Plaintiff's Side Antitrust Firms Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on starting out at one of these? I have a chance to work at a couple of the firms listed below, but don't know if I should take it. My end goal's either making partner or doing federal agency work.

Are they typically places that people would recommend transferring to, after putting in a couple years at a big firm?

Curious in particular about Labaton Sucharow, Berger & Montague, Boies Schiller in Oakland, Lieff Cabraser, and Altschuler Berzon. Information on any of those firms'd be invaluable.

Thanks!

[Lexaholik]

Any thoughts on starting out at one of these? I have a chance to work at a couple of the firms listed below, but don't know if I should take it. My end goal's either making partner or doing federal agency work.

Are they typically places that people would recommend transferring to, after putting in a couple years at a big firm?

Curious in particular about Labaton Sucharow, Berger & Montague, Boies Schiller in Oakland, Lieff Cabraser, and Altschuler Berzon. Information on any of those firms'd be invaluable.

Thanks!

I do this type of work. What do you mean by federal agency work? Do you mean DOJ antitrust?

The firms you listed are generally well regarded. (Labaton seems to be more of a securities type firm, and I'm not as familiar with Berger & Montague) Whether you or not you should start at one of these types of places (as opposed to biglaw) depends on your financial situation and how comfortable you are with closing doors.

[JCougar]

Any thoughts on starting out at one of these? I have a chance to work at a couple of the firms listed below, but don't know if I should take it. My end goal's either making partner or doing federal agency work.

Are they typically places that people would recommend transferring to, after putting in a couple years at a big firm?

Curious in particular about Labaton Sucharow, Berger & Montague, Boies Schiller in Oakland, Lieff Cabraser, and Altschuler Berzon. Information on any of those firms'd be invaluable.

Thanks!

Those are all good firms, and after a few years, I believe the pay is relatively competitive with Biglaw, but I could be wrong. I thought I remember seeing LCHB paying something like $145K for an associate-level position, but I can't remember how many years of experience they wanted.

People bouncing between these firms and FedGov seems pretty common from what I've seen.

Some are more selective than others. Altschuler pretty much only hires from the T6. I know Harvard people that couldn't get an interview there, so if you think you have the opportunity to work there, you're in pretty good shape. But yet people from my T20 are working at Labaton right now.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know if that's true of Altshuler. A Boalt grad in my office worked there before coming to our current employer.

[JCougar]

I don't know if that's true of Altshuler. A Boalt grad in my office worked there before coming to our current employer.

You can look at their website right now. There's only four people there outside of T6 schools. One graduated from Georgetown in like 1980 and was a Supreme Court clerk for Brennan. Another went to Howard, was a DC Circuit fedclerk, and founded and directed her own non-profit for a while.

The other two did go to Boalt, but they were both Federal Appeals court clerks and law review editors. One also seems to have edited some books on his area of legal practice and also booked like 4 different classes while at Boalt. Both graduated from law school in the early '90s.

Even within the T6, their lawyers are heavily dominated by HYS, and the people from H were all on law review. And most of these HYS people also went to Ivy or near-Ivy undergrads.

But I concede Boalt gives you an outside shot.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know if that's true of Altshuler. A Boalt grad in my office worked there before coming to our current employer.

You can look at their website right now. There's only four people there outside of T6 schools. One graduated from Georgetown in like 1980 and was a Supreme Court clerk for Brennan. Another went to Howard, was a DC Circuit fedclerk, and founded and directed her own non-profit for a while.

The other two did go to Boalt, but they were both Federal Appeals court clerks and law review editors. One also seems to have edited some books on his area of legal practice and also booked like 4 different classes while at Boalt. Both graduated from law school in the early '90s.

Even within the T6, their lawyers are heavily dominated by HYS, and the people from H were all on law review. And most of these HYS people also went to Ivy or near-Ivy undergrads.

But I concede Boalt gives you an outside shot.

Agree that Altschuler Berzon is a notch above the others on this list. After them, I would say it goes Boies Schiller > Lieff Cabraser > Berger & Montague = Labaton Sucharow. I am pretty sure Boies is much bigger than every other firm listed.

[Anonymous User]

If your looking for that BigLaw money, Quinn also does Plaintiffs' anti-trust

[Anonymous User]

I don't know if that's true of Altshuler. A Boalt grad in my office worked there before coming to our current employer.

You can look at their website right now. There's only four people there outside of T6 schools. One graduated from Georgetown in like 1980 and was a Supreme Court clerk for Brennan. Another went to Howard, was a DC Circuit fedclerk, and founded and directed her own non-profit for a while.

The other two did go to Boalt, but they were both Federal Appeals court clerks and law review editors. One also seems to have edited some books on his area of legal practice and also booked like 4 different classes while at Boalt. Both graduated from law school in the early '90s.

Even within the T6, their lawyers are heavily dominated by HYS, and the people from H were all on law review. And most of these HYS people also went to Ivy or near-Ivy undergrads.

But I concede Boalt gives you an outside shot.

