Firms with the most normal or weird people? Another firm culture thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

There are certainly differences. The thing is, do you want to pay the price to work with people you like? I lateraled to a V50, and gave up a top firm, because I could see the team was composed of generally decent people and I wanted to be happy again. Most people, when it comes down to it, won’t make the sacrifice if it comes at the cost of money, partnership prospects, quality of work, etc. I’m a 7th year and that’s been my observation.

[Anonymous User]

There are certainly differences. The thing is, do you want to pay the price to work with people you like? I lateraled to a V50, and gave up a top firm, because I could see the team was composed of generally decent people and I wanted to be happy again. Most people, when it comes down to it, won’t make the sacrifice if it comes at the cost of money, partnership prospects, quality of work, etc. I’m a 7th year and that’s been my observation.

Back when I did OCI, I had screeners with 25 DC firms and callbacks with a dozen of them. I went to recruiting events for a handful more.

Of all of them, the only one I actively disliked was Sullivan & Cromwell. Bleh, they were awkward, snobby, difficult to hold a conversation with, and just all-around bad vibes. Again, I had positive or at least neutral reactions with like 30 other firms in DC.

[Anonymous User]

My strongest negative experiences have been with Gibson. Everyone I have met from there/worked across from there was somewhere on the spectrum between truly insufferable and a real pain in the ass.

[Anonymous User]

There are certainly differences. The thing is, do you want to pay the price to work with people you like? I lateraled to a V50, and gave up a top firm, because I could see the team was composed of generally decent people and I wanted to be happy again. Most people, when it comes down to it, won’t make the sacrifice if it comes at the cost of money, partnership prospects, quality of work, etc. I’m a 7th year and that’s been my observation.

Back when I did OCI, I had screeners with 25 DC firms and callbacks with a dozen of them. I went to recruiting events for a handful more.

Of all of them, the only one I actively disliked was Sullivan & Cromwell. Bleh, they were awkward, snobby, difficult to hold a conversation with, and just all-around bad vibes. Again, I had positive or at least neutral reactions with like 30 other firms in DC.

Same here to a T.

[Anonymous User]

There are certainly differences. The thing is, do you want to pay the price to work with people you like? I lateraled to a V50, and gave up a top firm, because I could see the team was composed of generally decent people and I wanted to be happy again. Most people, when it comes down to it, won’t make the sacrifice if it comes at the cost of money, partnership prospects, quality of work, etc. I’m a 7th year and that’s been my observation.

Back when I did OCI, I had screeners with 25 DC firms and callbacks with a dozen of them. I went to recruiting events for a handful more.

Of all of them, the only one I actively disliked was Sullivan & Cromwell. Bleh, they were awkward, snobby, difficult to hold a conversation with, and just all-around bad vibes. Again, I had positive or at least neutral reactions with like 30 other firms in DC.

Same here to a T.

100% agree. Some of S&C associates were fine but trying to hold a conversation with a few of them was like pulling teeth. They were clearly smart but def lacking in social awareness

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 1L and have gone to a lot of networking events for the past few months. Most of them were virtual but some were in person. I went to a recruiting event with a known grade snobby firm and the associates were mostly awkward or visibly shy. Another grade snobby firm had associates who were dismissive and plainly looked like they didn't want to be at the event. On the other side, I've gone to other firm events that had really all around cool people. Maybe the recruiters picked the right or wrong people for the events I've seen.

Do folks here have any insight to other firm cultures? A friend told me that grade snobby firms tend to have more socially awkward people and that certain practice areas concentrate more extroverted people.

Original OP here — I must confess that, like what others have said in this thread, the firm with the dismissive associates were the S&C associates

[Anonymous User]

There are certainly differences. The thing is, do you want to pay the price to work with people you like? I lateraled to a V50, and gave up a top firm, because I could see the team was composed of generally decent people and I wanted to be happy again. Most people, when it comes down to it, won’t make the sacrifice if it comes at the cost of money, partnership prospects, quality of work, etc. I’m a 7th year and that’s been my observation.

Back when I did OCI, I had screeners with 25 DC firms and callbacks with a dozen of them. I went to recruiting events for a handful more.

Of all of them, the only one I actively disliked was Sullivan & Cromwell. Bleh, they were awkward, snobby, difficult to hold a conversation with, and just all-around bad vibes. Again, I had positive or at least neutral reactions with like 30 other firms in DC.

Same here to a T.

100% agree. Some of S&C associates were fine but trying to hold a conversation with a few of them was like pulling teeth. They were clearly smart but def lacking in social awareness

Turned down S&C for this reason. Went to Debevoise on lit side. Found people to be pretty nice in general but most partners are pretty intense, sometimes about totally weird things (but think that's normal for everywhere). Switched to a more lifestyle known midsize and people are interchangeable but working 10% slower seems acceptable (at least that's what I'm going with).

