Firms to love Forum

[Anonymous User]

Yes, bet-the-company litigations tend to be less common place and to settle more than glorified slip-and-falls.

I realize I'm simplifying a lot. But the glorified Susman "you'll be Evan Chesler after your first year" brown nosing is gross simplification in tr opposite direction. Fight fire with fire, I say.

Not sure what you're trying to imply. Are you saying that big law handles more of the "bet the company" litigation and therefore settles more? I think that is insanely inaccurate. Susman is known for "bet the company" litigation. Also, I wouldn't call their non "bet the company" cases "glorified slip and falls." For example, a partner out of the Dallas office is handling a $2.6 billion class action case against Comcast (being represented by DPW and Gibson Dunn). He beat 'em on the class certification issue at the trial and appellate levels and DPW had all but settled when SCOTUS granted cert. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... ourt_case/

Not sure how/why people continue to pretend that Susman doesn't try/win big cases or give tons of substantive experience to young attorneys. The facts consistently say otherwise.

[Old Gregg]

For example, a partner out of the Dallas office is handling a $2.6 billion class action case against Comcast (being represented by DPW and Gibson Dunn). He beat 'em on the class certification issue at the trial and appellate levels

What kind of TTT partner is what??? I know associates at Susman who are already handling their own billion-dollar trials.

[sunynp]

For example, a partner out of the Dallas office is handling a $2.6 billion class action case against Comcast (being represented by DPW and Gibson Dunn). He beat 'em on the class certification issue at the trial and appellate levels

What kind of TTT partner is what??? I know associates at Susman who are already handling their own billion-dollar trials.

Yes I'm sure the partners have no involvement in trials of this magnitude for their clients. The associates just decide everything and the partners lunch and play golf.

[somewhatwayward]

For example, a partner out of the Dallas office is handling a $2.6 billion class action case against Comcast (being represented by DPW and Gibson Dunn). He beat 'em on the class certification issue at the trial and appellate levels

What kind of TTT partner is what??? I know associates at Susman who are already handling their own billion-dollar trials.

Yes I'm sure the partners have no involvement in trials of this magnitude for their clients. The associates just decide everything and the partners lunch and play golf.

Yeah and I am not sure how a partner handling that case = facts consistently saying Susman "give tons of substantive experience to young attorneys"

ETA: My skepticism of the suggestion that Susman first years are deposing key witnesses with no supervision is that no matter how smart you are or how well you did in law school, there are a lot of things about law practice (substance and procedure) that you don't know because you don't learn it in law school. We all know that. Why would a firm let people who have gaping holes in their knowledge do something with no supervision? (Hint: they don't)

[Anonymous User]

For example, a partner out of the Dallas office is handling a $2.6 billion class action case against Comcast (being represented by DPW and Gibson Dunn). He beat 'em on the class certification issue at the trial and appellate levels

What kind of TTT partner is what??? I know associates at Susman who are already handling their own billion-dollar trials.

Yes I'm sure the partners have no involvement in trials of this magnitude for their clients. The associates just decide everything and the partners lunch and play golf.

Yeah and I am not sure how a partner handling that case = facts consistently saying Susman "give tons of substantive experience to young attorneys"

First of all, that case was cited to illustrate the size of the cases (they are not glorified slip and falls). it says nothing about their substantive opportunities for associates either way. But I don't really know how much clearer I can say it. Susman associates take witnesses at trial and and do tons of depositions early on. They don't need to be running a 2.6 billion dollar case to say that they do more than their big law counterparts. Ask any Susman associate when they did their first cross, deposition, and full brief. It's way more impressive than what most big firm associates get to do.

EDIT: in response to the above edit. You learn by doing. It's really not super uncommon for boutique associates to take depositions early on without supervision. Susman absolutely relies on associates being able to take and defend witness depositions in their first year. In fact, i personally know a summer associate that took 30 mins of a deposition; but to be fair that was supervised (though still impressive)

[anon168]

First of all, that case was cited to illustrate the size of the cases (they are not glorified slip and falls). it says nothing about their substantive opportunities for associates either way. But I don't really know how much clearer I can say it. Susman associates take witnesses at trial and and do tons of depositions early on. They don't need to be running a 2.6 billion dollar case to say that they do more than their big law counterparts. Ask any Susman associate when they did their first cross, deposition, and full brief. It's way more impressive than what most big firm associates get to do.