Agree that Altschuler Berzon is a notch above the others on this list. After them, I would say it goes Boies Schiller > Lieff Cabraser > Berger & Montague = Labaton Sucharow. I am pretty sure Boies is much bigger than every other firm listed.

Thanks for all this, everyone.

I have the credentials (at least after 1L) to at least try to tackle these firms and/or clerk on a competitive court. Looking at Altschuler's website, the past summer associate choices are ridiculously talented, but I may as well try there and see what happens. Same for Susman, Kellogg, and so on...

With a goal of working plaintiff-side eventually, at what firm do you draw the line and say it's better to do defense-side first? Does that change if I secured Altschuler or Boies versus Lieff, and if I didn't secure either of those there (and there's a always a more than sizable chance of that happening), do you think it's better to work defense-side for a couple years to build some skills and earn some money?

[mw115]

Altschuler does almost no antitrust work btw. For plaintiff-only antitrust firms, Lieff Cabraser is #1.

And if your goal is truly plaintiff's work, then working at any plaintiff's firm that regularly handles antitrust class actions is better than defense work.

[JCougar]

And if you're goal is truly plaintiff's work, then working at any plaintiff's firm that regularly handles antitrust class actions is better than defense work.

This is very true. These firms have their pick of the litter, and would value both Government and even PI (even if unpaid volunteer) over Biglaw experience. There's a huge premium on public service-related experience at these places. If you want to work at these firms, taking a Biglaw SA your 2L summer is not a good idea.

At the same time, having one of these firms on your resume might be a net-negative if you want to transfer to Biglaw, but that's less certain. Civil rights and stuff like this can get kind of ideological, and people don't like to hire from the other side. You will find exceptions to this, but the fact that you have to pick a side probably before your 2L summer is the general rule.

If you're truly not sure which direction you want to go, try and do government first. It's seen as an ideological no-man's land (even though government is usually plaintiff-side) and as a very good training ground.

[Lexaholik]

And if you're goal is truly plaintiff's work, then working at any plaintiff's firm that regularly handles antitrust class actions is better than defense work.

This is very true. These firms have their pick of the litter, and would value both Government and even PI (even if unpaid volunteer) over Biglaw experience. There's a huge premium on public service-related experience at these places. If you want to work at these firms, taking a Biglaw SA your 2L summer is not a good idea.

At the same time, having one of these firms on your resume might be a net-negative if you want to transfer to Biglaw, but that's less certain. Civil rights and stuff like this can get kind of ideological, and people don't like to hire from the other side. You will find exceptions to this, but the fact that you have to pick a side probably before your 2L summer is the general rule.

If you're truly not sure which direction you want to go, try and do government first. It's seen as an ideological no-man's land (even though government is usually plaintiff-side) and as a very good training ground.

Disagree. This may be true of Altshuler Berzon and other public-interest/civil rights minded plaintiffs firms (there are many in the SF Bay Area) but definitely not true of other plaintiff's side antitrust firms.

[Lexaholik]

I don't know if that's true of Altshuler. A Boalt grad in my office worked there before coming to our current employer.

You can look at their website right now. There's only four people there outside of T6 schools. One graduated from Georgetown in like 1980 and was a Supreme Court clerk for Brennan. Another went to Howard, was a DC Circuit fedclerk, and founded and directed her own non-profit for a while.

The other two did go to Boalt, but they were both Federal Appeals court clerks and law review editors. One also seems to have edited some books on his area of legal practice and also booked like 4 different classes while at Boalt. Both graduated from law school in the early '90s.

Even within the T6, their lawyers are heavily dominated by HYS, and the people from H were all on law review. And most of these HYS people also went to Ivy or near-Ivy undergrads.

But I concede Boalt gives you an outside shot.

Agree that Altschuler Berzon is a notch above the others on this list. After them, I would say it goes Boies Schiller > Lieff Cabraser > Berger & Montague = Labaton Sucharow. I am pretty sure Boies is much bigger than every other firm listed.

Thanks for all this, everyone.

I have the credentials (at least after 1L) to at least try to tackle these firms and/or clerk on a competitive court. Looking at Altschuler's website, the past summer associate choices are ridiculously talented, but I may as well try there and see what happens. Same for Susman, Kellogg, and so on...

With a goal of working plaintiff-side eventually, at what firm do you draw the line and say it's better to do defense-side first? Does that change if I secured Altschuler or Boies versus Lieff, and if I didn't secure either of those there (and there's a always a more than sizable chance of that happening), do you think it's better to work defense-side for a couple years to build some skills and earn some money?

I would caution you to not draw lines between and among firms based on the resumes of the lawyers who work there. Choose your desired practice area, see who does the most/best work there, and then select your employer. Some of the firms who handle the biggest, most high profile antitrust cases are full of lawyers with average credentials. Then again, if the sole reason why you want to do plaintiffs work is because you want to do something unique and prestigious because you got straight As your 1L year, that's a different story.

