Underrated lit boutiques? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Have to laugh at putting MTO in DC above Covington. Just lol. Covington and WC are the best in DC, no one else matches their prestige and name recognition. Everyone knows this.

I think this is underselling how insanely selective MTO DC is. I don't think they'll even hire you without a clerkship, unlike Covington. Almost every person at MTO DC was a COA clerk and about a quarter of them clerked on SCOTUS.

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

[Anonymous User]

Have to laugh at putting MTO in DC above Covington. Just lol. Covington and WC are the best in DC, no one else matches their prestige and name recognition. Everyone knows this.

I think this is underselling how insanely selective MTO DC is. I don't think they'll even hire you without a clerkship, unlike Covington. Almost every person at MTO DC was a COA clerk and about a quarter of them clerked on SCOTUS.

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

Different anon, I think it's pretty widely known that elite boutiques like Munger DC are a cut above Covington, Gibson DC, etc. Just take some time and browse the websites of both firms and look at the attorney bios. The logic of "bigger network" and "better overall practice areas" would just lead you to saying that essentially any major biglaw firm with a famous name and a big M&A corporate department is better than boutiques that A, pay the same or more, and B, are regularly pulling in like Assistant SGs, SCOTUS clerks, EIC of Yale Law Journal, etc. and arguing front-page cases. This might be true if what you want is to be a banking partner or something but it is just not how elite lit spaces work.

[Anonymous User]

Have to laugh at putting MTO in DC above Covington. Just lol. Covington and WC are the best in DC, no one else matches their prestige and name recognition. Everyone knows this.

I think this is underselling how insanely selective MTO DC is. I don't think they'll even hire you without a clerkship, unlike Covington. Almost every person at MTO DC was a COA clerk and about a quarter of them clerked on SCOTUS.

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

Different anon, I think it's pretty widely known that elite boutiques like Munger DC are a cut above Covington, Gibson DC, etc. Just take some time and browse the websites of both firms and look at the attorney bios. The logic of "bigger network" and "better overall practice areas" would just lead you to saying that essentially any major biglaw firm with a famous name and a big M&A corporate department is better than boutiques that A, pay the same or more, and B, are regularly pulling in like Assistant SGs, SCOTUS clerks, EIC of Yale Law Journal, etc. and arguing front-page cases. This might be true if what you want is to be a banking partner or something but it is just not how elite lit spaces work.

No, it wouldn't lead to you conclude any major biglaw firm is better. For example, I would agree that Hogan Lovells is not superior to the firms you listed. What makes Covington and WC a cut above is the combo of all-star attorneys, well-rounded practice areas, and prestige. Hogan Lovells definitely lacks the prestige of Covington, even if it's a biglaw firm with lots of practice groups and a well-known brand.

Also attorney bios =/= firm quality. Arguing otherwise is reductive and will mislead 1Ls.

[Anonymous User]

how's latham in dc

Decent shop but simply not in the tier of any of the firms mentioned so far in this thread. Strong IP lit reputation, though.

[Anonymous User]

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

I mean… sure? They probably are, if you’re willing to deal with the clear political angle. I’d be willing to bet that your average GW/C&K/Consovoy/etc associate will have way better networks with their respective political parties/future administrations than a similarly-credentialed Cov associate, if only because of the clear signaling of going to such a firm.

[Anonymous User]

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

I mean… sure? They probably are, if you’re willing to deal with the clear political angle. I’d be willing to bet that your average GW/C&K/Consovoy/etc associate will have way better networks with their respective political parties/future administrations than a similarly-credentialed Cov associate, if only because of the clear signaling of going to such a firm.

I think you'd definitely lose that bet.

[Anonymous User]

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

I mean… sure? They probably are, if you’re willing to deal with the clear political angle. I’d be willing to bet that your average GW/C&K/Consovoy/etc associate will have way better networks with their respective political parties/future administrations than a similarly-credentialed Cov associate, if only because of the clear signaling of going to such a firm.

I think you'd definitely lose that bet.

I’m not even the poster you’re responding to, but not sure how they’re wrong. The associates at Consovoy and Gupta are not only well-credentialed, they fit a specific mold. The partners at those firms are very well-connected. It makes sense that, on average, the associates would have a better network than a similarly credentialed associate at Covington DC specifically. Other firms, like W&C, maybe not, but it’s not really a debate as to Covington.

