Please help me decide: NY OCI offers Forum

[Anonymous User]

Currently have offers at Skadden, DPW, Cleary, Gibson Dunn, and K&E. Waiting on a Quinn Emanuel callback. Feeling so very, very fortunate to have these choices, so I hope this doesn't come off poorly. I have to make my decision by Friday because of an early firm deadline, but I'm really struggling in this remote world to get a gut sense for any of these places. I have a slight lean towards Skadden just from good interactions with partners and associates.

What i'm interested in: litigation, but not sure what group particularly. Maybe corporate as well? I haven't tried it yet. I want to work somewhere where the people are down to earth and relatable, and not absolutely crazy. I would love a place where associates get to touch substantive work early on, where there is good training, and, this sounds wild, have some respect for family life?

I would so appreciate any and all feedback on how I might be able to meaningfully choose between these great places!

[Anonymous User]

Maybe cleary if quality of life is important to you

[Anonymous User]

Ranked from best to worst reputation/quality of life

Cleary (best all around)
Gibson Dunn (well rounded)
Davis (nice enough)
Quinn Emanuel (not very bright)
K&E (sweatshop)
Skadden (treat employees like sh!t)

SOURCE - Years as big law paralegal. Friends and relatives work at most of these firms

[Anonymous User]

Quinn Emanuel (not very bright)

As in the attorneys are not very bright? Given their hiring standards, that seems almost impossible to believe.

[Anonymous User]

I would go DPW if you are undecided on corp or lit. If you are lit, I'd go GDC.

[Anonymous User]

I would go DPW if you are undecided on corp or lit. If you are lit, I'd go GDC.

Don’t wanna hijack thread but what if you add s&c to mix? I have a similar decision and really liked interviews with s&c but Ofc see the negativity on TLS about the firm

[Anonymous User]

I agree with several of the posters above that Cleary is likely the best match for you, because most of the firms are basically strong in litigation generally, but they likely have a better fit for you culturally, and to a lesser extent, quality of life. Many of the other criteria you have are pretty similar across these firms.

First, a note about the corporate side. Here, Gibson and Quinn are clear outliers that you should probably exclude. Gibson's corporate practice in NY is worse than the rest of the firms you're considering, and Quinn doesn't do corporate at all. Again, the rest of the firms are generally strong enough in corporate that without specifying a subgroup, it's not worth splitting hairs. However, I'd suggest that if you are leaning litigation, to go with your gut. I've found almost everyone who wants to do their due diligence by checking out the other side ends up preferring their original side. Thus, you can definitely cut Quinn (backed up by fit discussed below) and probably Gibson as well.

Thus, all that remains to consider is fit and quality of life. For fit, you want somewhere where "people are down to earth and relatable, and not absolutely crazy." Cleary is probably the best for this, as it tends to attract chiller, humbler people, although if you've meshed particularly well with people from Skadden, that's not something to disregard. Cleary people can be more intellectual and quirky which is not for everyone. DPW people tend to be more buttoned-up, and K&E and Skadden attract more aggressive, ambitious, and fratty people. All have a decent share of crazies. To the extent you're considering Gibson, they tend to be very extroverted, nice people, but not always so down to earth.

Unfortunately, most of these places won't really differ much in terms of how much substantive work you get early on, or how much respect for family life they have: not much. Cleary is maybe marginally better for respecting family life because of their generally better culture, but let's not kid ourselves that it's going to make much difference. Biglaw is biglaw. However, Cleary's lockstep compensation for partners (unique among these firms) does mean their culture is less focused on churning out 2500 hours or competing to make the biggest name for yourself, which helps with having some quality of life. Maybe when it comes to the big things like respecting parental leave. However, they all have good training programs, and you can get some real experience early on by doing pro bono. (Note Quinn would give you more experience early on, but it's likely not a good match for you because of the lack of corporate mentioned above, and the culture. While they might seem superficially "down to earth," because of their lack of dress code for example, they attract odd and intense people. I love some friends there, but it's true!)

