Boies or W & C Forum

[Anonymous User]

Also, looking at that AmLaw data, the number of equity partners at Boies, when compared to a firm like Paul Weiss, is similar percentage.

1/6 for Paul Weiss and 1/7 for Boies

[dbt]

Winning trials and then appeals is the name of the game, not going to Yale and being EIC of law review or being the #1 law student.

Focusing completely on who law firms RECRUIT - as opposed to their trial/appellate success - is not a very sensible approach. That's a great approach to measure the POTENTIAL of an incoming CLASS - but not really a great way to measure the "prestige" - or whatever weird metric you're using - to gauge a law firm.

Sounds like you've got some serious prestigeitis.

Not really. W&C performs as well as its prestige would suggest.

Also, lol @ "serious prestigeitis." You're in the field of law. Welcome to prestige/gunner land. I'm just saying if you have the choice between these two and don't care about DC or NY more, you're passing up quite the opportunity if you skip out on W&C. The numbers at Yale FIP last year, for instance, indicate that W&C is the most selective firm that participates and that there is 100% yield for callbacks. Perhaps those decisions are driven in part by prestige considerations, but if you have nothing else driving your decision, why wouldn't you take that into account? I'm all for choosing Boies over W&C if you have reasons - like you legitimately like one place more than the other, or really would rather be in NY.

[270910]

Winning trials and then appeals is the name of the game, not going to Yale and being EIC of law review or being the #1 law student.

Focusing completely on who law firms RECRUIT - as opposed to their trial/appellate success - is not a very sensible approach. That's a great approach to measure the POTENTIAL of an incoming CLASS - but not really a great way to measure the "prestige" - or whatever weird metric you're using - to gauge a law firm.

Sounds like you've got some serious prestigeitis.

Not really. W&C performs as well as its prestige would suggest.

Also, lol @ "serious prestigeitis." You're in the field of law. Welcome to prestige/gunner land. I'm just saying if you have the choice between these two and don't care about DC or NY more, you're passing up quite the opportunity if you skip out on W&C. The numbers at Yale FIP last year, for instance, indicate that W&C is the most selective firm that participates and that there is 100% yield for callbacks. Perhaps those decisions are driven in part by prestige considerations, but if you have nothing else driving your decision, why wouldn't you take that into account? I'm all for choosing Boies over W&C if you have reasons - like you legitimately like one place more than the other, or really would rather be in NY.

Did OP ever say it was Boies NYC? Boies has a DC office and it isn't that much smaller than it's NYC office.

Anyway, I still think that W&C would be a much better choice in any circumstance - only not due to prestige. That partner:associate ratio is sexy, and implies a lot of real training and upward mobility. But different things matter to different people. You could grind yourself to pieces and walk out with a lot more scratch after a 2-3 year stint at Boies, for example, if you knew you didn't want to be a lifer.

[yellowjacket2012]

Winning trials and then appeals is the name of the game, not going to Yale and being EIC of law review or being the #1 law student.

Focusing completely on who law firms RECRUIT - as opposed to their trial/appellate success - is not a very sensible approach. That's a great approach to measure the POTENTIAL of an incoming CLASS - but not really a great way to measure the "prestige" - or whatever weird metric you're using - to gauge a law firm.

Sounds like you've got some serious prestigeitis.

Not really. W&C performs as well as its prestige would suggest.

Also, lol @ "serious prestigeitis." You're in the field of law. Welcome to prestige/gunner land. I'm just saying if you have the choice between these two and don't care about DC or NY more, you're passing up quite the opportunity if you skip out on W&C. The numbers at Yale FIP last year, for instance, indicate that W&C is the most selective firm that participates and that there is 100% yield for callbacks. Perhaps those decisions are driven in part by prestige considerations, but if you have nothing else driving your decision, why wouldn't you take that into account? I'm all for choosing Boies over W&C if you have reasons - like you legitimately like one place more than the other, or really would rather be in NY.

I have no doubt W&C performs as well as its prestige would suggest.. its just a very unhealthy metric thats all

[dbt]

Winning trials and then appeals is the name of the game, not going to Yale and being EIC of law review or being the #1 law student.

