What Practice Area is Crypto Adjacent? Forum

[jotarokujo]

I’m not getting the stance that showing interest in crypto per se would hurt you in interviewing. Unless you come across as obsessive, or as someone who would only be happy doing crypto, it’s more like a interest that a firm could very well accommodate if the right deal comes along.

My firm might be the most old fashioned firm in biglaw, and saying “I’m interested in crypto” in an interview would result in someone replying “let’s get you doing some fintech work” if anything.

And if you come across someone who thinks all crypto is snake oil, how is that different from articulating a strong interest in golf to someone who thinks it’s a waste of time or a good walk spoiled? The conversation would likely just move on to the next topic.

it's not that bad, but it's certainly worse than saying "i want to do international law"

[SamuelDanforth]

OP, Chambers has a Blockchain and Crypto band ranking. Band 1 is Perkins Coie, DPW, Latham, Sidley. Band 2 is DLx Law, Paul H., DLA, MoFo, White and Case. More firms for band 3. At a minimum, this will tell you that the firms have a real crypto practice and not just website adverts. You could also search for ranked individual lawyers to pick up even more info. They also have broader Fintech rankings beyond crypto. It's a good place to start.

Agree that this is a good list, but it isn't complete. For example, Fenwick is clearly a Band 1 Blockchain practice. I think this list is focused a bit more on the regulation/compliance side, rather than the start-up/general advising side.

My 2 cents.

[Anonymous User]

OP, Chambers has a Blockchain and Crypto band ranking. Band 1 is Perkins Coie, DPW, Latham, Sidley. Band 2 is DLx Law, Paul H., DLA, MoFo, White and Case. More firms for band 3. At a minimum, this will tell you that the firms have a real crypto practice and not just website adverts. You could also search for ranked individual lawyers to pick up even more info. They also have broader Fintech rankings beyond crypto. It's a good place to start.

Agree that this is a good list, but it isn't complete. For example, Fenwick is clearly a Band 1 Blockchain practice. I think this list is focused a bit more on the regulation/compliance side, rather than the start-up/general advising side.

My 2 cents.

This is my understanding as well.

[qquincy]

Bankruptcy.

[Anonymous User]

OP, Chambers has a Blockchain and Crypto band ranking. Band 1 is Perkins Coie, DPW, Latham, Sidley. Band 2 is DLx Law, Paul H., DLA, MoFo, White and Case. More firms for band 3. At a minimum, this will tell you that the firms have a real crypto practice and not just website adverts. You could also search for ranked individual lawyers to pick up even more info. They also have broader Fintech rankings beyond crypto. It's a good place to start.

Agree that this is a good list, but it isn't complete. For example, Fenwick is clearly a Band 1 Blockchain practice. I think this list is focused a bit more on the regulation/compliance side, rather than the start-up/general advising side.

My 2 cents.

This is my understanding as well.

Am at one of these firms, work with every big crypto company you can name, probably somewhat outing myself to those that know me with this post, but anyhow.

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

You want to do general corporate work for crypto clients? Fenwick & Sidley, Orrick to some extent too. Mostly smaller startups, not the most cutting edge work but very cool clients.

You want to do IP work for crypto clients? Skadden are best here, others are also players.

You want to do the top of the market reg work and be in the room with regulators and real decision makers (I hesitate to lump white collar and litigation into this, but for present purposes i will) for crypto clients? DPW / Latham / S&C and if anyone tells you otherwise they’re (respectfully) clueless about the market and what’s really going on.

You want to do payments work and handle 2 or 3 crypto clients who then send their more difficult work to one of the above? Paul Hastings.

You want to do funds work for 2 or 3 funds that invest in crypto? Ropes & Grey, Wilkie (eh, ish, I’ve seen them like once) and a few others with traditional funds practices.

You want to write blog posts about crypto every other week offering little to no value (or, regularly, plain bad legal takes)? The other listed firms plus most others.

Will hang around this thread answering any questions on and off.

[Anonymous User]

OP, Chambers has a Blockchain and Crypto band ranking. Band 1 is Perkins Coie, DPW, Latham, Sidley. Band 2 is DLx Law, Paul H., DLA, MoFo, White and Case. More firms for band 3. At a minimum, this will tell you that the firms have a real crypto practice and not just website adverts. You could also search for ranked individual lawyers to pick up even more info. They also have broader Fintech rankings beyond crypto. It's a good place to start.

