Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

(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.

Which should I pick?

Quinn
7
18%
Boies
15
38%
Kasowitz
3
8%
Keker
15
38%
 
Total votes: 40

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:35 pm

Obviously I'm interested in lit, want actual trial experience. Thoughts?
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Obviously I'm interested in lit, want actual trial experience. Thoughts?


Which smaller boutiques are on the table? you should look into Gibbs & Bruns and Yetter Coleman. Both offer a ton of trial experience and are better firms than Kasowitz.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:07 pm

nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Obviously I'm interested in lit, want actual trial experience. Thoughts?


Which smaller boutiques are on the table? you should look into Gibbs & Bruns and Yetter Coleman. Both offer a ton of trial experience and are better firms than Kasowitz.


Bro probably wants to live in NYC, just judging his options.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:11 pm

OP here - targeting NY and SF, Boies is in SF but Quinn offer is in NY. Should have said that before. Lit boutique is Keker Van Nest (SF)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:13 pm

Keker is supposed to be great. You should probably plan on clerking if you go that route though.

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:19 pm

Yea Keker has a great rep. Go with them.

lolwat
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby lolwat » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:23 pm

Keker 100% if I had these choices. Boies would be a consideration. But not Quinn or Kasowitz.

User avatar
alexb240
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:14 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby alexb240 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:31 pm

If you want to talk about market perception, Boies is considered a cut above the rest of these firms. Quinn would be next in line, followed by Keker and then Kasowitz.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:34 pm

Absolutely go to Keker. Associates at any of the above firms would kill to go there, even with the outsized bonuses at Boies.

quesniot
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby quesniot » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:41 pm

Boies--can't beat the experience and money you'll get at that firm.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Elston Gunn » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:07 pm

alexb240 wrote:If you want to talk about market perception, Boies is considered a cut above the rest of these firms. Quinn would be next in line, followed by Keker and then Kasowitz.

Wut.

User avatar
alexb240
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:14 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby alexb240 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:12 am

Elston Gunn wrote:
alexb240 wrote:If you want to talk about market perception, Boies is considered a cut above the rest of these firms. Quinn would be next in line, followed by Keker and then Kasowitz.

Wut.


Truth. QE is repping the Federal Housing Fin. Authority in 16 simultaneous actions against the biggest banks in the world, on top of all the other things they're working on. They are on the front page of law360 almost every day. Keker is a nice firm, and people seem to like it... But if you're going simply on what the market's view of these firms is; it's no contest. Everyone has heard of Boies and Quinn. A substantial percentage of Biglaw people wouldn't know Keker. Again, not a judgment on the quality of the firm or whether it's a nice place to work. My only point is about market perception.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:34 am

Congrats on the great options OP.

You are talking about Boies Oakland right? Having interviewed there, I would say Keker unless you are absolutely dead set on antitrust, and probably Keker anyways. Keker's low leverage, partnership prospects, and reputation in SF make it very, very hard to beat in SF for litigators. Boies is a great alternative option but does not really pale.

Quinn's culture probably should make this a non-starter unless you really liked it there. Plus if you are in it for the short bucks, you should go for Boies. But in light of the very real possibility of making partner at Keker, it is short sighted to go for Boies on that ground. Plus who really knows what will happen when Boies dies.

Also LJL at the thought that Biglaw attorneys in SF do not know who Keker is. That poster clearly does not know the SF market.

User avatar
alexb240
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:14 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby alexb240 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:43 am

Of course attorneys in SF know Keker. The same way that attorneys in local markets always know prestigious boutiques in their areas. Poll attorneys in NYC, or DC, or Chicago, about Keker vs. Boies or QE. It's absolutely no contest. None. It's not even really debatable in a serious fashion. That's my only point. If OP is certain that they'll stay in SF forever and ever, then more power to them. But if you're asking about the market in a more general fashion (would be awfully myopic to think of "market perception" as only related to one city, when three of the four firms listed are national), which is what I was referring to (hence QE's involvement in major national litigation), then broader market perception is a consideration.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Tanicius » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:00 am

alexb240 wrote:
Elston Gunn wrote:
alexb240 wrote:If you want to talk about market perception, Boies is considered a cut above the rest of these firms. Quinn would be next in line, followed by Keker and then Kasowitz.

