Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
PaperView

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:50 pm

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by PaperView » Wed May 10, 2023 3:05 pm

So Law.com announced the U.S. News & World Reports top law school list will be released tomorrow, and it feels like I'm waiting for bar results all over again.

How soon should I start trying to lateral if my school goes down a spot?

On my way to meet my therapist but I'm honestly freaking out.

Only way I don't get shitcanned is if they withdraw the list again and my school stays in the same position or better.

Kinda think rising 2Ls are in the same position but with having their offers withdrawn if their school sinks so posting this here.

Everyone already knows that Dechert just laid off 5% of its workforce.

That's almost as bad as Kirkland's layoffs.

Help please. I'm honestly having a panic attack.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 10, 2023 4:50 pm

PaperView wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 3:05 pm
So Law.com announced the U.S. News & World Reports top law school list will be released tomorrow, and it feels like I'm waiting for bar results all over again.

How soon should I start trying to lateral if my school goes down a spot?

On my way to meet my therapist but I'm honestly freaking out.

Only way I don't get shitcanned is if they withdraw the list again and my school stays in the same position or better.

Kinda think rising 2Ls are in the same position but with having their offers withdrawn if their school sinks so posting this here.

Everyone already knows that Dechert just laid off 5% of its workforce.

That's almost as bad as Kirkland's layoffs.

Help please. I'm honestly having a panic attack.
Touch grass

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 21, 2023 4:35 pm

Does anybody know when McDermott's start date is for new associates?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 25, 2023 5:14 pm

PaperView wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 3:05 pm
So Law.com announced the U.S. News & World Reports top law school list will be released tomorrow, and it feels like I'm waiting for bar results all over again.

How soon should I start trying to lateral if my school goes down a spot?

On my way to meet my therapist but I'm honestly freaking out.

Only way I don't get shitcanned is if they withdraw the list again and my school stays in the same position or better.

Kinda think rising 2Ls are in the same position but with having their offers withdrawn if their school sinks so posting this here.

Everyone already knows that Dechert just laid off 5% of its workforce.

That's almost as bad as Kirkland's layoffs.

Help please. I'm honestly having a panic attack.
If this post is real, chill. Employers don't care or pay attention to the rankings, rather the rankings reflect how well schools are doing at employing people. No one past people applying to law school and snobbish law students pay attention to rankings.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Sat May 27, 2023 12:50 pm

I think that, in practice, it's hard to avoid these firms. For example if you want to do M&A in NY, nobody is choosing a sketchy shop like Dechert or Ropes or Goodwin if they have a DPW/STB/S&C offer.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 28, 2023 12:55 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:50 pm
I think that, in practice, it's hard to avoid these firms. For example if you want to do M&A in NY, nobody is choosing a sketchy shop like Dechert or Ropes or Goodwin if they have a DPW/STB/S&C offer.
subtle STB pump

User avatar
charles117

Bronze
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:00 pm

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by charles117 » Sun May 28, 2023 4:39 pm

definitely avoid bsf

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 29, 2023 2:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 12:55 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:50 pm
I think that, in practice, it's hard to avoid these firms. For example if you want to do M&A in NY, nobody is choosing a sketchy shop like Dechert or Ropes or Goodwin if they have a DPW/STB/S&C offer.
subtle STB pump
For M&A I think they belong up there

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 30, 2023 2:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 2:27 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 12:55 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:50 pm
I think that, in practice, it's hard to avoid these firms. For example if you want to do M&A in NY, nobody is choosing a sketchy shop like Dechert or Ropes or Goodwin if they have a DPW/STB/S&C offer.
subtle STB pump
For M&A I think they belong up there
They are a top tier shop for PE M&A, but IME - people weren't really going to STB if they had Davis Polk or S&C offers in hand