[Anonymous User]

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

I mean… sure? They probably are, if you’re willing to deal with the clear political angle. I’d be willing to bet that your average GW/C&K/Consovoy/etc associate will have way better networks with their respective political parties/future administrations than a similarly-credentialed Cov associate, if only because of the clear signaling of going to such a firm.

I think you'd definitely lose that bet.

I’m not even the poster you’re responding to, but not sure how they’re wrong. The associates at Consovoy and Gupta are not only well-credentialed, they fit a specific mold. The partners at those firms are very well-connected. It makes sense that, on average, the associates would have a better network than a similarly credentialed associate at Covington DC specifically. Other firms, like W&C, maybe not, but it’s not really a debate as to Covington.

It just doesn't work that way. If you're only interested in doing appellate litigation, then for sure go to Clement & Murphy. I might question the wisdom of locking yourself into a particular niche so early in your career, but go for it. But in terms of having a broad network, being marketable in lots of different areas, and having experience doing lots of different things, it's no contest: Cov wins. There's a reason Cov is constantly producing attorneys who go on to Main Justice, the USAO, SEC, academia, etc. etc. Because it's got a top-flight name and actually has attorneys and partners who either work there, or have worked there.

Also it's fair to note that Gupta Wessler isn't even band 1 in litigation. I think a lot of people who promote the "selective" boutiques don't realize that in terms of quality of practice groups, they're rarely better than the most elite biglaw firms in DC.

[Anonymous User]

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

I mean… sure? They probably are, if you’re willing to deal with the clear political angle. I’d be willing to bet that your average GW/C&K/Consovoy/etc associate will have way better networks with their respective political parties/future administrations than a similarly-credentialed Cov associate, if only because of the clear signaling of going to such a firm.

I think you'd definitely lose that bet.

I’m not even the poster you’re responding to, but not sure how they’re wrong. The associates at Consovoy and Gupta are not only well-credentialed, they fit a specific mold. The partners at those firms are very well-connected. It makes sense that, on average, the associates would have a better network than a similarly credentialed associate at Covington DC specifically. Other firms, like W&C, maybe not, but it’s not really a debate as to Covington.

It just doesn't work that way. If you're only interested in doing appellate litigation, then for sure go to Clement & Murphy. I might question the wisdom of locking yourself into a particular niche so early in your career, but go for it. But in terms of having a broad network, being marketable in lots of different areas, and having experience doing lots of different things, it's no contest: Cov wins. There's a reason Cov is constantly producing attorneys who go on to Main Justice, the USAO, SEC, academia, etc. etc. Because it's got a top-flight name and actually has attorneys and partners who either work there, or have worked there.

Also it's fair to note that Gupta Wessler isn't even band 1 in litigation. I think a lot of people who promote the "selective" boutiques don't realize that in terms of quality of practice groups, they're rarely better than the most elite biglaw firms in DC.

I was specifically referencing the "networks with their respective political parties/future administrations." Again, I think the firms that are very political in their work, like Consovoy and Gupta, will have associates better-connected in those realms. Don't think that's very controversial.

[Anonymous User]

And therefore? Covington has the more prestigious name, better overall practice groups, and bigger network. By this logic Gupta Wessler and Cooper & Kirk are better firms. Band 1 in appellate clerkships, but not much else...

I mean… sure? They probably are, if you’re willing to deal with the clear political angle. I’d be willing to bet that your average GW/C&K/Consovoy/etc associate will have way better networks with their respective political parties/future administrations than a similarly-credentialed Cov associate, if only because of the clear signaling of going to such a firm.

I think you'd definitely lose that bet.

I’m not even the poster you’re responding to, but not sure how they’re wrong. The associates at Consovoy and Gupta are not only well-credentialed, they fit a specific mold. The partners at those firms are very well-connected. It makes sense that, on average, the associates would have a better network than a similarly credentialed associate at Covington DC specifically. Other firms, like W&C, maybe not, but it’s not really a debate as to Covington.

