Boies Schiller Forum

[Anonymous User]

Not to get too into the weeds, but some of the above posters recounting BSF's recent history are not accurate.

There were not 3 different wholesale turnovers/leadership changes leading to "a complete disaster" in terms of the firm's leadership. BSF chose 2 people, Harrison and Gravante, over a different couple, to take over from Boies and Schiller. The other couple left (to Paul Weiss) and took some folks with them. Nothing surprising about that. Some partners who had pushed for the PW couple to take over power from Boies and Schiller rather than Harrison and Gravante then also left the firm. Again, nothing too surprising. The firm was open in saying from the start of the leadership transition that it wanted to downsize.

Meanwhile, Gravante wanted BSF to go in one direction, while Harrison and the remaining power centers at the firm wanted to go in another direction. So Gravante then left, also taking service partners/close associates with him. None of this is really that unusual. It reflects a difference in their vision for the future, not a problem with their current practice.

I'm not sure where exactly the firm is vis-a-vis future associates being able to choose above-market formula comp v. market bonus, I thought they were said to have that option. I do agree that if they're not offered the above-market option, while comparable lit firms like Susman, Kellogg, and QE have that, then yeah that's something you should consider. (Also, the whole 2000 hours minimum for a bonus is something lower-tier firms do, and if BSF, which likes to compare itself to the true elites, has implemented, that's also something to consider.)

All that said, I think BSF remains an elite firm and that it's not too late for that to remain a possibility going forward.

But that's just not true. There were three distinct phases.

Transition 1: new leadership was Karen Dunn, Damien Marshall, Phil Korologos, and Nicholas Gravante.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/david-b ... -strategy/

Transition 2: new leadership was Nicholas Gravante and Natasha Harrison; Damien Marshall and Karen Dunn left

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

Transition 3: new leadership is Matthew Schwartz, Sigrid McCawley, and Alan Vickery added, Nick Gravante leaves

https://www.law360.com/articles/1337185

Calling BSF comparable to Susman and Kellogg is pretty far off key.

[Anonymous User]

Not to get too into the weeds, but some of the above posters recounting BSF's recent history are not accurate.

There were not 3 different wholesale turnovers/leadership changes leading to "a complete disaster" in terms of the firm's leadership. BSF chose 2 people, Harrison and Gravante, over a different couple, to take over from Boies and Schiller. The other couple left (to Paul Weiss) and took some folks with them. Nothing surprising about that. Some partners who had pushed for the PW couple to take over power from Boies and Schiller rather than Harrison and Gravante then also left the firm. Again, nothing too surprising. The firm was open in saying from the start of the leadership transition that it wanted to downsize.

Meanwhile, Gravante wanted BSF to go in one direction, while Harrison and the remaining power centers at the firm wanted to go in another direction. So Gravante then left, also taking service partners/close associates with him. None of this is really that unusual. It reflects a difference in their vision for the future, not a problem with their current practice.

I'm not sure where exactly the firm is vis-a-vis future associates being able to choose above-market formula comp v. market bonus, I thought they were said to have that option. I do agree that if they're not offered the above-market option, while comparable lit firms like Susman, Kellogg, and QE have that, then yeah that's something you should consider. (Also, the whole 2000 hours minimum for a bonus is something lower-tier firms do, and if BSF, which likes to compare itself to the true elites, has implemented, that's also something to consider.)

All that said, I think BSF remains an elite firm and that it's not too late for that to remain a possibility going forward.

But that's just not true. There were three distinct phases.

Transition 1: new leadership was Karen Dunn, Damien Marshall, Phil Korologos, and Nicholas Gravante.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/david-b ... -strategy/

Transition 2: new leadership was Nicholas Gravante and Natasha Harrison; Damien Marshall and Karen Dunn left

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

Transition 3: new leadership is Matthew Schwartz, Sigrid McCawley, and Alan Vickery added, Nick Gravante leaves

https://www.law360.com/articles/1337185

Calling BSF comparable to Susman and Kellogg is pretty far off key.

Bill Isaacson was also in Transition 1 and left in Transition 2, and can't forget that David and Jonathan are still MPs too.

How many managing partners has Susman had in the last three years? Is it 11?

[Anonymous User]

Not to get too into the weeds, but some of the above posters recounting BSF's recent history are not accurate.

There were not 3 different wholesale turnovers/leadership changes leading to "a complete disaster" in terms of the firm's leadership. BSF chose 2 people, Harrison and Gravante, over a different couple, to take over from Boies and Schiller. The other couple left (to Paul Weiss) and took some folks with them. Nothing surprising about that. Some partners who had pushed for the PW couple to take over power from Boies and Schiller rather than Harrison and Gravante then also left the firm. Again, nothing too surprising. The firm was open in saying from the start of the leadership transition that it wanted to downsize.