Agree that this is a good list, but it isn't complete. For example, Fenwick is clearly a Band 1 Blockchain practice. I think this list is focused a bit more on the regulation/compliance side, rather than the start-up/general advising side.

My 2 cents.

This is my understanding as well.

Am at one of these firms, work with every big crypto company you can name, probably somewhat outing myself to those that know me with this post, but anyhow.

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

You want to do general corporate work for crypto clients? Fenwick & Sidley, Orrick to some extent too. Mostly smaller startups, not the most cutting edge work but very cool clients.

You want to do IP work for crypto clients? Skadden are best here, others are also players.

You want to do the top of the market reg work and be in the room with regulators and real decision makers (I hesitate to lump white collar and litigation into this, but for present purposes i will) for crypto clients? DPW / Latham / S&C and if anyone tells you otherwise they’re (respectfully) clueless about the market and what’s really going on.

You want to do payments work and handle 2 or 3 crypto clients who then send their more difficult work to one of the above? Paul Hastings.

You want to do funds work for 2 or 3 funds that invest in crypto? Ropes & Grey, Wilkie (eh, ish, I’ve seen them like once) and a few others with traditional funds practices.

You want to write blog posts about crypto every other week offering little to no value (or, regularly, plain bad legal takes)? The other listed firms plus most others.

Will hang around this thread answering any questions on and off.

What practice group does regulatory crypto work? FinTech/subset of finance?

[Anonymous User]

OP, Chambers has a Blockchain and Crypto band ranking. Band 1 is Perkins Coie, DPW, Latham, Sidley. Band 2 is DLx Law, Paul H., DLA, MoFo, White and Case. More firms for band 3. At a minimum, this will tell you that the firms have a real crypto practice and not just website adverts. You could also search for ranked individual lawyers to pick up even more info. They also have broader Fintech rankings beyond crypto. It's a good place to start.

Agree that this is a good list, but it isn't complete. For example, Fenwick is clearly a Band 1 Blockchain practice. I think this list is focused a bit more on the regulation/compliance side, rather than the start-up/general advising side.

My 2 cents.

This is my understanding as well.

Am at one of these firms, work with every big crypto company you can name, probably somewhat outing myself to those that know me with this post, but anyhow.

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

You want to do general corporate work for crypto clients? Fenwick & Sidley, Orrick to some extent too. Mostly smaller startups, not the most cutting edge work but very cool clients.

You want to do IP work for crypto clients? Skadden are best here, others are also players.

You want to do the top of the market reg work and be in the room with regulators and real decision makers (I hesitate to lump white collar and litigation into this, but for present purposes i will) for crypto clients? DPW / Latham / S&C and if anyone tells you otherwise they’re (respectfully) clueless about the market and what’s really going on.

You want to do payments work and handle 2 or 3 crypto clients who then send their more difficult work to one of the above? Paul Hastings.

You want to do funds work for 2 or 3 funds that invest in crypto? Ropes & Grey, Wilkie (eh, ish, I’ve seen them like once) and a few others with traditional funds practices.

You want to write blog posts about crypto every other week offering little to no value (or, regularly, plain bad legal takes)? The other listed firms plus most others.

Will hang around this thread answering any questions on and off.

What practice group does regulatory crypto work? FinTech/subset of finance?

Will differ between the three firms based on particular skills/clients/group set up, but:

DPW: the financial regulatory group + litigators + capital markets —> see e.g. all the grayscale stuff with the SEC.

S&C: litigators mostly —> see e.g. blockfi settlement

Latham: financial regulatory group mostly.

Of these three, Latham does more startup type work than the other two; S&C and DPW do more litigation than Latham; and DPW is sort of in a league of its own for pure regulatory (both SEC and traditional core bank regulators).

Would also tack on to this that there are lots of other shops that do more consumer facing work.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

At my firm, that’s covered by asset management and isn’t a transactional group. One thing to keep in mind, the legal side of any interesting topic can be pretty boring. For example, I think real estate development and real estate investing are very cool, but I think real estate law is totally boring. And I’m sure other people love real estate law, but you get my point — forming a crypto ETF is not the same as investing in crypto or launching a new coin.

[Anonymous User]

At my firm, that’s covered by asset management and isn’t a transactional group. One thing to keep in mind, the legal side of any interesting topic can be pretty boring. For example, I think real estate development and real estate investing are very cool, but I think real estate law is totally boring. And I’m sure other people love real estate law, but you get my point — forming a crypto ETF is not the same as investing in crypto or launching a new coin.

