Selendy & Gay vs generic V10 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any idea on choosing between this? By generic V10 I mean S&C/Cravath/PW/GDC etc.

I want to stay at a firm for as long as possible, but Selendy’s emphasis on developing trial skills is enticing. I don’t know much about the firm, and am unclear about its future financial prospects. I’ve noticed some associates at Selendy have lateraled over from other big firms. is there a benefit to doing this as opposed to going to Selendy straight from school? Would it be hard to jump from Selendy back to biglaw a couple of years down the road?

I am also fairly risk-averse, and have a significant amount of debt I need to pay off, which I would like to do as quickly as possible. What are the chances of Selendy going belly-up within a few years (e.g., another market downturn)?

[Anonymous User]

No, there are threads on TLS about S&G. I wouldn’t go there over a prestige law firm like S&C or CSM, or even a good one like P,W or GDC. I interviewed there and turned down an offer when I saw how toxic some of the partners were, and I can’t imagine you could easily avoid them.

You can always go to S&G if you want to later on down the road; you can’t go the other way. Besides, S&G isn’t prestigious or that selective. There are tons of people with bad credentials there.

Not OP. Could you elaborate on the toxicity? I have a callback coming up and really liked my screener interviewers. Also, what do you mean with bad credentials? The associates almost all went to top schools and most had clerkships. Did you mean prior work experience or something?

[Iowahawk]

There are tons of people with bad credentials there.

Are you sure you're thinking of the right firm? It's not Susman but basically all of its attys are T14 and a bunch are federal clerks

[Sackboy]

There are tons of people with bad credentials there.

Are you sure you're thinking of the right firm? It's not Susman but basically all of its attys are T14 and a bunch are federal clerks

This anon is a straight up troll. I went through the profiles of all the attorneys at the firm. Here they are:

10 Harvard
6 Yale
5 NYU
4 Columbia
3 Stanford
3 Michigan
3 Cornell
3 Georgetown
2 Northwestern
Penn
Duke
Berkeley
UCLA
Cardozo
Baylor

Separately, these are their new 1st years:

2 Yale
Harvard
NYU

Where are the bad credentials? Almost all of these people had cum laude, magna cum laude, order of the coif, etc. by their names. Of the 49 attorneys, only 3 didn't attend T14 schools, and the Baylor woman was literally #1 in her class and I suspect the situation is similar for the Cardozo/UCLA folks.

I don't have a horse in this race, but the anon OP seems like total flame.

[Iowahawk]

The Baylor and Cardozo ones were also federal clerks (double, in the former case). And now that I notice it this prestige vs. good categorization also suggests a troll:

I wouldn’t go there over a prestige law firm like S&C or CSM, or even a good one like P,W or GDC.

Hope you get an actually useful answer OP!

[Anonymous User]

Thanks , all. I care about prestige only to the extent it maximizes my exit options. Is it normal for people from places like Selendy to jump back into biglaw? Does anyone have a take on what Selendy’s financial stability looks like/know how I can find out more?

[Sackboy]

Thanks , all. I care about prestige only to the extent it maximizes my exit options. Is it normal for people from places like Selendy to jump back into biglaw? Does anyone have a take on what Selendy’s financial stability looks like/know how I can find out more?

(1) If they wanted to, they'd have no problem jumping into a V10. Most people at high-end lit boutiques, however, do not want to leave or go to some prestigious gov't exit if they do.

(2) There is no way to tell but based on the growth of the firm since it's inception and its partnership my guess is that it's doing quite well.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I know two associates at S&G and they have reputations for being really, really smart. They could work at elite firms (and did during their 2L summers) but decided to work at S&G.

Whether you're willing to give up the higher predictability and financial stability of the traditional firms is a personal choice you have to make.

[Anonymous User]

Agreed with the other posters that the first response was a troll.

Know personally an associate at S&G, who could easily go anywhere he wants.

I think you'd have no problem going to any other law firm. You might have a slightly more difficult time going in-house than a traditional elite biglaw firm just because a lot of times people go in-house to clients, and, being at a smaller firm, you'll have access to fewer of them.

[Anonymous User]

No, there are threads on TLS about S&G. I wouldn’t go there over a prestige law firm like S&C or CSM, or even a good one like P,W or GDC. I interviewed there and turned down an offer when I saw how toxic some of the partners were, and I can’t imagine you could easily avoid them.

You can always go to S&G if you want to later on down the road; you can’t go the other way. Besides, S&G isn’t prestigious or that selective. There are tons of people with bad credentials there.

Not OP. Could you elaborate on the toxicity? I have a callback coming up and really liked my screener interviewers. Also, what do you mean with bad credentials? The associates almost all went to top schools and most had clerkships. Did you mean prior work experience or something?

I have never worked at Selendy but I worked with more than one of the partners there while they were at Quinn and the partners I worked with ranged from not particularly nice but big law standard to some of the nicest people I’ve ever met so I would be very surprised if there were a “toxic” culture.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for all your takes. That's definitely a lot more positive than I was expecting and sounds almost like a no-brainer to me in that case.