It just doesn't work that way. If you're only interested in doing appellate litigation, then for sure go to Clement & Murphy. I might question the wisdom of locking yourself into a particular niche so early in your career, but go for it. But in terms of having a broad network, being marketable in lots of different areas, and having experience doing lots of different things, it's no contest: Cov wins. There's a reason Cov is constantly producing attorneys who go on to Main Justice, the USAO, SEC, academia, etc. etc. Because it's got a top-flight name and actually has attorneys and partners who either work there, or have worked there.

Also it's fair to note that Gupta Wessler isn't even band 1 in litigation. I think a lot of people who promote the "selective" boutiques don't realize that in terms of quality of practice groups, they're rarely better than the most elite biglaw firms in DC.

I was specifically referencing the "networks with their respective political parties/future administrations." Again, I think the firms that are very political in their work, like Consovoy and Gupta, will have associates better-connected in those realms. Don't think that's very controversial.

This Covington troll is really good. But yes, of course those boutiques are better-connected, politically and otherwise. There's a reason Covington has almost no SCOTUS clerks despite being massive.

[Anonymous User]

It’s interesting, because of Houston’s energy market, DC’s proximity to the heart of our government, and NY being NY, the litigation boutiques there have grown to national brands that rival the biggest and most prestigious firms. However, there’s elite boutiques in every major city that rival the big firms. For example, in Miami, there’s Podhurst, Kozyak, Rivero, Colson, Gelber, etc. They all work on complex, national/international cases, but they don’t get the national rapport because of the market they’re in. Obviously that can change considering where Miami is going and the prominence of the 11th circuit. But I would be interested in hearing the top boutiques in other major cities, not just what we all know. What are the Bendini, Lambert & Locke’s of the world, minus the murder and espionage? Be good to know the most elite firms in say… Tennessee, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.

[Anonymous User]

It’s interesting, because of Houston’s energy market, DC’s proximity to the heart of our government, and NY being NY, the litigation boutiques there have grown to national brands that rival the biggest and most prestigious firms. However, there’s elite boutiques in every major city that rival the big firms. For example, in Miami, there’s Podhurst, Kozyak, Rivero, Colson, Gelber, etc. They all work on complex, national/international cases, but they don’t get the national rapport because of the market they’re in. Obviously that can change considering where Miami is going and the prominence of the 11th circuit. But I would be interested in hearing the top boutiques in other major cities, not just what we all know. What are the Bendini, Lambert & Locke’s of the world, minus the murder and espionage? Be good to know the most elite firms in say… Tennessee, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.

Am genuinely interested in the elite boutiques in Tennesee to the extent there are ones if anyone knows. What type of work would one get in Tennessee?

[Anonymous User]

It’s interesting, because of Houston’s energy market, DC’s proximity to the heart of our government, and NY being NY, the litigation boutiques there have grown to national brands that rival the biggest and most prestigious firms. However, there’s elite boutiques in every major city that rival the big firms. For example, in Miami, there’s Podhurst, Kozyak, Rivero, Colson, Gelber, etc. They all work on complex, national/international cases, but they don’t get the national rapport because of the market they’re in. Obviously that can change considering where Miami is going and the prominence of the 11th circuit. But I would be interested in hearing the top boutiques in other major cities, not just what we all know. What are the Bendini, Lambert & Locke’s of the world, minus the murder and espionage? Be good to know the most elite firms in say… Tennessee, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.

Am genuinely interested in the elite boutiques in Tennesee to the extent there are ones if anyone knows. What type of work would one get in Tennessee?

There aren't really elite boutiques in TN afaik. Sherrard Roe and Bass are probably the closest in Nashville (Bradley and Baker are just too big, and H&K is H&K), but neither are really elite boutique-style firms.

I do think that will change in the next decade. Out-of-town biglaw is going to eat the healthcare practices (see, e.g., Waller), but there's less of an argument for them to snap up the litigators. Nashville's also becoming a bigger draw on the whole, and TNOSG is pulling some heavy hitter talent.

If Bass doesn't get eaten by another firm, I suspect they'll transform into a fairly serious player in the elite boutique world. If they go away, I wouldn't be surprised if SRVH or a new firm takes that ecological niche.

Edit: Neal Harwell's also an interesting candidate--they've got a few federal clerks, and are explicitly litigation-focused. Maybe them?