What is covered by asset management? The whole crypto practice at Wilkie and Ropes falls under asset management, which I think is the point another poster was making above.

Totally agree with your final sentence, but with one comment - forming a crypto ETF is also not the same as forming a standard ETF. Here you have people suing the SEC for acting arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA, which is very nonstandard for the typical cap markets / funds legal world.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

At my firm, that’s covered by asset management and isn’t a transactional group. One thing to keep in mind, the legal side of any interesting topic can be pretty boring. For example, I think real estate development and real estate investing are very cool, but I think real estate law is totally boring. And I’m sure other people love real estate law, but you get my point — forming a crypto ETF is not the same as investing in crypto or launching a new coin.

What is covered by asset management? The whole crypto practice at Wilkie and Ropes falls under asset management, which I think is the point another poster was making above.

Totally agree with your final sentence, but with one comment - forming a crypto ETF is also not the same as forming a standard ETF. Here you have people suing the SEC for acting arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA, which is very nonstandard for the typical cap markets / funds legal world.

Right, I’m not exactly sure what my firm would call crypto matters, but I know it’s more on the funds / AM side of things. Therefore, in order for OP to do crypto work, he may be giving up doing popular transactional work like M&A or capital markets. Which is a hard trade off to make if he doesn’t get what the actual work would entail

[Anonymous User]

At my firm, that’s covered by asset management and isn’t a transactional group. One thing to keep in mind, the legal side of any interesting topic can be pretty boring. For example, I think real estate development and real estate investing are very cool, but I think real estate law is totally boring. And I’m sure other people love real estate law, but you get my point — forming a crypto ETF is not the same as investing in crypto or launching a new coin.

What is covered by asset management? The whole crypto practice at Wilkie and Ropes falls under asset management, which I think is the point another poster was making above.

Totally agree with your final sentence, but with one comment - forming a crypto ETF is also not the same as forming a standard ETF. Here you have people suing the SEC for acting arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA, which is very nonstandard for the typical cap markets / funds legal world.

I am at one of the above firms and it's not true that the whole crypto practice falls within asset management and is limited to funds work - there is a lot of other work with "name brand" crypto companies that falls within another group as well. Not trying to ding the other poster, it's just an example of how you need to ask questions at individual firms to see what kind of work they do.

[Anonymous User]

I would listen to some interviews with Paul Grewal, the GC of Coinbase, who does a good job of explaining why he moved to crypto without coming across like an enthusiast or weirdo. Iirc he says he was excited about practicing in such a challenging, undeveloped, and uncertain space, and regardless of peoples' views on crypto, I'm sure that his job at Coinbase has more than lived up to that expectation. Plus he reportedly made an absolute fuckton of money in the IPO.

[lawguy2355]

I would listen to some interviews with Paul Grewal, the GC of Coinbase, who does a good job of explaining why he moved to crypto without coming across like an enthusiast or weirdo. Iirc he says he was excited about practicing in such a challenging, undeveloped, and uncertain space, and regardless of peoples' views on crypto, I'm sure that his job at Coinbase has more than lived up to that expectation. Plus he reportedly made an absolute fuckton of money in the IPO.

Op here, I'm definitely going to check out his interviews, that's pretty much exactly how I feel!

[Heineken]

I was going to say bankruptcy but you beat me to it

[The Lsat Airbender]

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

Exactly. TLS ought to hit this point harder and earlier in threads like this (substituting "crypto" for "entertainment" etc.). A hot area in the real economy doesn't necessarily have a corresponding corporate-law practice; a big recent exception would be cyber/privacy.

[Anonymous User]

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

Exactly. TLS ought to hit this point harder and earlier in threads like this (substituting "crypto" for "entertainment" etc.). A hot area in the real economy doesn't necessarily have a corresponding corporate-law practice; a big recent exception would be cyber/privacy.

This is completely untrue though and just shows your lack of knowledge of this practice area. I would even say the same for entertainment law firms but those will often be more niche. I don't understand why there are so many people on this thread who are giving "feedback" that is nothing more than their disdain for the crypto space under a façade of criticism for focusing on an industry.

There are firms that are active in this space and handling almost all of the work (those previously listed by another poster) and have dedicated partners and practice areas to this space at this point. Any other big law firms that claim to be doing this kind of work is dipping their toes in the space at best with very few crypto-native clients.

