Be very wary of Cadwalader (NYC) Forum

[Anonymous User]

The reason is NOT that the quality of the summers across the board will be lower if its filled with non T14 students.

Completely agree, as the above anon who posted about the Ohio state person. To be clear, I don’t think they’re any less capable. And one or two people from “lower tier” schools is common. But that isn’t the case at CWT. Half of the summer class is from schools outside of the T14, maybe more. I do consider that a problem. Not with the quality of associates, but recruiting is unable to attract as many students from the T14.

And yes, the hours were not written off normally, they were taken away from the annual billable requirement, at least that’s what I was told.

[Tenzen]

Clearly you have some type of intense prejudice against people from "Fordham and below". Considering Wachtell just hired a recent Fordham grad, maybe Cadwalader isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel hiring people from those schools. I would also bet big money that someone from the top 30% of Fordham has a very good chance of being a better lawyer then someone from the bottom 50 of CCN. There may very well be reasons someone should be wary of Cadwalader but I don't think hiring people from outside the T-14 is one of them.

Seconding this. Worked at a ~v20 with people from schools like Fordham, Cardozo and although they were super rare compared to the percentage of people from ~T20 and higher, there was [edit: no] notable difference in intelligence as we might like to sometimes think.

Regarding Cadwalader, part of the dissatisfaction seems to be with the increasing hours relative to compensation. For instance, that abovethelaw article from earlier this year spelled some of it out. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/01/biglaw- ... nus-money/

[Anonymous User]

Clearly you have some type of intense prejudice against people from "Fordham and below". Considering Wachtell just hired a recent Fordham grad, maybe Cadwalader isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel hiring people from those schools. I would also bet big money that someone from the top 30% of Fordham has a very good chance of being a better lawyer then someone from the bottom 50 of CCN. There may very well be reasons someone should be wary of Cadwalader but I don't think hiring people from outside the T-14 is one of them.

Seconding this. Worked at a ~v20 with people from schools like Fordham, Cardozo and although they were super rare compared to the percentage of people from ~T20 and higher, there was [edit: no] notable difference in intelligence as we might like to sometimes think.

Regarding Cadwalader, part of the dissatisfaction seems to be with the increasing hours relative to compensation. For instance, that abovethelaw article from earlier this year spelled some of it out. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/01/biglaw- ... nus-money/

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that people from lower ranked schools aren’t good lawyers. The quote person below articulated the issue I was raising the best:

The reason is that these firms care about having a high number of T14 summers because they brag about it to their clients and for better or worse firms care about the appearance of prestige (remember what profession we are talking about.) If a firm has 10 students from Columbia one summer and 2 the next, there is a very good chance there's some partner somewhere in the firm complaining about it to recruiting and they're going to try and fix that the following summer. If they can't, it shows that the firm is having recruiting issues which likely signals larger issues with the firm.

Also, it’s not just the bonus. It’s the other crappy things they’ve done, as I said earlier that bother me.

[Wild Card]

Clearly you have some type of intense prejudice against people from "Fordham and below". Considering Wachtell just hired a recent Fordham grad, maybe Cadwalader isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel hiring people from those schools. I would also bet big money that someone from the top 30% of Fordham has a very good chance of being a better lawyer then someone from the bottom 50 of CCN. There may very well be reasons someone should be wary of Cadwalader but I don't think hiring people from outside the T-14 is one of them.

The below median at Columbia will have entered with a 171/172 LSAT score whereas the top third Fordhamite will have enrolled with a 165/166. That's a two standard deviation gulf. And the Columbia student will more likely have graduated from top schools and benefited from far better training in reading, research, and writing. Finally, there's no shame losing to the very best but what can one say about being the cream of the crap, to be blunt? Not to say that Fordham is "crap," but let's be serious here.

To be fair, I graduated from NYU and there are federal judges who will consider only 10% or top 5% NYU grads. In their eyes, the 90-95% of us must be crap, at least compared to top 40% at Harvard.

Again, it's all relative, and you need to be serious.

[QContinuum]

To be fair, I graduated from NYU and there are federal judges who will consider only 10% or top 5% NYU grads. In their eyes, the 90-95% of us must be crap, at least compared to top 40% at Harvard.

Again, it's all relative, and you need to be serious.

