Anecdotally, when I interviewed for them they were one of the most bland, dry, uninteresting firms I looked at. None of the people that I talked to seemed to think that they were doing something important or interesting. The only one that was worse was ML Boston, but this was shortly after Bingham sank so I don't blame the lack of enthusiasm for the new firm.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Hall of fameLaLiLuLeLo wrote:Bc there’s enough shame working at DLA alreadyAnonymous User wrote:Why is DLA not on these shame lists?
Serious question -- why are they any worse than other firms? I thought the joke about DLA started like 15 years ago when forming mega-firms through mergers was still sort of a new thing. Not so much anymore
From a broader perspective, the law is about prestige, which is relatively subjective, whether you like it or not. Sure we can see how many top law schools and law review members are represented, but in the end of the day firms just get a reputation that sticks. And DLA seems to have the reputation of the Walmart of firms, but without the nice greeters. They are a wet blanket.
It's by no means a "bad" firm - they do work and make money. I'm sure some do very good work and some really like it. But in our little world it's not a good place to be at.