[Born-Ready29]

It’s interesting, because of Houston’s energy market, DC’s proximity to the heart of our government, and NY being NY, the litigation boutiques there have grown to national brands that rival the biggest and most prestigious firms. However, there’s elite boutiques in every major city that rival the big firms. For example, in Miami, there’s Podhurst, Kozyak, Rivero, Colson, Gelber, etc. They all work on complex, national/international cases, but they don’t get the national rapport because of the market they’re in. Obviously that can change considering where Miami is going and the prominence of the 11th circuit. But I would be interested in hearing the top boutiques in other major cities, not just what we all know. What are the Bendini, Lambert & Locke’s of the world, minus the murder and espionage? Be good to know the most elite firms in say… Tennessee, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.

Am genuinely interested in the elite boutiques in Tennesee to the extent there are ones if anyone knows. What type of work would one get in Tennessee?

There aren't really elite boutiques in TN afaik. Sherrard Roe and Bass are probably the closest in Nashville (Bradley and Baker are just too big, and H&K is H&K), but neither are really elite boutique-style firms.

I do think that will change in the next decade. Out-of-town biglaw is going to eat the healthcare practices (see, e.g., Waller), but there's less of an argument for them to snap up the litigators. Nashville's also becoming a bigger draw on the whole, and TNOSG is pulling some heavy hitter talent.

If Bass doesn't get eaten by another firm, I suspect they'll transform into a fairly serious player in the elite boutique world. If they go away, I wouldn't be surprised if SRVH or a new firm takes that ecological niche.

Edit: Neal Harwell's also an interesting candidate--they've got a few federal clerks, and are explicitly litigation-focused. Maybe them?

I actually think we’ll see more and more lit boutiques pop up with the rise of AI. Practical litigation skills, depos, hearings, trial, etc. are going to become even more valued and probably allow individuals more leverage than big firms. I also think AI tech will be accessible to small firms in ways that even the playing field. Like if you were an AUSA for however many years, you can tell any client look, they’re going to produce a lot of the work via AI, I can do the same, I have real trial experience and will charge half the rate.

[Anonymous User]

Same question, but for LA!

Leaving aside Hueston Hennigan/Susman, I think that Bird Marella, Ellis George, and Larson are pretty good shops. I wouldn't recommend Miller Barondess (which is a Glaser Weil spinoff) or Kendall Brill (which is an Irell spinoff). Big firms in LA are pretty active about acquiring strong boutiques and a lot of the great boutiques (Caldwell Leslie, Scheper Kim, etc.) have been gobbled up in the last several years.

What’s the salary range for the firms you’ve listed?

[Anonymous User]

Same question for Boston! Asking for a current COA clerk, who is me.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about underrated DC boutiques?

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about underrated DC boutiques?

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

This post is so laughably bad and wrong. If you’re interested in working at Wilkinson or Kellogg, please go talk to an actual associate at one of those firms and don’t listen to a word this guy said.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about underrated DC boutiques?

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

This post is so laughably bad and wrong. If you’re interested in working at Wilkinson or Kellogg, please go talk to an actual associate at one of those firms and don’t listen to a word this guy said.

Once again, I was an associate at one of the boutiques being discussed here (though not necessarily one of those two). But please tell me where I'm wrong.

You know, their trials are high-profile enough that you can fact-check me. Go look at their last 4-5 trials for each of these firms that were covered by the media. You can find cases on the firm's news sites. Look at who the attorneys were doing opening, closing, and taking witnesses. They're high-level partners. You only hear about associates/counsels doing things in regards to pro bono matters. Then compare them with Plaintiff-side firms. You can easily fact-check my claims and see I'm entirely right.

My guess is you are either (a) a law student who doesn't know but thinks they do or (b) someone in a senior position at one of these boutiques. If the latter, I don't think you have to worry my post will hurt your recruiting that much. As I said, there are benefits to working at one of these firms, especially being involved in strategy and getting a lot of second-chair experience. But the hivemind on here isn't always right about what actually happens at these shops, because plaintiff-side is so different from defense-side.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about underrated DC boutiques?

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

This post is so laughably bad and wrong. If you’re interested in working at Wilkinson or Kellogg, please go talk to an actual associate at one of those firms and don’t listen to a word this guy said.

Once again, I was an associate at one of the boutiques being discussed here (though not necessarily one of those two). But please tell me where I'm wrong.