EDIT: in response to the above edit. You learn by doing. It's really not super uncommon for boutique associates to take depositions early on without supervision. Susman absolutely relies on associates being able to take and defend witness depositions in their first year. In fact, i personally know a summer associate that took 30 mins of a deposition; but to be fair that was supervised (though still impressive)

Hey, when you're done with the Kool-Aid, can you pass it over here? I, too, like some Susman Godfrey flavored powdered drink. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

First of all, that case was cited to illustrate the size of the cases (they are not glorified slip and falls). it says nothing about their substantive opportunities for associates either way. But I don't really know how much clearer I can say it. Susman associates take witnesses at trial and and do tons of depositions early on. They don't need to be running a 2.6 billion dollar case to say that they do more than their big law counterparts. Ask any Susman associate when they did their first cross, deposition, and full brief. It's way more impressive than what most big firm associates get to do.

EDIT: in response to the above edit. You learn by doing. It's really not super uncommon for boutique associates to take depositions early on without supervision. Susman absolutely relies on associates being able to take and defend witness depositions in their first year. In fact, i personally know a summer associate that took 30 mins of a deposition; but to be fair that was supervised (though still impressive)

Hey, when you're done with the Kool-Aid, can you pass it over here? I, too, like some Susman Godfrey flavored powdered drink. Thanks!

Not sure which facts you are disputing.

[Anonymous User]

First of all, that case was cited to illustrate the size of the cases (they are not glorified slip and falls). it says nothing about their substantive opportunities for associates either way. But I don't really know how much clearer I can say it. Susman associates take witnesses at trial and and do tons of depositions early on. They don't need to be running a 2.6 billion dollar case to say that they do more than their big law counterparts. Ask any Susman associate when they did their first cross, deposition, and full brief. It's way more impressive than what most big firm associates get to do.

EDIT: in response to the above edit. You learn by doing. It's really not super uncommon for boutique associates to take depositions early on without supervision. Susman absolutely relies on associates being able to take and defend witness depositions in their first year. In fact, i personally know a summer associate that took 30 mins of a deposition; but to be fair that was supervised (though still impressive)

Hey, when you're done with the Kool-Aid, can you pass it over here? I, too, like some Susman Godfrey flavored powdered drink. Thanks!

Not sure which facts you are disputing.

Sounds like this person already has a full glass of Hater-ade! In all seriousness though, boutiques are just different strokes for different folks. Ten years from now, when these big law types are doing their first trial, we'll be making their client pay our attorney's fees.

[RPK34]

First of all, that case was cited to illustrate the size of the cases (they are not glorified slip and falls). it says nothing about their substantive opportunities for associates either way. But I don't really know how much clearer I can say it. Susman associates take witnesses at trial and and do tons of depositions early on. They don't need to be running a 2.6 billion dollar case to say that they do more than their big law counterparts. Ask any Susman associate when they did their first cross, deposition, and full brief. It's way more impressive than what most big firm associates get to do.

EDIT: in response to the above edit. You learn by doing. It's really not super uncommon for boutique associates to take depositions early on without supervision. Susman absolutely relies on associates being able to take and defend witness depositions in their first year. In fact, i personally know a summer associate that took 30 mins of a deposition; but to be fair that was supervised (though still impressive)

Hey, when you're done with the Kool-Aid, can you pass it over here? I, too, like some Susman Godfrey flavored powdered drink. Thanks!

Not sure which facts you are disputing.

Sounds like this person already has a full glass of Hater-ade! In all seriousness though, boutiques are just different strokes for different folks. Ten years from now, when these big law types are doing their first trial, we'll be making their client pay our attorney's fees.

Nothing like some 2L who has probably never worked a day at a law firm in their life talking about being a partner at a boutique and beating big law firms in court.

[nygrrrl]

Sounds like this person already has a full glass of Hater-ade! In all seriousness though, boutiques are just different strokes for different folks. Ten years from now, when these big law types are doing their first trial, we'll be making their client pay our attorney's fees.

Interesting (mis)use of the Anonymous feature. Consider this a warning. I may still come back and reveal this post.