Finally, I'll note that this is not a decision to rush. You will be spending a lot of time at the firm you choose. I you can't get an extension on the Friday deadline, I would strongly consider just cutting that firm and doing second looks with the rest you're seriously considering. (This is somewhat undermined if the Friday deadline is one you or the consensus is leaning towards, e.g. Cleary or Skadden, but still perhaps something to consider.)

[Anonymous User]

I would go DPW if you are undecided on corp or lit. If you are lit, I'd go GDC.

Don’t wanna hijack thread but what if you add s&c to mix? I have a similar decision and really liked interviews with s&c but Ofc see the negativity on TLS about the firm

S&C cares less about personality in their hiring, and more about GPA cutoffs. This means that some of those they extend offers to had great credentials on paper but don't have a great or conventional personality, at least in interviews. So they also have a higher than average share of crazies and screamers. Not everyone is like that, at all, but definitely higher than average for biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

hands down skadden, friend works there, said it’s got great exit options plus it’s easier moving down the vault ranking than moving up

[Anonymous User]

I agree with several of the posters above that Cleary is likely the best match for you, because most of the firms are basically strong in litigation generally, but they likely have a better fit for you culturally, and to a lesser extent, quality of life. Many of the other criteria you have are pretty similar across these firms.

First, a note about the corporate side. Here, Gibson and Quinn are clear outliers that you should probably exclude. Gibson's corporate practice in NY is worse than the rest of the firms you're considering, and Quinn doesn't do corporate at all. Again, the rest of the firms are generally strong enough in corporate that without specifying a subgroup, it's not worth splitting hairs. However, I'd suggest that if you are leaning litigation, to go with your gut. I've found almost everyone who wants to do their due diligence by checking out the other side ends up preferring their original side. Thus, you can definitely cut Quinn (backed up by fit discussed below) and probably Gibson as well.

Thus, all that remains to consider is fit and quality of life. For fit, you want somewhere where "people are down to earth and relatable, and not absolutely crazy." Cleary is probably the best for this, as it tends to attract chiller, humbler people, although if you've meshed particularly well with people from Skadden, that's not something to disregard. Cleary people can be more intellectual and quirky which is not for everyone. DPW people tend to be more buttoned-up, and K&E and Skadden attract more aggressive, ambitious, and fratty people. All have a decent share of crazies. To the extent you're considering Gibson, they tend to be very extroverted, nice people, but not always so down to earth.

Unfortunately, most of these places won't really differ much in terms of how much substantive work you get early on, or how much respect for family life they have: not much. Cleary is maybe marginally better for respecting family life because of their generally better culture, but let's not kid ourselves that it's going to make much difference. Biglaw is biglaw. However, Cleary's lockstep compensation for partners (unique among these firms) does mean their culture is less focused on churning out 2500 hours or competing to make the biggest name for yourself, which helps with having some quality of life. Maybe when it comes to the big things like respecting parental leave. However, they all have good training programs, and you can get some real experience early on by doing pro bono. (Note Quinn would give you more experience early on, but it's likely not a good match for you because of the lack of corporate mentioned above, and the culture. While they might seem superficially "down to earth," because of their lack of dress code for example, they attract odd and intense people. I love some friends there, but it's true!)

Finally, I'll note that this is not a decision to rush. You will be spending a lot of time at the firm you choose. I you can't get an extension on the Friday deadline, I would strongly consider just cutting that firm and doing second looks with the rest you're seriously considering. (This is somewhat undermined if the Friday deadline is one you or the consensus is leaning towards, e.g. Cleary or Skadden, but still perhaps something to consider.)

Wow! this was amazing. Thank you for taking so much time to write this out for me. It is extremely helpful.

[Anonymous User]

Ranked from best to worst reputation/quality of life

Cleary (best all around)
Gibson Dunn (well rounded)
Davis (nice enough)
Quinn Emanuel (not very bright)
K&E (sweatshop)
Skadden (treat employees like sh!t)

SOURCE - Years as big law paralegal. Friends and relatives work at most of these firms

thank you!!!