I understand you hate your alma mater, but it's important not to go beyond the pale. I'd like some evidence that uber-selective judges requiring top 5/10% at NYU are happy to take barely above median at Harvard, because I don't think that's true at all. If your assertion was about Yale I'd buy it, but not Harvard.

[Anonymous User]

Clearly you have some type of intense prejudice against people from "Fordham and below". Considering Wachtell just hired a recent Fordham grad, maybe Cadwalader isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel hiring people from those schools. I would also bet big money that someone from the top 30% of Fordham has a very good chance of being a better lawyer then someone from the bottom 50 of CCN. There may very well be reasons someone should be wary of Cadwalader but I don't think hiring people from outside the T-14 is one of them.

The below median at Columbia will have entered with a 171/172 LSAT score whereas the top third Fordhamite will have enrolled with a 165/166. That's a two standard deviation gulf. And the Columbia student will more likely have graduated from top schools and benefited from far better training in reading, research, and writing. Finally, there's no shame losing to the very best but what can one say about being the cream of the crap, to be blunt? Not to say that Fordham is "crap," but let's be serious here.

To be fair, I graduated from NYU and there are federal judges who will consider only 10% or top 5% NYU grads. In their eyes, the 90-95% of us must be crap, at least compared to top 40% at Harvard.

Again, it's all relative, and you need to be serious.

Being absolutely serious, the above is garbage, and I say this as someone who graduated from a higher ranked school than NYU. School ranks and LSAT scores do a mediocre job of predicting who will or will not do well as an attorney (or at least, as a litigator). Some people are good test takers but terrible at improvising under pressure. Other are bad test takers but excellent orators. Granted, no firm should be hiring from the bottom 20% of Cooley Law, but a couple Fordham etc hires are a far cry from “we can’t find anyone.” I’ve had my hat handed to me by attorneys from middle-ranked schools, and I’ve handed hats to attorneys from top schools.

[TheoO]

There's already a thread about this issue. Actually, probably several. Needless to say, it's a very beaten, rotting horse.

[DoveBodyWash]

all it suggests is that students with more options are choosing to go elsewhere. Most of us are aware of moron HLS grads and incredibly impressive non-T14 grads. Can we please get back to the horror stories.

[Anonymous User]

Can we please get back to the horror stories.

I don’t know if this is a horror story but I’m happy to try to get the thread back on track. CWT’s groups are named poorly. The “finance” group is really real estate, the “capital markets” group doesn’t do normal capital markets, and the “Corporate” group mostly does Shareholder Activism, with a little M&A on the side. Just something to be aware of.

[Anonymous User]

Because summer associate and recruiting season is coming up, as a junior at CWT, the horror stories are true. This is not a good place to work. Most juniors leave after a year, and the quality of each summer class keeps going down. I’d avoid this place unless it’s your only offer, and even then know you’re going to be looking to lateral within a year (like most people do).

They also increased the hours requirement for the bonus, and have refused any kind of work from home policy. They don’t pay bonuses until the last week in February (to discourage laterals) and I’ve heard it’s common for partners to transfer associate billable hours to non-billable hours. This hasn’t happened to me personally, but I’d be livid if a partner took away some of my billable hours to charge a client less.

With that being said, if you’re at a lower ranked school, it’s a good opportunity to get your foot in the door at big law. Our past summer classes have include people from lower ranked schools (think Fordham and below) and I think this year they’re hiring someone from Ohio State law.

As a mid-level at CWT: there isn't an official home from work policy but after your first year you can generally get away with working from home more often than the formal policy that was proposed if you want to (as was said at the associate meeting on this: don't mess with a good thing). That said...this does somewhat vary by partner/group so I can see how some people would feel miffed about the lack of a formal policy. In any case this feels like a fairly marginal thing to complain about at a biglaw firm.

I've never heard of billable hours being transferred to non-billable hours. That sounds made up. (a) Most work that CWT does in its main practices is fixed fee so cutting hours wouldn't really do anything and (b) even if it's an hourly deal, if the partner cuts the hours that appear on the bill (which happens frequently at all firms), the associate still gets credit for billing the hours.

I don't perceive junior associate attrition to be much worse at CWT than is standard in the industry. Attrition used to be really high before about 2016, but that seems to have stabilized. Maybe still a bit above average I don't know, but half of each incoming class does not leave within its first year.

Also lol at the OSU comment.