[anon168]

First of all, that case was cited to illustrate the size of the cases (they are not glorified slip and falls). it says nothing about their substantive opportunities for associates either way. But I don't really know how much clearer I can say it. Susman associates take witnesses at trial and and do tons of depositions early on. They don't need to be running a 2.6 billion dollar case to say that they do more than their big law counterparts. Ask any Susman associate when they did their first cross, deposition, and full brief. It's way more impressive than what most big firm associates get to do.

EDIT: in response to the above edit. You learn by doing. It's really not super uncommon for boutique associates to take depositions early on without supervision. Susman absolutely relies on associates being able to take and defend witness depositions in their first year. In fact, i personally know a summer associate that took 30 mins of a deposition; but to be fair that was supervised (though still impressive)

Hey, when you're done with the Kool-Aid, can you pass it over here? I, too, like some Susman Godfrey flavored powdered drink. Thanks!

Not sure which facts you are disputing.

Sounds like this person already has a full glass of Hater-ade! In all seriousness though, boutiques are just different strokes for different folks. Ten years from now, when these big law types are doing their first trial, we'll be making their client pay our attorney's fees.

If you didn't sound so ignorant, you'd actually be funny.

Here's the thing. People talk about doing trials as if it's a choice, and a good one at that. In the civil context, going to trial is usually the result of a brain fart -- either yours, the other side's, or both.

Why? Because trials are expensive. If you are typical biglaw, then your client (typically a F500 company) will make the cost-benefit analysis and settle short of trial, even if their case is strong, because typically the costs of going to trial and risks of losing are simply not worth the marginal benefit of "not losing at trial."

Now, turn the tables on the plaintiff side, which is what Susman Godfrey would be. They take a majority, if not all, of their plaintiffs work on a contingency basis. If they are going to trial every day (like you insinuate) then they are either (1) brain farting like a guy after an all-you-can-eat bean and cheese burrito meal or (2) they're bad businessmen. The last thing you want to do if you are working a case is to take it to trial. As I've already mentioned, trials are expensive, and if you are working on contingency, you're laying your own skin on the line. NO matter how good you think you are as a lawyer, or a trial lawyer for that matter, and no matter how good you think your case is, juries and jurors are funny creatures.

So, yes, Susman may try cases but it's not something I would want to necessarily brag about. It's a way to market yourself and the firm as "trial lawyers" but in reality, ask any Susman equity partner if they really want to go to trial, and in their heart of hearts, they'll give you a resounding, "NO FUCKING WAY."

No one, certainly not me, is disputing that Susman Godfrey is a great firm, but to believe that young associates there will be taking cases to trial on a routine basis, or running billion dollar matters day-in and day-out (and, really, how many billion dollar cases are there in the entire legal industry?) is just pure mental Jell-O.

[hume85]

First of all, that case was cited to illustrate the size of the cases (they are not glorified slip and falls). it says nothing about their substantive opportunities for associates either way. But I don't really know how much clearer I can say it. Susman associates take witnesses at trial and and do tons of depositions early on. They don't need to be running a 2.6 billion dollar case to say that they do more than their big law counterparts. Ask any Susman associate when they did their first cross, deposition, and full brief. It's way more impressive than what most big firm associates get to do.

EDIT: in response to the above edit. You learn by doing. It's really not super uncommon for boutique associates to take depositions early on without supervision. Susman absolutely relies on associates being able to take and defend witness depositions in their first year. In fact, i personally know a summer associate that took 30 mins of a deposition; but to be fair that was supervised (though still impressive)

Sounds like this person already has a full glass of Hater-ade! In all seriousness though, boutiques are just different strokes for different folks. Ten years from now, when these big law types are doing their first trial, we'll be making their client pay our attorney's fees.

If you didn't sound so ignorant, you'd actually be funny.

Here's the thing. People talk about doing trials as if it's a choice, and a good one at that. In the civil context, going to trial is usually the result of a brain fart -- either yours, the other side's, or both.

Why? Because trials are expensive. If you are typical biglaw, then your client (typically a F500 company) will make the cost-benefit analysis and settle short of trial, even if their case is strong, because typically the costs of going to trial and risks of losing are simply not worth the marginal benefit of "not losing at trial."

