(Plaintiff Side) Lit

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

(Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm

2L T14 strikeout here.

Got a summer offer at a plaintiff-side firm that pays significantly below market (they claim to offer a significant bonus but I'm calling that as bs), at this point I don't know whether to accept or keep pushing for a firm (big, mid or small) that does defense-side work. I want to practice lit, but I suspect doing a small-scale (I don't wanna call it shitlaw though I'm sure some gunners would) plaintiff firm for 2L summer will make me conflicted for the bulk of the AMLAW 200 firms come 3L recruiting.

So 1) To what extent will I be conflicted at AmLaw 200 firms if I summer at a small P firm that does appear on the left side of the v against some Fortune 100 companies

2) Any possibility I can use this summer experience to demonstrate my passion for plaintiff work and aim for Quin, Boies, Susman and the like come 3L.?

FWIW one of my mentors who's a 4th year in BigLaw told me its better I spend the summer as a research assistant due to the conflicts this may generate and the low likelihood of levering it to one of the market paying plaintiff shops.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:15 am

As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.

Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.

Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.


A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:08 pm

Bump

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:44 pm

Why do people mention Quinn and Susman like they're peers or something.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Why do people mention Quinn and Susman like they're peers or something.


the preftige gestapo is in town!

there may be no two large firms with more in common than quinn & susman. yes, susman is a bit harder to get, but come on.

User avatar
cron1834
Posts: 2262
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby cron1834 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Why do people mention Quinn and Susman like they're peers or something.


the preftige gestapo is in town!

there may be no two large firms with more in common than quinn & susman. yes, susman is a bit harder to get, but come on.

Right. What a ridiculous and pointless comment. And anon, too!

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.

Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.


A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?


What about this?

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:47 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.

Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.


A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?


What about this?


Boies Schiller, MoloLamken, Kobre & Kim. Lots more in D.C.: Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, Hogan Lovell (DC specifically), Jenner & Block (DC specifically), Covington (DC specifically).

There are a bunch in LA too.

Tbh, if we're including Quinn, I see no reason to exclude Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, and Gibson Dunn, all of which are top notch in lit generally, although each firm has diff specialities.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:51 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.

Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.


A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?


What about this?


Boies Schiller, MoloLamken, Kobre & Kim. Lots more in D.C.: Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, Hogan Lovell (DC specifically), Jenner & Block (DC specifically), Covington (DC specifically).

There are a bunch in LA too.

Tbh, if we're including Quinn, I see no reason to exclude Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, and Gibson Dunn, all of which are top notch in lit generally, although each firm has diff specialities.


Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?

gaddockteeg
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby gaddockteeg » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:57 am

Anonymous User wrote:Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?

Boies Schiller does.

User avatar
unicorntamer666
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:11 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby unicorntamer666 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:18 pm

gaddockteeg wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?

Boies Schiller does.


In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.

If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.

FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:10 pm

unicorntamer666 wrote:
gaddockteeg wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?

Boies Schiller does.


In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.

If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.

FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.


What are people's thoughts on the ethics of these P firms, particularly the class-action firms that proactively look to find class representatives to instigate trials? On the one hand, I'll concede they may be representing true victims, whereas the BL firms often represent 'bad guys' (Big Oil and the like) but the methods these P firms use seems to me to be super aggressive and pseudo-telemarketing like. I guess it depends on the firm, but is the very notion of looking for a class representative by itself unethical?

jd20132013
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby jd20132013 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
unicorntamer666 wrote:
gaddockteeg wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?

Boies Schiller does.


In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.

If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.

FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.


What are people's thoughts on the ethics of these P firms, particularly the class-action firms that proactively look to find class representatives to instigate trials? On the one hand, I'll concede they may be representing true victims, whereas the BL firms often represent 'bad guys' (Big Oil and the like) but the methods these P firms use seems to me to be super aggressive and pseudo-telemarketing like. I guess it depends on the firm, but is the very notion of looking for a class representative by itself unethical?



No.

tomwatts
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby tomwatts » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:43 am

unicorntamer666 wrote:FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.

It's worth noting that the "starting salary" at these kinds of places is often misleading, for reasons I've posted about several times: bonuses are often substantial, raises can be substantial, etc. I came in as a third-year, and I started way above 120K.
jd20132013 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What are people's thoughts on the ethics of these P firms, particularly the class-action firms that proactively look to find class representatives to instigate trials? On the one hand, I'll concede they may be representing true victims, whereas the BL firms often represent 'bad guys' (Big Oil and the like) but the methods these P firms use seems to me to be super aggressive and pseudo-telemarketing like. I guess it depends on the firm, but is the very notion of looking for a class representative by itself unethical?

No.

