Susman or FDIC? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am coming out of a clerkship and have two very different choices: being a first-year associate at Susman Godfrey or an FDIC Honors Attorney.

Susman pays ridiculous amounts of money, does work i'm interested in (lot of plaintiff work), and compared to other biglaw firms, your chances of sticking around for your entire career seem higher as long as you can handle the work. I don't want to name the city and out myself, but I know I'd like it there. My only concern is that the hours will be too brutal and unsustainable for my whole career and that I'll need to exit. And there's no guarantee I get a position I like (as much as I like the FDIC) if I apply for government again. On the other hand, it seems like people leave Susman all the time and are able to get govt positions they want (i.e., I've seen people leave for the Public Defender, DOJ, AUSA, though I am not interested in those myself, I am more interested in finreg, e.g., SEC).

The FDIC pay scale is better than a lot of government agencies, I am definitely interested in banking regulation, and I can see myself being a lifer. I like DC equally as my other choice. Right now, the pay seems great, and I am even content with my current law clerk salary. But I'm not exactly sure how the pay scale progresses or whether I'll decide it's not enough one day. And I've heard there are good exit options, which makes sense, but I'm not exactly sure what those positions are (in-house at a bank, biglaw)?

Thank you in advance for any advice!

[Anonymous User]

I am coming out of a clerkship and have two very different choices: being a first-year associate at Susman Godfrey or an FDIC Honors Attorney.

Susman pays ridiculous amounts of money, does work i'm interested in (lot of plaintiff work), and compared to other biglaw firms, your chances of sticking around for your entire career seem higher as long as you can handle the work. I don't want to name the city and out myself, but I know I'd like it there. My only concern is that the hours will be too brutal and unsustainable for my whole career and that I'll need to exit. And there's no guarantee I get a position I like (as much as I like the FDIC) if I apply for government again. On the other hand, it seems like people leave Susman all the time and are able to get govt positions they want (i.e., I've seen people leave for the Public Defender, DOJ, AUSA, though I am not interested in those myself, I am more interested in finreg, e.g., SEC).

The FDIC pay scale is better than a lot of government agencies, I am definitely interested in banking regulation, and I can see myself being a lifer. I like DC equally as my other choice. Right now, the pay seems great, and I am even content with my current law clerk salary. But I'm not exactly sure how the pay scale progresses or whether I'll decide it's not enough one day. And I've heard there are good exit options, which makes sense, but I'm not exactly sure what those positions are (in-house at a bank, biglaw)?

Thank you in advance for any advice!

My vote goes to the FDIC. Like you recognize, joining bigfed as a lateral attorney is difficult and is exceedingly difficult as an early career attorney. And it seems you’re happy with the lower hours and decent pay associated with your clerkship — why rock the boat by trying on the new Susman coat?

To my knowledge, Susman does not hire associate laterals. (I’m sure they’d make exceptions for SCOTUS clerks and the like; I’ve never heard of it happening despite being well-positioned to know.) But it doesn’t seem like Susman is your #1 firm. Rather, it seems like any boutique that offers substantial P-side work and above-market pay will do. There are others — Cohen Milstein immediately comes to mind in DC (where you’d be an Honors attorney). In NY, less P-side but there are so many different boutique options that hire laterals. Houston harder to say — Susman is king there. LA there’s Munger and HH. Ruling out that you’re looking at Seattle. I digress; my point is that if you have the creds to land a Susman offer now, you have the creds to lateral to any of the above firms after a few years as an Honors attorney. (But keep in mind the smaller ones like Cohen Milstein hire more sporadically.)

It seems that the FDIC offer is more aligned with your current priorities. But I may be wrong!

[Anonymous User]

I actually did think Susman was my #1. Afaik, they are the leader in compensation, early experience, and headline-making P-side cases in this city. I think Kellogg and Wachtell may both offer more comp and experience, but Kellogg is in DC and the lit work Wachtell does is totally different. HH (in both LA and NYC) doesn't do any P-side work afaik. I also believe Munger rarely represents plaintiffs except in insurance cases. But I could be wrong on all of this.

I hadn't heard of Cohen Milstein before but thanks for flagging! I've heard Gupta Wessler (also in DC) could also be what I'm looking for. But my point is, I am definitely very into Susman as far as firms go, because they do big P-side cases, sprinkled with some defense, and they have a six-year partner track and don't push you out—even if you don't bring in business, you can be a production/service partner. From what I've heard, that's not the case at HH or Kellogg.

