Question re: Boston Forum

(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: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:24 pm

Currently interviewing at a few firms for lateral opportunities. Would it make sense to take a more prestigious firm’s Boston office (think Cooley and Kirkland) over a Boston-based form (Goodwin/Choate)? Obviously if it were Ropes, this would be a no-brainer. But would exit options be better from the other firms over Goodwin?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:27 am

I’m just a student, so maybe take this with a grain of salt... KE is pretty well reputed here even tho their small, but for the most part, the Boston-based firms have a lot more clout here than the small satellites. Aside from Ropes and Wilmer, Goodwin is a top dog in Boston, and Choate has a pretty good rep too. I have no idea what Cooleys rep in Boston is, and would say the same the same about the WSGRs/Weils/GTs/etc of Boston.

Of course, this is generally speaking and might differ if you have specific practice groups in mind.

NYCNorthbound

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:13 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by NYCNorthbound » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:05 am

OP: I'm interested in your interview experience and timeline. Mind PMing me with details?

jhett

Bronze
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by jhett » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:57 am

Your practice area is also a factor. It may be better to pick a satellite over one of the hometown firms depending on what work you want to do. You haven't specified what your practice is, so it's hard to give good advice.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:12 am

Do not discount what I know to be (anecdotally) a relatively better QOL at a small Boston-size-city office of a large market-paying firm when compared to a giant mill of an office like a ropes or Goodwin or Wilmer. Although implied FaceTime requirement might be higher at one of these smaller offices, competition is lower due to the fact that there would be fewer people at your level competing for the same type of work (and partners’ affection) etc. this could (and often does) translate to less pressure to far exceed the lowest level of hours at which you would receive a bonus.

Think of your goals. What do you really get out of having say, a Goodwin on your resume as opposed to (and I’m just spitballing Re smallish offices of big firms in boston) a DLA piper or Foley and Lardner or mofo or Quinn (if lit)? They al pay the same. Once you get to that level in-house/ausa exit options doesn’t vary that much.

Just my 2 cents. Not telling you what to do or anything; just giving you something else to consider.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


TUwave

New
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by TUwave » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Currently interviewing at a few firms for lateral opportunities. Would it make sense to take a more prestigious firm’s Boston office (think Cooley and Kirkland) over a Boston-based form (Goodwin/Choate)? Obviously if it were Ropes, this would be a no-brainer. But would exit options be better from the other firms over Goodwin?
In regards to exit options, it depends on where you want to go. Obviously the more prestigious firms with a satellite office will travel better nationally. However Boston is a fairly insular market (although it seems like that is slowly changing) and the big 3 (Ropes, Goodwin, WilmerHale) do very well locally(especially if you want to cross over the river to a biotech or roll the dice and hope you hit it big with a startup).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:27 pm

jhett wrote:Your practice area is also a factor. It may be better to pick a satellite over one of the hometown firms depending on what work you want to do. You haven't specified what your practice is, so it's hard to give good advice.
It’s a very specific practice group, so I’d rather not say. I was just asking generally.

User avatar
RedGiant

Moderator
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:30 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by RedGiant » Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:56 am

I'm going to chime in here. Corporate only-response. People at Choate, Cooley and Goodwin seem pretty happy. Goodwin works corporate associates very hard. People at Kirkland seem so tired they might just die. That's all I know. The Cooley corporate folks are great (I have interviewed there and also worked across from the. I'd also look into Mintz if you can--good quality work and slightly more humane partners.

Avoid small satellite offices in Boston. IME, these firms cannot compete with the larger Boston-based firms and the quality of work you get on the corporate side is much worse. GL!

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:18 pm

I wldn’t necessarily avoid smaller satellites. I sincerely doubt Kirkland or Latham have lower quality of work than, say, the average associate at Goodwin or Choate.

I think if you want a “biglaw” experiance, Ropes or Wilmer is your best bet. I have friends that have been unhappy at Goodwin, but its a big firm and experiances can differ. If you want a smaller firm based in Boston, I have heard good things about Choate.