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 30, 2023 9:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue May 30, 2023 2:47 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 2:27 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 12:55 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:50 pm
I think that, in practice, it's hard to avoid these firms. For example if you want to do M&A in NY, nobody is choosing a sketchy shop like Dechert or Ropes or Goodwin if they have a DPW/STB/S&C offer.
subtle STB pump
For M&A I think they belong up there
They are a top tier shop for PE M&A, but IME - people weren't really going to STB if they had Davis Polk or S&C offers in hand
agree with this. The few I know who chose Simpson over the other two (and maybe Cravath too) really wanted funds work, real estate M&A, and/or PE M&A and were pretty informed about why they wanted those practice areas. But just going back to the topic of the thread, Simpson has really pleasant people among white shoe firms (or law firms in general) and it's doing very well financially, so not a firm for rising 2Ls to avoid.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am

damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:18 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
No, peak law student would be taking any of the firms to avoid over either. I can lay this out for the young whippersnappers.

Cooley / Gunderson
Rationale: tech is cool
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

Kirkland & Ellis
Rationale: bonuses that shatter
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs / doesn’t shatter for most associates

Goodwin Proctor
Rationale: culture
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

White & Case / Shearman
Rationale: international law
Why it’s flame: layoffs

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
Disagree - if you are doing it because you are actually interested in doing REIT/PE M&A, it is perfectly justified

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:18 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
No, peak law student would be taking any of the firms to avoid over either. I can lay this out for the young whippersnappers.

Cooley / Gunderson
Rationale: tech is cool
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

Kirkland & Ellis
Rationale: bonuses that shatter
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs / doesn’t shatter for most associates

Goodwin Proctor
Rationale: culture
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs
I can buy the W&C/Shearman one, but these three don’t make as much sense to me—the layoffs are over, and unless you believe the market’s going to get worse a junior would probably have normal market job security, no? And that’s before we discount speciality group interests etc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
Disagree - if you are doing it because you are actually interested in doing REIT/PE M&A, it is perfectly justified
The only thing law students should be interested in is vault prestige

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:02 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:18 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
No, peak law student would be taking any of the firms to avoid over either. I can lay this out for the young whippersnappers.

Cooley / Gunderson
Rationale: tech is cool
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

Kirkland & Ellis
Rationale: bonuses that shatter
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs / doesn’t shatter for most associates

Goodwin Proctor
Rationale: culture
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs
I can buy the W&C/Shearman one, but these three don’t make as much sense to me—the layoffs are over, and unless you believe the market’s going to get worse a junior would probably have normal market job security, no? And that’s before we discount speciality group interests etc.
Wait, what? How do you know layoffs are over? Once a partnership has done layoffs they’ve signaled their willingness to do them again. Case in point, Dechert.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:44 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:02 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:18 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
No, peak law student would be taking any of the firms to avoid over either. I can lay this out for the young whippersnappers.

Cooley / Gunderson
Rationale: tech is cool
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

Kirkland & Ellis
Rationale: bonuses that shatter
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs / doesn’t shatter for most associates

Goodwin Proctor
Rationale: culture
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs
I can buy the W&C/Shearman one, but these three don’t make as much sense to me—the layoffs are over, and unless you believe the market’s going to get worse a junior would probably have normal market job security, no? And that’s before we discount speciality group interests etc.
Wait, what? How do you know layoffs are over? Once a partnership has done layoffs they’ve signaled their willingness to do them again. Case in point, Dechert.
Market’s improving, and while I could see more instability at Cooley/Gunderson/Goodwin (side note: did Fenwick or WSGR have the same reaction? I haven’t heard much but have been low-key assuming they also had layoffs) give their tech exposure I’m not sure the non-tech firms that did layoffs would do more.

When you think about why non-tech firms did layoffs, it’s because they overhired subpar associates in the massive pandemic PE boom, usually in backwater offices (cough KE cough), which is the same category that took the brunt of the layoffs (I do think I saw someone talk about a few Chicago layoffs at KE though, so YMMV). At this point, a big chunk of that increase is gone and I don’t see why firms would make more cuts without another major shift.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:52 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:44 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:02 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:18 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
No, peak law student would be taking any of the firms to avoid over either. I can lay this out for the young whippersnappers.