Focusing completely on who law firms RECRUIT - as opposed to their trial/appellate success - is not a very sensible approach. That's a great approach to measure the POTENTIAL of an incoming CLASS - but not really a great way to measure the "prestige" - or whatever weird metric you're using - to gauge a law firm.

Sounds like you've got some serious prestigeitis.

Not really. W&C performs as well as its prestige would suggest.

Also, lol @ "serious prestigeitis." You're in the field of law. Welcome to prestige/gunner land. I'm just saying if you have the choice between these two and don't care about DC or NY more, you're passing up quite the opportunity if you skip out on W&C. The numbers at Yale FIP last year, for instance, indicate that W&C is the most selective firm that participates and that there is 100% yield for callbacks. Perhaps those decisions are driven in part by prestige considerations, but if you have nothing else driving your decision, why wouldn't you take that into account? I'm all for choosing Boies over W&C if you have reasons - like you legitimately like one place more than the other, or really would rather be in NY.

I have no doubt W&C performs as well as its prestige would suggest.. its just a very unhealthy metric thats all

When nothing else is differentiating your options, it's really not.

[chup]

One thing to keep in mind is that BSF is still a very young firm. They've only been around since 1997, and some of their offices are even newer, so a lot can change in 10 or 20 years. W&C, on the other hand, will probably still be essentially the same firm 20 years from now as it is today. Obviously this can be both good or bad, depending on your perspective.

Also, LOL at choosing based on selectivity.

[Anonymous User]

i'll let you have this proposition: its not categorically unhealthy if you regard prestige as a marketing prop to get clients; but from your choice of language, I'm going to say that's not how you view "legal prestige" - lol

[yellowjacket2012]

^ me, anon accid

[dbt]

Mk. It's really nice (and genuine) to see that everyone is "above it all" with regard to prestige when it comes to firms, even if they're all over prestige when it comes to school choice.

[chup]

Mk. It's really nice (and genuine) to see that everyone is "above it all" with regard to prestige when it comes to firms, even if they're all over prestige when it comes to school choice.

--ImageRemoved--

[dbt]

Mk. It's really nice (and genuine) to see that everyone is "above it all" with regard to prestige when it comes to firms, even if they're all over prestige when it comes to school choice.

--ImageRemoved--

Not at all, just snarky. It just seems hypocritical to say that prestige is irrelevant to decision-making, especially given the past behavior of most law students and the general attitude that pervades this profession.

[270910]

Mk. It's really nice (and genuine) to see that everyone is "above it all" with regard to prestige when it comes to firms, even if they're all over prestige when it comes to school choice.

Prestige definitely matters, especially as a starting point - I just personally feel like within the top Vault (and similar) firms the things that generate prestige are more important than the fact that there is prestige.

W&C recently created a SCOTUS justice, defended a president and a senator, is a go-to firm when other prestigious firms are in trouble, has weathered the economic storm well, and hasn't deferred / laid off / slashed salaries. It has astounding scores for associate satisfaction, associate partner relations, and many other metrics that point towards it being a good place to work. Its structure (compensation/no bonus as well as associate/partner numbers) ensures collegiality, early responsibility, and killer on the job training, its office is in one of the most desirable cities in the country (world?) to practice law, and it heavily subsidizes your meals. It also wins (a lot).

In short, there are enough reasons to lust after W&C without resorting to "prestige" that it just seems like it's more relevant to talk of those things than of something more amorphous like prestige. Most of the points I listed above would make me (or a similarly situated law student) choose W&C over Boies Schiller in a heart beat. But there are plenty of things to recommend Boies, so I don't think somebody would be a fool for taking it, especially after weighing intangibles. Boies Schiller is still enormously "prestigious" in its own right, but I think the nuts and bolts all point towards - and certainly enhance the "prestige" of - Williams.

[Pablo Ramirez]

Boies all the way. White & Case* is as TTT as this discussion.


* save it, biatch. I know.

