Pros
I appreciate the the ethos of Edelson’s cases especially in digital privacy, and met talented, tech-savvy young attorneys who seemed like rising stars. As to the administration, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in that they probably do actually believe in their ideals, regardless of execution. I think there is some version of the firm that could be great.
Cons
In my experience, HR and the Chief of Staff tended to engage in tone-policing and micromanaging around employee personalities that does not make for a good work environment. If superiors constantly telling you that you “talk wrong”, write emails wrong, etc. is going to give you anxiety, or frankly just a certain claustrophobia, this is probably not a fun place for you to work. If you are a straight shooter or not neurotypical, that could present an issue. I can’t say that as an adult in professional settings, I have ever been spoken to in the condescending and critical manner that I was here. I have some broader concern about ways the firm seems to monitor discourse among employees who have complaints about superiors or the workplace. Regardless of whether such complaints are founded or unfounded, freedom to this type of discourse is important (and in theory protected). For example, even early on, my supervisor asked me (as “we”, apparently on behalf of the administration) to name names of coworkers who had complaints about how the administration treats paralegals. (I avoided the question, but that’s a hell of a thing to ask your subordinates, even veiled in the plausible deniability of “we care about our culture so rumors are bad for us”.) This impression was consistent with other instances preceding my termination. My time at the firm was short-lived so ultimately, it’s possible I just had a bad run and one can, in fact, have a much better experience. In any case, whether broadly reflective or not, these are issues which I hope could be focus points.