Cooley / Gunderson
Rationale: tech is cool
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

Kirkland & Ellis
Rationale: bonuses that shatter
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs / doesn’t shatter for most associates

Goodwin Proctor
Rationale: culture
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs
I can buy the W&C/Shearman one, but these three don’t make as much sense to me—the layoffs are over, and unless you believe the market’s going to get worse a junior would probably have normal market job security, no? And that’s before we discount speciality group interests etc.
Wait, what? How do you know layoffs are over? Once a partnership has done layoffs they’ve signaled their willingness to do them again. Case in point, Dechert.
Market’s improving, and while I could see more instability at Cooley/Gunderson/Goodwin (side note: did Fenwick or WSGR have the same reaction? I haven’t heard much but have been low-key assuming they also had layoffs) give their tech exposure I’m not sure the non-tech firms that did layoffs would do more.

When you think about why non-tech firms did layoffs, it’s because they overhired subpar associates in the massive pandemic PE boom, usually in backwater offices (cough KE cough), which is the same category that took the brunt of the layoffs (I do think I saw someone talk about a few Chicago layoffs at KE though, so YMMV). At this point, a big chunk of that increase is gone and I don’t see why firms would make more cuts without another major shift.
I think you may be correct that, for some of these firms, the brunt of the layoffs has already occurred. But I still think any firm that laid off juniors deserves to be on the “avoid” list, even if the possibility of further cuts is remote.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:26 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
Disagree - if you are doing it because you are actually interested in doing REIT/PE M&A, it is perfectly justified
The only thing law students should be interested in is vault prestige
Unironically this tho. There is literally no individual more undecided and mercurial than a summer associate at a large law firm. If you're going to a firm because you're interested in a niche area, prepare to regret it in 2 years.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:11 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:54 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:26 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
Disagree - if you are doing it because you are actually interested in doing REIT/PE M&A, it is perfectly justified
The only thing law students should be interested in is vault prestige
Unironically this tho. There is literally no individual more undecided and mercurial than a summer associate at a large law firm. If you're going to a firm because you're interested in a niche area, prepare to regret it in 2 years.
Vault prestige would lead someone to Cooley, Goodwin, et al, when they could go have much stronger job security at a Willkie or a Fried Frank.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:05 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:45 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:52 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:44 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:02 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:18 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
No, peak law student would be taking any of the firms to avoid over either. I can lay this out for the young whippersnappers.

Cooley / Gunderson
Rationale: tech is cool
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

Kirkland & Ellis
Rationale: bonuses that shatter
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs / doesn’t shatter for most associates

Goodwin Proctor
Rationale: culture
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs
I can buy the W&C/Shearman one, but these three don’t make as much sense to me—the layoffs are over, and unless you believe the market’s going to get worse a junior would probably have normal market job security, no? And that’s before we discount speciality group interests etc.
Wait, what? How do you know layoffs are over? Once a partnership has done layoffs they’ve signaled their willingness to do them again. Case in point, Dechert.
Market’s improving, and while I could see more instability at Cooley/Gunderson/Goodwin (side note: did Fenwick or WSGR have the same reaction? I haven’t heard much but have been low-key assuming they also had layoffs) give their tech exposure I’m not sure the non-tech firms that did layoffs would do more.

When you think about why non-tech firms did layoffs, it’s because they overhired subpar associates in the massive pandemic PE boom, usually in backwater offices (cough KE cough), which is the same category that took the brunt of the layoffs (I do think I saw someone talk about a few Chicago layoffs at KE though, so YMMV). At this point, a big chunk of that increase is gone and I don’t see why firms would make more cuts without another major shift.
I think you may be correct that, for some of these firms, the brunt of the layoffs has already occurred. But I still think any firm that laid off juniors deserves to be on the “avoid” list, even if the possibility of further cuts is remote.
Are we calling getting rid of people after 2 years at the firm (rising third years) “laying off juniors”? That’s the youngest I know of that got cut at K&E and to me having two full years before any performance (or “performance”) cuts is pretty good by BigLaw standards. Certainly a far cry from 2008-era Lathaming of first years and 3Ls.

