Top Law Schools

I'm clerking next year for a prestigious 2/9/DC COA judge. I worked this past summer at a large law firm and definitely don't want to go back. I'm hoping to translate this clerkship into a more desirable firm job. I was hoping to get a good breakdown on some of the lit boutiques. I want to go general trial litigation so I really am not looking for appellate shops in DC.

Does anyone know how much the top litigation boutiques pay?

I'm mainly looking at (1) Susman Godfrey (2) Bartlit Beck (3) Kellogg Huber (4) Robbins Russell (5) Keker & Van Nest

Are there any other places I should look at?

Not strictly speaking a litigation "boutique" but I would definitely be looking at Williams & Connolly. Maybe not as prestigious as some on your list, but still really great litigation firms include Munger Tolles, Irell (if interested in IP work), and Boies Schiller. There are others that are more specialized (such as Morvillo Abramowitz for white collar work).

Anonymous User wrote:Not strictly speaking a litigation "boutique" but I would definitely be looking at Williams & Connolly. Maybe not as prestigious as some on your list, but still really great litigation firms include Munger Tolles, Irell (if interested in IP work), and Boies Schiller. There are others that are more specialized (such as Morvillo Abramowitz for white collar work).

Is Boies really considered a boutique?

quinn emanuel (tho by certain def, it might not qualify as a "boutique")

Anonymous User wrote:quinn emanuel (tho by certain def, it might not qualify as a "boutique")

+1 on this-- they are basically a large boutique and absolutely dominate the cases they work.

Susman guys told me: "They used to be us, I have no idea how in the world they grew so fast or effectively."

"They used to be us, I have no idea how in the world they grew so fast or effectively."

Aggressively lateraling in rainmaking partners.

absolutely dominate the cases they work.

They lose cases too. Many of them. You just don't read about the losses on John Quinn's twitter.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm mainly looking at (1) Susman Godfrey (2) Bartlit Beck (3) Kellogg Huber (4) Robbins Russell (5) Keker & Van Nest

Are there any other places I should look at?

Once you're batting at that level, I think it's hard to "rank" by any objective measure. More than anything, your decision should be guided by where you want to live and what type of stuff you want to work on.

Fresh Prince wrote:

"They used to be us, I have no idea how in the world they grew so fast or effectively."

Aggressively lateraling in rainmaking partners.

absolutely dominate the cases they work.

They lose cases too. Many of them. You just don't read about the losses on John Quinn's twitter.

From the quinn website -
"As of May 2011, our partners have tried 624 jury cases to verdict, winning 555 or 88.9%. They have also won 409 out of 434 bench trials, and 258 out of 281 arbitrations. The combined record for all trials and arbitrations is 1222 wins out of 1339 or 91.3%."

I guess technically they lose many cases, but even if u win 99% percent of the time, after 100,000 cases, you'll have lost 1000. everything is relative.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm mainly looking at (1) Susman Godfrey (2) Bartlit Beck (3) Kellogg Huber (4) Robbins Russell (5) Keker & Van Nest

Are there any other places I should look at?

Once you're batting at that level, I think it's hard to "rank" by any objective measure. More than anything, your decision should be guided by where you want to live and what type of stuff you want to work on.

does anyone know if there is any significant pay difference between these firms?

I know Susman pays big bonuses that dwarf the Cravath scale. But what about the others?

If you're not interested in appellate, why is Robbins Russell on your list?

Anonymous User wrote:

Fresh Prince wrote:

"They used to be us, I have no idea how in the world they grew so fast or effectively."

Aggressively lateraling in rainmaking partners.

absolutely dominate the cases they work.

They lose cases too. Many of them. You just don't read about the losses on John Quinn's twitter.

From the quinn website -
"As of May 2011, our partners have tried 624 jury cases to verdict, winning 555 or 88.9%. They have also won 409 out of 434 bench trials, and 258 out of 281 arbitrations. The combined record for all trials and arbitrations is 1222 wins out of 1339 or 91.3%."

I guess technically they lose many cases, but even if u win 99% percent of the time, after 100,000 cases, you'll have lost 1000. everything is relative.

FYI, those stats include cases tried by partners before coming to Quinn (e.g. when they were AUSAs). Quinn wins a lot of cases, but not as many as those stats would suggest.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:I do not think it makes sense to "rank" these firms. They are all great options, but they also are different in important respects, such as practice portfolio and location. OP surely has some preferences on those points, so it would make sense to order them according to those preferences.

I'm interested in getting as much trial work as possible. Also getting paid alot for it would help. Its kinda easy to get financial info for the biglaw firms, but I've had a hard time finding what compensation is like at most of these boutiques.

tengorazon wrote:If you're not interested in appellate, why is Robbins Russell on your list?

I thought they also did great trial work?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm mainly looking at (1) Susman Godfrey (2) Bartlit Beck (3) Kellogg Huber (4) Robbins Russell (5) Keker & Van Nest

Are there any other places I should look at?

Once you're batting at that level, I think it's hard to "rank" by any objective measure. More than anything, your decision should be guided by where you want to live and what type of stuff you want to work on.

does anyone know if there is any significant pay difference between these firms?

I know Susman pays big bonuses that dwarf the Cravath scale. But what about the others?

Thought I heard Boies had one of the best bonus structures for young associates as of 2010/2011. Or were we excluding Boies as a litigation boutique?