Now, turn the tables on the plaintiff side, which is what Susman Godfrey would be. They take a majority, if not all, of their plaintiffs work on a contingency basis. If they are going to trial every day (like you insinuate) then they are either (1) brain farting like a guy after an all-you-can-eat bean and cheese burrito meal or (2) they're bad businessmen. The last thing you want to do if you are working a case is to take it to trial. As I've already mentioned, trials are expensive, and if you are working on contingency, you're laying your own skin on the line. NO matter how good you think you are as a lawyer, or a trial lawyer for that matter, and no matter how good you think your case is, juries and jurors are funny creatures.

So, yes, Susman may try cases but it's not something I would want to necessarily brag about. It's a way to market yourself and the firm as "trial lawyers" but in reality, ask any Susman equity partner if they really want to go to trial, and in their heart of hearts, they'll give you a resounding, "NO FUCKING WAY."

No one, certainly not me, is disputing that Susman Godfrey is a great firm, but to believe that young associates there will be taking cases to trial on a routine basis, or running billion dollar matters day-in and day-out (and, really, how many billion dollar cases are there in the entire legal industry?) is just pure mental Jell-O.

[/quote]

[keg411]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

[anon168]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

The personal attacks on me or my posts I could care less about.

What I worry the most about is the disinfomation and misinformation on this site. These are trying times for law students, TLS should be a platform to help, not exacerbate that situation.

People can take what I say however they want.

[Anonymous User]

No one, certainly not me, is disputing that Susman Godfrey is a great firm, but to believe that young associates there will be taking cases to trial on a routine basis, or running billion dollar matters day-in and day-out (and, really, how many billion dollar cases are there in the entire legal industry?) is just pure mental Jell-O.

[/quote]

No one ever said that associates are running billion dollar cases. That example was used to show Susman isn't a "glorified slip and fall" firm. That being said, Susman (and Gibbs and Keker and all the rest) definitely offer way more opportunities for young associates. It's amazing that this is even an argument. If you actually knew attorneys at top-level lit boutiques or worked at one you would know that. That's one of the main reasons top students go to boutiques.

Also, the attorneys at these firms average about a trial a year. That's just a fact.

[Anonymous User]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

The personal attacks on me or my posts I could care less about.

What I worry the most about is the disinfomation and misinformation on this site. These are trying times for law students, TLS should be a platform to help, not exacerbate that situation.

People can take what I say however they want.

What personal attacks? We've been talking about the work associates get.

[hume85]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

[hume85]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

The personal attacks on me or my posts I could care less about.

What I worry the most about is the disinfomation and misinformation on this site. These are trying times for law students, TLS should be a platform to help, not exacerbate that situation.

People can take what I say however they want.

What personal attacks? We've been talking about the work associates get.

[beachbum]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

+1

[Anonymous User]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

+1

I agree he's been very helpful. He has great insight into big firm life. However, I don't think he is an authority on boutiques.

[anon168]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

+1

I agree he's been very helpful. He has great insight into big firm life. However, I don't think he is an authority on boutiques.

I never claimed to be an authority on anything. Just passing along info that I know about, and which I believe can be helpful.

[Anonymous User]

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

+1

I am one of the anonymous users that has posted in support of boutiques. I am a 3L, future CoA clerk, summered at two Vault firms and a litigation boutique over the last two years, and I am going to the litigation boutique after clerking.

A lot of the back-and-forth in this conversation is just good-spirited ribbing between plaintiffs' side (boutique) and defense-side people (big law). Undoubtedly, you can have a great career and get great experience on either side of the bar, but there tends to be a worldview/personality difference between the two. These differences lead to totally different models of practicing law, serving different kinds of client interests.

Boutique people are more adventurous/risky, independent, and eager to litigate. Big law people are more conservative, institutionalist, and eager to settle. The one likes the idea of fighting for the little guy plaintiff; the other thinks the same plaintiff (or his lawyer) is an opportunist blowing things out of proportion. Broadly speaking, these differences even manifest in the political leanings of lawyers at each type of firm.

It's simply an incontrovertible fact that young associates at boutiques will gain far more "stand-up" litigation experience at an earlier stage in their careers. The reason, basically, is that the CEO of Defendant Corporation needs to be able to tell his shareholders that the top attorney available argued their case. Plaintiff just wants to see the money at the end of the ordeal.