Not trying to celebrate it, just don’t think it deserves extra flame.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:05 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:45 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:52 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:44 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:02 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:18 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
No, peak law student would be taking any of the firms to avoid over either. I can lay this out for the young whippersnappers.

Cooley / Gunderson
Rationale: tech is cool
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs

Kirkland & Ellis
Rationale: bonuses that shatter
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs / doesn’t shatter for most associates

Goodwin Proctor
Rationale: culture
Why it’s flame: junior layoffs
I can buy the W&C/Shearman one, but these three don’t make as much sense to me—the layoffs are over, and unless you believe the market’s going to get worse a junior would probably have normal market job security, no? And that’s before we discount speciality group interests etc.
Wait, what? How do you know layoffs are over? Once a partnership has done layoffs they’ve signaled their willingness to do them again. Case in point, Dechert.
Market’s improving, and while I could see more instability at Cooley/Gunderson/Goodwin (side note: did Fenwick or WSGR have the same reaction? I haven’t heard much but have been low-key assuming they also had layoffs) give their tech exposure I’m not sure the non-tech firms that did layoffs would do more.

When you think about why non-tech firms did layoffs, it’s because they overhired subpar associates in the massive pandemic PE boom, usually in backwater offices (cough KE cough), which is the same category that took the brunt of the layoffs (I do think I saw someone talk about a few Chicago layoffs at KE though, so YMMV). At this point, a big chunk of that increase is gone and I don’t see why firms would make more cuts without another major shift.
I think you may be correct that, for some of these firms, the brunt of the layoffs has already occurred. But I still think any firm that laid off juniors deserves to be on the “avoid” list, even if the possibility of further cuts is remote.
Are we calling getting rid of people after 2 years at the firm (rising third years) “laying off juniors”? That’s the youngest I know of that got cut at K&E and to me having two full years before any performance (or “performance”) cuts is pretty good by BigLaw standards. Certainly a far cry from 2008-era Lathaming of first years and 3Ls.

Not trying to celebrate it, just don’t think it deserves extra flame.
I have heard tales of 2021s being stealthed

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:11 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:54 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:26 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
Disagree - if you are doing it because you are actually interested in doing REIT/PE M&A, it is perfectly justified
The only thing law students should be interested in is vault prestige
Unironically this tho. There is literally no individual more undecided and mercurial than a summer associate at a large law firm. If you're going to a firm because you're interested in a niche area, prepare to regret it in 2 years.
Vault prestige would lead someone to Cooley, Goodwin, et al, when they could go have much stronger job security at a Willkie or a Fried Frank.
No one in the real world thinks those firms are materially different. Vault prestige kicks in around 10-20 (with some exceptions for boutiques).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428102
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Firms to avoid for rising 2Ls

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:15 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:11 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:54 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:26 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:55 am
damn turning down cravath for stb is peak law student mentality
Disagree - if you are doing it because you are actually interested in doing REIT/PE M&A, it is perfectly justified
The only thing law students should be interested in is vault prestige
Unironically this tho. There is literally no individual more undecided and mercurial than a summer associate at a large law firm. If you're going to a firm because you're interested in a niche area, prepare to regret it in 2 years.
Vault prestige would lead someone to Cooley, Goodwin, et al, when they could go have much stronger job security at a Willkie or a Fried Frank.
No one in the real world thinks those firms are materially different. Vault prestige kicks in around 10-20 (with some exceptions for boutiques).
My point here, though, is that once a firm signals a willingness to lay off juniors, that firm — regardless of prestige — should be avoided like the plague by rising 2Ls. Getting laid off as a junior from a V20 firm has a high risk of literally tanking your career, whereas someone who hangs around a V50 is very likely to end up totally fine.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”