For satellites, my impression is go Cooley or Morgan Lewis if you want to do VC/startup work and Kirkland if you want private equity.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:59 pm

Not op, but how is mintz?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:31 pm

I work at one of these.

This entirely depends on what type of practice you are in. Ropes, Goodwin and Wilmer are obviously a bit more "full-service" given their history in Boston and size.

Kirkland plays in the PE space, which historically has been cornered by Ropes.

Cooley focuses on biotech and seems to compete directly with Goodwin.

If you want to do PE, it wouldn't make any sense to pick Cooley. Likewise for picking a Latham/Kirkland if you wanted to focus on emerging companies. If you're more generally focused, it probably makes sense to pick one of the bigger Boston firms, but if you have a specific practice area it may make sense to weight it against one of the newcomers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:26 pm

What about skadden’s Boston office? Why doesn’t anyone talk about that? Seems like a pretty powerful litigation team.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:29 pm

How do the these Boston offices hold up on the west coast? Would one be better off working in NY or DC if they eventually want to go back to CA?

Edit: I guess more specifically, how do the larger, elite Boston firms (I'm thinking of Ropes or Wilmer) fare against a band 1-3 NY litigation firms? With NY, there are more options for laterals.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:22 am

RedGiant wrote:I'm going to chime in here. Corporate only-response. People at Choate, Cooley and Goodwin seem pretty happy. Goodwin works corporate associates very hard. People at Kirkland seem so tired they might just die. That's all I know. The Cooley corporate folks are great (I have interviewed there and also worked across from the. I'd also look into Mintz if you can--good quality work and slightly more humane partners.

Avoid small satellite offices in Boston. IME, these firms cannot compete with the larger Boston-based firms and the quality of work you get on the corporate side is much worse. GL!
On what basis can you make such bold assertions about people across so many different firms? I am at one of these firms myself, and it's amusing to see you make such blanket statements.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:23 am

Anonymous User wrote:I work at one of these.

This entirely depends on what type of practice you are in. Ropes, Goodwin and Wilmer are obviously a bit more "full-service" given their history in Boston and size.

Kirkland plays in the PE space, which historically has been cornered by Ropes.

Cooley focuses on biotech and seems to compete directly with Goodwin.

If you want to do PE, it wouldn't make any sense to pick Cooley. Likewise for picking a Latham/Kirkland if you wanted to focus on emerging companies. If you're more generally focused, it probably makes sense to pick one of the bigger Boston firms, but if you have a specific practice area it may make sense to weight it against one of the newcomers.
Not sure I'd agree the PE space has been historically "cornered" by Ropes. Just because Kirkland only recently opened an office in Boston doesn't mean they weren't already the dominant firm for Boston-based PE funds. Hell, Bain and ABRY are (and long have been) two of K&E's biggest clients by revenue worldwide.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:28 am

Re Mintz - corporate response only. I have worked at several biglaw firms, and it's a great culture if you're a junior or midlevel. It's rougher as a more senior associate--pay is below market, you are asked to have a ton of responsibility, the partner track is looooooong (and dual-class). Mintz truly has no nightmare partners in Boston on the corporate side. It's an altogether super-pleasant place to work. I also really liked that Mintz has a generalist practice model--all associates are staffed on at least one public company, but you can also do VC, capital markets, M&A...you specialize but can still dabble. I am really glad I switched to Mintz and its name opens doors all over MA--it's well regarded. One word of warning--it's heavily, heavily biotech. There's good cleantech work, and some general tech (a few fantastic ex-Morgan Lewis partners are building that out, but just know that Mintz does A LOT of biotech. That's Boston for you, but it's really heavily tilted that way.

My favorite thing about Mintz is that it really wants associates to be happy, and the firm feels like a big family. It's got a nice vibe going. It's not quite as intense as other firms I've worked at...in a good way.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by objctnyrhnr » Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:39 am

For lit, from experience and anecdotally, I think QOL is much better in a relatively small boston office of a large and prestigious firm (compared to qol in say Goodwin/choate/ropes/Wilmer).

