Top Law Schools

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.

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.

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.

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).

LawIdiot86 wrote: 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).

Patterson Belknap and Kramer Levin do almost exclusively litigation.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

LawIdiot86 wrote: 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).

Patterson Belknap and Kramer Levin do almost exclusively litigation.

I thought that was Kasowitz Benson? Kramer has a big corporate group.

timbs4339 wrote:
I thought that was Kasowitz Benson? Kramer has a big corporate group.

Perhaps a mischaracterization - their litigation department is bigger than their corporate department though.

On a different note, I'm curious about the speculation that Dewey will become a corporate "boutique." I have no reason to disbelieve it, but it seems like most of the lawyers leaving have been corporate folks.

LawIdiot86 wrote: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).

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost

and it's international arbitration. Also bankruptcy in the US, as well as some internationally.

From the article, I got the idea that they're pairing down in order to sell the firm, not to become a corporate boutique. At least that's what it says Martin Bienenstock is looking to restructure in hopes of doing.

Also, Kramer Levin and Cahill have big lit departments (pretty sure Stroock does too, but I don't know much about it). And PBWT is a lit firm, not a corporate firm.

keg411 wrote:From the article, I got the idea that they're pairing down in order to sell the firm, not to become a corporate boutique. At least that's what it says Martin Bienenstock is looking to restructure in hopes of doing.

Also, Kramer Levin and Cahill have big lit departments (pretty sure Stroock does too, but I don't know much about it). And PBWT is a lit firm, not a corporate firm.

I need to listen less to OCS and more to TLS for information about firms.

Has Dewey said anything to the incoming SA's? Does anyone with any information on the matter know?

No they haven't. And the Jan. start date for the incoming class was announced back in March (even though it was 'breaking' news today).

LawIdiot86 wrote:

keg411 wrote:From the article, I got the idea that they're pairing down in order to sell the firm, not to become a corporate boutique. At least that's what it says Martin Bienenstock is looking to restructure in hopes of doing.

Also, Kramer Levin and Cahill have big lit departments (pretty sure Stroock does too, but I don't know much about it). And PBWT is a lit firm, not a corporate firm.

I need to listen less to OCS and more to TLS for information about firms.

NALP and Chambers (Partners and Associate) should be your BFF's if you're going through OCI this year (I dunno if you are, but for anyone reading this thread).

Incoming SA here. What have you other SAs done about back up plans? How have you managed to secure other things? I wish the firm would tell us something...

Anonymous User wrote:Incoming SA here. What have you other SAs done about back up plans? How have you managed to secure other things? I wish the firm would tell us something...

Not a Dewey SA, but what have you done, etc? Just curious, tbh.

imchuckbass58 wrote:

timbs4339 wrote:
I thought that was Kasowitz Benson? Kramer has a big corporate group.

Perhaps a mischaracterization - their litigation department is bigger than their corporate department though.

The new NLJ350 listed Kasowitz as having 108 partners. Kasowitz's website lists them as having 5 corporate partners. To say that their litigation department is bigger than their corporate department is a huge understatement. Litigation is what they do (they seem to operate similarly Boies Schiller and Quinn Emmanuel in that regard).

xcountryjunkie wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:

timbs4339 wrote:
I thought that was Kasowitz Benson? Kramer has a big corporate group.

Perhaps a mischaracterization - their litigation department is bigger than their corporate department though.

The new NLJ350 listed Kasowitz as having 108 partners. Kasowitz's website lists them as having 5 corporate partners. To say that their litigation department is bigger than their corporate department is a huge understatement. Litigation is what they do (they seem to operate similarly Boies Schiller and Quinn Emmanuel in that regard).

Kasowitz corporate, like Boies corporate, is a big fat nothing. Don't even consider it when talking about the strength of those firms.

Fresh Prince wrote:

xcountryjunkie wrote:

imchuckbass58 wrote:

timbs4339 wrote:
I thought that was Kasowitz Benson? Kramer has a big corporate group.