You know, their trials are high-profile enough that you can fact-check me. Go look at their last 4-5 trials for each of these firms that were covered by the media. You can find cases on the firm's news sites. Look at who the attorneys were doing opening, closing, and taking witnesses. They're high-level partners. You only hear about associates/counsels doing things in regards to pro bono matters. Then compare them with Plaintiff-side firms. You can easily fact-check my claims and see I'm entirely right.

My guess is you are either (a) a law student who doesn't know but thinks they do or (b) someone in a senior position at one of these boutiques. If the latter, I don't think you have to worry my post will hurt your recruiting that much. As I said, there are benefits to working at one of these firms, especially being involved in strategy and getting a lot of second-chair experience. But the hivemind on here isn't always right about what actually happens at these shops, because plaintiff-side is so different from defense-side.

Not the poster that you're replying to. I am an associate at one of the firms mentioned (though, again, not necessarily one of the two singled out) and I can definitively say that you are wrong. I've examined witnesses at trial in several-hundred million--and even billion--dollar disputes. One of those cases was within my first fourteen months at the firm. Meanwhile, partners on the other side were sitting in the gallery and said not a word the entire trial. And without going into detail, i'm far from an outlier.

Here's the bottom line: the notion that associates at elite boutiques don't get meaningful standup experience is simply false.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about underrated DC boutiques?

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

This post is so laughably bad and wrong. If you’re interested in working at Wilkinson or Kellogg, please go talk to an actual associate at one of those firms and don’t listen to a word this guy said.

Once again, I was an associate at one of the boutiques being discussed here (though not necessarily one of those two). But please tell me where I'm wrong.

You know, their trials are high-profile enough that you can fact-check me. Go look at their last 4-5 trials for each of these firms that were covered by the media. You can find cases on the firm's news sites. Look at who the attorneys were doing opening, closing, and taking witnesses. They're high-level partners. You only hear about associates/counsels doing things in regards to pro bono matters. Then compare them with Plaintiff-side firms. You can easily fact-check my claims and see I'm entirely right.

My guess is you are either (a) a law student who doesn't know but thinks they do or (b) someone in a senior position at one of these boutiques. If the latter, I don't think you have to worry my post will hurt your recruiting that much. As I said, there are benefits to working at one of these firms, especially being involved in strategy and getting a lot of second-chair experience. But the hivemind on here isn't always right about what actually happens at these shops, because plaintiff-side is so different from defense-side.

“Please tell me where I’m wrong.”

Okay. It’s very common for associates at Kellogg and other boutiques to take depositions, solo, within their first year at the firm. And I know of associates there and at other boutiques that took witnesses at trials or arbitration hearings within their first year or soon after.

True, it’s somewhat the luck of the draw. An associate that gets staffed on a huge defense side litigation is unlikely to play a big role. Those teams are huge and the companies paying for the lawsuit expect the partners to contribute.

But associates get staffed on multiple matters, including much smaller defense side cases or plaintiff side cases where one young associate is pretty much expected to do everything and run the case. (And which are not necessarily “covered by the media,” although outcomes will typically appear in publications like law.com).

Your original post uses dumb language like “second chairing a deposition.” I don’t think anyone at a place like Kellogg would ever even use those words. It’s incredibly rare that two attorneys can even devote their time to a deposition at a place like Kellogg. It’s extremely routine to throw a young associate into a deposition and let them run it.

I’m not a law student or a senior at one of these firms. I am a junior associate at a boutique and have many colleagues at places like Kellogg. I don’t necessarily think you’re lying about your own experience at a boutique. I just think you either (a) worked at a boutique that operates much differently than a place like Kellogg, or (b) were a bad enough associate that partners quickly learned they could not trust you with substantive work, and probably gently pushed you out.

[Anonymous User]

How many litigation boutiques are working on TikTok v Garland? How many worked on Skrmetti?

[Anonymous User]

Curious about underrated DC boutiques?

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

Glad to see someone on TLS finally push back against the boutique myth. Boutiques are sort of "in" right now, but it's a fad more than anything. They're great places to work at the highest levels, but so is bigfed and the most elite biglaw firms (V2 mostly). TLS, let's stop pretending like boutiques don't have major disadvantages. How many litigation boutiques are working on TikTok v Garland? How many worked on Skrmetti? How many big name boutiques have gone under, declined, or split into two or more firms over the past decade? How many big name boutiques are secretly band 2 or 3 on Chambers? It's time to stop misleading 1Ls and give them a more accurate picture of practice at the highest levels.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about underrated DC boutiques?

