Thoughts about top NY lit practices? Forum

[64Fl]

I think people vastly overestimate the importance of Boies to the firm's bottom line.

I have no affiliation with BSF or experience working with them, but I feel like you can just look at the numbers and get to your conclusion. They have nearly 60 equity partners (about the same as Cahill and 75% of Cravath/Wachtell's equity partnership). Their equity partnership is the size that, to me, indicates that they'll be just fine if they lose 1-2 equity partners, including Boies. When looking at firms, people put way too much weight into "great man" theories. No firm the size of the V100 is a single individual.

You're looking at the wrong metric. Sure, 60 equity partners is a decent amount. But we don't really know much about variance between partnership stakes at Boies. If Boies has an outsized share, his departure will still hurt. Also, we don't now how many of these equity partners are dependent on Boies' connections/goodwill to generate their business. I would not be at all surprised if a significant portion of those 60 partners were just service partners working on business Boies has generated. Number of partners at a firm is not really a good indicator for firm's health stability.

I think it's the right metric. In the day and age of two-tier partnerships, my assumption is that most (though probably not all) service partners are non-equity. Considering BSF has 90 non-equity partners sitting around (~30% of the firm), I'm assuming you need a very good book of business to get equity. I could be wrong, but that's my sneaking suspicion.

[Anonymous User]

I think people vastly overestimate the importance of Boies to the firm's bottom line.

I have no affiliation with BSF or experience working with them, but I feel like you can just look at the numbers and get to your conclusion. They have nearly 60 equity partners (about the same as Cahill and 75% of Cravath/Wachtell's equity partnership). Their equity partnership is the size that, to me, indicates that they'll be just fine if they lose 1-2 equity partners, including Boies. When looking at firms, people put way too much weight into "great man" theories. No firm the size of the V100 is a single individual.

You're looking at the wrong metric. Sure, 60 equity partners is a decent amount. But we don't really know much about variance between partnership stakes at Boies. If Boies has an outsized share, his departure will still hurt. Also, we don't now how many of these equity partners are dependent on Boies' connections/goodwill to generate their business. I would not be at all surprised if a significant portion of those 60 partners were just service partners working on business Boies has generated. Number of partners at a firm is not really a good indicator for firm's health stability.

I think it's the right metric. In the day and age of two-tier partnerships, my assumption is that most (though probably not all) service partners are non-equity. Considering BSF has 90 non-equity partners sitting around (~30% of the firm), I'm assuming you need a very good book of business to get equity. I could be wrong, but that's my sneaking suspicion.

Anon who was quoted at the top: I think this is right. And if you look at the cases lead by BSF lawyers other than Boies himself, I think you'll see that their equity partners have plenty of their own clients and bring in plenty of business to keep themselves and the associates they work with busy. You don't hear as much about the cases led by other BSF lawyers, because they don't tend to be the same kind of headline grabbing affairs. But they're often nonetheless huge cases where there's lots of money to be made, whether contingent plaintiff's side work or defense work.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, I find all the doom-saying about BSF here very strange. Will the firm lose some business when David Boies finally retires? Of course. But most of that business will be high-profile, low-profit work (think: crisis management or pro bono) that he brings to the firm because of his reputation outside the world of sophisticated clients and lawyers. I highly doubt the firm will lose, for example, any of its institutional clients, or a material portion of its white collar work and run-of-the-mill corporate litigation, when the big man steps back.

As to bonuses, from what I understand, times continue to be very, very good for BSF associates. I heard that at the end of 2017 some of the associates were disappointed with their bonuses (which, by the way, were way above-market), but I think a lot of associates were also upset about the Harvey Weinstein revelations, so it is hard to disassociate the two. In any event, I can confirm that the bonuses in NYC last year were way, way above market. In the end, the bonus is a function of how many hours you bill. The idea of BSF running out of work to do is laughable in light of the stories I have heard from associates there.

I have friends at SG, Wachtell, and BSF. They are all brilliant, overworked, overpaid, and doing amazing things. The SG lawyers get early responsibility, which is great. The Wachtell lawyers get bigger bonuses and also see a narrow range of work. BSF lawyers have a broader range of work, and are probably somewhere between SG and Wachtell in terms of how much early responsibility they can get.

If I were choosing, I'd choose between SG and BSF based on how each firm felt, as well as whether I could really see myself working in at tiny office at SG (25 or so lawyers) or preferred a bit larger office (I think BSF's NYC office has around 80 lawyers).

[Anonymous User]

Considering a few of these firms, does anyone have any insight on whether David Boies' conduct (Weinstein, Theranos) has actually had any effect on the clients or the work the firm has brought in?

[Anonymous User]

Considering a few of these firms, does anyone have any insight on whether David Boies' conduct (Weinstein, Theranos) has actually had any effect on the clients or the work the firm has brought in?

None whatsoever.

[LBJ's Hair]

The only intellectually honest answer to "what will happen when David Boies leaves/dies" is "no one knows, maybe not even S and F."

Will the firm collapse the next day? No. Will you still want to be working there vis-a-vis other top New York litigation practices five years after he's gone? Maybe, maybe not. Like, it's a risk that had to be weighed.

[Anonymous User]

Considering a few of these firms, does anyone have any insight on whether David Boies' conduct (Weinstein, Theranos) has actually had any effect on the clients or the work the firm has brought in?

None whatsoever.

C'mon. I'm a fan of BSF, but "none whatsoever" is obviously wrong. I mean, they lost the NY Times as a client directly as a consequence of David Boies' conduct. And that's just the most obvious, public one.