Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.

Boies vs. Quinn

Boies
57
77%
Quinn
17
23%
 
Total votes: 74

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:"Above market" comp at Quinn is a joke (it may not have been in the past). They have a really high billable requirement (2100 IIRC) to get a Cravath-scale bonus, which is certainly hit by many of their associates but is above any other firm's billable requirement. And their "above market" bonuses have been miniscule in recent years (talking like a few thousand dollars) and kick in at very high billable numbers (I believe 2400 and 2700 the last two years). Boies by contrast pays both above market salaries and genuinely above market bonuses to pretty much everyone.

Culture-wise, I think they are similar. Boies may be more centered on David Boies for work, but John Quinn has an enormous amount of day-to-day operational control at Quinn that makes the firm at least as personality-centric.

Quinn is also notoriously and almost comically cheap. Their offices are really embarrassing, like public-school-that-hasn't-been-renovated-since-the-1950s chic. Never been in Boies's offices but hard to imagine them being anywhere near as bad. And absurdly cheap on reimbursement of expenses (meals, taxis, even associates fronting litigation expenses at times). Everyone I know there finds the entire experience highly demoralizing.


I can't really think of a reason to choose Quinn, unless there's a specific practice area at Quinn you'd prefer that doesn't exist at Boies.

I don't have anything to contribute other than to say Boies's NYC Office (at least as late as 2015) is really, really bad in terms of "furnishings." If you've interviewed/worked in that office, I think you'd find them comparable or worse to whatever you claim Quinn's office looks like (I've never been inside a QE office though).

ETA: I will also add that I have friends at Quinn who have enjoyed their experience thus far.


FWIW, Boies is moving to new (and much nicer) offices in the fall. Also, the above market comp at QE does not come in the form of their end year bonuses, but in their clerkship bonus, which is now $55k higher than the market rate.

hlsperson1111

Bronze
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby hlsperson1111 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:54 pm

I don't have much to add to this thread, but as far as furnishings go, QE used to brag that it bought its office furniture at bankruptcy sales.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:32 pm

Anything new re other considerations? (Substantive work experience, practice areas, ability to work remotely, exit options, etc.)

(Diff anon, similar situation)

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:37 pm

Don't go to Quinn NY post Selendy/Gay spinoff.

Many of the best partners to work for are gone. If you want to do products work it's a good firm, but otherwise.

User avatar
84651846190

Gold
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby 84651846190 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:26 am

idk
Last edited by 84651846190 on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:20 pm

ExBiglawAssociate wrote:Source: multiple friends who worked at Quinn.

Quinn is awful for associates: overleveraged, no real chance at equity partner, firm is run totally for the partners to suck every last dollar out of everyone else. (Not that it isn't at other firms too. It's just that it's much more transparent at Quinn.) You will be doing rote ministerial tasks like making copies, preparing binders, etc. that paralegals or secretaries would do at other firms because they skimp on everything and refuse to hire administrative help. Partners are, for the most partner, arrogant assholes who just want to milk it for whatever they can get and leave (see the latest departures). Hours expectations are through the roof. Associates have gotten fired, contrary to what was posted earlier itt (things were different (better) back in 2012). Quinn is an absolute shitshow now. AVOID.

The only upside is they do legitimately focus on getting young associates better experience than they would get at most big GP law firms. But it's still nothing like what you would get at Susman, for example.


Former QE associate here. I disagree with some of the specifics here but agree with the general message.

Overleveraged. Not the best place to learn to be a litigator (though I think it's largely the same as other overleveraged lit groups). Agree that you still get more/better experience than you would at most big firms.

I am unaware of people being fired for anything other than ethical issues, even if they were well below the bonus thresholds.

Many folks don't meet the full bonus threshold.

More than any of that the firm loves its gladiatoral combat stuff. People throw each other under the bus. It's like being trapped with the most aggro gunners in law school.

Despite that, they had some really good partners to work for in NY. After the spin off and other departures in the past few years, those partners are no longer with the firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:23 pm

That said, Boies also seems very unpleasant.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It's not just the end of year reviews you have to fear. Fear the impromptu reviews too - you get summoned to a meeting randomly one day and the same people who have spent months/weeks complimenting you are assembled to tell you that you work is so bad that you have to leave within two weeks. Turns out "merit" is very easy to define and redefine according to the firm's economic needs or just a partner's whim. It's about a culture of throwing people away. Not every big law firm has that mentality. Some actually give you a few years to prove yourself. Ask the right questions, reach out to alums, figure out where you're least likely to get taken out with the trash for reasons couched as "merit" but unrelated to merit. Or don't. It's your career.