Meanwhile, Gravante wanted BSF to go in one direction, while Harrison and the remaining power centers at the firm wanted to go in another direction. So Gravante then left, also taking service partners/close associates with him. None of this is really that unusual. It reflects a difference in their vision for the future, not a problem with their current practice.

I'm not sure where exactly the firm is vis-a-vis future associates being able to choose above-market formula comp v. market bonus, I thought they were said to have that option. I do agree that if they're not offered the above-market option, while comparable lit firms like Susman, Kellogg, and QE have that, then yeah that's something you should consider. (Also, the whole 2000 hours minimum for a bonus is something lower-tier firms do, and if BSF, which likes to compare itself to the true elites, has implemented, that's also something to consider.)

All that said, I think BSF remains an elite firm and that it's not too late for that to remain a possibility going forward.

But that's just not true. There were three distinct phases.

Transition 1: new leadership was Karen Dunn, Damien Marshall, Phil Korologos, and Nicholas Gravante.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/david-b ... -strategy/

Transition 2: new leadership was Nicholas Gravante and Natasha Harrison; Damien Marshall and Karen Dunn left

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

Transition 3: new leadership is Matthew Schwartz, Sigrid McCawley, and Alan Vickery added, Nick Gravante leaves

https://www.law360.com/articles/1337185

Calling BSF comparable to Susman and Kellogg is pretty far off key.

Bill Isaacson was also in Transition 1 and left in Transition 2, and can't forget that David and Jonathan are still MPs too.

How many managing partners has Susman had in the last three years? Is it 11?

Isaacson was never an MP. Susman has only had four managing partners in its 40 year history according to this article. Seems like someone has an interest in defending BSF.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/new ... rtner.html

[Anonymous User]

Not to get too into the weeds, but some of the above posters recounting BSF's recent history are not accurate.

There were not 3 different wholesale turnovers/leadership changes leading to "a complete disaster" in terms of the firm's leadership. BSF chose 2 people, Harrison and Gravante, over a different couple, to take over from Boies and Schiller. The other couple left (to Paul Weiss) and took some folks with them. Nothing surprising about that. Some partners who had pushed for the PW couple to take over power from Boies and Schiller rather than Harrison and Gravante then also left the firm. Again, nothing too surprising. The firm was open in saying from the start of the leadership transition that it wanted to downsize.

Meanwhile, Gravante wanted BSF to go in one direction, while Harrison and the remaining power centers at the firm wanted to go in another direction. So Gravante then left, also taking service partners/close associates with him. None of this is really that unusual. It reflects a difference in their vision for the future, not a problem with their current practice.

I'm not sure where exactly the firm is vis-a-vis future associates being able to choose above-market formula comp v. market bonus, I thought they were said to have that option. I do agree that if they're not offered the above-market option, while comparable lit firms like Susman, Kellogg, and QE have that, then yeah that's something you should consider. (Also, the whole 2000 hours minimum for a bonus is something lower-tier firms do, and if BSF, which likes to compare itself to the true elites, has implemented, that's also something to consider.)

All that said, I think BSF remains an elite firm and that it's not too late for that to remain a possibility going forward.

But that's just not true. There were three distinct phases.

Transition 1: new leadership was Karen Dunn, Damien Marshall, Phil Korologos, and Nicholas Gravante.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/david-b ... -strategy/

Transition 2: new leadership was Nicholas Gravante and Natasha Harrison; Damien Marshall and Karen Dunn left

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

Transition 3: new leadership is Matthew Schwartz, Sigrid McCawley, and Alan Vickery added, Nick Gravante leaves

https://www.law360.com/articles/1337185

Calling BSF comparable to Susman and Kellogg is pretty far off key.

Bill Isaacson was also in Transition 1 and left in Transition 2, and can't forget that David and Jonathan are still MPs too.

How many managing partners has Susman had in the last three years? Is it 11?

Isaacson was never an MP. Susman has only had four managing partners in its 40 year history according to this article. Seems like someone has an interest in defending BSF.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/new ... rtner.html

I'm a different anon and don't have some vested interest in defending BSF. But I will point out that if your sources for turmoil within the firm are Law360 and Law.com, that's a pretty limited and not very reliable source. Of course, anon posters on TLS won't have all the facts either, but there's some value in the insider insight if they are/were BSF lawyers and can provide better color as to what's actually going on than a reporter who is paid for eyeballs.