Working here can certainly suck, and it's definitely not for everyone...but there are certain perks that have made it work for me so far: (a) nobody gives a shit when I come in (unless there's a deal event or some other reason I need to be in early, which is maybe once or twice a month), (b) I've had a lot of contact with clients since about midway through my first year, and (c) I've essentially been getting staffed as the mid-level on deals since November of my first year, which makes a huge difference in terms of quality of life because you'll have someone under you and can push the worst stuff down. First year did suck a lot, though.

I know TLS loves to circlejerk about how terrible CWT is, and maybe that was once true (and perhaps in some niche areas or for some particular associates it still is, I don't know), but as someone who works in their main practice area I just don't believe that it's currently so much worse than every other biglaw firm. I can tell you that I'm in no rush to go to one of the other firms that does what I do because their associates seem to have it worse from what I can tell (Sidley has ludicrously thin staffing and Orrick only has like 4 associates and highly volatile work flow so they're either dead or not sleeping for weeks on end, plus Orrick's partners seem like they would be horrendous to work for).

[Anonymous User]

Can we please get back to the horror stories.

I don’t know if this is a horror story but I’m happy to try to get the thread back on track. CWT’s groups are named poorly. The “finance” group is really real estate, the “capital markets” group doesn’t do normal capital markets, and the “Corporate” group mostly does Shareholder Activism, with a little M&A on the side. Just something to be aware of.

They aren't name poorly, it's actually a pretty great marketing job by the firm that deceives plenty of law students and makes the firm seem much more diversified than it is.

[JHP]

Can we please get back to the horror stories.

I don’t know if this is a horror story but I’m happy to try to get the thread back on track. CWT’s groups are named poorly. The “finance” group is really real estate, the “capital markets” group doesn’t do normal capital markets, and the “Corporate” group mostly does Shareholder Activism, with a little M&A on the side. Just something to be aware of.

Could you elaborate? Do they divide their groups by client but just slap the name "finance" or "cap markets" onto the group because one Important Partner in that group was finance/cap markets person?

[Anonymous User]

Can we please get back to the horror stories.

I don’t know if this is a horror story but I’m happy to try to get the thread back on track. CWT’s groups are named poorly. The “finance” group is really real estate, the “capital markets” group doesn’t do normal capital markets, and the “Corporate” group mostly does Shareholder Activism, with a little M&A on the side. Just something to be aware of.

Could you elaborate? Do they divide their groups by client but just slap the name "finance" or "cap markets" onto the group because one Important Partner in that group was finance/cap markets person?

They name the groups generally when in fact what they do is specific. Cap Markets, for instance, does zero company work. It's all securitization. Yes, there are offering circulars/memorandums involved, but they do nothing with say, IPOs, company filings, etc. The finance group is just weirdly named, not sure why they don't just call it real estate. Looking at the website now, they have changed things a bit. There is also a separate derivatives/structured products group. In many firms, the securitization and structured products would typically just be lumped into a broad "Structured Finance" practice.

[Anonymous User]

Because summer associate and recruiting season is coming up, as a junior at CWT, the horror stories are true. This is not a good place to work. Most juniors leave after a year, and the quality of each summer class keeps going down. I’d avoid this place unless it’s your only offer, and even then know you’re going to be looking to lateral within a year (like most people do).

They also increased the hours requirement for the bonus, and have refused any kind of work from home policy. They don’t pay bonuses until the last week in February (to discourage laterals) and I’ve heard it’s common for partners to transfer associate billable hours to non-billable hours. This hasn’t happened to me personally, but I’d be livid if a partner took away some of my billable hours to charge a client less.

With that being said, if you’re at a lower ranked school, it’s a good opportunity to get your foot in the door at big law. Our past summer classes have include people from lower ranked schools (think Fordham and below) and I think this year they’re hiring someone from Ohio State law.

As a mid-level at CWT: there isn't an official home from work policy but after your first year you can generally get away with working from home more often than the formal policy that was proposed if you want to (as was said at the associate meeting on this: don't mess with a good thing). That said...this does somewhat vary by partner/group so I can see how some people would feel miffed about the lack of a formal policy. In any case this feels like a fairly marginal thing to complain about at a biglaw firm.