[Lexaholik]

If your looking for that BigLaw money, Quinn also does Plaintiffs' anti-trust

Quinn is more similar to a typical defense side biglaw firm than a plaintiff's firm. Some of their cases are billed hourly (as opposed to contingency) so they use the highly leveraged staffing model you typically see on the defense side.

[JCougar]

If your looking for that BigLaw money, Quinn also does Plaintiffs' anti-trust

Quinn is more similar to a typical defense side biglaw firm than a plaintiff's firm. Some of their cases are billed hourly (as opposed to contingency) so they use the highly leveraged staffing model you typically see on the defense side.

Yeah, certain civil rights cases and certainly a lot of class actions require plaintiff's side to bill hours because either lawyer fees are based on statutory rates or you have to justify your Lodestar. I've worked on one of the former, and it involved a lot of editing and re-editing the same document...

[JCougar]

Disagree. This may be true of Altshuler Berzon and other public-interest/civil rights minded plaintiffs firms (there are many in the SF Bay Area) but definitely not true of other plaintiff's side antitrust firms.

You're right, it's probably less true at antitrust firms, but more true at civil rights firms that also do antitrust. I'm most familiar with LC and AB regarding the above firms. I don't think LC actually does much antitrust though. Their website only lists one partner and no associates in the area.

If you look at LS's antitrust people, though, a lot of them have prior biglaw experience, so you're probably right.

[Lexaholik]

Disagree. This may be true of Altshuler Berzon and other public-interest/civil rights minded plaintiffs firms (there are many in the SF Bay Area) but definitely not true of other plaintiff's side antitrust firms.

You're right, it's probably less true at antitrust firms, but more true at civil rights firms that also do antitrust. I'm most familiar with LC and AB regarding the above firms. I don't think LC actually does much antitrust though. Their website only lists one partner and no associates in the area.

If you look at LS's antitrust people, though, a lot of them have prior biglaw experience, so you're probably right.

With regard to P side antitrust firms, there are really two types of firms. The first group often leads the charge and are frequently appointed as lead or co-lead counsel. The second group tends to pile on afterward by filing a copycat action and tries to maneuver into a supporting role. Firms in the first group tend to have stronger resumes (although stronger means more experience with big/pioneering cases as opposed to T14/LR/latin honors).

LC falls into the first group and they frequently lead the charge as lead or co-lead counsel. This may have changed as of late given the departure of a prominent antitrust lawyer. http://www.law360.com/articles/335937/l ... h-own-firm

Of the first group, LC is unique in that they position themselves as a public-interest driven firm. This is likely useful as a recruitment tool-they do seem to hire the most lawyers right out of law school. Other firms position themselves as high caliber plaintiffs firms that do a wide range of cases (often securities and antitrust). E.g. whoevers on this list: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=12 ... 0622160929 These other high caliber firms pay lip service to being public-interest driven but if you take a look at their lawyers' resumes, you see less public interest job experience.

Of the second group none are public interest minded. These firms tend to have lawyers with weaker resumes, are often smaller and more regional. But collectively, they make up a very large portion of the plaintiff's bar.

That's kind of why I say a summer in biglaw won't keep you out of plaintiff's antitrust work. It might affect your candidacy at a place like LC, but if you take a broad view of the landscape, most firms are decidedly unlike LC.

[bdubs]

The firms you listed are generally well regarded. (Labaton seems to be more of a securities type firm, and I'm not as familiar with Berger & Montague) Whether you or not you should start at one of these types of places (as opposed to biglaw) depends on your financial situation and how comfortable you are with closing doors.

Can you elaborate on the financial situation and closing doors?

I'm interested as a defense side antitrust person who thinks he might ultimately want to move to plaintiffs side.

[Lexaholik]

The firms you listed are generally well regarded. (Labaton seems to be more of a securities type firm, and I'm not as familiar with Berger & Montague) Whether you or not you should start at one of these types of places (as opposed to biglaw) depends on your financial situation and how comfortable you are with closing doors.

Can you elaborate on the financial situation and closing doors?

I'm interested as a defense side antitrust person who thinks he might ultimately want to move to plaintiffs side.

With regard to financials: For example, do you have loans? Do you want to save up money for a down payment on a house? Do you want to buy an engagement ring? You could do all of these things on the plaintiff's side but at no law job other than biglaw can you get compensated so well for so little risk. Sure you might earn just as much (or possibly more) at a plaintiff's firm but you really don't know-compensation is rather opaque. And if you're able to stash up a nice rainy day fund, you are afforded more flexibility if the firm you select ends up being a bad deal. Not so if you're financially stretched-you might find yourself stuck at a less-than-ideal job for a long time. Money gives you flexibility which will allow you to make better choices. Not rocket science but lots of people have trouble delaying gratification.

With regard to closing doors: If you're an associate at say Latham, you are presumed to be a very good lawyer who is smart, disciplined and meticulous. You can imagine how such a resume would be received by both legal and non-legal employers. They would take one look at "Latham" and make those assumptions about you. Not so if you worked for say Berger & Montague. In fact, judges in certain cities might know absolutely nothing about that firm and as a result make no positive assumptions or generalizations about your capabilities.