The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Gunner alert: Susman Godfrey opening in NY
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 21st, 2006 5:21 PM Author: galvanic state http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/06/03/032106h (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5392062) |
 |
Date: March 21st, 2006 5:36 PM Author: Boyish Dun Weed Whacker Principal's Office can you cut and paste it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5392215) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2006 5:39 PM Author: galvanic state Yeah, sorry I forgot about the registration thing. Interesting note about their salaries towards the end -- and don't forget this is the firm that pays the 75-100% bonuses.
Houston Firm Bound for the Big Apple
New York Lawyer March 21, 2006 Reprints & Permissions
Texas Lawyer
Houston-based Susman Godfrey plans to open a New York office in September, pending approval by a March 27 scheduled partnership vote.
Founding partner Stephen D. Susman says he's personally pushing for the new office. "I don't want to retire for another 10 years, and I need a big challenge, and trying to be a success in Manhattan is a big challenge," he says.
With 70 lawyers nationwide, Susman Godfrey has offices in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles and Seattle. Historically, the 26-year-old firm has opened offices on the basis of a particular partner's interest in pursuing a practice in that city, Susman says, noting that partner Parker C. Folse III moved to Seattle in 1995 and now the firm has nine lawyers in its Seattle office.
Initially, Susman says, he plans to start small in New York, subleasing office space for five lawyers. "I don't want to have a problem, if we are going to close it down in a few months," Susman says. He says he believes, however, that a demand for his type of practice--contingent-fee commercial plaintiffs' litigation--exists in New York.
The firm--responding to moves by Vinson & Elkins, Andrews Kurth and Baker Botts--plans to raise associate salaries in its Texas, Seattle and Los Angeles offices to New York levels, Susman says. |
|
Date: March 21st, 2006 5:50 PM Author: Boyish Dun Weed Whacker Principal's Office thanks. this should be interesting. they have a pretty unique practice and should probably be able to recruit some superstar graduates. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5392327) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 11:59 AM Author: Comical factory reset button house yeah, but subleasing space for only five lawyers implies they're not planning on doing much recruiting here. i guess it depends on whether their practice does well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574449) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:08 PM Author: Ocher school cafeteria there are no "superstar" law grads (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574493) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:31 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster How many "superstar graduates" want to be plaintiff's lawyers? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574594) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:34 PM Author: cerebral idiotic coffee pot In an average year, 1.23 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574605) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:36 PM Author: Buck-toothed amber heaven at Susman? are you kidding? i can see them getting tons of top grads if they grow the office. it's not like they're doing slip-and-fall cases.
see, e.g., the first guy on their attorney list.
http://www.susmangodfrey.com/Bio/bio-sagrawal.html |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:39 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster Shareholder derivative suits can be just as sleazy as slip-and-fall, and a lot more socially destructive. Class-action tort work and product liability are also perceived as sleazy ambulance chasing.
I'd also worry about exit options--are corporations and biglaw firms going to want to hire somebody with that kind of background? |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:42 PM Author: Buck-toothed amber heaven well, to your second point, susman has a famously short partnership track if that's what you're after.
i don't know whether it's "sleazy" or not. it certainly pays a shitload and is very, very selective. see the full list of lawyers. |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:45 PM Author: cerebral idiotic coffee pot Oh, it's sleazy. Susman has its attorneys jumping in garbage bins searching for inside dirt. That's why they need some people in NYC. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574654) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:49 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster A random sampling seems to reveal a ton of Texas grads and a smattering of people from the T14. I know it's a hard place to get an offer from, but I'm just not seeing that many top students at top schools actually accept full-time offers there. Maybe that's just because they didn't have an NYC office, but I doubt it. They do have an LA office. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574668) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:58 PM Author: Buck-toothed amber heaven i'm not sure. i know that i could have summered at any one of the firms generally regarded as "non-sleazy," but i'm not at all confident Susman would have hired me. maybe i'm overestimating their selectiveness because of the high pay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574700) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 1:54 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster If you could have summered at Wachtell and Williams & Connolly, you could have summered at Susman (or at least your resume wouldn't have kept you out).