I've never heard of billable hours being transferred to non-billable hours. That sounds made up. (a) Most work that CWT does in its main practices is fixed fee so cutting hours wouldn't really do anything and (b) even if it's an hourly deal, if the partner cuts the hours that appear on the bill (which happens frequently at all firms), the associate still gets credit for billing the hours.

I don't perceive junior associate attrition to be much worse at CWT than is standard in the industry. Attrition used to be really high before about 2016, but that seems to have stabilized. Maybe still a bit above average I don't know, but half of each incoming class does not leave within its first year.

Also lol at the OSU comment.

Working here can certainly suck, and it's definitely not for everyone...but there are certain perks that have made it work for me so far: (a) nobody gives a shit when I come in (unless there's a deal event or some other reason I need to be in early, which is maybe once or twice a month), (b) I've had a lot of contact with clients since about midway through my first year, and (c) I've essentially been getting staffed as the mid-level on deals since November of my first year, which makes a huge difference in terms of quality of life because you'll have someone under you and can push the worst stuff down. First year did suck a lot, though.

I know TLS loves to circlejerk about how terrible CWT is, and maybe that was once true (and perhaps in some niche areas or for some particular associates it still is, I don't know), but as someone who works in their main practice area I just don't believe that it's currently so much worse than every other biglaw firm. I can tell you that I'm in no rush to go to one of the other firms that does what I do because their associates seem to have it worse from what I can tell (Sidley has ludicrously thin staffing and Orrick only has like 4 associates and highly volatile work flow so they're either dead or not sleeping for weeks on end, plus Orrick's partners seem like they would be horrendous to work for).

There are other NYC biglaw firms that are worse in terms of the way they treat their juniors. One firm gave partial bonuses to some of their highest billing juniors while giving full bonuses to low billing juniors. Plus, there are some yelling partners and haphazard practice group placements. This focus on Cadwalader is very misguided. There are firms with worse cultures. My advice to law students would be to never trust the impressions you got from recruiting events. Try to talk to associates outside of their work hours ideally with some alcohol.

[UsernameNotTaken]

Because summer associate and recruiting season is coming up, as a junior at CWT, the horror stories are true. This is not a good place to work. Most juniors leave after a year, and the quality of each summer class keeps going down. I’d avoid this place unless it’s your only offer, and even then know you’re going to be looking to lateral within a year (like most people do).

They also increased the hours requirement for the bonus, and have refused any kind of work from home policy. They don’t pay bonuses until the last week in February (to discourage laterals) and I’ve heard it’s common for partners to transfer associate billable hours to non-billable hours. This hasn’t happened to me personally, but I’d be livid if a partner took away some of my billable hours to charge a client less.

With that being said, if you’re at a lower ranked school, it’s a good opportunity to get your foot in the door at big law. Our past summer classes have include people from lower ranked schools (think Fordham and below) and I think this year they’re hiring someone from Ohio State law.

As a mid-level at CWT: there isn't an official home from work policy but after your first year you can generally get away with working from home more often than the formal policy that was proposed if you want to (as was said at the associate meeting on this: don't mess with a good thing). That said...this does somewhat vary by partner/group so I can see how some people would feel miffed about the lack of a formal policy. In any case this feels like a fairly marginal thing to complain about at a biglaw firm.

I've never heard of billable hours being transferred to non-billable hours. That sounds made up. (a) Most work that CWT does in its main practices is fixed fee so cutting hours wouldn't really do anything and (b) even if it's an hourly deal, if the partner cuts the hours that appear on the bill (which happens frequently at all firms), the associate still gets credit for billing the hours.

I don't perceive junior associate attrition to be much worse at CWT than is standard in the industry. Attrition used to be really high before about 2016, but that seems to have stabilized. Maybe still a bit above average I don't know, but half of each incoming class does not leave within its first year.

Also lol at the OSU comment.

Working here can certainly suck, and it's definitely not for everyone...but there are certain perks that have made it work for me so far: (a) nobody gives a shit when I come in (unless there's a deal event or some other reason I need to be in early, which is maybe once or twice a month), (b) I've had a lot of contact with clients since about midway through my first year, and (c) I've essentially been getting staffed as the mid-level on deals since November of my first year, which makes a huge difference in terms of quality of life because you'll have someone under you and can push the worst stuff down. First year did suck a lot, though.