To elaborate slightly: in general, the rule in American courts is that you can't just file a suit over corporate wrongdoing. You have to have a plaintiff who's actually been wronged by that corporate wrongdoing before you can sue. So if you find out about corporate wrongdoing and want to sue to 1) make it stop, 2) make the bad guys pay back whatever profits they've made off the bad things they've done, and 3) get some recovery for the people who've been hurt, then you need to have a client. Sometimes you might get a client via a tip; qui tam suits often start that way. But otherwise, you need to look for a class rep.

In a typical process, you might put a page on your website or advertise somewhere to say that you're looking for people who were harmed by some specific corporate wrongdoing. You provide a form or a phone number, and people get in touch if they're interested in being involved. You screen them in various ways to find good class reps, and then with the good ones, you offer to represent them, usually on a contingency fee basis. If they say yes, you file.

There are ways of looking for a class rep that are unethical, to be sure. Bill Lerach got in a lot of trouble for the way that he did it. But if you do it the normal way, it's perfectly ethical. You're trying to stop corporate wrongdoing using the legal system. As long as you're complying with all the formal rules, you're on the side of good.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3438
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:00 am

I assume the issue is more like, are plaintiff class actions pure rent seeking that neither materially benefit the class nor have any kind of meaningful deterrent or punitive effect on defendants. IMO there's a spectrum, with shareholder strike suits on one end and, I don't know, certain toxic tort cases on the other.

tomwatts
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby tomwatts » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:51 am

dixiecupdrinking wrote:I assume the issue is more like, are plaintiff class actions pure rent seeking that neither materially benefit the class nor have any kind of meaningful deterrent or punitive effect on defendants. IMO there's a spectrum, with shareholder strike suits on one end and, I don't know, certain toxic tort cases on the other.

There are a bunch of procedural protections in Rule 23 that are supposed to prevent that kind of thing. At class certification, the judge is supposed to verify that the class rep and lead counsel will, among other things, adequately protect the interests of the class. If the case settles, the judge is supposed to verify that the settlement is appropriate in light of the merits and risks of the case. Even when the settlement is approved, the judge ordinarily has to approve attorney fees for class counsel separately from approving the settlement itself. If the attorney fees are too high in the circumstances (e.g., compared to the recovery for the class), or if the settlement doesn't sufficiently benefit the class, or if the settlement seems improper in some other way, the judge isn't supposed to approve it.

So if judges do their jobs correctly, everything should be fine. Obviously, that's a big "if."

User avatar
unicorntamer666
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:11 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby unicorntamer666 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:03 pm

I have no problem at all with firms actively soliciting plaintiffs.

My concerns are primarily about the prevailing settlement paradigm. Basically, almost every case settles, which is problematic for a few reasons. First, the settlements often include various NDA-type deals designed to hide critical info from the public (plaintiffs firms agree to these because they get paid more in the settlement in exchange for secrecy). Second, because all defendants want a "global settlement" that resolves the type of claim at issue once and for all, settlements are often structured in sketchy ways to rope in individuals not really properly before the court. So effectively, plaintiffs firms end up having the power to produce settlements that are binding on pretty much everyone who will ever have a claim based on a particular occurrence - a power they arguably abuse/misuse when their profit imperative conflicts with the interests of the class. The simplest way this conflict can arise is in the firm wanting to settle early; plaintiffs firms don't get paid until they win, so obviously the incentive is to "win" as quickly as possible (not to maximize claim value). The big concern is that even if each individual class member is undercompensated, so long as you have a big class and big fees, and can resolve it relatively quickly (IE not take it to trial), firms still have an incentive to do it.

That as I understand it is the biggest problem. Plus you can make arguments that the cost of tort liability is just treated as an operating expense passed on to consumers (though there may be limits to how much companies can really raise prices). You could argue that tort settlements are often not so different from the bullshit white collar settlements (deferred and non-prosecution agreements) that DOJ has been entering with banks etc. post financial crisis. The wrongdoing is real and the dollar figures of the settlements sound good, but because they're assessed against the corporate entity, not its officers/employees, they're paid by shareholders (and/or consumers via cost-shifting), not the actual wrongdoers, so there is little to no actual deterrent effect.

Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.

But if I'm mistaken, and there are plaintiffs firms that don't fit this description, I'm all ears. I have just found it surprisingly hard to find any law firm that, at the end of the day, makes decisions based on anything other than profit. This is not to say law firms are "evil"; just perhaps that philanthropy/fulfillment might have to happen outside the workplace.

User avatar
cdotson2
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:06 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby cdotson2 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:00 pm

unicorntamer666 wrote:Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.