[Anonymous User]

I actually did think Susman was my #1. Afaik, they are the leader in compensation, early experience, and headline-making P-side cases in this city. I think Kellogg and Wachtell may both offer more comp and experience, but Kellogg is in DC and the lit work Wachtell does is totally different. HH (in both LA and NYC) doesn't do any P-side work afaik. I also believe Munger rarely represents plaintiffs except in insurance cases. But I could be wrong on all of this.

I hadn't heard of Cohen Milstein before but thanks for flagging! I've heard Gupta Wessler (also in DC) could also be what I'm looking for. But my point is, I am definitely very into Susman as far as firms go, because they do big P-side cases, sprinkled with some defense, and they have a six-year partner track and don't push you out—even if you don't bring in business, you can be a production/service partner. From what I've heard, that's not the case at HH or Kellogg.

Yes — if you want to be at a boutique-y firm in LA with above market pay as an associate, Susman is the only one of the trio that has more P side work than D side work; Susman does a lot of D side work, too. But HH does take P side work (much of it as trial takeover counsel). So does Munger here and there.

And there are always smaller firms where associates might not make as much but partners can take in significant contingencies. LA is a big market.

[Anonymous User]

As an attorney at the FDIC, I think it would be better to take the Susman gig and try to lateral to one of the financial regulators later. I have noticed it is easier to go from biglaw/boutique to FDIC than the other way around. Not many exit options out of the FDIC so most people stay and wait til retirement.

[RedNewJersey]

These options are completely different, and you should decide it based on what you want to do.

FDIC is a great long-term job that will have good quality of life. If you want to be in biglaw long term, I'm not sure it makes sense to start there, but you could stay at FDIC or other government jobs.

Susman is on the extreme end of that tradeoff, with certifiably terrible work/life balance, but better substantive opportunities than anywhere else, and pay (both in the short and long term) that beats anywhere else. You will probably do trial work, and exceed 2400 hours every year (and probably travel a fair bit).

These options are sufficiently different that you should decide based on whether you'll love the work enough to do it all the time. And how much you care about money.

[Anonymous User]

I am coming out of a clerkship and have two very different choices: being a first-year associate at Susman Godfrey or an FDIC Honors Attorney.

Susman pays ridiculous amounts of money, does work i'm interested in (lot of plaintiff work), and compared to other biglaw firms, your chances of sticking around for your entire career seem higher as long as you can handle the work. I don't want to name the city and out myself, but I know I'd like it there. My only concern is that the hours will be too brutal and unsustainable for my whole career and that I'll need to exit. And there's no guarantee I get a position I like (as much as I like the FDIC) if I apply for government again. On the other hand, it seems like people leave Susman all the time and are able to get govt positions they want (i.e., I've seen people leave for the Public Defender, DOJ, AUSA, though I am not interested in those myself, I am more interested in finreg, e.g., SEC).

The FDIC pay scale is better than a lot of government agencies, I am definitely interested in banking regulation, and I can see myself being a lifer. I like DC equally as my other choice. Right now, the pay seems great, and I am even content with my current law clerk salary. But I'm not exactly sure how the pay scale progresses or whether I'll decide it's not enough one day. And I've heard there are good exit options, which makes sense, but I'm not exactly sure what those positions are (in-house at a bank, biglaw)?

Thank you in advance for any advice!

Anon since I have first-hand knowledge of both of these jobs and it could out me (I worked at one of the two and know a lot of people at the other).

Honestly, I don't think I would ever recommend Susman to a new attorney. There are several reasons:

First, the fact that they pay a lot and still have the incredible amount of attrition they do should be a massive warning sign to anyone. Their business strategy is very much work associates into the dirt until they're burned out and used up and then do it again. A ton of their departures leave law entirely, and it seems like many never fully recover.

Second, it depends how you define "substantive opportunities." You might take more depositions or argue more discovery motions or motions in limine (though that's not guaranteed since Susman often partners with other firms in their trials who end up doing most of the discovery). You're not going to be getting stand-up trial experience there unless it's through pro bono (which you often won't have time to do). You need to understand that Plaintiff-side work like they do is very cut-throat and you have to fight for matters. Because of that, even their senior partners fight over any stand-up time they can get, because it helps them attract matters. You don't really see junior or mid-level associates standing up in Court at Susman, unless maybe you're reading deposition designations (though the past couple trials they've had, they've had a partner do that). So I don't think it's accurate to say they have better substantive opportunities than anywhere else (also, I know they have some defense work, but big-paying clients pay to have the big partners represent them in Court).