But this can happen anywhere, right? And certain firms who have a policy of hiring anyone with the right grades and letting them stay on no matter how useless or awkward they turn out to be might not exactly be preferable work environments. Yes, this is terrifying, but that doesn't really give me a sense of how much more at Boies than anywhere else.

So Quinn will never lay you off no matter how much you suck? Hard to believe given their obsession with being the best.
I can echo the suggestion that Boies has been quick to lay people off. I know someone who was fine review after review, and then let go immediately when things got slow. This was in the last eighteen months or so, so it was not an isolated incident in 2011.

I don't fully disagree with the argument that lots of firms are like this - you can search TLS and come up with similar anonymous accounts complaining about (I think) Paul Hastings, Cadwalader, White & Case, and twenty other firms. You can find much more damning information about, e.g. Dechert and that Chicago firm whose name slips my mind - oh yes, Winston & Strawn. All of this is information is of dubious trustworthiness on its own, and yes, if you went digging, you could find someone at any firm who would be pissed at the way some downturns were handled or some layoffs were covered up. But that does not mean the information is useless. There are at least a couple firms who have been mentioned in connection with stuff like that who had current employees come out in their defense. Again, not tremendously credible, but it's a data point. There are at least a couple firms in each tier who are not on the list to begin with. Maybe it is just because the two disgruntled juniors chose not to post. But maybe there was a reason for that too.

It's been a while since I was paying close attention, but isn't Boies very grade-selective? If you had an offer from Boies, wouldn't you be competitive at Paul Weiss, SullCrom, and Debevoise? I'm not saying any are joyous places to work, but I'd be pretty surprised if there was anything on TLS about stealthing at any of them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It's not just the end of year reviews you have to fear. Fear the impromptu reviews too - you get summoned to a meeting randomly one day and the same people who have spent months/weeks complimenting you are assembled to tell you that you work is so bad that you have to leave within two weeks. Turns out "merit" is very easy to define and redefine according to the firm's economic needs or just a partner's whim. It's about a culture of throwing people away. Not every big law firm has that mentality. Some actually give you a few years to prove yourself. Ask the right questions, reach out to alums, figure out where you're least likely to get taken out with the trash for reasons couched as "merit" but unrelated to merit. Or don't. It's your career.

But this can happen anywhere, right? And certain firms who have a policy of hiring anyone with the right grades and letting them stay on no matter how useless or awkward they turn out to be might not exactly be preferable work environments. Yes, this is terrifying, but that doesn't really give me a sense of how much more at Boies than anywhere else.

So Quinn will never lay you off no matter how much you suck? Hard to believe given their obsession with being the best.
I can echo the suggestion that Boies has been quick to lay people off. I know someone who was fine review after review, and then let go immediately when things got slow. This was in the last eighteen months or so, so it was not an isolated incident in 2011.

I don't fully disagree with the argument that lots of firms are like this - you can search TLS and come up with similar anonymous accounts complaining about (I think) Paul Hastings, Cadwalader, White & Case, and twenty other firms. You can find much more damning information about, e.g. Dechert and that Chicago firm whose name slips my mind - oh yes, Winston & Strawn. All of this is information is of dubious trustworthiness on its own, and yes, if you went digging, you could find someone at any firm who would be pissed at the way some downturns were handled or some layoffs were covered up. But that does not mean the information is useless. There are at least a couple firms who have been mentioned in connection with stuff like that who had current employees come out in their defense. Again, not tremendously credible, but it's a data point. There are at least a couple firms in each tier who are not on the list to begin with. Maybe it is just because the two disgruntled juniors chose not to post. But maybe there was a reason for that too.

It's been a while since I was paying close attention, but isn't Boies very grade-selective? If you had an offer from Boies, wouldn't you be competitive at Paul Weiss, SullCrom, and Debevoise? I'm not saying any are joyous places to work, but I'd be pretty surprised if there was anything on TLS about stealthing at any of them.


I don’t know if I get what you’re saying, what’s the point of pointing out that if you’re competitive at Boies, you’re also competitive at Pw, sullcrom, Debevoise, etc? Also, stealthing?

