The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Debevoise v. Shearman
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 16th, 2005 8:47 PM Author: vivacious violet shrine chad discuss (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839584) |
 |
Date: September 16th, 2005 8:49 PM Author: bipolar twinkling weed whacker newt debevoise without question (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839593) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 8:52 PM Author: vivacious violet shrine chad okay, but why? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839612) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 8:53 PM Author: bipolar twinkling weed whacker newt they are both equal in quality of work, but sheaman treats theire people like shit, and laid off a bunch of people not long ago (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839620) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 8:54 PM Author: charismatic mauve blood rage halford yep, exactly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839625) |
Date: September 16th, 2005 8:55 PM Author: impressive avocado shitlib locus Doesn't anybody else find Shearman's summer salary of $2500+/wk at least somewhat attractive? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839640) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 9:13 PM Author: Bearded sable kitchen It's not *that* much more than other nyc firms... not enough to make up for much, imo, if you felt there was a big difference in work, lateral power, job satisfaction, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839763) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 9:19 PM Author: impressive avocado shitlib locus True, I'm not saying take it over like S&C or even Debevoise, but I think there is probably a big range of firms where you're really kidding yourself if you think you can make a judgment on prestige and job satisfaction based on a couple of interviews and anecdotal evidence. Compared to that, an extra $1000 or so for the summer is a real tangible difference. And you can always interview again. (Apparently a lot of Shearman summers did, which might not be a good sign.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839806) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 9:30 PM Author: Tan sanctuary Shearman is my bet for big-firm-most-likely-to-implode. I'd dip well down the Vault list before going there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839861) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 9:33 PM Author: impressive avocado shitlib locus I think the rumors are pretty unfounded. They're doing well on the league tables and have been for some time.
http://www.thomson.com/financial/investbank/fi_investbank_league_table.jsp#mergers_acquisitions |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 9:35 PM Author: Tan sanctuary I can't say how I came by my information, but it's quite a bit more reliable than what you'll find on such websites.
Shearman's still better than a lot of other firms, but it's on shaky ground compared to its peers. |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 9:38 PM Author: impressive avocado shitlib locus Okay. Somebody else mentioned something about partner departures so there might be some stuff going on that I didn't know about. Also there were a few unsettling things about my callback that I didn't like, so I can't really say I'd recommend e.g. Linklaters over them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#3839913) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2005 9:40 PM Author: Tan sanctuary I'm naturally suspicious of the only big firm to fire associates. Everyone experienced the same economic downturn, but only Shearman pulled the trigger.
Also, partners are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. All in all, it's not a pretty picture. |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 3:58 AM Author: charcoal stage To anyone interested in Shearman, I posted this on GA originally in an attempt to raise the bar on the discussion around that Firm, which I believe suffers from a clot of postings evincing forceful, unsubstantiated opinions:
"I found myself choosing similarly btwn the two top firms you mentioned and went to Shearman. I did a good deal of diligence though, given how Shearman looks on this board. There are some shit-the-bed scary posts, but I'm satisfied that the firm knows it has a perception problem (borne of the layoffs from '01) and a smoldering morale problem that--whether it was born in '01 or not--still compels people to trash the firm anonymously . Together, I had to ask whether these equalled a recruiting problem since so many 1L's are hostage to the bitterness on these boards and Vault, perhaps validly. Q: Have the people going to Shearman over the last few years been less than top candidates as a reult of the above factors? Answer: if it was ever so, that phase seems to be over. I'm confidently betting on it at least.
I found out that currently, the most associate turnover and unhappiness has been in litigation and that's because people felt overworked. This is a department that has undergone some fitful, aggressive expansion and it's not clear that mgmt has been able to keep up with all the training and development intitiatives amidst the busy-ness. People were stressed and upset that in the midst of the madness, things like the associate life committees and the other great retention perks Shearman distinguished itself with about five years ago have fallen to the side. Instead of hiring more attorneys to cover more work, they've made do with contract atty's because they don't want to compromise on quality of incoming laterals.This all sounds certainly problematic, but perhaps not as fatal and systemic as one could be led to believe.
On the other hand, many of the associates I've spoken to--friends who have been there for years, not recruiting toadies--say that a) litigation heads and the new managing partner(s) are dealing with it and b)other groups are much more stable and relatively problem-free. The misery might just be a litigation department thing. I have spoken to happy people in M&A and Real Estate and neither of them were too obviously chugging Zoloft as they spoke to me.
As far as I'm concerned, every large firm encounters problem patches like Shearman's, and it's how they deal with it that matters. The firm seems to be taking these issues on squarely, not playing ostrich, and that's about the most you can ask.
Note also that the current round of partner de-equitizations has been explained to me (by partners at other firms) as Shearman just cutting some deadwood that should have been dealt with a few years ago. This is not unusual and makes Shearman actually seem healthier in the point of view I heard. Whatever morale problem these de-equitizations engender (will I be next? they all ask) has been mitigated by these cuts having been a long time in coming. Again, it's not ideal to hear a firm is de-equitizing partners but it shoe dropping from the '01 associate cuts.
Overall, I thought the swathe of people I met with--partners, mid-levels, and junior associates alike--were whipsmart and more interesting than the swathes I came across at other places. That, the fact that I want to do M&A, and the evidence I saw that the firm is earnestly addressing its issues makes me as confident as one can be about a decision that is, let's fucking face it, a blind leap." |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 9:53 AM Author: slimy galvanic giraffe school cafeteria first, debevoise for sure over shearman.
but how can your source be a bit more reliable. these are published deals they are on. they can't fake revenue. from what I've heard most groups are very busy and no one is just sitting around. regardless of how they are perceived by associates, shearman's ties with banks seem solid and they continually get work. |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 10:01 AM Author: Tan sanctuary I have connections to the partnership, and I'm staying far, far away from them. That's all I'll say.
Of course the revenue and deals and such aren't fake, but IMO they're not on the same level as similarly ranked firms as far as associate satisfaction and long-term sustainability. |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 4:38 PM Author: crystalline supple hell persian brother, please share... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4220068) |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 5:29 PM Author: Shaky Aromatic Abode Roommate Shearman...better international reputation, and usually higher on the vault than Debevoise (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4220322) |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 6:00 PM Author: exciting center pisswyrm Subject: oh my god, the vault says so. A firm being ranked higher in the vault is one of the worst reasons possible for choosing one over another. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4220493) |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 8:29 PM Author: hairraiser aquamarine indian lodge It's a lot more persuasive than anonymous, unsubstaniated messages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4221494) |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 6:46 PM Author: spruce mood Debevoise by about 100 miles. I wouldnt even fucking think about going to Shearman over Deb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4220748) |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 7:40 PM Author: Cerebral carmine goyim Deb is supposed to be pretty polite and nerdy. I don't know about Shearman but I get the impression it's more aggressive than Deb. For corporate, there is also the issue of m&a/intl vs private equity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4221110) |
|
Date: November 5th, 2005 8:03 PM Author: shimmering frum national security agency range The guy that interviewed me at Deb my 2L year was literally the biggest asshole out of the 100+ people I've seen these past few years. Just for that, I would never even consider going there or recommending the firm to anyone. I have heard mostly good things about the firm otherwise, however. Guess it's just a lesson to firms about being more careful about who they send to interview. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4221289) |