretending to be a litigation partner.

[Anonymous User]

If there are more partners than associates and if partners aren’t working an excessive number of hours, I’d imagine that the associates must be grinding really hard. Surely not every junior lawyer can be an all star and surely the typical credentialing system (e.g., law school, clerkship, grades, journal) will never guarantee 100% certainty that someone will be a good lawyer. So how does the system handle lackluster associates? Are the cream of the crop at Susman billing like 4k hours to pick up the slack?

[Anonymous User]

If there are more partners than associates and if partners aren’t working an excessive number of hours, I’d imagine that the associates must be grinding really hard. Surely not every junior lawyer can be an all star and surely the typical credentialing system (e.g., law school, clerkship, grades, journal) will never guarantee 100% certainty that someone will be a good lawyer. So how does the system handle lackluster associates? Are the cream of the crop at Susman billing like 4k hours to pick up the slack?

Pretty sure Susman's hiring/interviewing/vetting process really does sift through and find the associates who can handle. They're small enough that they need to, and sought-after enough to be able to.

[WLRKEthan]

In your eyes, what lawschool gives an applicant the best chance at getting employed by you all? I'd think that if all the credentials were there UW gets a slight edge for the Seattle office, Texas for Houston, Columbia for NYC, and Stanford for LA. Am I on the right track here? Or does location preference not even matter when interviewing?

Also, is there an unspoken lawchool rank cutoff for applicants? I'd love to go to SMU and stay in Dallas for personal reasons (family & significant other) but don't want to jeopardize my chances of working at Susman. Would a top tier applicant from a lower ranked school be overlooked?

[axiomaticapiary]

In your eyes, what lawschool gives an applicant the best chance at getting employed by you all? I'd think that if all the credentials were there UW gets a slight edge for the Seattle office, Texas for Houston, Columbia for NYC, and Stanford for LA. Am I on the right track here? Or does location preference not even matter when interviewing?

Also, is there an unspoken lawchool rank cutoff for applicants? I'd love to go to SMU and stay in Dallas for personal reasons (family & significant other) but don't want to jeopardize my chances of working at Susman. Would a top tier applicant from a lower ranked school be overlooked?

Susman only hires federal clerks, last year SMU graduated 11/220 into federal clerkships. You should just focus on getting over the hump of getting a federal clerkship and go to a school where that would be easier

Personally I am opposed to law school rank snobbery but it makes sense in the context of arguably America’s most exclusive firm

[Anonymous User]

If there are more partners than associates and if partners aren’t working an excessive number of hours, I’d imagine that the associates must be grinding really hard. Surely not every junior lawyer can be an all star and surely the typical credentialing system (e.g., law school, clerkship, grades, journal) will never guarantee 100% certainty that someone will be a good lawyer. So how does the system handle lackluster associates? Are the cream of the crop at Susman billing like 4k hours to pick up the slack?

Pretty sure Susman's hiring/interviewing/vetting process really does sift through and find the associates who can handle. They're small enough that they need to, and sought-after enough to be able to.

I don’t see how. There are duds even among SCOTUS clerks, and a justice doesn’t have to hire as many people as even a small firm.

[Anonymous User]

If there are more partners than associates and if partners aren’t working an excessive number of hours, I’d imagine that the associates must be grinding really hard. Surely not every junior lawyer can be an all star and surely the typical credentialing system (e.g., law school, clerkship, grades, journal) will never guarantee 100% certainty that someone will be a good lawyer. So how does the system handle lackluster associates? Are the cream of the crop at Susman billing like 4k hours to pick up the slack?

Pretty sure Susman's hiring/interviewing/vetting process really does sift through and find the associates who can handle. They're small enough that they need to, and sought-after enough to be able to.

I don’t see how. There are duds even among SCOTUS clerks, and a justice doesn’t have to hire as many people as even a small firm.

Not sure which SCOTUS clerks have been duds, but I don't think SCOTUS justice hiring is necessarily the standard against which all hiring should be measured. The OCI hiring process is pretty bad b/c so much of biglaw requires hiring large classes you know you don't have to worry about all sticking around to partner, and SCOTUS clerks by definition are only around for a year. If you actually want to ensure that every junior you hire will be an all star, then you engage in a more rigorous hiring process.

