Elite boutiques that pay market/above market? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Curious, will you choose these firms over a big law position?

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any Bartlit Beck Info? For such a popular boutique seems so secretive

Interested in this firm. Wondering if anyone has helpful info

Substantially above market and early and attainable partnership, basically as good as it gets. Similar deal to Susman. Their exact comp is not public.

Feel like the credential threshold is a bit above Susman even

Yes, I think it's fair to say that Bartlit is the most selective significant-sized law firm in the country.

[Anonymous User]

Curious, will you choose these firms over a big law position?

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

Neither of those things lol.

People (including in this thread) tend towards using clerkships as a proxy for how impressive/talented an associate roster is. It's definitely a fair inference in some cases, but feels less generalizable when a decent number of judges (on both sides of the aisle) prioritize ideology or other political markers over hiring the best applicants.

Like Sutton is a a great example of the former - he hires the applicants with the best academic credentials and it is very fair to use a Sutton clerkship as a proxy for how talented an associate is. I agree with you, there are definitely some judges on CA5 that hire the best applicants but you could get a CA5 clerkship with welllll below median grades from my school if you had fedsoc on your resume.

Since that below median person got their clerkship because of their political views and not because they were the best applicant, maybe clerkships are not as clear a proxy for how talented a firm's associate roster is.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any Bartlit Beck Info? For such a popular boutique seems so secretive

Interested in this firm. Wondering if anyone has helpful info

Substantially above market and early and attainable partnership, basically as good as it gets. Similar deal to Susman. Their exact comp is not public.

Feel like the credential threshold is a bit above Susman even

Yes, I think it's fair to say that Bartlit is the most selective significant-sized law firm in the country.

Definitely some impressive folks there. But firms like MoloLamken and Susman, which only hire from the T14 and require a federal clerkship, are certainly as selective as Bartlit.

[Anonymous User]

Curious, will you choose these firms over a big law position?

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

Neither of those things lol.

People (including in this thread) tend towards using clerkships as a proxy for how impressive/talented an associate roster is. It's definitely a fair inference in some cases, but feels less generalizable when a decent number of judges (on both sides of the aisle) prioritize ideology or other political markers over hiring the best applicants.

Like Sutton is a a great example of the former - he hires the applicants with the best academic credentials and it is very fair to use a Sutton clerkship as a proxy for how talented an associate is. I agree with you, there are definitely some judges on CA5 that hire the best applicants but you could get a CA5 clerkship with welllll below median grades from my school if you had fedsoc on your resume.

Since that below median person got their clerkship because of their political views and not because they were the best applicant, maybe clerkships are not as clear a proxy for how talented a firm's associate roster is.

Not to derail the thread - this overstates the strength of the FedSoc bump unless you go to YLS. FedSoc applicants have more opportunities to network with judges, but when it comes time to convert even applicants with great grades sometimes struggle quite a lot. (Not as much as non-FedSoc applicants, obviously - that's another story.) COA clerkships are an admittedly imperfect proxy of a law firm's quality, as are most other criteria. They at least say something.

Back on topic, my impression is that Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit are considered peer firms in most respects (hours, pay, prestige) despite doing different types of work (Susman mostly does commercial litigation, Kellogg has some appellate and regulatory practices, Bartlit has a small corporate group...). MoloLamken and Wilkinson Stekloff are also well regarded but pay less and don't get talked about quite as much.

[Anonymous User]

Curious, will you choose these firms over a big law position?

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

Neither of those things lol.

People (including in this thread) tend towards using clerkships as a proxy for how impressive/talented an associate roster is. It's definitely a fair inference in some cases, but feels less generalizable when a decent number of judges (on both sides of the aisle) prioritize ideology or other political markers over hiring the best applicants.

Like Sutton is a a great example of the former - he hires the applicants with the best academic credentials and it is very fair to use a Sutton clerkship as a proxy for how talented an associate is. I agree with you, there are definitely some judges on CA5 that hire the best applicants but you could get a CA5 clerkship with welllll below median grades from my school if you had fedsoc on your resume.

Since that below median person got their clerkship because of their political views and not because they were the best applicant, maybe clerkships are not as clear a proxy for how talented a firm's associate roster is.