Third, it concerns me that you're just focused on money and work-life balance, because Plaintiff-side work is a different animal than anything else in law. Some people just love it and can't get enough. Others hate it to their very core. But I do think you need to look more into what a Plaintiff's firm does and decide if that's what you want.

Fourth, and maybe most importantly, law school and the bar exam really don't prepare you. Your first job will be where you get a lot of your training. I always liked what Vince Lombardi said: "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." Most judges are very lenient on Plaintiffs' firms, because they're not willing to dismiss a class of consumers just because their lawyers made a small procedural error or makes a mistake in class cert. They'll typically just narrow the class definition or let the firm file an amended complaint/motion. Because of that, a common thing I see is that Plaintiff-side firms tend to be more sloppy in their work, and I don't think they have much in the way of formalized training. You're kind of just thrown out there to the wolves to do discovery stuff, knowing if you screw up, they'll have a chance to fix it. And you work on so much and are so swamped you don't have time to process and grow (it's like me telling you to shotgun a beer and then to describe nuances in the taste). That's not really how it works in defense-side litigation or in the government, where you really have to cross your T's and dot your I's. Because of that, I tend to think Susman isn't a very good starting job for most attorneys.

On the other hand, if you join the government as an honors attorney, you can get better training, better work life balance, and still decent pay. You'll learn more and be a better lawyer for it, and government experience is highly prized by law firms. So that's what I would personally do.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, I had no idea things were so bad at Susman.

I went to NYU and it always seemed like an easy stop for magna + LR + 2d/3d Cir. clerk types.

You're in a tough place, IMO.

At FDIC, you'll do 1 hour of work per week. At Susman, you'll do 100 hours per week. Exaggeration, obviously.

At FDIC, you'll start at $120,000. At Susman, you'd make double or triple--but you'd have to do literally 100 times the work. Again, exaggeration.

But let's take the exaggerations as truth. Which would you prefer?

[Anonymous User]

I am coming out of a clerkship and have two very different choices: being a first-year associate at Susman Godfrey or an FDIC Honors Attorney.

Susman pays ridiculous amounts of money, does work i'm interested in (lot of plaintiff work), and compared to other biglaw firms, your chances of sticking around for your entire career seem higher as long as you can handle the work. I don't want to name the city and out myself, but I know I'd like it there. My only concern is that the hours will be too brutal and unsustainable for my whole career and that I'll need to exit. And there's no guarantee I get a position I like (as much as I like the FDIC) if I apply for government again. On the other hand, it seems like people leave Susman all the time and are able to get govt positions they want (i.e., I've seen people leave for the Public Defender, DOJ, AUSA, though I am not interested in those myself, I am more interested in finreg, e.g., SEC).

The FDIC pay scale is better than a lot of government agencies, I am definitely interested in banking regulation, and I can see myself being a lifer. I like DC equally as my other choice. Right now, the pay seems great, and I am even content with my current law clerk salary. But I'm not exactly sure how the pay scale progresses or whether I'll decide it's not enough one day. And I've heard there are good exit options, which makes sense, but I'm not exactly sure what those positions are (in-house at a bank, biglaw)?

Thank you in advance for any advice!

Anon since I have first-hand knowledge of both of these jobs and it could out me (I worked at one of the two and know a lot of people at the other).

Honestly, I don't think I would ever recommend Susman to a new attorney. There are several reasons:

First, the fact that they pay a lot and still have the incredible amount of attrition they do should be a massive warning sign to anyone. Their business strategy is very much work associates into the dirt until they're burned out and used up and then do it again. A ton of their departures leave law entirely, and it seems like many never fully recover.

Second, it depends how you define "substantive opportunities." You might take more depositions or argue more discovery motions or motions in limine (though that's not guaranteed since Susman often partners with other firms in their trials who end up doing most of the discovery). You're not going to be getting stand-up trial experience there unless it's through pro bono (which you often won't have time to do). You need to understand that Plaintiff-side work like they do is very cut-throat and you have to fight for matters. Because of that, even their senior partners fight over any stand-up time they can get, because it helps them attract matters. You don't really see junior or mid-level associates standing up in Court at Susman, unless maybe you're reading deposition designations (though the past couple trials they've had, they've had a partner do that). So I don't think it's accurate to say they have better substantive opportunities than anywhere else (also, I know they have some defense work, but big-paying clients pay to have the big partners represent them in Court).

