Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my own unscientific assessment. I just think that companies don't want to pay for litigation right now, and firms like Paul Weiss, that have to constantly get results and make pitches to clients are suffering, while firms that have JPMorgan, Barclays, etc. generate enough institutional work on the corporate and litigation side to keep the wheels of the firm's business model generating.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that Quinn is doing very well right now, and they of course only do litigation.
That's a good point.
The following is pure speculation.
It would be interesting to see if Quinn and Paul Weiss are direct competitors in NYC. And I wonder if Quinn's "run" (it may not be fair to call it that -- good lawyers get repeat business, period, and if they have enough rainmakers, they may be fine) is sustainable if the economy continues to lag. If Quinn does remain, then it seems they have put a flag in the ground in BigLaw and will be the next "Skadden" of BigLaw (relative newcomer, initially aggressive marketing strategy that can become business-generating and also self-fulfilling). Maybe the same is true for Paul Weiss.
I mean, look, at the end of the day, firms in BigLaw have the following human capital: (1) partners who have solid, long-lasting relationships with companies' in-house counsel and executives (2) partners that have significant expertise to pull in business for nuanced matters either independently or through parters in category (1) who can sell the "service partner" thing for a series of matters, and if the service partner performs well, then for repeat business (3) performance partners who have good relationships and have enough clout to bring in work to the firm, typically as the good-natured partner who in-house counsel knows will be coordinating strategy and making sure good results are likely.
With this reductive paradigm in mind, it seems that if litigation decreases overall as firms begin to think about settling earlier or not suing when they have potential claims, then firms with the most of category (1) are the most stable.
This is all food for thought, as most of the firms in this conversation are going to be just fine, and undoubtedly they will generate tons of revenue. But it's interesting to think about the model and how individual firms carve out a place for themselves in a prolonged economic downturn.