Not to derail the thread - this overstates the strength of the FedSoc bump unless you go to YLS. FedSoc applicants have more opportunities to network with judges, but when it comes time to convert even applicants with great grades sometimes struggle quite a lot. (Not as much as non-FedSoc applicants, obviously - that's another story.) COA clerkships are an admittedly imperfect proxy of a law firm's quality, as are most other criteria. They at least say something.

Back on topic, my impression is that Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit are considered peer firms in most respects (hours, pay, prestige) despite doing different types of work (Susman mostly does commercial litigation, Kellogg has some appellate and regulatory practices, Bartlit has a small corporate group...). MoloLamken and Wilkinson Stekloff are also well regarded but pay less and don't get talked about quite as much.

That bit abt clerkships def holds true at HLS as well - there are conservative judges (albeit not on CA5) that are notorious for hiring after the first semester of 1L and have taken students with straight Ps. I think I agree that it falls away for the very high end partisan judges, like FedSoc alone is not getting someone Katsas, Thapar, Friedrich, etc.

I think I agree with that bit on the boutiques though. Was under the impression that the comp structure differs a bit among them. Can't speak to Bartlit but bonus drives the above market comp for Susman/Kellogg, except Susman is EWYK and Kellogg is similar to the traditional law firm model of lockstep bonuses (albeit modified a bit, not sure based on what)

[Anonymous User]

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

Neither of those things lol.

People (including in this thread) tend towards using clerkships as a proxy for how impressive/talented an associate roster is. It's definitely a fair inference in some cases, but feels less generalizable when a decent number of judges (on both sides of the aisle) prioritize ideology or other political markers over hiring the best applicants.

Like Sutton is a a great example of the former - he hires the applicants with the best academic credentials and it is very fair to use a Sutton clerkship as a proxy for how talented an associate is. I agree with you, there are definitely some judges on CA5 that hire the best applicants but you could get a CA5 clerkship with welllll below median grades from my school if you had fedsoc on your resume.

Since that below median person got their clerkship because of their political views and not because they were the best applicant, maybe clerkships are not as clear a proxy for how talented a firm's associate roster is.

Not to derail the thread - this overstates the strength of the FedSoc bump unless you go to YLS. FedSoc applicants have more opportunities to network with judges, but when it comes time to convert even applicants with great grades sometimes struggle quite a lot. (Not as much as non-FedSoc applicants, obviously - that's another story.) COA clerkships are an admittedly imperfect proxy of a law firm's quality, as are most other criteria. They at least say something.

Back on topic, my impression is that Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit are considered peer firms in most respects (hours, pay, prestige) despite doing different types of work (Susman mostly does commercial litigation, Kellogg has some appellate and regulatory practices, Bartlit has a small corporate group...). MoloLamken and Wilkinson Stekloff are also well regarded but pay less and don't get talked about quite as much.

That bit abt clerkships def holds true at HLS as well - there are conservative judges (albeit not on CA5) that are notorious for hiring after the first semester of 1L and have taken students with straight Ps. I think I agree that it falls away for the very high end partisan judges, like FedSoc alone is not getting someone Katsas, Thapar, Friedrich, etc.

I think I agree with that bit on the boutiques though. Was under the impression that the comp structure differs a bit among them. Can't speak to Bartlit but bonus drives the above market comp for Susman/Kellogg, except Susman is EWYK and Kellogg is similar to the traditional law firm model of lockstep bonuses (albeit modified a bit, not sure based on what)

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

[Anonymous User]

It looks like Steptoe LLP recently bought Smyser Kaplan, mentioned earlier in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

I haven’t seen the Steptoe news but a group of partners left Smyser Kaplan to found Murphy Ball Stratton, presumably in response

[The Lsat Airbender]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

[Anonymous User]

I haven’t seen the Steptoe news but a group of partners left Smyser Kaplan to found Murphy Ball Stratton, presumably in response

Here is an article and it looks like it has a Murphy Ball Stratton quote too: https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2024/01 ... 0016215412

[Anonymous User]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

Not OP, but went to HLS and it was kinda common knowledge that the right references + fedsoc/JLPP + some other plus factor (prestige undergrad, pre-law school political bona fides, diversity, veteran, local ties, etc) could get someone an interview at certain ideological judges on CA6, CA5 or CA11 irrespective of grades. I've not heard of it happening as early as first semester, but post-1L was not unusual at all.

[Anonymous User]

Curious, will you choose these firms over a big law position?