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:57 pm

Boies is more desirable than firms like S&C/PW/Debevoise for a litigation associate. So its not really in the same realm. Boies is more comparable (and in competition with) somewhere like Susman and to some extent Quinn in terms of associate experience and opportunity.

As for “stealthing,” I’m sure it happens at Boies just as it happens to any lean litigation firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Boies is more desirable than firms like S&C/PW/Debevoise for a litigation associate. So its not really in the same realm. Boies is more comparable (and in competition with) somewhere like Susman and to some extent Quinn in terms of associate experience and opportunity.

As for “stealthing,” I’m sure it happens at Boies just as it happens to any lean litigation firm.


I don't think the bolded statement is universally true. What if you don't want to be trial lawyer? What if you only plan to be a litigator for, say, 3 years (and are therefore not fixated on the objectives of "professional development" or even partnership, at Boies or anywhere)? What if you are unwilling to ever - under any circumstances, for any bonus - work 3000 hours in a year? What if you prefer the relative autonomy and reduced responsibility/pressure that come with working for a large firm that has hundreds of other associates, rather than, say, 15?

There are lots of valid reasons to litigate somewhere other than Boies and Susman despite having Boies and Susman as options (yes - even though Boies and Susman are more selective). In my view, failure to see this is reflective of the legal profession's unhealthy fixation with prestige.

TLDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amour-propre

mcmand

Silver
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby mcmand » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:53 pm

...
Last edited by mcmand on Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby TheoO » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:14 pm

So, wondering what the truth of this is: a PR lecturer/professor at CLS who apparently headed the conflict screening process at a V10 said that it's really tough to lateral to another biglaw firm on account of the amount of heavy plaintiff side work done at Quinn. She basically said her firm would never taken a Quinn associate on account of being conflicted out of so many clients. What's people's take on this?

lolwat

Silver
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby lolwat » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:There are lots of valid reasons to litigate somewhere other than Boies and Susman despite having Boies and Susman as options (yes - even though Boies and Susman are more selective). In my view, failure to see this is reflective of the legal profession's unhealthy fixation with prestige.


I agree with the general thought, but I don't think it has quite so much to do with prestige. I think people who are already deciding between "trial firms" like Boies/Quinn/Susman/etc. versus other "litigation" practices will probably already know--or at least know enough to ask about--the differences you mention in the part of your post I didn't quote. If someone has decided they want to try and be a trial lawyer handling significant responsibility on cases, and isn't afraid of pulling gigantic numbers of hours, I think the consideration shifts very significantly in favor of joining firms like Boies/Quinn/Susman/etc. over other biglaw litigation practices.

So, wondering what the truth of this is: a PR lecturer/professor at CLS who apparently headed the conflict screening process at a V10 said that it's really tough to lateral to another biglaw firm on account of the amount of heavy plaintiff side work done at Quinn. She basically said her firm would never taken a Quinn associate on account of being conflicted out of so many clients. What's people's take on this?


How long ago was this? I think Quinn used to talk about how they could take plaintiff-side cases (esp. against banks and such) because they didn't have the same kinds of conflicts other firms have, but my impression was Quinn isn't taking as many plaintiff-side cases as they used to.

User avatar
sundance95

Gold
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby sundance95 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:48 am

TheoO wrote:So, wondering what the truth of this is: a PR lecturer/professor at CLS who apparently headed the conflict screening process at a V10 said that it's really tough to lateral to another biglaw firm on account of the amount of heavy plaintiff side work done at Quinn. She basically said her firm would never taken a Quinn associate on account of being conflicted out of so many clients. What's people's take on this?

This is a savvy point from your PR lecturer. (Quick aside for the law students, especially at top schools: any of your PR/Legal Writing/Trial Ad lecturers & clinical professors who've actually practiced know a shitload more about these practical issues than the fancy black-letter lecture professors that law school culture lionizes.)

I mean, if your firm's foundational clients are NY banks and you're a lateral whose been across the v. from those same banks . . . that definitely complicates things. I'm not up enough on my PR to opine on the waiveability of those conflicts, but even if they are, you're potentially talking about a rainmaking relationship partner needing to approach their golden goose about a waiver--just to hire an associate who the rainmaking partner doesn't know, and will probably never work for rainmaking partner. You could understand why firms would want to avoid that from a business perspective.

