Recent Boies Schiller Press Forum

[Alive97]

The thing is David Boies does not have a good reputation in the legal world. He's obviously a tremendously talented lawyer but there is a reason for the "Why shouldn't I work at Boies Schiller? Because you'd work for David Boies" joke.

It's not my world but they always get brought up as one of the worst firms to be on the other side of (sandbagging motions on purpose, etc.). I guess it's good if your a client, but if you care about "prestige" or whatever its not like other Biglaw associates are impressed you work there over any of the other good/specialized lit firms.

At the end of the day most of the really successful named partners are usually not the best people, so if they are going to pay you more than somewhere else it is what it is.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If anything, Boies (both the firm and the man) have a comparatively good rep in the legal world and a bad rep outside it, not the other way around. Lawyers (especially partners) understand what's actually going on. It's the trigger-happy folks outside it who quickly skim bad press and draw conclusions they're already predisposed to. (And that may include GCs.)

But the thing is, both groups are important. The poster who referred to "the man in the street" misses the fact that lawyers' families, friends, colleagues, etc are "the man in the street." So their opinions matter when making life decisions, too. Nothing is ever a silo anymore.

I'm skeptical that there are many people outside the legal world who know a damn thing about David Boies or BSF. You'd have to be a pretty close follower of the news to know anything, and you'd have to be very committed to certain political causes to care if a family member or friend joined BSF.

[Alive97]

By the way, if a family member or friend is concerned about BSF, they would also be concerned about any "corporate" law firm.

[QContinuum]

But the thing is, both groups are important. The poster who referred to "the man in the street" misses the fact that lawyers' families, friends, colleagues, etc are "the man in the street." So their opinions matter when making life decisions, too. Nothing is ever a silo anymore.

I'd like to think that a lawyer's friends and family would judge their loved one on their own merits, not based on the fact they happen to be employed at BSF.

[Joachim2017]

But the thing is, both groups are important. The poster who referred to "the man in the street" misses the fact that lawyers' families, friends, colleagues, etc are "the man in the street." So their opinions matter when making life decisions, too. Nothing is ever a silo anymore.

I'd like to think that a lawyer's friends and family would judge their loved one on their own merits, not based on the fact they happen to be employed at BSF.

That's a pretty over-simplistic (and, frankly, shrill) construal of what I wrote. I said it was part of the analysis, not an exclusive basis of what one is judged by. When you have lots of good options, and when your friends/family know that, and are active/interested in the world, they can absolutely take things into account when they advise you about where to work, and what that says about you.

[QContinuum]

But the thing is, both groups are important. The poster who referred to "the man in the street" misses the fact that lawyers' families, friends, colleagues, etc are "the man in the street." So their opinions matter when making life decisions, too. Nothing is ever a silo anymore.

I'd like to think that a lawyer's friends and family would judge their loved one on their own merits, not based on the fact they happen to be employed at BSF.

That's a pretty over-simplistic (and, frankly, shrill) construal of what I wrote. I said it was part of the analysis, not an exclusive basis of what one is judged by. When you have lots of good options, and when your friends/family know that, and are active/interested in the world, they can absolutely take things into account when they advise you about where to work, and what that says about you.

Of course loved ones' opinions (should) matter. But, at the same time, the boat goes both ways. Loved ones should care enough to hear things out and understand that reading an article in the press about BSF - even multiple articles - doesn't instantly make them an expert on the legal industry or how BSF is perceived within the industry.

Also, I'd recommend laying off the ad hominems. An important life lesson (and, as relevant here, an important professional skill) is the ability to disagree without being needlessly disagreeable. It is possible to say, "that's not what I intended to convey," or even "the above mischaracterizes my post", without jumping to "you're shrill", which is not only an unnecessary personal attack, but - worse - is a loaded term with a long history of sexism.

[Splurgles23]

Speaking of BSF, this is from today:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/david-boie ... 1576164238

The below is not exactly a good look:

The bad press has led some clients to tell partners they are wary of giving new work to the firm, a person familiar with the matter said. The new leaders pushed back against that notion.

The headlines have been “temporary distractions,” Mr. Gravante said, but he added that they aren’t the driving force behind the transition. Instead, the changes are about preparing the 320-lawyer firm for the eventual retirements of Mr. Boies, 78, and fellow name partner Jonathan Schiller, 73.

“What you need is a willingness from them to hand it over,” Ms. Harrison said.

[LBJ's Hair]

Lot of departures recently?

2 partners from NY office to Jenner: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 ... ner-block/

12 "attorneys" (at least one partner) founding new firm: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... e-law-firm

[Anonymous User]

Lot of departures recently?

2 partners from NY office to Jenner: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 ... ner-block/

12 "attorneys" (at least one partner) founding new firm: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... e-law-firm

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020 ... questions/

More departures, more questions. We saw this coming, though. Pretty soon, I don't think BSF will be in the same league as elite litigation firms (like Susman, Kellogg Hansen, etc.; maybe not even Quinn or Kobre & Kim). It will be interesting to see what happens to them when Boies himself hangs it up.

I'm very curious what the history for this kind of rise, decline, and eventual fall is for U.S. litigation firms. Like were there firms like this in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s that rose up quickly, stagnated, and then declined to lower levels (or even just disbanded)? It can't be that uncommon.

[sorry, pressed wrong button: this is splurgles]