The list includes white and case, Quinn, Sidley, DLA, I think mofo just showed up, Morgan Lewis (although I think that group is a bit bigger), Cooley (same), goulston, and a host of others.

Given these v30 (or whatever) firms’ overall prestige and national name, I also don’t think you’d have much trouble exiting into the same opportunities as you’d go to from like ropes.

And relatedly, I just don’t see why anybody would go to below market sweatshop mintz if they have other options.

Just a thought.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428181
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:32 pm

Does anyone know how fast the lateral process goes in Boston? I’ve interviewed at a few places and haven’t heard back. It’s been a little over a week at some, and more than 2 weeks at others.

Is it ok to follow-up with recruiting? I know in some markets, they don’t like when applicants do that.

Anonymouse91

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:25 pm

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymouse91 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:36 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:For lit, from experience and anecdotally, I think QOL is much better in a relatively small boston office of a large and prestigious firm (compared to qol in say Goodwin/choate/ropes/Wilmer).

The list includes white and case, Quinn, Sidley, DLA, I think mofo just showed up, Morgan Lewis (although I think that group is a bit bigger), Cooley (same), goulston, and a host of others.

Given these v30 (or whatever) firms’ overall prestige and national name, I also don’t think you’d have much trouble exiting into the same opportunities as you’d go to from like

And relatedly, I just don’t see why anybody would go to below market sweatshop mintz if they have other options.

Just a thought.
Why is skadden left off this list? Is the Boston office no goo?

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by objctnyrhnr » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:52 pm

Anonymouse91 wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:For lit, from experience and anecdotally, I think QOL is much better in a relatively small boston office of a large and prestigious firm (compared to qol in say Goodwin/choate/ropes/Wilmer).

The list includes white and case, Quinn, Sidley, DLA, I think mofo just showed up, Morgan Lewis (although I think that group is a bit bigger), Cooley (same), goulston, and a host of others.

Given these v30 (or whatever) firms’ overall prestige and national name, I also don’t think you’d have much trouble exiting into the same opportunities as you’d go to from like

And relatedly, I just don’t see why anybody would go to below market sweatshop mintz if they have other options.

Just a thought.
Why is skadden left off this list? Is the Boston office no goo?
Sorry I had intended that the non-exhaustive nature of this list was clear. I mean from skadden to Weil to Holland and Knight to a number of others, there are a bunch of biglaw firms with boston offices not on my list. I was really just giving examples.

Anecdotally, though, I’ve heard skadden boston is a complete sweatshop but yes it certain comes with some prestige and therefore presumably strong exit ops.

Anonymouse91

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:25 pm

Re: Question re: Boston

Post by Anonymouse91 » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:16 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:
Anonymouse91 wrote:
objctnyrhnr wrote:For lit, from experience and anecdotally, I think QOL is much better in a relatively small boston office of a large and prestigious firm (compared to qol in say Goodwin/choate/ropes/Wilmer).

The list includes white and case, Quinn, Sidley, DLA, I think mofo just showed up, Morgan Lewis (although I think that group is a bit bigger), Cooley (same), goulston, and a host of others.

Given these v30 (or whatever) firms’ overall prestige and national name, I also don’t think you’d have much trouble exiting into the same opportunities as you’d go to from like

And relatedly, I just don’t see why anybody would go to below market sweatshop mintz if they have other options.

Just a thought.
Why is skadden left off this list? Is the Boston office no goo?
Sorry I had intended that the non-exhaustive nature of this list was clear. I mean from skadden to Weil to Holland and Knight to a number of others, there are a bunch of biglaw firms with boston offices not on my list. I was really just giving examples.

Anecdotally, though, I’ve heard skadden boston is a complete sweatshop but yes it certain comes with some prestige and therefore presumably strong exit ops.
No totally understand, just thought maybe you left it off because it has a bad reputation, which seems to be your anecdotal understanding. Thanks for the insight.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”