Third, it concerns me that you're just focused on money and work-life balance, because Plaintiff-side work is a different animal than anything else in law. Some people just love it and can't get enough. Others hate it to their very core. But I do think you need to look more into what a Plaintiff's firm does and decide if that's what you want.

Fourth, and maybe most importantly, law school and the bar exam really don't prepare you. Your first job will be where you get a lot of your training. I always liked what Vince Lombardi said: "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." Most judges are very lenient on Plaintiffs' firms, because they're not willing to dismiss a class of consumers just because their lawyers made a small procedural error or makes a mistake in class cert. They'll typically just narrow the class definition or let the firm file an amended complaint/motion. Because of that, a common thing I see is that Plaintiff-side firms tend to be more sloppy in their work, and I don't think they have much in the way of formalized training. You're kind of just thrown out there to the wolves to do discovery stuff, knowing if you screw up, they'll have a chance to fix it. And you work on so much and are so swamped you don't have time to process and grow (it's like me telling you to shotgun a beer and then to describe nuances in the taste). That's not really how it works in defense-side litigation or in the government, where you really have to cross your T's and dot your I's. Because of that, I tend to think Susman isn't a very good starting job for most attorneys.

On the other hand, if you join the government as an honors attorney, you can get better training, better work life balance, and still decent pay. You'll learn more and be a better lawyer for it, and government experience is highly prized by law firms. So that's what I would personally do.

Current SG associate. I can't speak to the comments re the FDIC, but this is laughably wrong as to SG. To hit the highlights:

- SG's business model is not "work associates into the dirt until they're burned out and used up and then do it again." The opposite is true. We hire associates with the intent of making them partner. Chewing up associates is horrible for trial team continuity given that associates run the cases. You'd lose the person with the most knowledge about the case.

- Stand-up time is extremely common for associates, regardless of what side of the "V" we're on. I've taken fact and expert witnesses at several trials; argued MSJs; argued class cert; and more. The majority of those opportunities are in major contingent cases. Quite often, the senior partners don't want to handle much of those because they're out negotiating a fee deal with a new client (or staying at one of their several vacation homes).

[Anonymous User]

I am coming out of a clerkship and have two very different choices: being a first-year associate at Susman Godfrey or an FDIC Honors Attorney.

Susman pays ridiculous amounts of money, does work i'm interested in (lot of plaintiff work), and compared to other biglaw firms, your chances of sticking around for your entire career seem higher as long as you can handle the work. I don't want to name the city and out myself, but I know I'd like it there. My only concern is that the hours will be too brutal and unsustainable for my whole career and that I'll need to exit. And there's no guarantee I get a position I like (as much as I like the FDIC) if I apply for government again. On the other hand, it seems like people leave Susman all the time and are able to get govt positions they want (i.e., I've seen people leave for the Public Defender, DOJ, AUSA, though I am not interested in those myself, I am more interested in finreg, e.g., SEC).

The FDIC pay scale is better than a lot of government agencies, I am definitely interested in banking regulation, and I can see myself being a lifer. I like DC equally as my other choice. Right now, the pay seems great, and I am even content with my current law clerk salary. But I'm not exactly sure how the pay scale progresses or whether I'll decide it's not enough one day. And I've heard there are good exit options, which makes sense, but I'm not exactly sure what those positions are (in-house at a bank, biglaw)?

Thank you in advance for any advice!

Anon since I have first-hand knowledge of both of these jobs and it could out me (I worked at one of the two and know a lot of people at the other).

Honestly, I don't think I would ever recommend Susman to a new attorney. There are several reasons:

First, the fact that they pay a lot and still have the incredible amount of attrition they do should be a massive warning sign to anyone. Their business strategy is very much work associates into the dirt until they're burned out and used up and then do it again. A ton of their departures leave law entirely, and it seems like many never fully recover.

Second, it depends how you define "substantive opportunities." You might take more depositions or argue more discovery motions or motions in limine (though that's not guaranteed since Susman often partners with other firms in their trials who end up doing most of the discovery). You're not going to be getting stand-up trial experience there unless it's through pro bono (which you often won't have time to do). You need to understand that Plaintiff-side work like they do is very cut-throat and you have to fight for matters. Because of that, even their senior partners fight over any stand-up time they can get, because it helps them attract matters. You don't really see junior or mid-level associates standing up in Court at Susman, unless maybe you're reading deposition designations (though the past couple trials they've had, they've had a partner do that). So I don't think it's accurate to say they have better substantive opportunities than anywhere else (also, I know they have some defense work, but big-paying clients pay to have the big partners represent them in Court).