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

Neither of those things lol.

People (including in this thread) tend towards using clerkships as a proxy for how impressive/talented an associate roster is. It's definitely a fair inference in some cases, but feels less generalizable when a decent number of judges (on both sides of the aisle) prioritize ideology or other political markers over hiring the best applicants.

Like Sutton is a a great example of the former - he hires the applicants with the best academic credentials and it is very fair to use a Sutton clerkship as a proxy for how talented an associate is. I agree with you, there are definitely some judges on CA5 that hire the best applicants but you could get a CA5 clerkship with welllll below median grades from my school if you had fedsoc on your resume.

Since that below median person got their clerkship because of their political views and not because they were the best applicant, maybe clerkships are not as clear a proxy for how talented a firm's associate roster is.

Not to derail the thread - this overstates the strength of the FedSoc bump unless you go to YLS. FedSoc applicants have more opportunities to network with judges, but when it comes time to convert even applicants with great grades sometimes struggle quite a lot. (Not as much as non-FedSoc applicants, obviously - that's another story.) COA clerkships are an admittedly imperfect proxy of a law firm's quality, as are most other criteria. They at least say something.

Back on topic, my impression is that Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit are considered peer firms in most respects (hours, pay, prestige) despite doing different types of work (Susman mostly does commercial litigation, Kellogg has some appellate and regulatory practices, Bartlit has a small corporate group...). MoloLamken and Wilkinson Stekloff are also well regarded but pay less and don't get talked about quite as much.

Wilkinson Stekloff pays more than big law.

[Anonymous User]

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

Neither of those things lol.

People (including in this thread) tend towards using clerkships as a proxy for how impressive/talented an associate roster is. It's definitely a fair inference in some cases, but feels less generalizable when a decent number of judges (on both sides of the aisle) prioritize ideology or other political markers over hiring the best applicants.

Like Sutton is a a great example of the former - he hires the applicants with the best academic credentials and it is very fair to use a Sutton clerkship as a proxy for how talented an associate is. I agree with you, there are definitely some judges on CA5 that hire the best applicants but you could get a CA5 clerkship with welllll below median grades from my school if you had fedsoc on your resume.

Since that below median person got their clerkship because of their political views and not because they were the best applicant, maybe clerkships are not as clear a proxy for how talented a firm's associate roster is.

Not to derail the thread - this overstates the strength of the FedSoc bump unless you go to YLS. FedSoc applicants have more opportunities to network with judges, but when it comes time to convert even applicants with great grades sometimes struggle quite a lot. (Not as much as non-FedSoc applicants, obviously - that's another story.) COA clerkships are an admittedly imperfect proxy of a law firm's quality, as are most other criteria. They at least say something.

Back on topic, my impression is that Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit are considered peer firms in most respects (hours, pay, prestige) despite doing different types of work (Susman mostly does commercial litigation, Kellogg has some appellate and regulatory practices, Bartlit has a small corporate group...). MoloLamken and Wilkinson Stekloff are also well regarded but pay less and don't get talked about quite as much.

Wilkinson Stekloff pays more than big law.

Can you give more details on Wilkinson Stekloff?
Salary/clerkship bonuses?

[Anonymous User]

Salary is market, annual bonus is above

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... associates

[Anonymous User]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

Not OP, but went to HLS and it was kinda common knowledge that the right references + fedsoc/JLPP + some other plus factor (prestige undergrad, pre-law school political bona fides, diversity, veteran, local ties, etc) could get someone an interview at certain ideological judges on CA6, CA5 or CA11 irrespective of grades. I've not heard of it happening as early as first semester, but post-1L was not unusual at all.

Sure you did, random person on the internet. Were you best buds with Noah Feldman, too?

[Anonymous User]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

Not OP, but went to HLS and it was kinda common knowledge that the right references + fedsoc/JLPP + some other plus factor (prestige undergrad, pre-law school political bona fides, diversity, veteran, local ties, etc) could get someone an interview at certain ideological judges on CA6, CA5 or CA11 irrespective of grades. I've not heard of it happening as early as first semester, but post-1L was not unusual at all.

Sure you did, random person on the internet. Were you best buds with Noah Feldman, too?

Dang, fuck me for providing anecdotal context. You could have said the same thing if I'd named specific judges anyways.