[Anonymous User]

I agree with several of the posters above that Cleary is likely the best match for you, because most of the firms are basically strong in litigation generally, but they likely have a better fit for you culturally, and to a lesser extent, quality of life. Many of the other criteria you have are pretty similar across these firms.

First, a note about the corporate side. Here, Gibson and Quinn are clear outliers that you should probably exclude. Gibson's corporate practice in NY is worse than the rest of the firms you're considering, and Quinn doesn't do corporate at all. Again, the rest of the firms are generally strong enough in corporate that without specifying a subgroup, it's not worth splitting hairs. However, I'd suggest that if you are leaning litigation, to go with your gut. I've found almost everyone who wants to do their due diligence by checking out the other side ends up preferring their original side. Thus, you can definitely cut Quinn (backed up by fit discussed below) and probably Gibson as well.

Thus, all that remains to consider is fit and quality of life. For fit, you want somewhere where "people are down to earth and relatable, and not absolutely crazy." Cleary is probably the best for this, as it tends to attract chiller, humbler people, although if you've meshed particularly well with people from Skadden, that's not something to disregard. Cleary people can be more intellectual and quirky which is not for everyone. DPW people tend to be more buttoned-up, and K&E and Skadden attract more aggressive, ambitious, and fratty people. All have a decent share of crazies. To the extent you're considering Gibson, they tend to be very extroverted, nice people, but not always so down to earth.

Unfortunately, most of these places won't really differ much in terms of how much substantive work you get early on, or how much respect for family life they have: not much. Cleary is maybe marginally better for respecting family life because of their generally better culture, but let's not kid ourselves that it's going to make much difference. Biglaw is biglaw. However, Cleary's lockstep compensation for partners (unique among these firms) does mean their culture is less focused on churning out 2500 hours or competing to make the biggest name for yourself, which helps with having some quality of life. Maybe when it comes to the big things like respecting parental leave. However, they all have good training programs, and you can get some real experience early on by doing pro bono. (Note Quinn would give you more experience early on, but it's likely not a good match for you because of the lack of corporate mentioned above, and the culture. While they might seem superficially "down to earth," because of their lack of dress code for example, they attract odd and intense people. I love some friends there, but it's true!)

Finally, I'll note that this is not a decision to rush. You will be spending a lot of time at the firm you choose. I you can't get an extension on the Friday deadline, I would strongly consider just cutting that firm and doing second looks with the rest you're seriously considering. (This is somewhat undermined if the Friday deadline is one you or the consensus is leaning towards, e.g. Cleary or Skadden, but still perhaps something to consider.)

Wow! this was amazing. Thank you for taking so much time to write this out for me. It is extremely helpful.

Would you mind elaborating on the Quinn culture? Have similar choices but set on litigation.

[Anonymous User]

I would go DPW if you are undecided on corp or lit. If you are lit, I'd go GDC.

Don’t wanna hijack thread but what if you add s&c to mix? I have a similar decision and really liked interviews with s&c but Ofc see the negativity on TLS about the firm

S&C cares less about personality in their hiring, and more about GPA cutoffs. This means that some of those they extend offers to had great credentials on paper but don't have a great or conventional personality, at least in interviews. So they also have a higher than average share of crazies and screamers. Not everyone is like that, at all, but definitely higher than average for biglaw.

FWIW, I worked in S&C NY HQ for 2 years (not as a lawyer) and NEVER saw any partner I'd describe as a screamer or a crazy. Intensely smart and high expectations yes. I think they get an undeservedly terrible rap on TLS though and don't understand it at all after working there for a time (I also had access to several partners' and associates' email inboxes and never saw anything remotely hostile). The people are very nice and partners are mostly personable (gotta be to drive business to the firm). Definitely some socially inept associates because of the GPA focus though. I think the "traditional" x "professional" vibe turns people off/makes it easier to bash them but I don't know why they stand out this way on the forum.