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

This post is so laughably bad and wrong. If you’re interested in working at Wilkinson or Kellogg, please go talk to an actual associate at one of those firms and don’t listen to a word this guy said.

Once again, I was an associate at one of the boutiques being discussed here (though not necessarily one of those two). But please tell me where I'm wrong.

You know, their trials are high-profile enough that you can fact-check me. Go look at their last 4-5 trials for each of these firms that were covered by the media. You can find cases on the firm's news sites. Look at who the attorneys were doing opening, closing, and taking witnesses. They're high-level partners. You only hear about associates/counsels doing things in regards to pro bono matters. Then compare them with Plaintiff-side firms. You can easily fact-check my claims and see I'm entirely right.

My guess is you are either (a) a law student who doesn't know but thinks they do or (b) someone in a senior position at one of these boutiques. If the latter, I don't think you have to worry my post will hurt your recruiting that much. As I said, there are benefits to working at one of these firms, especially being involved in strategy and getting a lot of second-chair experience. But the hivemind on here isn't always right about what actually happens at these shops, because plaintiff-side is so different from defense-side.

I just want to say, thank you for being honest and brave enough to say the truth: TLS' kneejerk adulation of litigation boutiques is unwarranted. It's important that practitioners discuss the pluses and minuses of working at these types of firms honestly so that we don't unintentionally confuse impressionable 1Ls. The truth is that at the very most elite biglaw (think V2 NYC; Cov, Wilmer, GD in DC) offer the same array of top litigation opportunities (arguing motions, charing depos, cross examining witnesses, etc.), as well as homegrown corporate litigation that the smaller boutiques simply don't have the resources to provide. What TLS always fails to mention is that even the best boutiques, such as Susman, are going to trial (across all of Susman's offices) an average of only 3 times a year, and that the top biglaw litigation depts have small teams and a lot of depositions to do. And they do it without the risk, that boutiques have faced in recent years, of their firm splitting apart or a partner departure wrecking the practice (see Kaplan Hecker, Selendy Gay, Boies Schiller, etc.). Of course we're not saying boutiques are bad places to work, just that they have pluses and minuses, and that TLS over-inflates the former while completely ignoring the latter. Please do better!

[Anonymous User]

Curious about this as well.

Just go to Covington or Wilmer (preferably the former ofc) Boutiques are generally overrated and offer less name recognition, fewer connections/worse networking, and no better career experience than the top DC biglaw firms

This is bizarre advice. The top DC boutiques (Kellogg, Wilkinson, etc.) all offer much better early trial experience than big firms. At boutiques, it is not uncommon for associates to begin deposing witnesses or arguing in court within months of starting. At bigger firms, there are still senior associates who haven't taken a depo. Of course, that early responsibility also means long hours and stress. There are pros and cons to the boutique lifestyle.

The choice to single out Covington and Wilmer is also strange. Covington does mostly regulatory work, has no elite trial lawyers, and doesn't have much of an appeals group. Wilmer does less regulatory work and a notable appeals group but it similarly lacking in trial opportunities. For anyone seriously considering a litigation boutique, Williams & Connolly, Gibson, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss are all more obvious fits.

I'm a government attorney who worked at one of the well-known boutiques being discussed and my significant other worked at another. This reads to me like someone still in law school who doesn't know what they're talking about. It's pretty much BS. At Kellogg and Wilkinson, it is EXTREMELY uncommon for associates to first-chair depositions or get stand up experience in Court early, outside of pro-bono matters. Think about it logically. Defense-base trial boutiques are hired by massive companies that know they're going to trial and don't want to settle. They also charge a great deal more than the run of the mill Biglaw firm. If Google hires a firm like Kellogg/Wilkinson, they're paying the premium to have that premier attorney do the trials, not an associate.

It's true that at these firms, you're likely to second-chair a large number of depositions or do substantive work early. You'll also be in the room during strategy calls and calls with the client, which you might not be as a first and second-year at many big law firms (though there are exceptions). That said, standup experience for associates is non-existent or at least few and far between.