I know TLS loves to circlejerk about how terrible CWT is, and maybe that was once true (and perhaps in some niche areas or for some particular associates it still is, I don't know), but as someone who works in their main practice area I just don't believe that it's currently so much worse than every other biglaw firm. I can tell you that I'm in no rush to go to one of the other firms that does what I do because their associates seem to have it worse from what I can tell (Sidley has ludicrously thin staffing and Orrick only has like 4 associates and highly volatile work flow so they're either dead or not sleeping for weeks on end, plus Orrick's partners seem like they would be horrendous to work for).

There are other NYC biglaw firms that are worse in terms of the way they treat their juniors. One firm gave partial bonuses to some of their highest billing juniors while giving full bonuses to low billing juniors. Plus, there are some yelling partners and haphazard practice group placements. This focus on Cadwalader is very misguided. There are firms with worse cultures. My advice to law students would be to never trust the impressions you got from recruiting events. Try to talk to associates outside of their work hours ideally with some alcohol.

Mind naming those firms?

[Anonymous User]

Bump. Curious if this is still true.

[Anonymous User]

Bump. Curious if this is still true.

Without any specific knowledge, this has been true for years and given that people are suffering across NY biglaw I would be honestly shocked if Cad somehow got its act together.

If you have another option, you should strongly consider it.

[Anonymous User]

Current associate at Cadwalader. As far as my experience goes, I do think the firm culture has changed. All the partners I have interacted with or have worked for are genuinely great people. Of course I cannot speak for everyone, and I know morale has been extraordinarily low due to several departures after the payout of year-end bonuses. But compared to my peers working at other firms, I’m very happy where I am at. I would have to say perhaps the quality of clients we have are not spectacular. But I don’t think the firm is something to fear

[Anonymous User]

Current associate at Cadwalader. As far as my experience goes, I do think the firm culture has changed. All the partners I have interacted with or have worked for are genuinely great people. Of course I cannot speak for everyone, and I know morale has been extraordinarily low due to several departures after the payout of year-end bonuses. But compared to my peers working at other firms, I’m very happy where I am at. I would have to say perhaps the quality of clients we have are not spectacular. But I don’t think the firm is something to fear

Litigation associate, i think the culture has absolutely changed, and a long while ago at that since i have never really experienced what others have talked about. Lit's busy and growing (pretty sure everyone in the group got full bonuses and pay retroactively restored after beginning of covid cuts), I've met quite a few people i really like, it just got a number of high profile laterals form boies, and as a whole firm increased equity class by 20% this year. Happy with clients, e.g., mcdonalds, macmillan, and bcg.

Finally, about the firm's bad rep is i think a lot of it relates to cap markets. During the great recession, the firm fired a large amount of associates, and all of them were cap markets. There were a lot of bad posts about cwt at that time and after, but especially in the past 5-6 years or so there has been a slow rise of people who like and defend cwt on this site. Cap markets is, imho an awful, awful, awful practice group no matter where you are (if you are thinking of going into cap markets maybe reassess some life choices), and since that is cwt's biggest group the reputation from cap markets inaccurately colors peoples' perceptions of the firm as a whole. i think while the firm has its problems that are typical for biglaw, it is an excellent firm that based on ppp/rpl/client prestige outshines the firms that are often perceived as its peers. Plus it has some lay prestige: while like with most firms no non-lawyer has ever heard of cwt, it's always fun to say that i work for the oldest firm in the country (no one has ever corrected me by saying it's the 2nd oldest, so I'm going to keep on saying it's the oldest).

[Anonymous User]

Current associate at Cadwalader. As far as my experience goes, I do think the firm culture has changed. All the partners I have interacted with or have worked for are genuinely great people. Of course I cannot speak for everyone, and I know morale has been extraordinarily low due to several departures after the payout of year-end bonuses. But compared to my peers working at other firms, I’m very happy where I am at. I would have to say perhaps the quality of clients we have are not spectacular. But I don’t think the firm is something to fear

Litigation associate, i think the culture has absolutely changed, and a long while ago at that since i have never really experienced what others have talked about. Lit's busy and growing (pretty sure everyone in the group got full bonuses and pay retroactively restored after beginning of covid cuts), I've met quite a few people i really like, it just got a number of high profile laterals form boies, and as a whole firm increased equity class by 20% this year. Happy with clients, e.g., mcdonalds, macmillan, and bcg.