[Anonymous User]

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

Exactly. TLS ought to hit this point harder and earlier in threads like this (substituting "crypto" for "entertainment" etc.). A hot area in the real economy doesn't necessarily have a corresponding corporate-law practice; a big recent exception would be cyber/privacy.

This is completely untrue though and just shows your lack of knowledge of this practice area. I would even say the same for entertainment law firms but those will often be more niche. I don't understand why there are so many people on this thread who are giving "feedback" that is nothing more than their disdain for the crypto space under a façade of criticism for focusing on an industry.

There are firms that are active in this space and handling almost all of the work (those previously listed by another poster) and have dedicated partners and practice areas to this space at this point. Any other big law firms that claim to be doing this kind of work is dipping their toes in the space at best with very few crypto-native clients.

So this is an interesting one. I am OP of the list. To clarify some things:

1. I agree that this will be a corporate law practice going forward.

2. The dedicated partners and practice areas are still “subject matter experts” and not natively “crypto” experts. The top individuals are there because they are top litigators / reg attorneys / securities attorneys, etc. They are becoming crypto experts through using their subject matter expertise as applied to crypto. There is no such thing (yet) as “crypto law.” There is not a single U.S. federal statute centered around crypto. State laws explicitly applicable to, and any law that still does apply to crypto, still falls within established areas of law.

3. I completely agree with you that most firms are just doing very standard legal work with a couple of crypto clients and splashing “blockchain” or “crypto” all over the place.

But these firms are not the standard setters, nor the best. None of the firms the SEC is currently pursuing are using the same attorneys that actually set them up, did their financing / tokenomics, etc. Why? Because their legal advice got them into that mess in the first place! If you want to do startup work, by all means, some of the non-listed firms will give you great exposure to that, but once those companies mature, they will all move to one of the listed, top-tier firms. There are things smaller companies can and do get away with out of the limelight that cannot be done when the stakes (pardon the pun) are higher.

[The Lsat Airbender]

There are firms that are active in this space and handling almost all of the work (those previously listed by another poster) and have dedicated partners and practice areas to this space at this point. Any other big law firms that claim to be doing this kind of work is dipping their toes in the space at best with very few crypto-native clients.

What's your point? If and when there comes to exist a substantive "crypto law" practice at big law firms, there's no guarantee those firms will predominate just because they'd been doing various kinds of work for crypto clients. Maybe in the future the most important clients will be PE funds, for example. Maybe it'll be super state-dependent, like gaming law, and all the top crypto lawyers are working in the capital of some rogue flyover state that has friendly rules.

Without a crystal ball, OP should

forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

because, as this thread has shown, about a dozen different practice areas are relevant. And choosing among them has major implications for the kind of work one does, exit opps, etc.

[emptyflare]

OP, Chambers has a Blockchain and Crypto band ranking. Band 1 is Perkins Coie, DPW, Latham, Sidley. Band 2 is DLx Law, Paul H., DLA, MoFo, White and Case. More firms for band 3. At a minimum, this will tell you that the firms have a real crypto practice and not just website adverts. You could also search for ranked individual lawyers to pick up even more info. They also have broader Fintech rankings beyond crypto. It's a good place to start.

Agree that this is a good list, but it isn't complete. For example, Fenwick is clearly a Band 1 Blockchain practice. I think this list is focused a bit more on the regulation/compliance side, rather than the start-up/general advising side.

My 2 cents.

This is my understanding as well.

Am at one of these firms, work with every big crypto company you can name, probably somewhat outing myself to those that know me with this post, but anyhow.

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

You want to do general corporate work for crypto clients? Fenwick & Sidley, Orrick to some extent too. Mostly smaller startups, not the most cutting edge work but very cool clients.

You want to do IP work for crypto clients? Skadden are best here, others are also players.

You want to do the top of the market reg work and be in the room with regulators and real decision makers (I hesitate to lump white collar and litigation into this, but for present purposes i will) for crypto clients? DPW / Latham / S&C and if anyone tells you otherwise they’re (respectfully) clueless about the market and what’s really going on.

You want to do payments work and handle 2 or 3 crypto clients who then send their more difficult work to one of the above? Paul Hastings.

You want to do funds work for 2 or 3 funds that invest in crypto? Ropes & Grey, Wilkie (eh, ish, I’ve seen them like once) and a few others with traditional funds practices.