[Anonymous User]

IF YOU WANT TO GET SNARKY, AT LEAST GET THE RIGHT FIRM-W&C IS WILLIAMS &CONNOLY, NOT WHITE & CASE

[Anonymous User]

prestige is a metric used by chicks on Laguna Beach or the Hills
My strongest recommendation: Richard Feynman on Honors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg

[yellowjacket2012]

^ me, eh, whatever, you're young and at Yale Law, if prestige makes you happy - I don't think its my place to say anything.. at least it isn't cocaine

[Pablo Ramirez]

IF YOU WANT TO GET SNARKY, AT LEAST GET THE RIGHT FIRM-W&C IS WILLIAMS &CONNOLY, NOT WHITE & CASE

Read the footnote, jackass. You're on your way to being one f-ing shittard of an attorney.

[underdawg]

lol no one transfers from nyu to yale to take bsf over w&c. leave the poor d00d alone

[yellowjacket2012]

hey man, I'm the first to say that W&C is a badass firm, but not because they are "prestigious" - they've gotten good results, that's all clients care for, or that's what clients' shareholders SHOULD care for. As someone from an engineering background, maybe I just never grew up worshipping - uhh - GE, or Motorola - as a "prestigious" landing spot. Some of my CS friends do this kinda thing with Google, its a selective company, but the CS kids admire it because they envy the 'end product' - not the credentials of people who work there, nobody gives two shits where you went to school, some of the best tech people in the Valley didn't even GO to school.

The first day I popped into law school, my Civ Pro prof was yakking about how we're in an elite profession, WE'RE NOT - WE'RE TRADING HOURS FOR $$$.. we're PLUMBERS, but we use computers, printers, and LexisNexis for our trade. But.. hey.. I guess some of us plumbers made plumbing review at Plumbers-Academy, the elitest plumbing school of them all.

I dunno, law has some messed up "decision making algorithms" in place which use some very funky meaningless variables - and these are otherwise intelligent rational decision makers, who get put in an assembly line on day 1 of law school, and then brainwashed into different metrics to measure themselves by. You know, we need more people like Warren Buffett as role models in the area of law, it would be far less pretentious and far more refreshing. If you don't get the WB reference, just listen to any interview with the guy, hard to not like him.

dbt is clearly very very bright to do well at both nyu and yale, and to get a gig with W&C - that is a very, very big accomplishment and he'll be able to do a lot of good work for great companies - its just weird how his argument on this has escaped the pull of logical gravity

[dbt]

hey man, I'm the first to say that W&C is a badass firm, but not because they are "prestigious" - they've gotten good results, that's all clients care for, or that's what clients' shareholders SHOULD care for. As someone from an engineering background, maybe I just never grew up worshipping - uhh - GE, or Motorola - as a "prestigious" landing spot. Some of my CS friends do this kinda thing with Google, its a selective company, but the CS kids admire it because they envy the 'end product' - not the credentials of people who work there, nobody gives two shits where you went to school, some of the best tech people in the Valley didn't even GO to school.

The first day I popped into law school, my Civ Pro prof was yakking about how we're in an elite profession, WE'RE NOT - WE'RE TRADING HOURS FOR $$$.. we're PLUMBERS, but we use computers, printers, and LexisNexis for our trade. But.. hey.. I guess some of us plumbers made plumbing review at Plumbers-Academy, the elitest plumbing school of them all.

I dunno, law has some messed up "decision making algorithms" in place which use some very funky meaningless variables - and these are otherwise intelligent rational decision makers, who get put in an assembly line on day 1 of law school, and then brainwashed into different metrics to measure themselves by. You know, we need more people like Warren Buffett as role models in the area of law, it would be far less pretentious and far more refreshing. If you don't get the WB reference, just listen to any interview with the guy, hard to not like him.

dbt is clearly very very bright to do well at both nyu and yale, and to get a gig with W&C - that is a very, very big accomplishment and he'll be able to do a lot of good work for great companies - its just weird how his argument on this has escaped the pull of logical gravity

I did not get a callback at W&C. And, obviously, I do not think that my argument "escapes the pull of logical gravity." I think if I had a decision between firm X and firm Y and I saw no reason to choose one or the other, I would certainly consider prestige and selectivity because the name on your resume and the contacts you make will have an impact on your exit options. For most students, this is very important since working at a law firm is not a long-term plan.

But this is nothing I haven't already said.

[underdawg]

the prestige-as-proxy-for-exit-options make sense. but 100% yield? what kinda reason is that to choose a firm?