I'll say that I've seen lengthy conflict hold-ups for a lot less.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:49 am

sundance95 wrote:
TheoO wrote:So, wondering what the truth of this is: a PR lecturer/professor at CLS who apparently headed the conflict screening process at a V10 said that it's really tough to lateral to another biglaw firm on account of the amount of heavy plaintiff side work done at Quinn. She basically said her firm would never taken a Quinn associate on account of being conflicted out of so many clients. What's people's take on this?

This is a savvy point from your PR lecturer. (Quick aside for the law students, especially at top schools: any of your PR/Legal Writing/Trial Ad lecturers & clinical professors who've actually practiced know a shitload more about these practical issues than the fancy black-letter lecture professors that law school culture lionizes.)

I mean, if your firm's foundational clients are NY banks and you're a lateral whose been across the v. from those same banks . . . that definitely complicates things. I'm not up enough on my PR to opine on the waiveability of those conflicts, but even if they are, you're potentially talking about a rainmaking relationship partner needing to approach their golden goose about a waiver--just to hire an associate who the rainmaking partner doesn't know, and will probably never work for rainmaking partner. You could understand why firms would want to avoid that from a business perspective.

I'll say that I've seen lengthy conflict hold-ups for a lot less.


Quinn is the only firm I’ve seen that specifically advises in its offer legters that candidates complete a conflict check prior to declining at other firms because offers have been rescinded as a result of conflicts.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326566
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies vs. Quinn (NYC)

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
ExBiglawAssociate wrote:Source: multiple friends who worked at Quinn.

Quinn is awful for associates: overleveraged, no real chance at equity partner, firm is run totally for the partners to suck every last dollar out of everyone else. (Not that it isn't at other firms too. It's just that it's much more transparent at Quinn.) You will be doing rote ministerial tasks like making copies, preparing binders, etc. that paralegals or secretaries would do at other firms because they skimp on everything and refuse to hire administrative help. Partners are, for the most partner, arrogant assholes who just want to milk it for whatever they can get and leave (see the latest departures). Hours expectations are through the roof. Associates have gotten fired, contrary to what was posted earlier itt (things were different (better) back in 2012). Quinn is an absolute shitshow now. AVOID.

The only upside is they do legitimately focus on getting young associates better experience than they would get at most big GP law firms. But it's still nothing like what you would get at Susman, for example.


Former QE associate here. I disagree with some of the specifics here but agree with the general message.

Overleveraged. Not the best place to learn to be a litigator (though I think it's largely the same as other overleveraged lit groups). Agree that you still get more/better experience than you would at most big firms.

I am unaware of people being fired for anything other than ethical issues, even if they were well below the bonus thresholds.

Many folks don't meet the full bonus threshold.

More than any of that the firm loves its gladiatoral combat stuff. People throw each other under the bus. It's like being trapped with the most aggro gunners in law school.

Despite that, they had some really good partners to work for in NY. After the spin off and other departures in the past few years, those partners are no longer with the firm.


Also a former QE associate with a different experience/perspective.

I found QE to be a great place to learn to be a litigator. The free market work assignment system gives you more autonomy over the types of cases you get to work on (although not full autonomy, of course). And they are serious about throwing you into the deep end so you learn through experience. It's not the type of place to go if you want formal training. You learn by doing.

I'm not sure how this compares to other big law firms, but the NY office would routinely elect several associates as partner every year. The firm made 13 partners in 2017, 5 of which came from the NY office. Beyond the numbers, I can't really speak to how likely it is to become partner.

The comment about doing rote tasks is totally false. I never had to make binders or copies or anything like that myself. A para or assistant would always be responsible for working with copy services to get all that done. Sometimes they would mess something up, which would be annoying, but I would just tell them what to fix and it would be done.

I didn't have the experience of working with super gunners. Everyone I worked with was very pleasant, and I never felt that people were throwing others under the bus. Now, the NY office is big (about 200 lawyers), so I'm sure there are people who are not great to work with there. But I must have managed to avoid them.

I also disagree that there are no good partners to work with left in NY after the Selendy/Gay departures. There are plenty of great partners left in NY who care about developing associates and have interesting cases.

I can't speak to what it's like to work at Boies, but FWIW, I chose QE over Boies. The people I met there were obsessed with billing and their main pitch to me centered on how much money I could make, which, while perhaps counterintuitive, turned me off.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.