You want to write blog posts about crypto every other week offering little to no value (or, regularly, plain bad legal takes)? The other listed firms plus most others.

Will hang around this thread answering any questions on and off.

Would your view be that Perkins falls into the "blog post" category?

[Anonymous User]

OP, Chambers has a Blockchain and Crypto band ranking. Band 1 is Perkins Coie, DPW, Latham, Sidley. Band 2 is DLx Law, Paul H., DLA, MoFo, White and Case. More firms for band 3. At a minimum, this will tell you that the firms have a real crypto practice and not just website adverts. You could also search for ranked individual lawyers to pick up even more info. They also have broader Fintech rankings beyond crypto. It's a good place to start.

Agree that this is a good list, but it isn't complete. For example, Fenwick is clearly a Band 1 Blockchain practice. I think this list is focused a bit more on the regulation/compliance side, rather than the start-up/general advising side.

My 2 cents.

This is my understanding as well.

Am at one of these firms, work with every big crypto company you can name, probably somewhat outing myself to those that know me with this post, but anyhow.

To reiterate earlier posts in this thread, forget crypto, think about what you want to actually do as a substantive practice area.

You want to do general corporate work for crypto clients? Fenwick & Sidley, Orrick to some extent too. Mostly smaller startups, not the most cutting edge work but very cool clients.

You want to do IP work for crypto clients? Skadden are best here, others are also players.

You want to do the top of the market reg work and be in the room with regulators and real decision makers (I hesitate to lump white collar and litigation into this, but for present purposes i will) for crypto clients? DPW / Latham / S&C and if anyone tells you otherwise they’re (respectfully) clueless about the market and what’s really going on.

You want to do payments work and handle 2 or 3 crypto clients who then send their more difficult work to one of the above? Paul Hastings.

You want to do funds work for 2 or 3 funds that invest in crypto? Ropes & Grey, Wilkie (eh, ish, I’ve seen them like once) and a few others with traditional funds practices.

You want to write blog posts about crypto every other week offering little to no value (or, regularly, plain bad legal takes)? The other listed firms plus most others.

Will hang around this thread answering any questions on and off.

Would your view be that Perkins falls into the "blog post" category?

No, I would put them more in the Fenwick / Sidley / Orrick group I put up front.

Like, they’re fine. Though I confess I get a chuckle every time their recruiters email me calling them the “preeminent fintech group” like ok sure lol.

[Anonymous User]

Resurrecting this as someone who is doing exclusively crypto work at fenwick on the corporate/regulatory side.

First a shameless shill that at least on the corporate side Fenwick is far and away the best firm in the space and probably the only or where you have a substantial group of attorneys who do exclusively crypto transactional work plus a bunch of others that dabble. Also despite the downturn, there’s still a ton of new and existing work plus a ton of attorneys from other practice areas looking to learn how to do blockchain work. Whether you believe in it or not, a bunch of rich guys won’t stop throwing money at it so there’s going to be legal work and because of the reflexive risk-averseness of most lawyers a bunch of lawyers have avoided learning anything about it so it’s a great space to be in to make yourself valuable early.

If you want to do transactional work your best best would be Fenwick, Perkins, Goodwin, etc mostly just look for ECVC firms and look through the client/deal lists of some associates/partners to see how often they do crypto work vs other work.

The practice itself is fun an interesting. The clients are way less demanding and you’re constantly innovating and working on novel transactions: dao formation, token launches, token/equity financings, NFT drops etc

[grayskies]

Aside from the corporate, regulatory, or IP side of crypto work, which practice area might get involved with crypto tracing and asset recovery in the event of a high value theft or breach?

[Anonymous User]

Aside from the corporate, regulatory, or IP side of crypto work, which practice area might get involved with crypto tracing and asset recovery in the event of a high value theft or breach?

Probably litigation or investigations. The number of firms that would do this is probably limited, though, and I can't imagine there would be enough of this kind of work that an associate could do it full time.

[Anonymous User]

Not to bump this whole thread, but in light of last week’s SEC insider trading case … take a look at the earlier post about blog-post firms.

Note which firms are posting blogs and which firms are not posting blogs. Those posting blogs have no skin in the game—those not posting blogs are either involved in defending some of the relevant parties, or, at the very least have client sensitivities about doing so. Moral of the story, don’t let blog posts deceive you into thinking certain firms are players.