Law Firms to Stay Away From Forum

[nixy]

Except it's not necessarily the worst 10 or 20% in terms of objective merit. Sure, one out of every 20 summers might be lazy/entitled, and 2-3 more might do legitimately poor work. But sometimes no-offers happen because you happened to be assigned to a department that was particularly slow, or because you had a personality clash with the wrong partner, or had one bad day from illness or personal problems which turned into the bad review that sunk your candidacy.

The problem is that subsequent firms have don't want to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was just a bad luck no-offer and treat it like you must have done something awful. So going to a low-offer firm can leave a candidate worse off than no summer associateship at all through no fault of their own.

A no-offers in a good economy is usually a major failure on the part of the SA. Anyone who doesn't treat their entire SA time as an extended interview is foolish.

Not sure why you’re ignoring the bolded part of this. There are plenty of circumstances in which someone gets no-offered who is no less competent than people who get offers. Sometimes it is just luck of the draw. Insisting the SA somehow brought it on themselves is an attempt to control the universe and ensure it won’t happen to you. (Collective/general you, not meant as an accusation.)

[hoos89]

A no-offers in a good economy at a firm that typically offers 100% or close is usually a major failure on the part of the SA. Anyone who doesn't treat their entire SA time as an extended interview is foolish.

FTFY.

Getting a no-offer from a firm that only offers 80% is a failure. That means that you are the designated dork in a group of five SA.

Law jobs are an unfair competition that begins with undergrad grades. There is no reason to expect that SA bids and offers should be any different. Either perform well relative to the rules of the game or reset expectations.

This is absolutely not true, especially in Texas. I personally know several competent people who were no-offered for no other reason than the firm overhired, had to cut 30%, and they got unlucky.

Read this thread and tell me all of these people are "dorks" or "functionally illiterate" or "failures": http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=212272.

What we see in this thread is survivorship bias: I got an offer and am therefore amazing. Everybody else who got no offered deserved it and is not as amazing as me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

[Anonymous User]

Cadwalader
Dechert
DLA Piper
Baker McKenzie
Paul Hastings

why paul hastings?

[Anonymous User]

Cadwalader
Dechert
DLA Piper
Baker McKenzie
Paul Hastings

why paul hastings?

Consensus is the culture is pretty toxic and that work flow has been unsteady, at best, the last few years.

[Anonymous User]

Cadwalader
Dechert
DLA Piper
Baker McKenzie
Paul Hastings

why paul hastings?

Consensus is the culture is pretty toxic and that work flow has been unsteady, at best, the last few years.

Idk if this is true across the board. I have a friend in the LA office and she seems pretty happy (caveat she's not in corp).

[Anonymous User]

K&L Gates has been brought up a few times in this thread, can anyone go into detail on why? I understand that revenue has decreased slightly over the past few years, Kalis left last year, and the staff lay-offs, but are those really indications of structural financial issues or are they just run-of-the-mill business cycles that firms deal with from time to time?

[Anonymous User]

Venable LA and SF. Toxic cultures.

[BlackAndOrange84]

K&L Gates has been brought up a few times in this thread, can anyone go into detail on why? I understand that revenue has decreased slightly over the past few years, Kalis left last year, and the staff lay-offs, but are those really indications of structural financial issues or are they just run-of-the-mill business cycles that firms deal with from time to time?

Part of the issue is forgetting that K&L Gates has been cobbled together from a lot of mergers over the last 15 years or so. It's far from clear that it's pursued a discriminating M&A strategy rather than just gobbling up local and regional firms, and there are big questions about integration of all its offices into the firm and whether they'll work out in the long run. Even in a secondary market where they pay more than the secondary players, I'd stay away.

[Anonymous User]

K&L Gates has been brought up a few times in this thread, can anyone go into detail on why? I understand that revenue has decreased slightly over the past few years, Kalis left last year, and the staff lay-offs, but are those really indications of structural financial issues or are they just run-of-the-mill business cycles that firms deal with from time to time?

Part of the issue is forgetting that K&L Gates has been cobbled together from a lot of mergers over the last 15 years or so. It's far from clear that it's pursued a discriminating M&A strategy rather than just gobbling up local and regional firms, and there are big questions about integration of all its offices into the firm and whether they'll work out in the long run. Even in a secondary market where they pay more than the secondary players, I'd stay away.

I’m the quoted anon. Not here to argue with you, and am genuinely curious for anymore insight you have, but isnt that just speculation? Wouldn’t this strategy just cause the individual offices of the firm to become more individualized, with subsequent firm-wide decisions being felt differently in each office?

I’m mostly just worried about losing my job if the economy were to correct within the next few years, hence the questions on financial security.

[BlackAndOrange84]

K&L Gates has been brought up a few times in this thread, can anyone go into detail on why? I understand that revenue has decreased slightly over the past few years, Kalis left last year, and the staff lay-offs, but are those really indications of structural financial issues or are they just run-of-the-mill business cycles that firms deal with from time to time?

