Choosing Biglaw SA
| Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/17/17 | | Boyish depressive | 08/17/17 | | Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/17/17 | | Boyish depressive | 08/17/17 | | self-centered wagecucks dopamine | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | Boyish depressive | 08/17/17 | | self-centered wagecucks dopamine | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | arousing indirect expression | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | arousing indirect expression | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | arousing indirect expression | 08/17/17 | | self-centered wagecucks dopamine | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | self-centered wagecucks dopamine | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | Floppy aggressive ticket booth | 08/17/17 | | Glittery field | 08/17/17 | | supple piazza scourge upon the earth | 08/17/17 | | Glittery field | 08/17/17 | | arousing indirect expression | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | Drunken indigo native ape | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/17/17 | | Drunken indigo native ape | 08/17/17 | | anal mood whorehouse | 08/17/17 | | Yapping Chad Dilemma | 08/17/17 | | Galvanic poppy yarmulke house | 08/17/17 | | Territorial odious parlour black woman | 08/17/17 | | Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/17/17 | | Galvanic poppy yarmulke house | 08/17/17 | | Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/17/17 | | Galvanic poppy yarmulke house | 08/17/17 | | internet-worthy marvelous site toaster | 08/17/17 | | Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/17/17 | | Glittery field | 08/17/17 | | Puce judgmental parlor | 08/17/17 | | Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/17/17 | | Floppy aggressive ticket booth | 08/17/17 | | Deranged Sickened Athletic Conference Dog Poop | 08/19/17 | | lavender bossy generalized bond | 08/17/17 | | Ruddy clown | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | grizzly lodge haunted graveyard | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | grizzly lodge haunted graveyard | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | grizzly lodge haunted graveyard | 08/17/17 | | diverse roommate | 08/17/17 | | motley skinny woman | 08/17/17 | | diverse roommate | 08/17/17 | | lavender bossy generalized bond | 08/17/17 | | Ruddy clown | 08/17/17 | | grizzly lodge haunted graveyard | 08/17/17 | | Ruddy clown | 08/17/17 | | grizzly lodge haunted graveyard | 08/17/17 | | Ruddy clown | 08/17/17 | | grizzly lodge haunted graveyard | 08/17/17 | | Ruddy clown | 08/17/17 | | snowy dragon | 08/17/17 | | lavender bossy generalized bond | 08/17/17 | | Ruddy clown | 08/17/17 | | lavender bossy generalized bond | 08/17/17 | | snowy dragon | 08/17/17 | | Floppy aggressive ticket booth | 08/17/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: August 17th, 2017 7:56 PM Author: arousing indirect expression
You can get equal experience at the firms, but what Nutella is talking about is that for in-house you're normally interviewing for a specialized area (not some general corporate position) so your firm's prestige/reputation w/r/t that specialized area is important, i.e., specialized area >>> vault ranking when interviewing for inhouse. So, like, you've probably never heard of Seward & Kissel, but if you're doing fund work they are about as good as any other shop.
Once you go in-house, attorneys don't want to train someone from the ground up. Sure, there is some leeway, but not much. They'll figure, shit I can get a K&E associate but then I'd have to train them to do X type of work, and what if they hate it. Ohh fuck it, I'll just go with Firm Y that is known for it b/c the fucker already knows the basics and likes it enough to practice in that area.
I'm training a junior attorney that we copped straight out of LS. And, it's been a real pain in the ass. My boss just says, "CC Special, you can help him right? Work with him." Fuck me. I can see that his eyes glaze over when I talk about various fed regs.
Edit: But if you don't know what the fuck you want to do, it's generally a safe bet to go with the highest rank firm that you can somewhat tolerate (e.g., location, etc.)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3704162&forum_id=2#34014219) |
Date: August 17th, 2017 3:55 PM Author: arousing indirect expression
Prestige firm does matter to a certain extent, but if you're looking at V10s, then you can prbly just pick anyone and be fine. You may want to focus on practice group/ranking, which will be more important once you look going inhouse. I know some firms do a rotation system, which kinda sets you back a bit.
Going in-house will depend a lot on experience and personality. I'd rather take someone from a lower ranked firm that has relevant experience and a decent personality than some douche with so-so experience from a V5.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3704162&forum_id=2#34012546) |
Date: August 17th, 2017 3:58 PM Author: motley skinny woman
>>Should I just choose the most prestigious firm?
yes, unless one is known as a particular hellhole
>>Do firms like cravath or the other v5 firms provide associates with an easier time lateraling or going inhouse?
#5 v #6, no. there isnt some magical v5 cutuff.
v5 vs. shitty biglaw, yes.
>>Is there really any difference between firms in terms of the amount of work or responsiveness that's required?
all this will be heavily dependent on who you end up working for. absolutely no way to predict.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3704162&forum_id=2#34012564) |
Date: August 17th, 2017 10:27 PM Author: snowy dragon
NYC litigation ranking?
PW, DPW, &c?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3704162&forum_id=2#34015400) |
|
|