[yellowjacket2012]

I don't get this point - at all.

Why would the name on your resume matter for exit options? Shouldn't your body of work, what companies you represented, whether you won a motion on summary judgment, what you did for your clients - shouldn't those REAL RESULTS matter?

I mean.. tell me what I'm missing here.. If I go to Google and scratch my ass for 3 years.. or if I go to Citrix and develop a great interface for go2mypc.com for use on mobile phones in my 3 years there - why in the WORLD would I be less marketable coming from Citrix?

I mean, if you scratch your ass at W&C for 3 years.. and do jack - what exactly did you do to increase your market value other than gain admission at W&C - much like gaining admission at Yale... I mean - what the hell?! Your body of work is your worth as a lawyer, not your "entries" into various "selective" offices.... look you're a Yale guy, I'm at lowly Boaltie, I would love for you to smack me down here - I am genuinely missing the point.

[underdawg]

I don't get this point - at all.

Why would the name on your resume matter for exit options? Shouldn't your body of work, what companies you represented, whether you won a motion on summary judgment, what you did for your clients - shouldn't those REAL RESULTS matter?

I mean.. tell me what I'm missing here.. If I go to Google and scratch my ass for 3 years.. or if I go to Citrix and develop a great interface for go2mypc.com for use on mobile phones in my 3 years there - why in the WORLD would I be less marketable coming from Citrix?

newsflash, by and large junior associates don't do anything amazing. also this is a terrible analogy...what if you scratched your ass at both places or did amazing shit at both?

[dbt]

the prestige-as-proxy-for-exit-options make sense. but 100% yield? what kinda reason is that to choose a firm?

Just an assumption. If every Yale student that was capable of getting a callback at W&C took that callback, and then every one of them that got an offer took the offer, I just assume that these are students with very high credentials and that there's a reason they're taking W&C over any other firm (as I would imagine they pretty much had their pick of the litter). It just adds to the allure of W&C: it's a very prestigious firm that is incredibly hard to get, and when top students get an offer they uniformly take it.

Should this be the only thing you base your decision on? Of course not, and I never said that. But you're only hurting yourself if you don't take it into account. Unless you're planning on working at the firm you choose for post-graduation employment indefinitely, the name on your resume and the contacts that you make will influence what you can do after working for that firm. Especially if I were a student that only wanted to work at that firm for 1-3 years to pay off loans - like the vast majority of law students - I would really think about how I could be most competitive for those post-firm jobs.

Edit: And I would add that even in my own decision-making process (even though I didn't get to/have to make it), there were other (2) DC firms that I would strongly have considered choosing over W&C for lifestyle reasons.

[dbt]

I don't get this point - at all.

Why would the name on your resume matter for exit options? Shouldn't your body of work, what companies you represented, whether you won a motion on summary judgment, what you did for your clients - shouldn't those REAL RESULTS matter?

I mean.. tell me what I'm missing here.. If I go to Google and scratch my ass for 3 years.. or if I go to Citrix and develop a great interface for go2mypc.com for use on mobile phones in my 3 years there - why in the WORLD would I be less marketable coming from Citrix?

I mean, if you scratch your ass at W&C for 3 years.. and do jack - what exactly did you do to increase your market value other than gain admission at W&C - much like gaining admission at Yale... I mean - what the hell?! Your body of work is your worth as a lawyer, not your "entries" into various "selective" offices.... look you're a Yale guy, I'm at lowly Boaltie, I would love for you to smack me down here - I am genuinely missing the point.

Lol I'm not going to smack you down - I went to NYU originally, and I'm also not a douchebag.

I do think you really misunderstand what junior associates do. At firms of this caliber, it's not going to differ much - in that you're not going to be doing much that's impressive. You may get lucky and be put on some publicized case, but probably not (and I'd guess the chances of being put on such a case and getting to show off what you can do - which again, isn't much at this point - is more likely at W&C just because they get so much high profile stuff). The fact of the matter is until you specialize (which for most isn't until at least 3-4 years in) you're just another associate. You should at least be an associate at the firm that will truly wow future employers. Boies will do that; W&C will do that more than, in my opinion, any other firm (for litigation).