Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:55 pm
Who is better for litigation?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=164041
Anonymous User wrote:This is a joke right? The question is analogous to asking, "What's better for M&A: Wachtell or Jones Day NY?".
Honestly, just posing this question implies you certainly don't have an offer from BSF.
Lolmarija wrote:Williams & Connolly
+1Grizz wrote:Lolmarija wrote:Williams & Connolly
I think this depends on what sort of exit options you want...Anonymous User wrote:I am also considering both of these firms for litigation. Does Cravath have better exit options even though Boies is considered a lit. boutique?
Anonymous User wrote:OCEANS RISE
CITIES FALL
QUINN REMAINS
Um, really? Check the latest chambers rankings for litigation. Not saying it's gospel, but the fact that clients and peers rate Cravath higher than BSF should tell you how ridiculous it is to say that this is an obvious choice. Not to mention David Boies first chairs pretty much every big matter BSF is on, so when he croaks the firm's profile will go way down.Anonymous User wrote:This is a joke right? The question is analogous to asking, "What's better for M&A: Wachtell or Jones Day NY?".
Honestly, just posing this question implies you certainly don't have an offer from BSF.
How many people think this is true? (DB croaking will lower the firm way down?)Anonymous User wrote:Um, really? Check the latest chambers rankings for litigation. Not saying it's gospel, but the fact that clients and peers rate Cravath higher than BSF should tell you how ridiculous it is to say that this is an obvious choice. Not to mention David Boies first chairs pretty much every big matter BSF is on, so when he croaks the firm's profile will go way down.Anonymous User wrote:This is a joke right? The question is analogous to asking, "What's better for M&A: Wachtell or Jones Day NY?".
Honestly, just posing this question implies you certainly don't have an offer from BSF.
OP, do you want a more boutique-ish atmosphere, or regular biglaw? Also, mix of work is different since BSF can sue banks whereas Cravath (and most other biglaw firms) can't.
Boise Schiller isn't a firm. It's David Boise and a bunch of people who work for him.Anonymous User wrote:How many people think this is true? (DB croaking will lower the firm way down?)Anonymous User wrote:Um, really? Check the latest chambers rankings for litigation. Not saying it's gospel, but the fact that clients and peers rate Cravath higher than BSF should tell you how ridiculous it is to say that this is an obvious choice. Not to mention David Boies first chairs pretty much every big matter BSF is on, so when he croaks the firm's profile will go way down.Anonymous User wrote:This is a joke right? The question is analogous to asking, "What's better for M&A: Wachtell or Jones Day NY?".
Honestly, just posing this question implies you certainly don't have an offer from BSF.
OP, do you want a more boutique-ish atmosphere, or regular biglaw? Also, mix of work is different since BSF can sue banks whereas Cravath (and most other biglaw firms) can't.
Seriously, this is not true.Renzo wrote:Boise Schiller isn't a firm. It's David Boise and a bunch of people who work for him.Anonymous User wrote:How many people think this is true? (DB croaking will lower the firm way down?)Anonymous User wrote:Um, really? Check the latest chambers rankings for litigation. Not saying it's gospel, but the fact that clients and peers rate Cravath higher than BSF should tell you how ridiculous it is to say that this is an obvious choice. Not to mention David Boies first chairs pretty much every big matter BSF is on, so when he croaks the firm's profile will go way down.Anonymous User wrote:This is a joke right? The question is analogous to asking, "What's better for M&A: Wachtell or Jones Day NY?".
Honestly, just posing this question implies you certainly don't have an offer from BSF.
OP, do you want a more boutique-ish atmosphere, or regular biglaw? Also, mix of work is different since BSF can sue banks whereas Cravath (and most other biglaw firms) can't.
Check you Superlawyers, or Chambers guide, or any other metric/list/ranking you like. Cravath, Paul Weiss, etc. have deep rosters of elite, highly regarded litigators. Meanwhile, no one knows the name of anyone who works for Boise Schiller except David Boise. He's the reason people hire BSF. Hell, clients have even sued BSF because they didn't think Boise was personally spending enough time on their cases.Anonymous User wrote:Seriously, this is not true.Renzo wrote:
Boise Schiller isn't a firm. It's David Boise and a bunch of people who work for him.
Grizz wrote:Anonymous User wrote:OCEANS RISE
CITIES FALL
QUINN REMAINS
15% is a ton, especially considering it's probably the most high-profile 15%. Having said that, this is probably a non-issue unless we think Boies is going to retire in the next five years or so, since that's about the length of time any of us are likely to still be working in a place like BSF.Anonymous User wrote:Hmm. According to DB, he only generates 15% of the business...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Highlights
Thank you for this worthless and entirely conclusory contribution.Anonymous User wrote:How is this seriously even a question? It's BSF without a doubt.
Yes, obviously it comes down to a matter of "personal choice." But If you put it in concrete terms, BSF beats out elite biglaw on the metrics that matter - above-market compensation, matters that biglaw firms simply cannot handle, substantive responsibility. I just don't see a reason why the personal choice in this comparison would cut in favor of biglaw for someone intent on litigation. Larger firms might offer the benefit of flexibility in assignments just by virtue of the scope of their practice, but obviously that's a non-factor with Cravath.Anonymous User wrote:Thank you for this worthless and entirely conclusory contribution.Anonymous User wrote:How is this seriously even a question? It's BSF without a doubt.
OP, I think the choice ultimately turns on whether you want to spend a substantial portion of your first few years after law school at a boutique or a large law firm. Cravath has its distinctive rotational system that may or may not be a good fit for you. Both firms will allow you to take on more responsibility earlier on than you likely would be able to at similarly well respected shops.
You certainly cannot go wrong with either firm though.
Outside of above market compensation, I don't quite see how there are any differences between top notch large law firm litigation and Boies Schiller.Anonymous User wrote:Yes, obviously it comes down to a matter of "personal choice." But If you put it in concrete terms, BSF beats out elite biglaw on the metrics that matter - above-market compensation, matters that biglaw firms simply cannot handle, substantive responsibility. I just don't see a reason why the personal choice in this comparison would cut in favor of biglaw for someone intent on litigation. Larger firms might offer the benefit of flexibility in assignments just by virtue of the scope of their practice, but obviously that's a non-factor with Cravath.Anonymous User wrote:Thank you for this worthless and entirely conclusory contribution.Anonymous User wrote:How is this seriously even a question? It's BSF without a doubt.
OP, I think the choice ultimately turns on whether you want to spend a substantial portion of your first few years after law school at a boutique or a large law firm. Cravath has its distinctive rotational system that may or may not be a good fit for you. Both firms will allow you to take on more responsibility earlier on than you likely would be able to at similarly well respected shops.
You certainly cannot go wrong with either firm though.