Furthermore, if the case is on contingency, the boutique subsidizing the litigation aims to staff as lean as can be. Boutiques can't afford to have one attorney doing all the prep work for, say, a cross-ex, then duplicating work by having another attorney do the actual cross-ex. So the associate who prepped the cross-ex does the cross-ex. The client is fine with it if there's money at the end of the tunnel (or if the firm has a reputation for delivering the money). In big law, the low-billing associate does the prep work, and the prominent high-billing partners get the vast majority of the facetime. That's what the client and its shareholders want to see. And that's how young boutique associates frequently end up taking on big law partners at depos, hearings, trials, etc.

Neither model (or worldview) is normatively better. It comes down, first, to where you can get hired, and second, to what is the best fit for you.

[anon168]

If you didn't sound so ignorant, you'd actually be funny.

Here's the thing. People talk about doing trials as if it's a choice, and a good one at that. In the civil context, going to trial is usually the result of a brain fart -- either yours, the other side's, or both.

Why? Because trials are expensive. If you are typical biglaw, then your client (typically a F500 company) will make the cost-benefit analysis and settle short of trial, even if their case is strong, because typically the costs of going to trial and risks of losing are simply not worth the marginal benefit of "not losing at trial."

Now, turn the tables on the plaintiff side, which is what Susman Godfrey would be. They take a majority, if not all, of their plaintiffs work on a contingency basis. If they are going to trial every day (like you insinuate) then they are either (1) brain farting like a guy after an all-you-can-eat bean and cheese burrito meal or (2) they're bad businessmen. The last thing you want to do if you are working a case is to take it to trial. As I've already mentioned, trials are expensive, and if you are working on contingency, you're laying your own skin on the line. NO matter how good you think you are as a lawyer, or a trial lawyer for that matter, and no matter how good you think your case is, juries and jurors are funny creatures.

So, yes, Susman may try cases but it's not something I would want to necessarily brag about. It's a way to market yourself and the firm as "trial lawyers" but in reality, ask any Susman equity partner if they really want to go to trial, and in their heart of hearts, they'll give you a resounding, "NO FUCKING WAY."

No one, certainly not me, is disputing that Susman Godfrey is a great firm, but to believe that young associates there will be taking cases to trial on a routine basis, or running billion dollar matters day-in and day-out (and, really, how many billion dollar cases are there in the entire legal industry?) is just pure mental Jell-O.

There is a whole lot of ignorance in this post. (1) Susman Godfrey has gotten to 3 million+ PPP by going to trial and winning contingency cases. (2) Trials are not uniformly expensive. Most Biglaw firms are bad at managing expenses, but boutiques are much leaner. (3) Trial lawyers have no problem going to trial. Don't project your cowardice.

What I don't understand is how 1L's and 2L's think they know more than someone who has been practicing law for years. Sorry for having to deal with that, anon168. Your posts have been really helpful.

My dad is one of the top trial lawyers in California, as well as being one of the most experienced. Which means is he probably one of the better and more experienced trial lawyers in America. He knows more about trial practice than anon168. I have been picking my dad's brain for years. Therefore, I know quite a bit about trial practice. Is anon168 a trial attorney?

No, I'm just some hack trying to scratch out a living practicing law.

But if you want to get into a pissing match about whose dick is bigger, well, then, lets pull out my penis and see what it looks like.

I've tried 18 cases as a federal prosecutor, 3 civil jury trials and 1 bench trial while in private practice at a V5 (as well as an arbitration if that counts). So, all in all, about 20+ jury trials combined. I've probably have more hours in trial than you have hours in class as a law student -- times 3.

But still, with all that said, I concede I probably know a lot less about trial practice than you. And, I'll try and stop projecting my cowardice from now on.

[anon168]

No one, certainly not me, is disputing that Susman Godfrey is a great firm, but to believe that young associates there will be taking cases to trial on a routine basis, or running billion dollar matters day-in and day-out (and, really, how many billion dollar cases are there in the entire legal industry?) is just pure mental Jell-O.