Part of the issue is forgetting that K&L Gates has been cobbled together from a lot of mergers over the last 15 years or so. It's far from clear that it's pursued a discriminating M&A strategy rather than just gobbling up local and regional firms, and there are big questions about integration of all its offices into the firm and whether they'll work out in the long run. Even in a secondary market where they pay more than the secondary players, I'd stay away.

I’m the quoted anon. Not here to argue with you, and am genuinely curious for anymore insight you have, but isnt that just speculation? Wouldn’t this strategy just cause the individual offices of the firm to become more individualized, with subsequent firm-wide decisions being felt differently in each office?

I’m mostly just worried about losing my job if the economy were to correct within the next few years, hence the questions on financial security.

It depends on how the firm is structured financially. Overaggressive mergers have caused firms to blow up in the past. Many think that K&L is putting itself in a similar situation. I also get the sense that there have been significant partner defections at K&L, including not being able to retain lateral partners, though I can't really say if that's just anecdotal given how big the firm is. Do some googling and make your own opinion. Personally, if I had just about any other options, I'd go elsewhere. That includes if it came down to a more regional firm that paid less.

[Anonymous User]

Venable LA and SF. Toxic cultures.

Can you be more specific? Particular practice groups or just generally the entire office?

[Anonymous User]

Re: Venable, have heard bad things from multiple people which crosses practice groups. Issues are largely with the partners, some of who are mean or crazy or yellers. They’ve got a decent sized LA office and a terrible reputation here.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Venable, have heard bad things from multiple people which crosses practice groups. Issues are largely with the partners, some of who are mean or crazy or yellers. They’ve got a decent sized LA office and a terrible reputation here.

Former Venable associate (although I wasn't in the LA office) and can confirm that the rumors are true that the LA office has a bad reputation within the firm (and apparently outside the firm as well!. I was told in particular about the tax partners in LA, but it may extend to other groups as well.

[Anonymous User]

can we revive for 2019?

[johnnymacaroni]

the sad truth is that the answer is all of them.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

the sad truth is that the answer is all of them.

Oh wow, what a brave answer from such a brave anon! So edgy! So real!

Is anyone still applying to JD or have people wised up to the sick game they play over there?

[Tenzen]

the sad truth is that the answer is all of them.

Oh wow, what a brave answer from such a brave anon! So edgy! So real!

Is anyone still applying to JD or have people wised up to the sick game they play over there?

It's amazing how the market responded to Milbank getting the raise ball going, e.g. it's vault ranking going up by 15 the following year, but that nothing happened to Jones Day's perceived prestige, despite all the shit and suits that's been happening for well over a year now. Maybe next time.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

the sad truth is that the answer is all of them.

Oh wow, what a brave answer from such a brave anon! So edgy! So real!

Is anyone still applying to JD or have people wised up to the sick game they play over there?

It's amazing how the market responded to Milbank getting the raise ball going, e.g. it's vault ranking going up by 15 the following year, but that nothing happened to Jones Day's perceived prestige, despite all the shit and suits that's been happening for well over a year now. Maybe next time.

One can only hope...

[Anonymous User]

Manatt Corporate. It's dead.

[Wild Card]

BUMPing this thread to remind rising 2Ls that Dechert has been laying off first-year associates:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=278041
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=268985

[Anonymous User]

Dentons. A partner sent an office-wide email describing instances of associates doing bad work without calling out these associates by name. One example was about an instance where a box of documents were sent to court with a label stating that the documents were to be filed "underseal" as one word instead of "under seal" as separate words. This is the same partner who had been sanctioned by a federal judge in a published opinion for willfully violating a protective order.

[AnonCanary123]

Dentons. A partner sent an office-wide email describing instances of associates doing bad work without calling out these associates by name. One example was about an instance where a box of documents were sent to court with a label stating that the documents were to be filed "underseal" as one word instead of "under seal" as separate words. This is the same partner who had been sanctioned by a federal judge in a published opinion for willfully violating a protective order.

So I'm confused. Based on your post, it sounds to me like a random associate sent a box of sensitive documents to the court. Isn't that on the associate, and not the partner? I fail to see the connection with this box incident and the partner being sanctioned. Unless you're trying to say everyone at Dechert sucks?

[Wanderingdrock]

Dentons. A partner sent an office-wide email describing instances of associates doing bad work without calling out these associates by name. One example was about an instance where a box of documents were sent to court with a label stating that the documents were to be filed "underseal" as one word instead of "under seal" as separate words. This is the same partner who had been sanctioned by a federal judge in a published opinion for willfully violating a protective order.

So I'm confused. Based on your post, it sounds to me like a random associate sent a box of sensitive documents to the court. Isn't that on the associate, and not the partner? I fail to see the connection with this box incident and the partner being sanctioned. Unless you're trying to say everyone at Dechert sucks?

Think it's clear from the post, but the poster seems to be calling out a hypocritical partner for criticizing an associate's typo via passive-aggressive email. The box contained documents which were supposed to go to the court, but were to be filed in a non-public way (e.g., "under seal"). The partner seems to have been upset that the associate mistakenly made that request one word instead of two. Sounds like a real ass, frankly.