Top Law Schools

I'm trying to decide among these three firms. I know I want to do litigation and don't want a firm where all the litigation work is derived from the corporate side. Which firm will offer me the best chance to do litigation work for real litigation clients?

I'm thinking Kasowitz, but Kirkland has an amazing shop and it's hard not to be a little bit of a slave to rankings.

I'd also love to hear thoughts on other firms that fit this mold well (but Boies said no, so please spare me that one)

I'm not asking about "early substantive work" or "work/life balance" -- I know these also vary a little among the firms listed, but that's not a part of the current decision calculus.

umm, is Quinn not an option either I take it??

facetious wrote:umm, is Quinn not an option either I take it??

From OP: Nope, I (or more accurately they) have narrowed it down to these three

I assume you mean you want to do plaintiff's work, because otherwise this question doesn't make one lick of sense (100% of big-name litigation shops either sue or defend corporations).

With that assumption, Kasowitz is the only firm on you list that does plaintiff's work, so there you go.

Renzo wrote:I assume you mean you want to do plaintiff's work, because otherwise this question doesn't make one lick of sense (100% of big-name litigation shops either sue or defend corporations).

With that assumption, Kasowitz is the only firm on you list that does plaintiff's work, so there you go.

I don't think this is what the OP meant. Obviously all of the firms deal with corporations; the OP's goal is probably to be involved in litigation that isn't simply to serve clients brought in by transactional attorneys. I'm strongly considering K&E and Boies over other big firms for this reason--the litigation dept is independent and strong and brings in its own exciting work. Work-life balance is, of course, nonexistent at both firms...

Plenty of other firms have strong litigation not driven by the transactional side: Cravath, GDC, Covington, Sidley, Skadden, etc.

vamedic03 wrote:Plenty of other firms have strong litigation not driven by the transactional side: Cravath, GDC, Covington, Sidley, Skadden, etc.

OP is probably sitting on offers from the ones in the poll, though.

clintonius wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:Plenty of other firms have strong litigation not driven by the transactional side: Cravath, GDC, Covington, Sidley, Skadden, etc.

OP is probably sitting on offers from the ones in the poll, though.

OP here -- judging from the poll results, people definitely prefer "you suck" than the actual options I have.

However, I tend to agree that JD isn't the right choice (I had the least favorable vibe there)

And credited is the reply by poster who said that it wasn't just about plaintiff work, but a litigation shop that generated its own business. Throw another wrinkle in: Better USAO exit options? The pedigree of KE or the actual trial experience that a firm like KBTF will potentially provide more of, earlier? (No comments about how I didn't get hired at DPW either, please)

Anonymous User wrote:

clintonius wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:Plenty of other firms have strong litigation not driven by the transactional side: Cravath, GDC, Covington, Sidley, Skadden, etc.

OP is probably sitting on offers from the ones in the poll, though.

OP here -- judging from the poll results, people definitely prefer "you suck" than the actual options I have.

However, I tend to agree that JD isn't the right choice (I had the least favorable vibe there)

And credited is the reply by poster who said that it wasn't just about plaintiff work, but a litigation shop that generated its own business. Throw another wrinkle in: Better USAO exit options? The pedigree of KE or the actual trial experience that a firm like KBTF will potentially provide more of, earlier? (No comments about how I didn't get hired at DPW either, please)

Real litigators go to Boies, duh.

As far as USAO exit options, the most I know to say is that they probably want you to have as much trial experience as possible, and I'd guess they would want you to be able to manage cases, to. Wherever you think you'll get the most hands-on experience would be best -- so I guess Kasowitz, in this case.

i'd take K&E in any city that's not NYC, in which case i'd take kasowitz

I'm not sure Kasowitz associates get more hands-on experience in litigation as compared to K&E and Jones Day.

If you're looking for firms who have litigation departments that source their own work, K&E and Kasowitz are easily your best bets. Realize, though, that since K&E has huge corporate and bankruptcy practices, there's going to be a lot of work sourced from those groups in addition to independent litigation projects. I personally find that a little comforting. If work is slow in terms of litigation work just not coming in, you can always assist in litigation arising from other groups.

Kasowitz is also a great place, though. I don't think you're really losing anything in terms of your actual work experience by taking their offer. You might be losing some prestige, though. But since litigators have terrible exit options to begin with, I'm not sure what prestige counts for these days.

And don't be bummed for missing out on Boies. People like to idolize them, but I knew I didn't want to work for them right after my callback. Just a terrible place to work (not necessarily for everyone, but just for me). The firm has a partners floor and an associates floor, for example. I just find that bewildering.

There are tons of firms with litigators that generate their own business. All of those are among them. All of them do very different kinds of work, which is probably what you should really focus on.

Fresh Prince wrote:And don't be bummed for missing out on Boies. People like to idolize them, but I knew I didn't want to work for them right after my callback. Just a terrible place to work (not necessarily for everyone, but just for me). The firm has a partners floor and an associates floor, for example. I just find that bewildering.

Interesting you say that. I interviewed for a paralegal job at BSF several years ago and was treated like shit. Not in a "stress interview" kind of way, but in a "you're beneath contempt" kind of way. I had a few paralegal interviews at other biglaw firms and Boies' bad attitude was a clear outlier. Hard to say if it was an isolated incident, but it left a really bad taste in my mouth. I wouldn't want to work in an office where they act as poorly and unprofessionally toward anyone as BSF's HR people did toward me.