Third, it concerns me that you're just focused on money and work-life balance, because Plaintiff-side work is a different animal than anything else in law. Some people just love it and can't get enough. Others hate it to their very core. But I do think you need to look more into what a Plaintiff's firm does and decide if that's what you want.

Fourth, and maybe most importantly, law school and the bar exam really don't prepare you. Your first job will be where you get a lot of your training. I always liked what Vince Lombardi said: "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." Most judges are very lenient on Plaintiffs' firms, because they're not willing to dismiss a class of consumers just because their lawyers made a small procedural error or makes a mistake in class cert. They'll typically just narrow the class definition or let the firm file an amended complaint/motion. Because of that, a common thing I see is that Plaintiff-side firms tend to be more sloppy in their work, and I don't think they have much in the way of formalized training. You're kind of just thrown out there to the wolves to do discovery stuff, knowing if you screw up, they'll have a chance to fix it. And you work on so much and are so swamped you don't have time to process and grow (it's like me telling you to shotgun a beer and then to describe nuances in the taste). That's not really how it works in defense-side litigation or in the government, where you really have to cross your T's and dot your I's. Because of that, I tend to think Susman isn't a very good starting job for most attorneys.

On the other hand, if you join the government as an honors attorney, you can get better training, better work life balance, and still decent pay. You'll learn more and be a better lawyer for it, and government experience is highly prized by law firms. So that's what I would personally do.

Current SG associate. I can't speak to the comments re the FDIC, but this is laughably wrong as to SG. To hit the highlights:

- SG's business model is not "work associates into the dirt until they're burned out and used up and then do it again." The opposite is true. We hire associates with the intent of making them partner. Chewing up associates is horrible for trial team continuity given that associates run the cases. You'd lose the person with the most knowledge about the case.

- Stand-up time is extremely common for associates, regardless of what side of the "V" we're on. I've taken fact and expert witnesses at several trials; argued MSJs; argued class cert; and more. The majority of those opportunities are in major contingent cases. Quite often, the senior partners don't want to handle much of those because they're out negotiating a fee deal with a new client (or staying at one of their several vacation homes).

How many hours do you work per week on average?

[Anonymous User]

I don’t work at Susman, but I know many Susman associates, and the description by the Susman hater above sounds very wrong based on their experiences. Both in the associate experience and in what the firm does (e.g. it’s not really a plaintiff’s firm in a conventional sense). I’m sure the FDIC has many excellent lawyers, but I think the idea that you get better experience/training at what many would consider a second-tier agency than in probably the top lit firm in the country right now is pretty absurd. Of course, there are big trade offs to work life balance and job stability that must be considered.

[Anonymous User]

I am coming out of a clerkship and have two very different choices: being a first-year associate at Susman Godfrey or an FDIC Honors Attorney.

Susman pays ridiculous amounts of money, does work i'm interested in (lot of plaintiff work), and compared to other biglaw firms, your chances of sticking around for your entire career seem higher as long as you can handle the work. I don't want to name the city and out myself, but I know I'd like it there. My only concern is that the hours will be too brutal and unsustainable for my whole career and that I'll need to exit. And there's no guarantee I get a position I like (as much as I like the FDIC) if I apply for government again. On the other hand, it seems like people leave Susman all the time and are able to get govt positions they want (i.e., I've seen people leave for the Public Defender, DOJ, AUSA, though I am not interested in those myself, I am more interested in finreg, e.g., SEC).

The FDIC pay scale is better than a lot of government agencies, I am definitely interested in banking regulation, and I can see myself being a lifer. I like DC equally as my other choice. Right now, the pay seems great, and I am even content with my current law clerk salary. But I'm not exactly sure how the pay scale progresses or whether I'll decide it's not enough one day. And I've heard there are good exit options, which makes sense, but I'm not exactly sure what those positions are (in-house at a bank, biglaw)?

Thank you in advance for any advice!

Anon since I have first-hand knowledge of both of these jobs and it could out me (I worked at one of the two and know a lot of people at the other).

Honestly, I don't think I would ever recommend Susman to a new attorney. There are several reasons:

First, the fact that they pay a lot and still have the incredible amount of attrition they do should be a massive warning sign to anyone. Their business strategy is very much work associates into the dirt until they're burned out and used up and then do it again. A ton of their departures leave law entirely, and it seems like many never fully recover.