Wut.


Truth. QE is repping the Federal Housing Fin. Authority in 16 simultaneous actions against the biggest banks in the world, on top of all the other things they're working on. They are on the front page of law360 almost every day. Keker is a nice firm, and people seem to like it... But if you're going simply on what the market's view of these firms is; it's no contest. Everyone has heard of Boies and Quinn. A substantial percentage of Biglaw people wouldn't know Keker. Again, not a judgment on the quality of the firm or whether it's a nice place to work. My only point is about market perception.



Those are fantastic reasons to be a partner, not an associate.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:19 am

Those are fantastic reasons to be a partner, not an associate.


Say that again when you're looking for another job.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:50 am

alexb240 wrote:Of course attorneys in SF know Keker. The same way that attorneys in local markets always know prestigious boutiques in their areas. Poll attorneys in NYC, or DC, or Chicago, about Keker vs. Boies or QE. It's absolutely no contest. None. It's not even really debatable in a serious fashion. That's my only point. If OP is certain that they'll stay in SF forever and ever, then more power to them. But if you're asking about the market in a more general fashion (would be awfully myopic to think of "market perception" as only related to one city, when three of the four firms listed are national), which is what I was referring to (hence QE's involvement in major national litigation), then broader market perception is a consideration.

This post really confuses me. The OP needs to pick a market. From the limited information given, he/she seems indifferent between SF and NYC. Obviously if OP wants to ultimately practice NYC, Keker is not as good as some NYC firm.

With that said, if the OP chooses to work in SF, it does not matter at all what some random Biglaw attorney in NYC or DC or Chicago thinks. What the fuck is "market perception"? Vault ranking? Also where did OP say anything about national litigation? And wtf does that even mean?

OP, as someone who is at a Biglaw firm in California, and chose among these and other peer firms, I think the choice as I said above is clear. If you want to practice in California, choose Keker unless you had very strong fit at your other choices.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:52 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Tanicius » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:51 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
Those are fantastic reasons to be a partner, not an associate.


Say that again when you're looking for another job.



Yeah man. Those Keker associates are fucked (LinkRemoved).

It is seriously ridiculous to put Quinn ahead of Keker. Keker is pretty much in a league of its own when it comes to California litigation offices. And the best part: You won't have to commit billable hours suicide to work there!

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:14 am

Yeah man. Those Keker associates are fucked.


...never said that they were.

Alexb240, I think you've arrived at a time when the decreasing quality in the law school application pool is beginning to make its effects felt on this forum.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Tanicius » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:32 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
Yeah man. Those Keker associates are fucked.


...never said that they were.


No, but you argued Quinn associates have better lateral opportunities than Keker associates. The day that news headlines make that a fact, the whole biglaw model will be shaken upside down.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:08 am

No, but you argued Quinn associates have better lateral opportunities than Keker associates.


Nope, didn't argue that either.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:05 pm

OP, once you have offers in hand, ask to talk to some associates. Ask them what they've been up to in the past month. That should help clear things up a little.

I will say that the lawyers I've talked to who are at Keker-esque firms seem a lot happier than folks at bigger shops. But that could just be that the boutiques are good at hiring people who genuinely like the work and fit with the culture or any number of other things. And personally I'd go with Keker in a heartbeat if you want to be a trial lawyer as opposed to a litigator. But I also don't have any more info than you do.

If these are offers in hand, congrats. If not, good luck with your callbacks!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:11 pm

OP: I hate you. jk.

You're in an amazing situation. I would reach out to jr. associates and ask for the low-down on their experience. If you are comfortable enough with them, I would even ask them to assess your options and what they would do if they were in your shoes.

Best of luck choosing from the best!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273128
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:01 pm

Thanks everyone for the advice,

I am wavering a bit on whether or not I really want to be in SF but it seems like QoL is overwhelmingly more positive at Keker than anywhere else. Do people think I'm really shooting myself in the foot for a lateral move from SF back to NY in about 5 years if I go the Keker route?

JusticeJackson
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:26 am

Re: Quinn v. Boies v. Kasowitz v. smaller lit boutique

Postby JusticeJackson » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:03 pm

.
Last edited by JusticeJackson on Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.