[Anonymous User]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

Not OP, but went to HLS and it was kinda common knowledge that the right references + fedsoc/JLPP + some other plus factor (prestige undergrad, pre-law school political bona fides, diversity, veteran, local ties, etc) could get someone an interview at certain ideological judges on CA6, CA5 or CA11 irrespective of grades. I've not heard of it happening as early as first semester, but post-1L was not unusual at all.

Sure you did, random person on the internet. Were you best buds with Noah Feldman, too?

Different guy, but was in FedSoc E-Board at HLS and it is largely true. We managed to place most of our members who wanted to clerk, regardless of grades. Of course, many of the higher profile judges demand very competitive grade profiles. But a lot of the less prominent circuit judges really wanted to hire HYS fedsoc students and placed comparatively little weight on grades for candidates who had conservative bona fides or if anyone with bona fides vouched for them. The two years I was involved in it, I can think of at least a half dozen students with 0-2 Hs who ended up getting circuit clerkships.

I understand the impulse to reflexively reject this claim because it seems like lib propaganda. But honestly, it's a big selling point for FedSoc and there isn't anything to be too ashamed of. Dems have plenty of non-merit affirmative action programs (have you looked at the grades for diverse circuit clerks on the left ...). We should be proud we're able to credentialize our own. And I can hardly blame any judge for preffering take a median or below HLS student with a good head on their shoulders than some brain wormed woke with better grades anyways.

[Anonymous User]

And I can hardly blame any judge for preffering take a median or below HLS student with a good head on their shoulders than some brain wormed woke with better grades anyways.

10/10 no notes quote here from a Harvard FedSoc executive boarder.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn pays above market. 2nd-through-7th years get a profit sharing award that's a percentage of firm profits. It is usually about $60-80K per associate per year. It vests 3 years later. So if you stick around until year 9 you will have made approx. $300K to $500K more than market.

The firm also offers bonus kickers for high billers (over 2400 and over 2700 are the 2 kicker levels, I think). Though I hope to never have to bill so much that those become relevant to me...

Our health insurance is also 100% free (no premiums). And the firm offers higher clerkship bonuses than market. All in all it's a pretty great deal. I think it may be just about the best per-hour pay out there. Some of the boutiques discussed in this thread pay a bit more but they also expect 3000 hours or more. Quinn is happy with 2100, which is pretty close to "normal" for biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

This happens, but very rarely, at least at the COA level. Almost no COA judges are taking someone with straight Ps. What I have seen is some judges hire so early that they end up taking someone from HYS who had one good semester or year, but then a drop off. So, some of these judges end up with clerks who were near the top of the class when hired but closer to median when they graduated. But the vast majority of Fed Soc affiliated clerks are cum laude or above from T14 schools. The main bump with Fed Soc is not that mediocre grades can get you a clerkship. Rather, it is that if you are Fed Soc and you have good grades, then that combination is basically sufficient to get you a decent clerkship. But for liberals good grades is usually necessary, but not sufficient. Also, you need to be on a Board to get this bump. Just listing Fed Soc on a resume is not going to get you a bump, unless you go to Yale.

[Anonymous User]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

This happens, but very rarely, at least at the COA level. Almost no COA judges are taking someone with straight Ps. What I have seen is some judges hire so early that they end up taking someone from HYS who had one good semester or year, but then a drop off. So, some of these judges end up with clerks who were near the top of the class when hired but closer to median when they graduated. But the vast majority of Fed Soc affiliated clerks are cum laude or above from T14 schools. The main bump with Fed Soc is not that mediocre grades can get you a clerkship. Rather, it is that if you are Fed Soc and you have good grades, then that combination is basically sufficient to get you a decent clerkship. But for liberals good grades is usually necessary, but not sufficient. Also, you need to be on a Board to get this bump. Just listing Fed Soc on a resume is not going to get you a bump, unless you go to Yale.

TBF, there are a low double digit number of people clerking on CA5 from my class at HLS and only one of them graduated with any type of Latin honors.

[Anonymous User]

I mean the talent differential between these firms and typical biglaw speaks for itself. Most of the places mentioned in this thread are stacked with circuit clerks, while mainstream biglaw (including SullCrom NY, Cravath, basically every NY biglaw office except Wachtell) are not. There is a reason the litigators with the most options go to these places.