No one ever said that associates are running billion dollar cases. That example was used to show Susman isn't a "glorified slip and fall" firm. That being said, Susman (and Gibbs and Keker and all the rest) definitely offer way more opportunities for young associates. It's amazing that this is even an argument. If you actually knew attorneys at top-level lit boutiques or worked at one you would know that. That's one of the main reasons top students go to boutiques.

Also, the attorneys at these firms average about a trial a year. That's just a fact.

A trial a year? These attorneys average a trial a year?? That's a fact, you say?

Lets suss out that fact for a minute.

Lets take Susman Godfrey as an example (which you yourself have used). There's about 90 attorneys there last I checked. That means, according to your fact, the firm tried 90 cases last year and has probably already tried another 70+ cases this year.

The busiest USAOs in the country do not try that many cases a year. Some of the most seasoned AUSAs do not average a trial a year.

The only institution that I know of that can match and exceed those kind of numbers are local DAs and County Prosecutor offices, and the majority of their trial stats are from doing misdemeanor or felony DUI trials that last at most a day.

And if you are trying 1 case a year, that means that you are probably (conservatively speaking) prepping 3 or 4 cases to go to trial (because if you've practiced law you'd realize not every case that you work on actually goes to trial no matter what everyone says). Which means that on a yearly basis you are prepping 4-5 cases to go to trial every single year. Not humanly possible -- if not entirely laughable.

In fact, I don't know if there are 90 potential cases in any given year that Susman Godfrey would even be interested in taking to trial.

Yes, boutique lit shops do offer more opps for young associates, but let's not let hyperbole become reality.

Step back from the Kool-Aid and save some for the rest of us please.

[Anonymous User]

No one, certainly not me, is disputing that Susman Godfrey is a great firm, but to believe that young associates there will be taking cases to trial on a routine basis, or running billion dollar matters day-in and day-out (and, really, how many billion dollar cases are there in the entire legal industry?) is just pure mental Jell-O.

No one ever said that associates are running billion dollar cases. That example was used to show Susman isn't a "glorified slip and fall" firm. That being said, Susman (and Gibbs and Keker and all the rest) definitely offer way more opportunities for young associates. It's amazing that this is even an argument. If you actually knew attorneys at top-level lit boutiques or worked at one you would know that. That's one of the main reasons top students go to boutiques.

Also, the attorneys at these firms average about a trial a year. That's just a fact.

A trial a year? These attorneys average a trial a year?? That's a fact, you say?

Lets suss out that fact for a minute.

Lets take Susman Godfrey as an example (which you yourself have used). There's about 90 attorneys there last I checked. That means, according to your fact, the firm tried 90 cases last year and has probably already tried another 70+ cases this year.

The busiest USAOs in the country do not try that many cases a year. Some of the most seasoned AUSAs do not average a trial a year.

The only institution that I know of that can match and exceed those kind of numbers are local DAs and County Prosecutor offices, and the majority of their trial stats are from doing misdemeanor or felony DUI trials that last at most a day.

And if you are trying 1 case a year, that means that you are probably (conservatively speaking) prepping 3 or 4 cases to go to trial (because if you've practiced law you'd realize not every case that you work on actually goes to trial no matter what everyone says). Which means that on a yearly basis you are prepping 4-5 cases to go to trial every single year. Not humanly possible -- if not entirely laughable.

In fact, I don't know if there are 90 potential cases in any given year that Susman Godfrey would even be interested in taking to trial.

Yes, boutique lit shops do offer more opps for young associates, but let's not let hyperbole become reality.

Step back from the Kool-Aid and save some for the rest of us please.

Wow... how did you make that leap in logic? All I said was that each attorney goes to trial on average about once a year. I never said the firm averages 1 trial per associate/attorney. Two very different figures. Susman is known for having small trial teams, but for your argument to make sense, they would have to have trial teams of one, which they do not. They usually have 1-2 partners and 1-2 associates per case, with about 3-4 total attorneys probably being the most common. The firm currently has 88 attorneys, some of whom are staff attorneys, so they shouldn't be included in this figure. So as a rough estimate, an attorney averaging a trial a year would put the firm at about 20 cases a year.

You are clearly a valued poster and know a lot about practice. All I've maintained is that Susman and susman-caliber boutiques offer a VERY different experience compared to normal big law.