Finally, about the firm's bad rep is i think a lot of it relates to cap markets. During the great recession, the firm fired a large amount of associates, and all of them were cap markets. There were a lot of bad posts about cwt at that time and after, but especially in the past 5-6 years or so there has been a slow rise of people who like and defend cwt on this site. Cap markets is, imho an awful, awful, awful practice group no matter where you are (if you are thinking of going into cap markets maybe reassess some life choices), and since that is cwt's biggest group the reputation from cap markets inaccurately colors peoples' perceptions of the firm as a whole. i think while the firm has its problems that are typical for biglaw, it is an excellent firm that based on ppp/rpl/client prestige outshines the firms that are often perceived as its peers. Plus it has some lay prestige: while like with most firms no non-lawyer has ever heard of cwt, it's always fun to say that i work for the oldest firm in the country (no one has ever corrected me by saying it's the 2nd oldest, so I'm going to keep on saying it's the oldest).

The thing that makes their cap markets group bad is what someone noted upthread, that it's not a normal cap markets group. It's a high volume CMBS paper mill (stated as someone who works across from them on shitty CMBS deals and does not envy their position).

[Anonymous User]

Current associate at Cadwalader. As far as my experience goes, I do think the firm culture has changed. All the partners I have interacted with or have worked for are genuinely great people. Of course I cannot speak for everyone, and I know morale has been extraordinarily low due to several departures after the payout of year-end bonuses. But compared to my peers working at other firms, I’m very happy where I am at. I would have to say perhaps the quality of clients we have are not spectacular. But I don’t think the firm is something to fear

Litigation associate, i think the culture has absolutely changed, and a long while ago at that since i have never really experienced what others have talked about. Lit's busy and growing (pretty sure everyone in the group got full bonuses and pay retroactively restored after beginning of covid cuts), I've met quite a few people i really like, it just got a number of high profile laterals form boies, and as a whole firm increased equity class by 20% this year. Happy with clients, e.g., mcdonalds, macmillan, and bcg.

Finally, about the firm's bad rep is i think a lot of it relates to cap markets. During the great recession, the firm fired a large amount of associates, and all of them were cap markets. There were a lot of bad posts about cwt at that time and after, but especially in the past 5-6 years or so there has been a slow rise of people who like and defend cwt on this site. Cap markets is, imho an awful, awful, awful practice group no matter where you are (if you are thinking of going into cap markets maybe reassess some life choices), and since that is cwt's biggest group the reputation from cap markets inaccurately colors peoples' perceptions of the firm as a whole. i think while the firm has its problems that are typical for biglaw, it is an excellent firm that based on ppp/rpl/client prestige outshines the firms that are often perceived as its peers. Plus it has some lay prestige: while like with most firms no non-lawyer has ever heard of cwt, it's always fun to say that i work for the oldest firm in the country (no one has ever corrected me by saying it's the 2nd oldest, so I'm going to keep on saying it's the oldest).

First Cadwalader associate anon poster here. But I would have to echo this. The firm’s reputation definitely stems mostly from cap markets from 10+ years ago. However, its reputation also stems from screamer partners that are no longer at the firm. Sure there are some awful partners here and there (we’re talking less than 5 firm-wide that I’m aware of) but I have honestly not had a single bad interaction and enjoy the work I do and the people I work with (I’m not in cap markets). I have friends across the V10-V50 and my experience seems to be significantly better than what they’re going through. I think people just enjoy hating on Cadwalader because that’s been the thing to do for the last decade.

[Anonymous User]

Had a laughably bad callback experience with Cadwalader and yet they still offered me for their cap markets group. Turned it down since it's clear they're just looking for warm bodies.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel at CWT. It's really not bad, maybe even good, as far as the people go. It's definitely a sweatshop though and we've always been stretched really thin, and even more so lately for obvious reasons. Accordingly not great about respecting vacations and the like. Lots of people with really, really high hours (2500+).

[Anonymous User]

Same midlevel anon. I'm remembering that they did screw people who were low on hours when real estate deals evaporated at the beginning of the pandemic by not paying back a chunk of their base salary if they billed under 1400 on the year. That was pretty uncool and pissed a lot of people off, and basically all of them immediately lateraled which has left those groups wildly understaffed when things picked pack up not long after.

[Anonymous User]

How is the litigation practice now that they hired plenty of Boies attorneys?