Take, for example, the associate roster at Gibbs Bruns (one of the less famous boutiques being discussed here). Big talent gap between this and most biglaw associate rosters, especially in New York.

Not to be annoying, but the academic credentials of the people at Gibbs don't seem that unparalleled by big law standards (cum laude at T6 or magna at UT or other Texas schools) and clerkship-wise, it's almost exclusively of SCOTX and CA5 clerks.

Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5.

This point holds for a lot of the mid/high end boutiques, but I don't think Gibbs Bruns was necessarily the right firm to make the point with

"Also, given the political valence to clerkship hiring on both sides at this point, I'm not really sure it's valid to equate clerkships with associate strength, especially with regard to CA5."

What does this even mean? Judges perceived as more partisan hire unqualified clerks? Or do you mean partisan people are not strong associates? I do not think either are necessarily true. And the judges often labelled partisan on CA5 (and elsewhere, too) that I know hire some of the brightest attorneys that I know. That is true for both sides of the aisle.

Neither of those things lol.

People (including in this thread) tend towards using clerkships as a proxy for how impressive/talented an associate roster is. It's definitely a fair inference in some cases, but feels less generalizable when a decent number of judges (on both sides of the aisle) prioritize ideology or other political markers over hiring the best applicants.

Like Sutton is a a great example of the former - he hires the applicants with the best academic credentials and it is very fair to use a Sutton clerkship as a proxy for how talented an associate is. I agree with you, there are definitely some judges on CA5 that hire the best applicants but you could get a CA5 clerkship with welllll below median grades from my school if you had fedsoc on your resume.

Since that below median person got their clerkship because of their political views and not because they were the best applicant, maybe clerkships are not as clear a proxy for how talented a firm's associate roster is.

Not to derail the thread - this overstates the strength of the FedSoc bump unless you go to YLS. FedSoc applicants have more opportunities to network with judges, but when it comes time to convert even applicants with great grades sometimes struggle quite a lot. (Not as much as non-FedSoc applicants, obviously - that's another story.) COA clerkships are an admittedly imperfect proxy of a law firm's quality, as are most other criteria. They at least say something.

Back on topic, my impression is that Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit are considered peer firms in most respects (hours, pay, prestige) despite doing different types of work (Susman mostly does commercial litigation, Kellogg has some appellate and regulatory practices, Bartlit has a small corporate group...). MoloLamken and Wilkinson Stekloff are also well regarded but pay less and don't get talked about quite as much.

Wilkinson Stekloff pays more than big law.

I meant that it pays less than Susman / Kellogg. You're right it pays more than big law.

[Anonymous User]

I call massive BS. Which judges are taking people with straight P's?

"have taken" doesn't mean it happens often.

Personally I don't doubt that some district judge somewhere has taken an HLS student with one semester of P's (perhaps with a pinky promise to improve those grades later on) and some combination of: FedSoc, military vet, diverse (by FedSoc standards), local ties, cultural affinity or personal connection to the judge.

This happens, but very rarely, at least at the COA level. Almost no COA judges are taking someone with straight Ps. What I have seen is some judges hire so early that they end up taking someone from HYS who had one good semester or year, but then a drop off. So, some of these judges end up with clerks who were near the top of the class when hired but closer to median when they graduated. But the vast majority of Fed Soc affiliated clerks are cum laude or above from T14 schools. The main bump with Fed Soc is not that mediocre grades can get you a clerkship. Rather, it is that if you are Fed Soc and you have good grades, then that combination is basically sufficient to get you a decent clerkship. But for liberals good grades is usually necessary, but not sufficient. Also, you need to be on a Board to get this bump. Just listing Fed Soc on a resume is not going to get you a bump, unless you go to Yale.

TBF, there are a low double digit number of people clerking on CA5 from my class at HLS and only one of them graduated with any type of Latin honors.

Graduating cum laude from HLS is insanely easy. Hundreds of people do it every year. Not impressive anyway

[Anonymous User]

Back on topic, my impression is that Susman, Kellogg, and Bartlit are considered peer firms in most respects (hours, pay, prestige) despite doing different types of work (Susman mostly does commercial litigation, Kellogg has some appellate and regulatory practices, Bartlit has a small corporate group...). MoloLamken and Wilkinson Stekloff are also well regarded but pay less and don't get talked about quite as much.

Wilkinson Stekloff pays more than big law.

MoloLamken pays more than big law as well.