redguru said:
What do a couple of lawyers have to do with this?
Well, I
was attempting to maintain the random continuity thing going.
Naw, screw it, I'll keep doin' it.
Date: November 5th, 2005 3:58 AM
Author: NewYorkinthe70s
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."
(
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=260727&forum_id=2#4218002)
HTFuckingH!!!!1!
