1L performance for bigger litigation firms: Boies/Quinn/etc. Forum

[clintonius]

I don't know why OP isn't considering places like Paul Weiss and Kirkland (Chicago or NY). Both offer excellent litigation practices and don't screw over their associates as much as Quinn and Boies. Both have other strong practices, such that they can diversify against risk. Both will probably work you just as hard, but that's to be expected. If I was thinking lit (and I am. That's the field I want to go into), Boies and Quinn wouldn't be on my radar.

Boies is particularly shitty. Aside from no-offering a bunch of their summers, future at the firm is limited. The partner-track is two-tiered, and non-shares are rarely promoted to share partnership.

Regarding Quinn, I think it's a great firm, but it's litigation presence in NY is not that strong. I'd go to Quinn's CA offices, which are undoubtedly the crown jewel of the firm.

Regarding NY in general, I think one should be very careful looking at offices of non-NYC based firms. Many of those offices opened up and expanded during a time of economic boom, whose practices rested on the realities of that market. Sadly, since that market has shattered, much of their business has dried up (see: Latham & Watkins, and countless other non-NYC firms). Look at Chambers's litigation rankings for NYC to see which firms are the best. Try to understand more about the office: How much power does it have in the overall firm? How quickly has it expanded? How many lawyers does it have? Are its local practices diversified against risk? Would it still provide good exit options? etc.

My thinking about the appeal of places like Quinn and Boies is that, because they focus purely on litigation, you're more likely to get substantive experience early on, whereas at one of the truly giant firms that has litigation among many other practices, you'll be doing low-level work like doc review to a much greater extent and for a longer time. Now that I spit it out I realize that I believe this basically because the firms say it (or at least Quinn does), and I'm wondering if anybody has insight as to whether or not that's actually true.

[imchuckbass58]

I don't know why OP isn't considering places like Paul Weiss and Kirkland (Chicago or NY). Both offer excellent litigation practices and don't screw over their associates as much as Quinn and Boies. Both have other strong practices, such that they can diversify against risk. Both will probably work you just as hard, but that's to be expected. If I was thinking lit (and I am. That's the field I want to go into), Boies and Quinn wouldn't be on my radar.

I agree that OP should consider "normal" big firms with strong lit practices like Paul Weiss and Kirkland. There is (arguably) a conceivable advantage to going to a QE or Boies Schiller, however. Specifically:

1: QE used to have a much higher associate-->partner promotion rate than most firms. Not sure if this is still true ITE, but it very well might be.

2: Big firms that also have corporate practices (Paul Weiss, Kirkland, S&C, etc.) are often conflicted out of suing banks, which is a huge business these days. Essentially, since they want banks' corporate work, they are not willing to represent plaintiffs in shareholder suits, etc. Not only is this interesting work (for some people), it also represents a big competitive advantage. I'm working for a judge this summer, and more than half the time a large bank gets sued, it seems to be QE or Boies representing the plaintiffs, while 30 "normal" biglaw firms presumably fight for the defense work.

3: QE and Boies are reputed to have good, work hard/play hard cultures. Not sure how true this is, but the general "rep" they get is even though you work like crazy, the personalities are more enjoyable than some other places.

I'm not arguing that OP should choose QE/Boies over the firms you mentioned, but I think there is a conceivable reason for doing so.

[MrKappus]

My thinking about the appeal of places like Quinn and Boies is that, because they focus purely on litigation, you're more likely to get substantive experience early on, whereas at one of the truly giant firms that has litigation among many other practices, you'll be doing low-level work like doc review to a much greater extent and for a longer time. Now that I spit it out I realize that I believe this basically because the firms say it (or at least Quinn does), and I'm wondering if anybody has insight as to whether or not that's actually true.

What does the existence of other, non-lit practice groups at a firm have to do w/ whether and how long an associate is tasked w/ doc review? That doesn't make any sense.

[NYAssociate]

.

[MrKappus]

Thank you so much for saying that. Whether you get responsibiity early on depnds on how the firm staffs stuff. Moreover, while it might seem really cool to so that kind of work as a junior, the firm is also giving you the noose with which to hang yourself. I'm at a full service firm, and I have yet to do a lick of doc review. I definitly like the early responsibility, but three ar definitely personalities for whom it's not suited.

It's definitely a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I didn't go to school for 7 years so that I can check "responsive" (or not) 10,000 times a week. On the other, if I draft a sloppy discovery motion that allows opposing counsel to withhold critical docs, then I'm probably not headed for the firm's fasttrack.

[Anonymous User]

bump?

[Anonymous User]

Wow, I never thought I'd see this thread again. OP here. I actually ended up getting offers at both Boies and Quinn, with solid but not stellar grades at my HYS. Ended up turning down both.

It's amazing the difference between how you view a firm as an 0L and how you view it as a rising 2L. Quinn, my top choice coming into law school, ended up being my absolute least favorite callback, and I declined their offer almost immediately.

Lesson to 0Ls: coming into law school with the singular goal of working in a particular place could supremely disappoint you.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, I never thought I'd see this thread again. OP here. I actually ended up getting offers at both Boies and Quinn, with solid but not stellar grades at my HYS. Ended up turning down both.

It's amazing the difference between how you view a firm as an 0L and how you view it as a rising 2L. Quinn, my top choice coming into law school, ended up being my absolute least favorite callback, and I declined their offer almost immediately.

Lesson to 0Ls: coming into law school with the singular goal of working in a particular place could supremely disappoint you.

Why?

[Anonymous User]

Wow, I never thought I'd see this thread again. OP here. I actually ended up getting offers at both Boies and Quinn, with solid but not stellar grades at my HYS. Ended up turning down both.

It's amazing the difference between how you view a firm as an 0L and how you view it as a rising 2L. Quinn, my top choice coming into law school, ended up being my absolute least favorite callback, and I declined their offer almost immediately.

Lesson to 0Ls: coming into law school with the singular goal of working in a particular place could supremely disappoint you.

Why did you turn Boies down?