Boies or W & C Forum

[Anonymous User]

If you had to choose - what are the pros and cons?

[270910]

Boies Schiller has ~35 equity partners and ~260 attorneys

W&C has ~110 equity partners and ~260 attorneys

I'm not sure more need be said, really.

[Anonymous User]

Two entirely different types of offices and cultures.

Both pay above market, but Boies hour driven (2000+) v W&C "no hours requirement".

Boies is somewhat dependent on Boies name to generate business- who knows what happens if something happens to him.

Boies office in DC MUCH smaller, and not as well located as W&C.

Practices different- Boies more agressive, big $ cases- W&C much more inside the beltway white collar type of practice.

W&C well reviewed by associates/ Boies not so much.

W&C stable through downturn, clerk based intellectual culture.

Boies- growing like crazy- $ driven.

Anyone else care to comment?

[Anonymous User]

W&C by a long shot, in my opinion, but here is what I know:

1) BSF regularly no offers their summer associates. It's not a function of the economy.
2) W&C, from what I know, doesn't give many permanent offers. I hear it's because they expect most of their SAs to clerk, and that it's easy for clerks to return after their clerkship is over.
3) BSF rarely promotes people to equity partner. This might limit your upward potential at the firm, if you want to stay.
4) Exit options are better at W&C.
5) BSF is far more eat-what-you-kill.
6) (and this is where I could be extremely mistaken, so keep this in mind): BSF's work, while more profitable, is usually plaintiffs. In terms of stability for a large litigation firm, I'd prefer to work at a firm whose dominant client base is defense. Such a base is more stable and provides a consistent source of income. There's a reason why BSF and quinn's PPPs are off the charts. When you win a plaintiff's case, you win big. But... the plaintiffs aren't usually the sort of clients who constitute repeat customers.



Not sure why disco-barred raised the leverage factor. While, all things being equal, higher leverage is bad, it's not the end all of be all of factors. BSF is a very disciplined shop. They have no qualms about letting people go when their time is due, and they're constantly pruning the ranks.

[Anonymous User]

But W & C is not in New York - so if you want to work in NY...

[Anonymous User]

Well - if you want to work in New York, Boies may be the closest you get to W & C. Thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

Assuming you want lit, all the big 'boies' (couldn't help myself there) are in Armonk -- which doesn't exactly have the same pull as the big apple.

Oh, and W&C by a mile.

[BruceWayne]

Well - if you want to work in New York, Boies may be the closest you get to W & C. Thoughts?

Well just so you are aware of all the options, there is Patterson Belknap.

[underdawg]

if you're in it for short term $$ (i.e. to leave for in-house, etc.), BSF. W&C has no bonuses right? BSF pays slightly above market salary (in between market and W&C) and above market bonuses. from everything i hear, it's where you can make the most $$ as an associate this side of WLRK.

but yeah, BSF regularly no-offers regardless of the economy. i thought most of their heavy hitters are in the NYC office though (despite david boies of course)

[Anonymous User]

If you are seriously facing this choice I think the main thing, even over location preferences if you aren't tied to either DC or NYC, is that BSF and W&C are very different firms. Their firm structure is different, their growth plans are different, their styles (for lack of a better word) are different, the type of cases they handle are different, their strongest areas of litigation are different (probably government representation/white collar for W&C, antitrust for Boies), etc. They're both outstanding firms for a litigator, this comes down to fit for you if you're actually looking at this decision. I would go against the consensus on this board and pick BSF, but that's just me, and this should be you looking at which firm you think you would fit best with.

And, on a side note, I would agree that Jonathan Schiller and Don Flexner alone being in the NYC office pretty strongly counters the assertion that Armonk is where all of their heavy hitters are.

[MarkTwain]

.

[Anonymous User]

What do you know about the dc office? Similar work? Similar pay? Similar hours?

[Anonymous User]

Why aren't you considering Quinn? The associate grind sucks - as it does with all of these firms - but the partner PPPs are outstanding and their roster of top litigators is on average, arguably, stronger than BSF. They are also more established than the latter, and you don't have to worry about what happens to the firm after the big name partner is done. And on a personal level, I liked the culture better than either W&C or Boies after visiting.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know much about the DC office, but, regarding hours, I will say that the firm's average is NOT worse than peer firms (from what I can tell--I had substantial interaction with all of the NYC associates). Boies does not kill its associates. In fact, the NYC associates were pretty happy.

Regarding PPP and equity partner/associate ratios, I'll simply say that this shouldn't even be a consideration unless you're POSITIVE you want to be a partner. Otherwise, you might end up working somewhere like Quinn and working the same hours for FAR less money.

I was very happy with my experience, and I'll be going back.

[chup]

I don't know much about the DC office, but, regarding hours, I will say that the firm's average is NOT worse than peer firms (from what I can tell--I had substantial interaction with all of the NYC associates). Boies does not kill its associates. In fact, the NYC associates were pretty happy.

Regarding PPP and equity partner/associate ratios, I'll simply say that this shouldn't even be a consideration unless you're POSITIVE you want to be a partner. Otherwise, you might end up working somewhere like Quinn and working the same hours for FAR less money.

I was very happy with my experience, and I'll be going back.