You can't exclude Boies as a trial boutique. They are one of the best. That said, they are larger then some more traditional boutiques.

Anonymous User wrote:

tengorazon wrote:If you're not interested in appellate, why is Robbins Russell on your list?

I thought they also did great trial work?

News to me. I personally would go with Keker or Kellogg Huber of the ones you named. Would throw Williams & Connolly into the mix as well.

tengorazon wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

tengorazon wrote:If you're not interested in appellate, why is Robbins Russell on your list?

I thought they also did great trial work?

News to me. I personally would go with Keker or Kellogg Huber of the ones you named. Would throw Williams & Connolly into the mix as well.

Any particular reasons you prefer Kellogg or Keker over places like Susman and Bartlit Beck?

Susman has the reputation for being a sweatshop. Bartlit Beck is probably fine; I just don't see a reason to choose them over the others, unless you want to be in Chicago.

$125,000 signing bonus at Kellogg Huber. The hours there are apparently just as long as you would expect to find at Bartlit, Susman, etc.

Bartlit Beck is probably fine; I just don't see a reason to choose them over the others, unless you want to be in Chicago.

The chance to work with arguably the best trial lawyer still alive? Bartlit is of the Tom Barr era. Yes, he's that old school.

Fresh Prince wrote:

Bartlit Beck is probably fine; I just don't see a reason to choose them over the others, unless you want to be in Chicago.

The chance to work with arguably the best trial lawyer still alive? Bartlit is of the Tom Barr era. Yes, he's that old school.

Meh, all of the top lit shops have "legends." See David Boies, Brendan Sullivan, etc.

tengorazon wrote:

Fresh Prince wrote:

Bartlit Beck is probably fine; I just don't see a reason to choose them over the others, unless you want to be in Chicago.

The chance to work with arguably the best trial lawyer still alive? Bartlit is of the Tom Barr era. Yes, he's that old school.

Meh, all of the top lit shops have "legends." See David Boies, Brendan Sullivan, etc.

lol Bartlit is better than all of them. David Boies was Barr's protege.

ITT: bunch of creepy people who spend too much time on the internets looking up lawyers.
Its just lawyers guys. Let's not forget how unprestigious/distasteful the law profession is outside of the stupid bubble.
Also, in the grand scheme of the economy, don't forget what an insignificant and pathetic role big law litigators play.
Everyone knows what a Goldman Sachs is. Nobody knwos what a "Williams and Connolly" is. The average Wachtell lawyer will never have wealth, but he WILL be rich with just a horrendous hell of a life. He won't be able to buy a mansion, but he'll sure as heck have a nanny for kids who will never see him bec the ex got custody.

Legal profession is viewed from the outside as a bunch of risk-averse definitionally unethical anti-entrepreneurs who entered the profession because they don't know how to do anything else, and who spend their lives adding to costs of production for the most part.

Hey maybe that's why law is infected with the prestige disease - its the one way they can convince themselves their profession actually means something. They're really the bottom rung of the upper middle class with a structural ceiling that is basically unbreakable because it is a service profession.

^ cool story huh bro? =)

jb9 wrote:ITT: bunch of creepy people who spend too much time on the internets looking up lawyers.
Its just lawyers guys. Let's not forget how unprestigious/distasteful the law profession is outside of the stupid bubble.
Also, in the grand scheme of the economy, don't forget what an insignificant and pathetic role big law litigators play.
Everyone knows what a Goldman Sachs is. Nobody knwos what a "Williams and Connolly" is. The average Wachtell lawyer will never have wealth, but he WILL be rich with just a horrendous hell of a life. He won't be able to buy a mansion, but he'll sure as heck have a nanny for kids who will never see him bec the ex got custody.

Legal profession is viewed from the outside as a bunch of risk-averse definitionally unethical anti-entrepreneurs who entered the profession because they don't know how to do anything else, and who spend their lives adding to costs of production for the most part.

Hey maybe that's why law is infected with the prestige disease - its the one way they can convince themselves their profession actually means something. They're really the bottom rung of the upper middle class with a structural ceiling that is basically unbreakable because it is a service profession.

^ cool story huh bro? =)

Agree, now think of it.

Was an outsider just a year ago, and found that the only attractive part of the whole profession was the STARTING salary.

Will get an MBA from H/S/P after 2-3 years of biglaw. Then I will be golden.

jb9 wrote:ITT: bunch of creepy people who spend too much time on the internets looking up lawyers.
Its just lawyers guys. Let's not forget how unprestigious/distasteful the law profession is outside of the stupid bubble.
Also, in the grand scheme of the economy, don't forget what an insignificant and pathetic role big law litigators play.
Everyone knows what a Goldman Sachs is. Nobody knwos what a "Williams and Connolly" is. The average Wachtell lawyer will never have wealth, but he WILL be rich with just a horrendous hell of a life. He won't be able to buy a mansion, but he'll sure as heck have a nanny for kids who will never see him bec the ex got custody.

Legal profession is viewed from the outside as a bunch of risk-averse definitionally unethical anti-entrepreneurs who entered the profession because they don't know how to do anything else, and who spend their lives adding to costs of production for the most part.

Hey maybe that's why law is infected with the prestige disease - its the one way they can convince themselves their profession actually means something. They're really the bottom rung of the upper middle class with a structural ceiling that is basically unbreakable because it is a service profession.

^ cool story huh bro? =)

the only thing I might add to this balanced analysis is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee925OTFBCA