Plus, I would imagine it's pretty obvious in a small firm if someone is shirking (or can't hack it) and you can just fire them.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how you can possibly have a 100% hit rate on good hires from interview process. Good grades and good interviewing will not correlate 100% with being a good associate. Probably as much correlation as you can with the limited information. But it'll never be perfect. There's always going to be people who were good on paper but don't pan out, either due to the tough schedule, or being good at book learning and/or interviewing soft skills but not as good on the job. And being a good associate isn't the same skills as being a partner. If indeed SG always retains every single associate up through partner, they must have simply decided that a certain amount of bad hires is a good tradeoff or a reputation of guaranteed partnership, allowing them to recruit from the population that 90% of the time gives them good hires. There must be a handful of people who won the lottery and coast along being deadweight.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how you can possibly have a 100% hit rate on good hires from interview process. Good grades and good interviewing will not correlate 100% with being a good associate. Probably as much correlation as you can with the limited information. But it'll never be perfect. There's always going to be people who were good on paper but don't pan out, either due to the tough schedule, or being good at book learning and/or interviewing soft skills but not as good on the job. And being a good associate isn't the same skills as being a partner. If indeed SG always retains every single associate up through partner, they must have simply decided that a certain amount of bad hires is a good tradeoff or a reputation of guaranteed partnership, allowing them to recruit from the population that 90% of the time gives them good hires. There must be a handful of people who won the lottery and coast along being deadweight.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is it just based on what you think makes sense?

Also, the OP said that plenty of people leave voluntarily. It doesn't sound to me like a place where if you want to coast along being deadweight, you're going to enjoy sticking around, so define "voluntarily."

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how you can possibly have a 100% hit rate on good hires from interview process. Good grades and good interviewing will not correlate 100% with being a good associate. Probably as much correlation as you can with the limited information. But it'll never be perfect. There's always going to be people who were good on paper but don't pan out, either due to the tough schedule, or being good at book learning and/or interviewing soft skills but not as good on the job. And being a good associate isn't the same skills as being a partner. If indeed SG always retains every single associate up through partner, they must have simply decided that a certain amount of bad hires is a good tradeoff or a reputation of guaranteed partnership, allowing them to recruit from the population that 90% of the time gives them good hires. There must be a handful of people who won the lottery and coast along being deadweight.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is it just based on what you think makes sense?

Also, the OP said that plenty of people leave voluntarily. It doesn't sound to me like a place where if you want to coast along being deadweight, you're going to enjoy sticking around, so define "voluntarily."

Admittedly just gut feeling. I've never heard of a hiring process that was foolproof. And I know the job isn't predictable from law school outcomes.

Also I missed that "every associate makes partner" was contingence on some leaving voluntarily. I'm gonna guess it isn't always that voluntarily. Better than your typical "good enough to last 10 years doesn't mean you make partner" but it's more believable than saying you can know who is partner quality in the future based on a few hours of interviews and paper qualifications.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how you can possibly have a 100% hit rate on good hires from interview process. Good grades and good interviewing will not correlate 100% with being a good associate. Probably as much correlation as you can with the limited information. But it'll never be perfect. There's always going to be people who were good on paper but don't pan out, either due to the tough schedule, or being good at book learning and/or interviewing soft skills but not as good on the job. And being a good associate isn't the same skills as being a partner. If indeed SG always retains every single associate up through partner, they must have simply decided that a certain amount of bad hires is a good tradeoff or a reputation of guaranteed partnership, allowing them to recruit from the population that 90% of the time gives them good hires. There must be a handful of people who won the lottery and coast along being deadweight.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is it just based on what you think makes sense?

Also, the OP said that plenty of people leave voluntarily. It doesn't sound to me like a place where if you want to coast along being deadweight, you're going to enjoy sticking around, so define "voluntarily."

Admittedly just gut feeling. I've never heard of a hiring process that was foolproof. And I know the job isn't predictable from law school outcomes.

Also I missed that "every associate makes partner" was contingence on some leaving voluntarily. I'm gonna guess it isn't always that voluntarily. Better than your typical "good enough to last 10 years doesn't mean you make partner" but it's more believable than saying you can know who is partner quality in the future based on a few hours of interviews and paper qualifications.

Eh, based on my experience interviewing with Susman and similar firms, I think by the time there’s a serious conversation about a hire, technical skill and the ability of I work hard aren’t really in doubt. These are typically people with a couple of clerkships, excellent law school records, etc. those don’t really happen by accident. Maybe some people actually get to a courtroom and flame out, but IME, the question is much more do you have the actual will and entrepreneurialism to do it, and that’s a bit more amenable to an interview process.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how you can possibly have a 100% hit rate on good hires from interview process. Good grades and good interviewing will not correlate 100% with being a good associate. Probably as much correlation as you can with the limited information. But it'll never be perfect. There's always going to be people who were good on paper but don't pan out, either due to the tough schedule, or being good at book learning and/or interviewing soft skills but not as good on the job. And being a good associate isn't the same skills as being a partner. If indeed SG always retains every single associate up through partner, they must have simply decided that a certain amount of bad hires is a good tradeoff or a reputation of guaranteed partnership, allowing them to recruit from the population that 90% of the time gives them good hires. There must be a handful of people who won the lottery and coast along being deadweight.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is it just based on what you think makes sense?