I saw that.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

Regarding PPP and equity partner/associate ratios, I'll simply say that this shouldn't even be a consideration unless you're POSITIVE you want to be a partner.

I think equity partner/associate ratio matters. All things being equal, your job as an associate is not as secure at a firm with high leverage as an associate at a firm with low leverage.

I generally agree, but I've never heard of ANYONE getting laid off or pushed out at Boies. Also, I understand why some might want to go with a firm that's been around longer. I just wanted to stop in and dispel some myths.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

Associates really don't get pushed out. Some make equity partner, others make non-equity partner. Both make a lot of money, though the former make more. I will also note that figures you'll hear regarding ratios of equity/non-equity partnership are all speculation. Almost nobody at the firm knows who is equity.

Most associates who don't stick around simply choose to leave for government (SG, DOJ, etc.), in-house, or other unique opportunities. People should realize by now that MOST Law Firm associates (regardless of firm) do not go into it with a partner-or-bust mentality. Most go into it wide-eyed and willing to consider numerous paths.

The associates at Boies were very frank with me during the summer, and I never met one who was unhappy or concerned about his/her long-term future at the firm.

[270910]

Associates really don't get pushed out. Some make equity partner, others make non-equity partner. Both make a lot of money, though the former make more. I will also note that figures you'll hear regarding ratios of equity/non-equity partnership are all speculation. Almost nobody at the firm knows who is equity.

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... 2448485135

The American Lawyer seems pretty certain that BS has 34 equity partners and 240 attorneys.

Not questioning anything else you say at all, but I think the number can at least be pinned down.

[dbt]

If you're not strongly leaning toward DC or NY, in my opinion W&C is far more prestigious and selective than Boies and you should choose it for that reason (at least).

[270910]

If you're not strongly leaning toward DC or NY, in my opinion W&C is far more prestigious and selective than Boies and you should choose it for that reason (at least).

Why in God's name would the selectivity of a firm make it desirable? I mean, it may or may not be indicative of other things - but choosing a firm (or anything for that matter) just because it's hard to get is a horrible fucking idea.

As for "prestige" I don't really see that being worth that much either. One law student, offered at W&C and Boies Schiller in DC, will stand to make a hell of a lot more money with Boies. How prestigious they feel while earn wheelbarrows full of money isn't really going to make a difference, and "exit options" are too amorphous and long term to be that big of a factor when you're in that narrow band of prestige.

Intangibles, like desire to be involved in the political/white collar environment you find at W&C, vibe you get from the attorneys, location, etc, etc, etc. definitely matter. But I don't really see how "prestige" or "selectivity" matter when you're in as narrow of a space as Boies Schiller and Williams & Connolly.

[dbt]

If you're not strongly leaning toward DC or NY, in my opinion W&C is far more prestigious and selective than Boies and you should choose it for that reason (at least).

Why in God's name would the selectivity of a firm make it desirable? I mean, it may or may not be indicative of other things - but choosing a firm (or anything for that matter) just because it's hard to get is a horrible fucking idea.

As for "prestige" I don't really see that being worth that much either. One law student, offered at W&C and Boies Schiller in DC, will stand to make a hell of a lot more money with Boies. How prestigious they feel while earn wheelbarrows full of money isn't really going to make a difference, and "exit options" are too amorphous and long term to be that big of a factor when you're in that narrow band of prestige.

Intangibles, like desire to be involved in the political/white collar environment you find at W&C, vibe you get from the attorneys, location, etc, etc, etc. definitely matter. But I don't really see how "prestige" or "selectivity" matter when you're in as narrow of a space as Boies Schiller and Williams & Connolly.

I don't think the space between Boies and W&C is "narrow" at all. W&C is probably the most selective firm (aside from boutiques that are basically unavailable to fresh grads). Selectivity and prestige matter because, just like virtually everything else in law, they serve as another gold star. Except in W&C's case, it's a platinum star. To have W&C on your resume for 2L summer (and after graduation) is a big deal and signal to employers that other highly respected attorneys had faith in your abilities.

And if we're comparing Boies and W&C the argument is even simpler to make since both are heavily focused on litigation, but few would argue that Boies is better for litigation than W&C. W&C is probably the preeminent litigation firm in the nation.

[Anonymous User]

But isn't that missing the point of NY v. DC that we were discussing?

[yellowjacket2012]

Winning trials and then appeals is the name of the game, not going to Yale and being EIC of law review or being the #1 law student.

Focusing completely on who law firms RECRUIT - as opposed to their trial/appellate success - is not a very sensible approach. That's a great approach to measure the POTENTIAL of an incoming CLASS - but not really a great way to measure the "prestige" - or whatever weird metric you're using - to gauge a law firm.

Sounds like you've got some serious prestigeitis. A better argument to say that W&C > whatever other firm is to compare the law firm's work. You sound a lot like the guy who would trump up a particular hedge fund called LTCM, look it up. LTCM had tons of Nobel laureates etc., but you wouldn't wanna invest a dollar with that piece of crap hedge fund.

I'm sure W&C is a great litigation powerhouse etc, and better than whatever other firm was the comparator, but look at their results - thats a better argument than who their first year associates are.