Second, it depends how you define "substantive opportunities." You might take more depositions or argue more discovery motions or motions in limine (though that's not guaranteed since Susman often partners with other firms in their trials who end up doing most of the discovery). You're not going to be getting stand-up trial experience there unless it's through pro bono (which you often won't have time to do). You need to understand that Plaintiff-side work like they do is very cut-throat and you have to fight for matters. Because of that, even their senior partners fight over any stand-up time they can get, because it helps them attract matters. You don't really see junior or mid-level associates standing up in Court at Susman, unless maybe you're reading deposition designations (though the past couple trials they've had, they've had a partner do that). So I don't think it's accurate to say they have better substantive opportunities than anywhere else (also, I know they have some defense work, but big-paying clients pay to have the big partners represent them in Court).

Third, it concerns me that you're just focused on money and work-life balance, because Plaintiff-side work is a different animal than anything else in law. Some people just love it and can't get enough. Others hate it to their very core. But I do think you need to look more into what a Plaintiff's firm does and decide if that's what you want.

Fourth, and maybe most importantly, law school and the bar exam really don't prepare you. Your first job will be where you get a lot of your training. I always liked what Vince Lombardi said: "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." Most judges are very lenient on Plaintiffs' firms, because they're not willing to dismiss a class of consumers just because their lawyers made a small procedural error or makes a mistake in class cert. They'll typically just narrow the class definition or let the firm file an amended complaint/motion. Because of that, a common thing I see is that Plaintiff-side firms tend to be more sloppy in their work, and I don't think they have much in the way of formalized training. You're kind of just thrown out there to the wolves to do discovery stuff, knowing if you screw up, they'll have a chance to fix it. And you work on so much and are so swamped you don't have time to process and grow (it's like me telling you to shotgun a beer and then to describe nuances in the taste). That's not really how it works in defense-side litigation or in the government, where you really have to cross your T's and dot your I's. Because of that, I tend to think Susman isn't a very good starting job for most attorneys.

On the other hand, if you join the government as an honors attorney, you can get better training, better work life balance, and still decent pay. You'll learn more and be a better lawyer for it, and government experience is highly prized by law firms. So that's what I would personally do.

Current SG associate. I can't speak to the comments re the FDIC, but this is laughably wrong as to SG. To hit the highlights:

- SG's business model is not "work associates into the dirt until they're burned out and used up and then do it again." The opposite is true. We hire associates with the intent of making them partner. Chewing up associates is horrible for trial team continuity given that associates run the cases. You'd lose the person with the most knowledge about the case.

- Stand-up time is extremely common for associates, regardless of what side of the "V" we're on. I've taken fact and expert witnesses at several trials; argued MSJs; argued class cert; and more. The majority of those opportunities are in major contingent cases. Quite often, the senior partners don't want to handle much of those because they're out negotiating a fee deal with a new client (or staying at one of their several vacation homes).

How many hours do you work per week on average?

The weeks vary greatly, so its hard to identify a realistic number. Hours tend to hover around 2,600-2,700. So if you extrapolate that over the entire year, you're looking at around 50-55 hours per week. Keep in mind, however, that because of the nature of our work, our billing efficiency is quite high. Say that i'm at the office for twelve hours (which is abnormal, but stay with me here). I'll probably bill eleven of those. So you could hit the expected hours without any weekend work, or you could work a bit less during the week if you want to work more on the weekend.

There are several other factors that make the hours much more hospitable than the gross number sounds. First, because associates are running the cases, they're in the know and have a better sense of what work is on the horizon. That allows associates to plan their life accordingly. I've never, not once, canceled plans with family or friends because of work. Many of my colleagues at other firms cannot say the same. Second, the firm very much treats associates as adults--largely because we're seen as future partners. Nobody is looking over your shoulder to watch when you're working or where you're working from. Third, we tend to travel a lot for cases. That comes with its own challenges (particularly if you have a family), but it makes the number of hours that we bill more hospitable. Fourth, its quite unlikely that you're billing fifty to fifty-five hours a week every single week. Its far more likely that you'll have a crazy month in trial--which is a blast and i'd do that twelve months out of a year in trial if I could--and then lighter months at other times. So while you're certainly working a ton during trial, it tends to lighten the caseload throughout the rest of the year.