[Anonymous User]

Not sure about the normal/weird distinction — but almost everyone I’ve met from Cleary has seemed genuinely nice. Almost wish I had gone there instead of my current firm.

[Anonymous User]

My firm sends me to many of its recruiting events, which I think is hilarious because I'm definitely the most awkward associate in my class. Not at all representative.

[Anonymous User]

I was a 1L in 2017, so networking events may be different now, but my general approach was to talk to a few people, but really find one who I could spend a lot of time talking to/get to know (aka someone I like) and then ask them more pointed questions about how they like the firm. Generally I would find someone I perceived as similar to myself and then would ask them about fit etc etc. I found this produced more candid responses and even had a mentorship feel to it. I’m actually still in contact with a handful of the people I met in this process.

Also, I’d add that with current market turnover, I’d expect that most people you’d meet at a networking event now would be gone by the time you started at the firm

[Anonymous User]

I find the D.C. office people pretty down-to-earth, and they seem more likely to have families in my experience than NY people (but I have pretty much only interacted with lit/reg people in D.C., so maybe that makes a difference).

[Anonymous User]

I agree with most of the posts ITT that by in large most firms I interviewed at seemed indistinguishable at networking events. Picking a firm based on those interactions feels like splitting hairs.

With that said, although this is probably controversial, I do still think there is still something important about firm culture. Sure, I could get along with associates from pretty much every firm. I think that's what people are recognizing here. But what matters to me more is how associates/partners interact on a day to day basis. Some shops (e.g., Skadden?) may expect you to build more of a social life around your firm whereas others might not. Some firms may run flat teams with direct partner interaction whereas others might not. Some firms might have more water cooler talk or a more cohesive dynamic in a particular group, whereas others might not. Whether you want any of these is a personal preference - there are arguments on both sides for each. But these types of things do have a big impact on what life looks like after you join a firm.

Getting at this information is no easy task. You have to look out for nuances when you go for a callback or follow up with attorneys after an offer. You could also try to figure out some of these with questions like do you see colleagues outside of work? What social events did the firm run pre-covid? How much did you speak on team calls/work directly with a partner as a first year? But everybody is going to be in sell mode, so the answers may be vague and unhelpful.

[Anonymous User]

I find Latham attorneys to be "normal," but to have some of the biggest egos I have seen in the legal profession, particularly in the DC and Chicago offices.

[Anonymous User]

I've mostly found Paul Comma Weiss attorneys difficult to deal with

[Anonymous User]

I've mostly found Paul Comma Weiss attorneys difficult to deal with

Sorry if this is less relevant, but one weird nuance of litigation is that what you see from the other side of the v is not always what someone is like in real life. Posturing is a real thing. For example, there's this one partner at a firm I'm frequently adverse to who I find to be inconsiderate, incomprehensible, incompetent, and generally insufferable. But I also have a really close colleague who is personal friends with that partner who says the partner is the kindest and most genuine person they know. Suffice to say sometimes it's hard to tell much about a firm's culture/employees from the outside.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK is pretty weird. Nice but weird.

[Anonymous User]

My strongest negative experiences have been with Gibson. Everyone I have met from there/worked across from there was somewhere on the spectrum between truly insufferable and a real pain in the ass.

Couldn't agree with this more. Particularly the GDC lawyers in random places like Dallas and Denver, as well (less surprisingly) as the DC mothership. NY dudes seem cooler, but I've also heard multiple GDC lawyers (including partners, lol) sh*t-talk their NY colleagues because they're not "the cream of the crop." Utterly gross.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK is pretty weird. Nice but weird.

Probably the sleep deprivation from consistently billing 3000+ catching up.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK is pretty weird. Nice but weird.

Probably the sleep deprivation from consistently billing 3000+ catching up.

Can anyone confirm whether WLRK associates are in fact billing close to 3000 hours a year?

[Anonymous User]

WLRK is pretty weird. Nice but weird.

Probably the sleep deprivation from consistently billing 3000+ catching up.

Can anyone confirm whether WLRK associates are in fact billing close to 3000 hours a year?

I'm always mystified by how people just refuse to believe that people at WLRK work substantially more than even the other NYC sweatshops. Their revenue per lawyer is literally double the next highest firm. And yes, I'm sure they still do occasionally get a percentage of the deal, but do we really think their litigators bill out at twice S&C's rates or do they just work more?

If you're looking for random anecdotes, I can tell you that almost no one works less than 80 hours a week.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK is pretty weird. Nice but weird.

Probably the sleep deprivation from consistently billing 3000+ catching up.

Can anyone confirm whether WLRK associates are in fact billing close to 3000 hours a year?

I'm always mystified by how people just refuse to believe that people at WLRK work substantially more than even the other NYC sweatshops. Their revenue per lawyer is literally double the next highest firm. And yes, I'm sure they still do occasionally get a percentage of the deal, but do we really think their litigators bill out at twice S&C's rates or do they just work more?