Perhaps a mischaracterization - their litigation department is bigger than their corporate department though.

The new NLJ350 listed Kasowitz as having 108 partners. Kasowitz's website lists them as having 5 corporate partners. To say that their litigation department is bigger than their corporate department is a huge understatement. Litigation is what they do (they seem to operate similarly Boies Schiller and Quinn Emmanuel in that regard).

Kasowitz corporate, like Boies corporate, is a big fat nothing. Don't even consider it when talking about the strength of those firms.

I think he was referring to Kramer Levin, which has a slightly larger lit group than corporate but has pretty standard biglaw practice areas (lit, corp, bankruptcy, real estate, IP) and is definitely not midlaw.

Kasowitz and Patterson are very good lit firms that get shafted by the Vault rankings focus on transactional work.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... e_unclear/

Bankruptcy counsel. I think that basically is the end of the road.

Anonymous User wrote:http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... e_unclear/

Bankruptcy counsel. I think that basically is the end of the road.

It looks like a prepackaged bankruptcy-- for those with a subscription: this is on the front page of the WSJ this morning.

a few key quotes:

"Among potential partners for the merger-and-bankruptcy plan being floated, Dewey has made overtures to New York-based Shearman & Sterling LLP; Greenberg Traurig LLP, which has roots in Miami; and Pittsburgh-based Reed Smith LP"

"The acquiring firm would pay little or nothing up front, but would likely be expected to cover ongoing operating costs as the bankruptcy case proceeded."

I can't imagine any of the firms listed absorbing all of Dewey's offices/attorneys, I'm guessing NY-based practice and lawyers will be mostly retained, but many of the smaller satellite offices would probably be shuttered.

Anonymous User wrote:I can't imagine any of the firms listed absorbing all of Dewey's offices/attorneys, I'm guessing NY-based practice and lawyers will be mostly retained, but many of the smaller satellite offices would probably be shuttered.

That's basically what the article said yesterday.

So they've retained BK counsel (see above article and WSJ). I hope they update the SAs...

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... e_unclear/

Bankruptcy counsel. I think that basically is the end of the road.

It looks like a prepackaged bankruptcy-- for those with a subscription: this is on the front page of the WSJ this morning.

a few key quotes:

"Among potential partners for the merger-and-bankruptcy plan being floated, Dewey has made overtures to New York-based Shearman & Sterling LLP; Greenberg Traurig LLP, which has roots in Miami; and Pittsburgh-based Reed Smith LP"

"The acquiring firm would pay little or nothing up front, but would likely be expected to cover ongoing operating costs as the bankruptcy case proceeded."

I can't imagine any of the firms listed absorbing all of Dewey's offices/attorneys, I'm guessing NY-based practice and lawyers will be mostly retained, but many of the smaller satellite offices would probably be shuttered.

The NY office had over 500 before these defections started. Why Shearman, another huge NY firm, would want it is beyond me. Reed Smith and Greenberg are slightly more plausible given their bases in other regions, but I don't know why another firm would dream of going near legacy Dewey's pile of debt.

Marty Bienenstock is one of the best restructuring guys in manhattan. He was at Weil for a long time. Maybe they just want some other options as I guess he can't represent the firm in restructuring. I really thought they would make it through the summer. If they go in as a pre-packaged, the have to gave some lenders in board. I guess they want to wipeout the bondholder debt? I have no idea how this works with a partnership or llc- whatever they are.

I think they aren't telling summers anything because they have to keep it under wraps.

I really hope the summers make it. The 3ls are screwed.

LawIdiot86 wrote: The NY office had over 500 before these defections started. Why Shearman, another huge NY firm, would want it is beyond me. Reed Smith and Greenberg are slightly more plausible given their bases in other regions, but I don't know why another firm would dream of going near legacy Dewey's pile of debt.

Well, the idea is that the prepack would significantly reduce the amount of debt Dewey carries.