I cannot imagine having started my career anywhere else. And I don't plan on leaving.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t work at Susman, but I know many Susman associates, and the description by the Susman hater above sounds very wrong based on their experiences. Both in the associate experience and in what the firm does (e.g. it’s not really a plaintiff’s firm in a conventional sense). I’m sure the FDIC has many excellent lawyers, but I think the idea that you get better experience/training at what many would consider a second-tier agency than in probably the top lit firm in the country right now is pretty absurd. Of course, there are big trade offs to work life balance and job stability that must be considered.

What agencies are first-tier and what makes FDIC second-tier?

Regarding Susman, I've definitely noticed a lot of attrition. I know at least 3 associates who left the firm and 3 summers who didn't return. That seems remarkably high.

I also know the "6-year partner track" is becoming less and less true as the firm grows, despite how much this is touted by their attorneys.

And while the firm has done headline plaintiff cases, most plaintiff cases are long shots that they just have associates try to push over the finish line for the partners to profit. The "early experience" associates get is from those types of cases—petty disputes. Big cases like the Dominion Fox or NFL litigation are staffed by large teams and associates on those teams don't get worthwhile opportunities.

I've also heard the spiel about being able to manage your own schedule, and that is definitely not true based on what a current associate tells me. Even when you interview Susman doesn't portray itself that way. Like any firm, partners ask for things all the time, and things come up in cases. Associates are expected to handle those things even if it means canceling plans.

That said, obviously some people have stuck it out at Susman and made a lot of money while working on cool cases. But given how much attrition it has (which is even more concerning given its high compensation), I would be wary.

[Anonymous User]

I truly don't understand what the Susman hater could possibly be smoking.

I know multiple senior associates at Susman (in NYC and Houston), and they *have* gone to trial in big cases, they *have* taken key depositions, they *have* argued MSJs and such. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

Susman has extremely low leverage. Typical biglaw has many associates per partner (which is misleading because of non-equity partners). Susman has fewer associates than partners. They do everything.

Also, get out of here with the plaintiff-side hate, lol. We're great.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t work at Susman, but I know many Susman associates, and the description by the Susman hater above sounds very wrong based on their experiences. Both in the associate experience and in what the firm does (e.g. it’s not really a plaintiff’s firm in a conventional sense). I’m sure the FDIC has many excellent lawyers, but I think the idea that you get better experience/training at what many would consider a second-tier agency than in probably the top lit firm in the country right now is pretty absurd. Of course, there are big trade offs to work life balance and job stability that must be considered.

Do you think all the banking agencies (CFPB, OCC, the Fed, FDIC) are second-tier?

[Anonymous User]

I’m a former SG associate and I think there’s a middle ground between the SG love/hate here. The Susman experience can vary widely based on the kinds of matters an associate gets staffed on. The hater is absolutely right that some associates get stuck on multi-year class actions with tons of co-counsel firms, and as a result don’t get to do as much interesting work. Also, there are some partners at Susman who are great mentors and let associates have a lot of responsibility. And then there are some partners who are sociopathic micro-managers who are hell to work for.

But any associate that sticks it out at Susman is bound to get some of the “good” experiences too. And they will definitely get a ton of substantive legal experience. The guy who said partners at Susman don’t let associates do stuff is just blatantly wrong.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t work at Susman, but I know many Susman associates, and the description by the Susman hater above sounds very wrong based on their experiences. Both in the associate experience and in what the firm does (e.g. it’s not really a plaintiff’s firm in a conventional sense). I’m sure the FDIC has many excellent lawyers, but I think the idea that you get better experience/training at what many would consider a second-tier agency than in probably the top lit firm in the country right now is pretty absurd. Of course, there are big trade offs to work life balance and job stability that must be considered.

What agencies are first-tier and what makes FDIC second-tier?

Regarding Susman, I've definitely noticed a lot of attrition. I know at least 3 associates who left the firm and 3 summers who didn't return. That seems remarkably high.

I also know the "6-year partner track" is becoming less and less true as the firm grows, despite how much this is touted by their attorneys.

And while the firm has done headline plaintiff cases, most plaintiff cases are long shots that they just have associates try to push over the finish line for the partners to profit. The "early experience" associates get is from those types of cases—petty disputes. Big cases like the Dominion Fox or NFL litigation are staffed by large teams and associates on those teams don't get worthwhile opportunities.

I've also heard the spiel about being able to manage your own schedule, and that is definitely not true based on what a current associate tells me. Even when you interview Susman doesn't portray itself that way. Like any firm, partners ask for things all the time, and things come up in cases. Associates are expected to handle those things even if it means canceling plans.

