Pros
Associates are often in control of their destinies, at least to a certain extent. The firm gives you the opportunity to get hands-on experience rather early on if you kiss the proper rings. The trade-offs are many, however.
Cons
I feel compelled to write a review because of how much this firm has hamstrung my career to date. When you enter a litigation practice, you have to anticipate, and be willing to deal with, a certain level of abrasiveness. Swartz Campbell takes that norm to a whole new level, unfortunately, which is proven by the number and intensity of the other reviews. For that reason, I don't care to write too much about that topic other than reaffirming other peoples' experiences. The topic that has driven me write out this review is how much of a bad sign "Swartz Campbell" on your resume is to other Philadelphia-area firms. I am a few years removed from Swartz Campbell and in the job market looking for my next jump. I got a call from a recruiter I am working with and despite having the grades and experience a top Philly firm is looking for, they singled out my Swartz Campbell experience as why they won't be extending me an offer. The recruiter explained the logic behind this: most firms know the type of training (or lack thereof) SC provides its Associates and they want to stay away from having attorneys with that type of training/mindset/approach to the legal practice from effecting their own firms. This wasn't the first time SC has come up for me in my job hunt. A while ago, I had an interview with a large firm that lasted about 45 mins and dealt almost entirely with my experience at SC. They asked a number of questions centered on which partners I worked for and how I would go about approaching various tasks. I didn't make the connection then, but they wanted to get a better idea of what "kind" of lawyer I was. I didn't get the job. The moral of the story is (especially for newer attorneys) your trademark will be your professional experiences, which means you have to be very cautious which firms your join early on. Human nature simplifies all analyses, and so your future prospective employers WILL categorize you based off your work pedigree, as they do with your schooling. Work for a dismal firm and be regarded as a dismal attorney. This is why so many of our colleagues at SC were either there for a long time or a very short time. People there for a long time couldn't get out and people there for a short time knew the diminished career prospects and were OK being a flash in the pan and making a run for it right away. You rarely see people join for 4-6 years and then leave, a sure sign of the effect of the firm on one's career. Some people might feel they don't have the option but to accept an offer from SC, and that might be the case. However, they have to be willing to accept the effect their time at SC may have on their career trajectory, which includes your compensation. It is hard to imagine spending time at SC (even as little as a few months) and having illustrious opportunities and large salaries come your way thereafter. I'm sure it has been done, but most people must heed caution. If given the option to work for SC or some smaller suburban firm or company, I would go with either of the latter options. It's not worth it to join SC in the long run. I wish I had never taken a chance on Swartz Campbell. It has been the biggest mistake of my legal career that has caused me a tremendous amount of stress, reduced compensation, wasted time with failed interviews, and a loss of opportunity.