100% this. Lol at thinking that plaintiff's firms are just trying to make the world a better place. Also while corporate clients might sometimes actually do truly reprehensible things, corporations provide immense social value. Protecting those operations furthers that social value, and suing for the largest possible verdicts attacks it and restricts companies ability to provide value. Further, large verdicts can bankrupt companies and cause layoffs of employees that did nothing wrong--causing further harm by naively going after the "bad guy". The world isn't that simple.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:35 pm

Speaking as someone who practices biglaw securities lit (defense-side), there are definitely still firms out there that have the "strike-suit" business model - scouring the wire for mergers and signing up some guy from Duluth with 500 shares as lead plaintiff. But those cases settle pretty quickly and without a lot of hassle. Judges in Delaware and New York have come down hard on these types of cases, and as a result those firms are slowly dying out.

Most of the time you're likely to be facing an institutional investor or pension fund represented by either an elite plaintiff's shop (BLBG, RGRD, Lieff) or a biglaw firm like Boies, Quinn, Patterson, Kasowitz. If the suit involves a debt issue you also might be dealing with a bond insurer represented by a biglaw firm. Those firms are highly sophisticated and represented by experienced counsel with significant resources - definitely not interested in just wasting their time or tanking the company in which they have a huge stake.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7479
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby lavarman84 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:56 am

cdotson2 wrote:
unicorntamer666 wrote:Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.

100% this. Lol at thinking that plaintiff's firms are just trying to make the world a better place. Also while corporate clients might sometimes actually do truly reprehensible things, corporations provide immense social value. Protecting those operations furthers that social value, and suing for the largest possible verdicts attacks it and restricts companies ability to provide value. Further, large verdicts can bankrupt companies and cause layoffs of employees that did nothing wrong--causing further harm by naively going after the "bad guy". The world isn't that simple.


It's give and take. The threat of suit coerces corporations to behave themselves. In the same vein that plaintiff's firms' main motivation isn't making the world a better place, corporations' main motivation isn't providing value, it's maximizing profits.

jd20132013
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby jd20132013 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:52 am

But the profits trickle down, don't you see

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7479
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby lavarman84 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:12 am

jd20132013 wrote:But the profits trickle down, don't you see


I haven't seen it, but I'll keep an eye out. :wink:

Anonymous User
Posts: 302905
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:58 pm

cdotson2 wrote:
unicorntamer666 wrote:Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.

100% this. Lol at thinking that plaintiff's firms are just trying to make the world a better place. Also while corporate clients might sometimes actually do truly reprehensible things, corporations provide immense social value. Protecting those operations furthers that social value, and suing for the largest possible verdicts attacks it and restricts companies ability to provide value. Further, large verdicts can bankrupt companies and cause layoffs of employees that did nothing wrong--causing further harm by naively going after the "bad guy". The world isn't that simple.


This is equally naive. Many would argue that the costs imposed by large corporations in certain industries are not properly accounted for, and far from providing "immense social value," they in fact destroy assets held by nonshareholders who have benefitted little/not at all from those firms (see, e.g., BP re Deepwater Horizon and a number of other mishaps in Texas and elsewhere; many of the largest players in the financial industry during the last crisis, and many others; automakers who hide defects; etc.). As for "large verdicts" that "bankrupt companies and cause layoffs," that's pretty infrequent; most settlements (because, let's face it, verdicts are rare) are covered by insurance. (Perhaps you're referring to Arthur Anderson? That of course was a criminal case brought by DOJ.) Far more often, notwithstanding newsmaking class settlements, said wrongdoers get by with a tax for their malfeasance and continue on printing money for shareholders and/or, more to the point, their executives whose incentive structure favors short-term earnings gains over longer-term value creation. If on the other hand you don't believe VW should be penalized for emissions cheating, GM should pay a price for faulty ignition switches or Takata for defective airbags that kill people, Enron should have been driven out of business for perpetrating a massive fraud that DID result in thousands of people losing their jobs and investments, then, well, I'm afraid there's little to talk about.

Sure, unscrupulous attorneys may well file garbage suits, but the law has evolved such that the strike suit as a business model is (rightly) less profitable than it once was. And those claims should be thrown out of court. If you're currently in Biglaw and have been for a few years, and you still believe that what you do is somehow morally superior to what the large and more respectable plaintiff's firms do--or that you "further social value"-- I'd be surprised, but if so, good for you for finding your place. In my view, the plaintiff's bar provides an important check in a quarterly reporting system that inexorably and fairly regularly results in fraud to greater or lesser degrees.

Having worked in Biglaw, a hybrid firm, and as an AUSA, I can confidently say no side's hands are perfectly clean, and all have a role to play in an adversarial system that, hopefully, will result in a more just outcome than other systems provide. Whether plaintiff or defense, private practice is such that all firms make decisions based on the bottom line.

User avatar
kings84_wr
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:18 pm

Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit

Postby kings84_wr » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:13 am

unicorntamer666 wrote:
gaddockteeg wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?

Boies Schiller does.


In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.

If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.

FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.


This is certainly inaccurate.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.