Anonymous User wrote: LawIdiot86 wrote: timbs4339 wrote:
LawIdiot86 wrote:Right, but I'm talking about firms that survived as going concerns after downsizing into a niche boutique.
I've never heard of it and I can't imagine it would work for a non-IP firm. Especially a corporate boutique- most of those firms have been gobbled up. It seems like they are just try to cut as much fat as possible to make themselves attractive for a firm looking to expand their NYC corporate practice.
I thought so. I know some firms have refused to grow out of non-lit boutique/mid-size status, Seward, Stroock, Otterbourg, Mound Cotton, Kramer Levin, Hughes Hubbard, Cahill, Curtis-Mallet, Cullen, Fragomen, maybe Epstein Becker, but I never heard of any shrinking back into a non-IP boutique status.
I think Stroock, Cahill, Hughes Hubbard and Kramer Levin are solidly considered biglaw at this point. They just haven't pursued the aggressive international or national expansion that got Dewey and Howrey into trouble. The rest are midlaw.
Seward might actually be the best example of what a pared down Dewey would look like.
My perception is that:
Patterson Belknap, Stroock, Cahill and Kramer Levin are corporate specialists;
Hughes Hubbard has avoided national expansion;
Mound Cotton is insurance;
Fragomen is immigration;
Curtis-Mallet is some international specialty;
Seward is a IM/finance specialist;
Otterbourg is a bankruptcy boutique;
Epstein Becker is health;
Keller Heckman is science;
Cullen & Dykman is general (I was wrong).