They do have very high hiring standards. My point is that it seems like very few people at the top schools who meet those standards actually want to work there. I think that has more to do with the hours and the fact that it's plaintiff's work than it does with the lack of an NYC office. |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: Filthy fighting nibblets hissy fit It might also have something to do with the fact that the firm's non-Texas offices are very small. And who wants to work in Texas? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5575278) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2006 12:30 AM Author: mint fragrant karate Yeah, who would want to work in a state where market is now $140k, has a low-cost of living, and no state income taxes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5577357) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 4:59 PM Author: Mildly Autistic Angry Faggot Firefighter Tanning Salon This is my shit right here. I would do this in a heartbeat. Big money, exclusive firm that does plaintiff-side tort suits? HELL yeah. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5575669) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:47 PM Author: Slimy step-uncle's house "Shareholder derivative suits can be just as sleazy as slip-and-fall, and a lot more socially destructive. Class-action tort work and product liability are also perceived as sleazy ambulance chasing."
All this is rather irrelevant. As another poster notes, it's about the money. Most people think defending against asbestos and tobacco mass torts is what's sleazy.
Not having a check on the people managing companies would probably be pretty socially destructive, too.
"I'd also worry about exit options--are corporations and biglaw firms going to want to hire somebody with that kind of background?"
I guess there's no crossing over between defense lawyers and prosecutors and between government antitrust lawyers and the big-firm lawyers on the other side. |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:51 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster You're assuming that top law school grads only care about money. I disagree--they also care about prestige, and plaintiff's work isn't prestigious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574677) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:56 PM Author: Slimy step-uncle's house You're assuming top law school graduates only care about prestige. They also care about money. THe main difference between Biglaw and plaintiff's law firms that matters to graduates is not the subject matter of the work they do, but the fact that big law firms have more resoruces, more job stability, and higher salaries.
|
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 12:58 PM Author: cerebral idiotic coffee pot As he said they care about both, and it takes a helluva lot of money to cover up the stench that comes from being a plaintiff's attorney. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574698) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 1:02 PM Author: Slimy step-uncle's house My intuition tells me it wouldn't take up more money than it takes to get someone to decertify a class of people with perforated lungs, so that most of them will die without compensation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574710) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 1:57 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster I think you're wrong. Putting aside which kind of work is more evil, plaintiff's side work has a stigma within the legal community that most people who have other excellent options would rather avoid.
It's not about whether you can sleep at night, it's about whether you can tell people what kind of law you practice without having them think you're a sleazeball. |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 2:06 PM Author: Slimy step-uncle's house I think you're wrong. Which work is more evil definitely matters.
If public interest paid the way private work does, I assure you the supply of law students wanting to work in private practice would drop tremendously.
Plus, putting aside money, as between whether you can sleep at night and having other people not think you're sleazy, only the really, really, really sleazy people would choose the latter. |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 3:24 PM Author: cerebral idiotic coffee pot Public interest does not have the hours or the brains requirements that biglaw does; no need for high salaries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5575216) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 4:49 PM Author: Slimy step-uncle's house This is all pretty irrelevant to the fact that, if the salaries were higher, people would choose public interest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5575601) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 6:33 PM Author: cerebral idiotic coffee pot Hours are not relevant? I'm pretty sure I'd be happier with the same amount of money, but working vastly less. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5576020) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 3:35 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster But BIGLAW is *at worst* equally evil to plaintiff side work, in the eyes of the relevant demographic. People aren't picking Susman over Wachtell for moral reasons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5575266) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 4:49 PM Author: Slimy step-uncle's house I don't know where you get the idea that BigLaw is "at worst" equally evil to plaintiff's work. If people could make 144k plus bonus doing legal aid, again, I assure you, people would not be jumping to go to Wachtell. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5575599) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2006 12:22 AM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster Legal aid is not "plaintiff's work" in any sense that's relevant here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5577327) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 1:15 PM Author: Boyish Dun Weed Whacker Principal's Office and susman isn't strictly a plaintiff's firm. 40-50% of their practice is defense-side -- honorable shit like defending enron. some of their plaintiff's work is also patent and IP. they were number 2 in amlaw's litigation boutiques after keker. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574766) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 2:02 PM Author: Histrionic primrose crackhouse toaster I know. But those fat bonuses come from contingency work, and they do enough plaintiff's side work to be thought of as a plaintiff's firm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574939) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 2:07 PM Author: Boyish Dun Weed Whacker Principal's Office i know. they would probably call themselves a plaintiff's firm, although it's more companies than individuals. i'm just saying that they're not exactly lieff cabraser or milberg weiss. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#5574954) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2006 5:26 PM Author: Confused dysfunction "and a lot more socially destructive"
Relevance? |
Date: September 13th, 2006 7:15 PM Author: galvanic state Opened: http://www.susmangodfrey.com/news/2006-09-SGOpensNYOffice.htm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=384270&forum_id=2#6608716) |