Also, the OP said that plenty of people leave voluntarily. It doesn't sound to me like a place where if you want to coast along being deadweight, you're going to enjoy sticking around, so define "voluntarily."

Admittedly just gut feeling. I've never heard of a hiring process that was foolproof. And I know the job isn't predictable from law school outcomes.

Also I missed that "every associate makes partner" was contingence on some leaving voluntarily. I'm gonna guess it isn't always that voluntarily. Better than your typical "good enough to last 10 years doesn't mean you make partner" but it's more believable than saying you can know who is partner quality in the future based on a few hours of interviews and paper qualifications.

Eh, based on my experience interviewing with Susman and similar firms, I think by the time there’s a serious conversation about a hire, technical skill and the ability of I work hard aren’t really in doubt. These are typically people with a couple of clerkships, excellent law school records, etc. those don’t really happen by accident. Maybe some people actually get to a courtroom and flame out, but IME, the question is much more do you have the actual will and entrepreneurialism to do it, and that’s a bit more amenable to an interview process.

I don’t work at Susman, but I work at a selective place and have done the elite clerkship thing. I’ve worked with people as fancy as it gets, and even among the ultra-ultra-credentialed, there are still sometimes goobers. Not a ton, but it totally happens. I just can’t see how Susman or any firm could catch them on the front end with basically fit interviews. (I guess I’m assuming that Susman does fit interviews, but maybe not?h)

[Anonymous User]

Ten years old, but in Steve Susman's words:

Q: Wow. Why the insistence on clerkships?

A: We can call judges and ask them what they think of Joe Blow; we get candid references. We find it's more likely that someone will succeed at the firm if they've worked well [during their clerkship] and made an older lawyer happy.

Q: What's your vetting process?

A: If I spend one hour with someone, I can figure out whether we should hire them. If it's a choice between intellectual ability and personality, we'd choose intellectual ability.

https://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecar ... an-qa.html

Calling a judge and asking about strengths and weaknesses during a year-long clerkship is probably more reliable than the "spend one hour with someone" part.

[Anonymous User]

Why do "lots of people leave voluntarily?"

I remember hanging with a young SG associate long ago and then seeing them five years later. Shell of a person.

[Anonymous User]

Ten years old, but in Steve Susman's words:

Q: Wow. Why the insistence on clerkships?

A: We can call judges and ask them what they think of Joe Blow; we get candid references. We find it's more likely that someone will succeed at the firm if they've worked well [during their clerkship] and made an older lawyer happy.

Q: What's your vetting process?

A: If I spend one hour with someone, I can figure out whether we should hire them. If it's a choice between intellectual ability and personality, we'd choose intellectual ability.

https://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecar ... an-qa.html

Calling a judge and asking about strengths and weaknesses during a year-long clerkship is probably more reliable than the "spend one hour with someone" part.

Lol I love that Susman also basically says that he likes hiring attractive women

[Anonymous User]

Ten years old, but in Steve Susman's words:

Q: Wow. Why the insistence on clerkships?

A: We can call judges and ask them what they think of Joe Blow; we get candid references. We find it's more likely that someone will succeed at the firm if they've worked well [during their clerkship] and made an older lawyer happy.

Q: What's your vetting process?

A: If I spend one hour with someone, I can figure out whether we should hire them. If it's a choice between intellectual ability and personality, we'd choose intellectual ability.

https://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecar ... an-qa.html

Calling a judge and asking about strengths and weaknesses during a year-long clerkship is probably more reliable than the "spend one hour with someone" part.

Lol I love that Susman also basically says that he likes hiring attractive women

Basically? This is ridiculous and so blatantly sexist, especially "we've also had". Jeez!

"So who's the ideal fit?"

Someone who's clerked at the Supreme Court, is brilliant, and has theatrical presence. There's a theatrical aspect to trial work. We've also had phenomenal female lawyers who have great personality, are smart, and are pleasant to look at.

"Aren't you afraid some might find that last comment a bit sexist?"
You can ask anyone who has ever worked with me or at SG about whether we are [sexist], and I'm sure they will say no. I do think that any firm that tries jury cases needs a group of lawyers who have courtroom--i.e., theatrical--presence. A person's appearance, male or female, contributes to their presence.