If you're looking for random anecdotes, I can tell you that almost no one works less than 80 hours a week.

This is a weird take. I'm not refusing to believe anything. I just want real evidence and not speculation. It is hard to believe that associates that bill 3,000 hours a year still deliver top quality work products. A long time ago, an HBS case study on WLRK reported that WLRK charged clients for the value of service provided, not just billable hours. Things may have changed. But if that's still true to some extent, that may explain the high revenue per lawyer instead of just incredibly large billable hours.

You don't have to be at Wachtell to bill over 80 hours a week. At this satellite office of a V20 firm that I'm in, every associate bills over 80 hours every week.

[Anonymous User]

delete

[Anonymous User]

I've mostly found Paul Comma Weiss attorneys difficult to deal with

Sorry if this is less relevant, but one weird nuance of litigation is that what you see from the other side of the v is not always what someone is like in real life. Posturing is a real thing. For example, there's this one partner at a firm I'm frequently adverse to who I find to be inconsiderate, incomprehensible, incompetent, and generally insufferable. But I also have a really close colleague who is personal friends with that partner who says the partner is the kindest and most genuine person they know. Suffice to say sometimes it's hard to tell much about a firm's culture/employees from the outside.

I work in corporate so my expectation of cooperation is a bit higher than in litigation. on corp side my impression is it's a good firm but they take themselves pretty seriously + let dickhead clients like Apollo (and dickheads partners like Barshay) drive their culture

Of course corp is a bit of a sideshow at PW, and big time litigation is their bread and butter.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK is pretty weird. Nice but weird.

Probably the sleep deprivation from consistently billing 3000+ catching up.

Can anyone confirm whether WLRK associates are in fact billing close to 3000 hours a year?

I'm always mystified by how people just refuse to believe that people at WLRK work substantially more than even the other NYC sweatshops. Their revenue per lawyer is literally double the next highest firm. And yes, I'm sure they still do occasionally get a percentage of the deal, but do we really think their litigators bill out at twice S&C's rates or do they just work more?

If you're looking for random anecdotes, I can tell you that almost no one works less than 80 hours a week.

This is a weird take. I'm not refusing to believe anything. I just want real evidence and not speculation. It is hard to believe that associates that bill 3,000 hours a year still deliver top quality work products. A long time ago, an HBS case study on WLRK reported that WLRK charged clients for the value of service provided, not just billable hours. Things may have changed. But if that's still true to some extent, that may explain the high revenue per lawyer instead of just incredibly large billable hours.

You don't have to be at Wachtell to bill over 80 hours a week. At this satellite office of a V20 firm that I'm in, every associate bills over 80 hours every week.

If you won’t accept the fact that their RPL is nearly $4 million and they do an insane volume of large and complex deals with so few attorneys, then there’s not going to be hard evidence. The corporate people I know there more often than not work over 3,000 hours and some have hit 4,000, and say they are not relative stars to their peers.

[Anonymous User]

WLRK is pretty weird. Nice but weird.

Probably the sleep deprivation from consistently billing 3000+ catching up.

Can anyone confirm whether WLRK associates are in fact billing close to 3000 hours a year?

I'm always mystified by how people just refuse to believe that people at WLRK work substantially more than even the other NYC sweatshops. Their revenue per lawyer is literally double the next highest firm. And yes, I'm sure they still do occasionally get a percentage of the deal, but do we really think their litigators bill out at twice S&C's rates or do they just work more?

If you're looking for random anecdotes, I can tell you that almost no one works less than 80 hours a week.

This is a weird take. I'm not refusing to believe anything. I just want real evidence and not speculation. It is hard to believe that associates that bill 3,000 hours a year still deliver top quality work products. A long time ago, an HBS case study on WLRK reported that WLRK charged clients for the value of service provided, not just billable hours. Things may have changed. But if that's still true to some extent, that may explain the high revenue per lawyer instead of just incredibly large billable hours.

You don't have to be at Wachtell to bill over 80 hours a week. At this satellite office of a V20 firm that I'm in, every associate bills over 80 hours every week.

If you won’t accept the fact that their RPL is nearly $4 million and they do an insane volume of large and complex deals with so few attorneys, then there’s not going to be hard evidence. The corporate people I know there more often than not work over 3,000 hours and some have hit 4,000, and say they are not relative stars to their peers.

You didn't read my post, did you? The high revenue per lawyer may not be all about billable hours as is the case in generic big law firms. 3,000 hours? Yes, that's possible. My friend who used to work at Cleary's HK office did that in one year and lateraled out promptly thereafter. Associates in major Japanese local firms bill over 3,000 hours a year. But 4,000? Come on. Are you a Cravath/STB/DPW/S&C associate that got rejected by WLRK? 4,000 is not possible. Just accept that WLRK associates are smarter and get double the money you earn for working just a bit more hours than you do.