I don't know Wilmer as well, but you're 100% wrong about Covington. Covington has a pretty big trial practice, especially in products liability, class actions, and patent stuff. In fact, I would expect a mid-level associate to get more opportunities at a biglaw firm than a defense-based boutique, simply because a firm like Covington or Wilmer might have 300 cases going on at a time firm-wide, while a small boutique might have 10. More cases of various stakes means that if you seek out opportunities and prove yourself, you can get more experience. I have first-hand knowledge of this.

You are right that the hours are brutal. Trial boutiques are basically meat-grinders. They bring in new associates, make them work 2500+ hours (though 3000+ is not unheard of at some of these), and then when those associate burn out and leave, they bring in fresh blood. There's little upward mobility at those firms as well as the partnerships are small. And the stress is horrible, though it can be stressful at any biglaw firm.

I do agree that the firms you listed at the end do more trials, especially Williams and Connelly and Gibson Dunn.

It's pretty simple actually. If you want more early opportunities to be in the room and hear strategy and participate, but not standup experience, a couple years at a defense boutique can be great. If you want a bit more early-standup experience, you definitely want to be at a plaintiff-side boutique (though probably not Susman, their cases are high profile enough that it can be hard for juniors to stand up at trial, though you might first-chair depos early or argue discovery motions). If you want better training and more senior responsibilities, then a biglaw firm like Gibson, Williams, or Covington can be fantastic. And if you just want to be up in Court all the time, then law firms aren't for you, and you should be looking into work as an ADA or PD.

This post is so laughably bad and wrong. If you’re interested in working at Wilkinson or Kellogg, please go talk to an actual associate at one of those firms and don’t listen to a word this guy said.

Once again, I was an associate at one of the boutiques being discussed here (though not necessarily one of those two). But please tell me where I'm wrong.

You know, their trials are high-profile enough that you can fact-check me. Go look at their last 4-5 trials for each of these firms that were covered by the media. You can find cases on the firm's news sites. Look at who the attorneys were doing opening, closing, and taking witnesses. They're high-level partners. You only hear about associates/counsels doing things in regards to pro bono matters. Then compare them with Plaintiff-side firms. You can easily fact-check my claims and see I'm entirely right.

My guess is you are either (a) a law student who doesn't know but thinks they do or (b) someone in a senior position at one of these boutiques. If the latter, I don't think you have to worry my post will hurt your recruiting that much. As I said, there are benefits to working at one of these firms, especially being involved in strategy and getting a lot of second-chair experience. But the hivemind on here isn't always right about what actually happens at these shops, because plaintiff-side is so different from defense-side.

I just want to say, thank you for being honest and brave enough to say the truth: TLS' kneejerk adulation of litigation boutiques is unwarranted. It's important that practitioners discuss the pluses and minuses of working at these types of firms honestly so that we don't unintentionally confuse impressionable 1Ls. The truth is that at the very most elite biglaw (think V2 NYC; Cov, Wilmer, GD in DC) offer the same array of top litigation opportunities (arguing motions, charing depos, cross examining witnesses, etc.), as well as homegrown corporate litigation that the smaller boutiques simply don't have the resources to provide. What TLS always fails to mention is that even the best boutiques, such as Susman, are going to trial (across all of Susman's offices) an average of only 3 times a year, and that the top biglaw litigation depts have small teams and a lot of depositions to do. And they do it without the risk, that boutiques have faced in recent years, of their firm splitting apart or a partner departure wrecking the practice (see Kaplan Hecker, Selendy Gay, Boies Schiller, etc.). Of course we're not saying boutiques are bad places to work, just that they have pluses and minuses, and that TLS over-inflates the former while completely ignoring the latter. Please do better!

Without relitigating anything said in the last two posts (“V2” tells you everything you need to know, “impressionable 1Ls”), the top talent isn’t overwhelmingly going to boutiques for trial work based on TLS posts. Network with attorneys at the firm(s) you’re interested in to get the real inside scoop.

As for appellate work, some of the best attorneys are at biglaw firms. Some are at law school clinics. Some are at boutiques (and there are more appellate boutiques than just GW, C&K, C&M, CM, etc.). Many are in government, whether at the SG’s office or at agencies.

In short, find your own path and disregard the motivated trolls above.