Anonymous User wrote: Anonymous User wrote: anon168 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
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.