[Anonymous User]

Not to get too into the weeds, but some of the above posters recounting BSF's recent history are not accurate.

There were not 3 different wholesale turnovers/leadership changes leading to "a complete disaster" in terms of the firm's leadership. BSF chose 2 people, Harrison and Gravante, over a different couple, to take over from Boies and Schiller. The other couple left (to Paul Weiss) and took some folks with them. Nothing surprising about that. Some partners who had pushed for the PW couple to take over power from Boies and Schiller rather than Harrison and Gravante then also left the firm. Again, nothing too surprising. The firm was open in saying from the start of the leadership transition that it wanted to downsize.

Meanwhile, Gravante wanted BSF to go in one direction, while Harrison and the remaining power centers at the firm wanted to go in another direction. So Gravante then left, also taking service partners/close associates with him. None of this is really that unusual. It reflects a difference in their vision for the future, not a problem with their current practice.

I'm not sure where exactly the firm is vis-a-vis future associates being able to choose above-market formula comp v. market bonus, I thought they were said to have that option. I do agree that if they're not offered the above-market option, while comparable lit firms like Susman, Kellogg, and QE have that, then yeah that's something you should consider. (Also, the whole 2000 hours minimum for a bonus is something lower-tier firms do, and if BSF, which likes to compare itself to the true elites, has implemented, that's also something to consider.)

All that said, I think BSF remains an elite firm and that it's not too late for that to remain a possibility going forward.

But that's just not true. There were three distinct phases.

Transition 1: new leadership was Karen Dunn, Damien Marshall, Phil Korologos, and Nicholas Gravante.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/david-b ... -strategy/

Transition 2: new leadership was Nicholas Gravante and Natasha Harrison; Damien Marshall and Karen Dunn left

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

Transition 3: new leadership is Matthew Schwartz, Sigrid McCawley, and Alan Vickery added, Nick Gravante leaves

https://www.law360.com/articles/1337185

Calling BSF comparable to Susman and Kellogg is pretty far off key.

Your sources are publicly available law.com / ATL / law360 articles. Saying BSF is not even comparable to Susman or Kellogg is just egregious anti-BSF trolling. Susman > BSF, yes imho. But, leaving aside BSF's current instability, they are all the same general category of highly elite litigation-focused firms. I am also a different anon and don't have an interest in defending BSF, but you clearly don't have any useful inside information and seem to have an interest in ripping them apart.

[polareagle]

Bill Isaacson was also in Transition 1 and left in Transition 2, and can't forget that David and Jonathan are still MPs too.

How many managing partners has Susman had in the last three years? Is it 11?

Isaacson was never an MP. Susman has only had four managing partners in its 40 year history according to this article. Seems like someone has an interest in defending BSF.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/new ... rtner.html

Apropos of nothing, but the first quoted post above was plainly satire aimed at dragging Boies. The poster's point, I believe, is that "elite" firms don't go through 11 leaders in 3 years the way Boies apparently has. (I'm none of the many anon posters in this thread and have no inside knowledge; just pointing out what I'm seeing because this thread seems to be turning into an odd fight between anons, none of whom--pro or anti-Boies--have proven that they know a single thing aside from what's been publicly reported.)

[Anonymous User]

Posting here in case anyone still follows this illustrious thread.
A friend who (weirdly?) only got a BSF offer so far this OCI cycle is nervous about their no offer to one summer last year (out of 12). They suggested to me they may start mass mailing to try and land something else. Any idea what leads to a no offer at BSF? Any other wisdom for me to impart to my dearest colleague?
Thanks,TLS family.

[Anonymous User]

Posting here in case anyone still follows this illustrious thread.
A friend who (weirdly?) only got a BSF offer so far this OCI cycle is nervous about their no offer to one summer last year (out of 12). They suggested to me they may start mass mailing to try and land something else. Any idea what leads to a no offer at BSF? Any other wisdom for me to impart to my dearest colleague?
Thanks,TLS family.

One no offer out of 12 usually means performance or personality issues.

[Anonymous User]

Posting here in case anyone still follows this illustrious thread.
A friend who (weirdly?) only got a BSF offer so far this OCI cycle is nervous about their no offer to one summer last year (out of 12). They suggested to me they may start mass mailing to try and land something else. Any idea what leads to a no offer at BSF? Any other wisdom for me to impart to my dearest colleague?
Thanks,TLS family.

One no offer out of 12 usually means performance or personality issues.

aha

[Anonymous User]

I would advise anyone to stay far away from BSF.