That said, obviously some people have stuck it out at Susman and made a lot of money while working on cool cases. But given how much attrition it has (which is even more concerning given its high compensation), I would be wary.

Different poster with SG ties. Without repeating anything already said above, let me respond to the attrition point.

Susman offers associates tons of great things. But there are a few negatives — most notably the hours and travel. Not a surprise that some associates choose to leave after trying out the lifestyle. But notably, most if not all associates tend to leave on amicable terms and many stay in touch after they leave SG.

As to summers, not all summers get offers to return after they leave the building. On the flip side, SG recruits some of the nation’s best law students; no surprise that some of them go on to other intriguing opportunities: Bristow then appellate practice, AUSA or Bigfed, so on and so forth. And sure, some summers try it out and decide that Wachtell or Munger is a better fit for them. Summer attrition is expected and should not be viewed in a negative light.

[topgun342]

I would definitely go with Susman. Even if you only stay for a month, having that on your resume will open doors for you for the rest of your career. The government will always be there.

[Anonymous User]

I would definitely go with Susman. Even if you only stay for a month, having that on your resume will open doors for you for the rest of your career. The government will always be there.

This is a no brainer. If you like Susman, stay and make a fortune. If you hate it, its very easy to leave, and everyone will understand why.

[Anonymous User]

I would definitely go with Susman. Even if you only stay for a month, having that on your resume will open doors for you for the rest of your career. The government will always be there.

This is a no brainer. If you like Susman, stay and make a fortune. If you hate it, its very easy to leave, and everyone will understand why.

It's not a no brainer if you don't want to work Susman, or even normal big law, hours, especially with OP's interest in government. Plenty of agencies are having budget problems right now, and it's not likely that Congress will give them more $$ to go on attorney hiring sprees under the Trump administration. If there is a hiring freeze at the agency you want to work for, the Susman resume line won't do much for you. Timing federal government exits isn't that easy.

[Anonymous User]

I would definitely go with Susman. Even if you only stay for a month, having that on your resume will open doors for you for the rest of your career. The government will always be there.

This is a no brainer. If you like Susman, stay and make a fortune. If you hate it, its very easy to leave, and everyone will understand why.

It's not a no brainer if you don't want to work Susman, or even normal big law, hours, especially with OP's interest in government. Plenty of agencies are having budget problems right now, and it's not likely that Congress will give them more $$ to go on attorney hiring sprees under the Trump administration. If there is a hiring freeze at the agency you want to work for, the Susman resume line won't do much for you. Timing federal government exits isn't that easy.

Agreed. It could be a four-year wait with the Trump administration, or OP could get a job immediately after Susman whenever they want to. The bottom line is that going to Susman would prolong their exit to the government for an unknown amount of time. The question is whether they’re comfortable possibly waiting it out if they need to.

[Anonymous User]

OP, what did you decide?

[Anonymous User]

I don’t work at Susman, but I know many Susman associates, and the description by the Susman hater above sounds very wrong based on their experiences. Both in the associate experience and in what the firm does (e.g. it’s not really a plaintiff’s firm in a conventional sense). I’m sure the FDIC has many excellent lawyers, but I think the idea that you get better experience/training at what many would consider a second-tier agency than in probably the top lit firm in the country right now is pretty absurd. Of course, there are big trade offs to work life balance and job stability that must be considered.

Do you think all the banking agencies (CFPB, OCC, the Fed, FDIC) are second-tier?

If you want to be a banking specialist, no, but for the generic litigator, I think there’s a significant drop off in desirability between them and DOJ or SEC. Speaking descriptively, not normatively.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t work at Susman, but I know many Susman associates, and the description by the Susman hater above sounds very wrong based on their experiences. Both in the associate experience and in what the firm does (e.g. it’s not really a plaintiff’s firm in a conventional sense). I’m sure the FDIC has many excellent lawyers, but I think the idea that you get better experience/training at what many would consider a second-tier agency than in probably the top lit firm in the country right now is pretty absurd. Of course, there are big trade offs to work life balance and job stability that must be considered.

Do you think all the banking agencies (CFPB, OCC, the Fed, FDIC) are second-tier?

If you want to be a banking specialist, no, but for the generic litigator, I think there’s a significant drop off in desirability between them and DOJ or SEC. Speaking descriptively, not normatively.

Almost no one in government is a generic litigator. SEC, obviously not. DOJ, most sections not.

[Anonymous User]

Is it better to be a specialist or a generalist litigator?