Boston - Help me choose Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm looking at the Boston market and have offers from Ropes, WilmerHale, and Goodwin. I know that this is a great situation to be in, and there probably isn't a "wrong" answer here, but I'm trying to get a sense of some of the differences that can't be sussed out via published info or interviews. I'm interested in litigation; no specific practice area though, and I'd like to be some place that doesn't realy silo you very early on. I have some interest in appellate, although I recognize that is more DC-focused. I'd also like to be some place where pro-bono is taken seriously and associates can really go after opportunities there.

My initial thoughts:
Ropes: PRO - "Best in Boston" reputation, made lots of $ last year, seems a bit more family-friendly than some (while I think Vault isn't always the greatest predictor of things, the continual high rankings in "best places to work" probably comes from something). CON - More corporate focused than litigation-focused (my attorney #s), not much appellate to speak of, seems like it might be more bureaucratic. Didn't connect as well with some of my interviewers.

Wilmer: PRO - More litigation-focused than Ropes (again, by attorney #s), leader in Boston pro-bono (by hours), has some significant appellate lawyers working out of the Boston office. CON - Weak 2013 in terms of $, have heard that it is a bit more sweatshop-y. Not sure if there really are meaningful opportunities to do some appellate work in Boston, unless you are one of the rockstars.

Goodwin: PRO - Really liked all the people I interviewed with, litigation-heavy. CON - Seems as though it is ever so slightly behind the other two reputation-wise (for whatever that is even worth). Maybe more emphasis on practice-group division, but I couldn't really tell.

I'm sure I'm forgetting things, but that was what came to mind. I would love to hear from anyone with thoughts on this. To the extent you can do so without outing yourself, it would be great if you could also say where you are coming from (associate at one of these firms, associate at another firm, law student, etc).

Thanks for your help, everyone.

[jselson]

Ropes seems the easy one to knock out here, unless you have an unabiding love of the Pru. WH and GP are close enough to where I would personally go on feel, but I would probably lean WH myself. -law student in Boston.

[Anonymous User]

are you clerking for a COA?

i get the sense that Goodwin is really trying to boost the status of its appellate group (eg by bringing in a rockstar from the SGs office into DC), so there may be more opportunity to get in on that growth than at other places but its gonna be harder to do appeals from boston than DC

i'd probably take wilmer

[Anonymous User]

I am affiliated with one of these firms. These are all absolutely ideal places to be to litigate in Boston, so congratulations!

First off, go on second looks at all of these firms. In particular, I've gotten the impression that Ropes does a more formal callback experience, which may make the interview connections a little tougher. I didn't like it, while Goodwin seemed friendlier because their callbacks felt more like a sell than an interview. It's not indicative of their culture necessarily. Some firms just try to make the callback experience a bit more of a sell to you, even though you're still interviewing, if the interviewers are convinced that you look good enough on paper. It's a recruiting strategy, not an indication of culture per se.

At your second visit, your gut will do most of the legwork.

Second, to respond to some of your comments:

-You are right to characterize WilmerHale as litigation-heavy, but I wouldn't necessarily do the same for Goodwin, at all. They are huge on the corporate side, especially in finance, life sciences/tech, and decently in PE. Ropes is probably known best nationally for its PE practice, but they're not necessarily shrimpy in litigation either.

-Goodwin is no slouch in terms of hours, either, while Ropes varies on the department/practice group. I come from the corporate side, but ask some of your interviewers what their work/life balance is actually like--don't rely just on reputation here. Also, Goodwin doesn't make you declare within the litigation group for a couple of years, so I'm not sure why you think you'd be silo'd.

-Each of these firms offers ample pro bono opportunities. Stop putting this in your equation. Confirm that each counts pro bono hours towards your billables, and move on.

-Your comments on reputation are very superficial, just based on rankings. Spend some time researching and try to get an idea of where the firm is trending. Are any of the firms on big cases recently that pique your interest? Aside from the $'s, are you seeing a lot of partners lateraling out of these firms? (hint: yes, one of these firms has lost a lot of partners/practice group heads in the past couple of years).

[Anonymous User]

are you clerking for a COA?

i get the sense that Goodwin is really trying to boost the status of its appellate group (eg by bringing in a rockstar from the SGs office into DC), so there may be more opportunity to get in on that growth than at other places but its gonna be harder to do appeals from boston than DC

i'd probably take wilmer

Not clear yet, but likely will clerk for a COA, yes. Not sure if that changes anything, but there it is, FWIW.

[Anonymous User]

Had offers from two of the three (though opted for a firm in a different market).

Think it really comes down to fit/interpersonal preference. Personally, loved the people at Goodwin (more laid back, candid - at least in my interaction). Though of the three, agree Ropes carries marginally more prestige (not sure how you quantify that, or if it matters). Exit options for mid-year associates seemed similar.

[Anonymous User]

I am affiliated with one of these firms. These are all absolutely ideal places to be to litigate in Boston, so congratulations!

First off, go on second looks at all of these firms. In particular, I've gotten the impression that Ropes does a more formal callback experience, which may make the interview connections a little tougher. I didn't like it, while Goodwin seemed friendlier because their callbacks felt more like a sell than an interview. It's not indicative of their culture necessarily. Some firms just try to make the callback experience a bit more of a sell to you, even though you're still interviewing, if the interviewers are convinced that you look good enough on paper. It's a recruiting strategy, not an indication of culture per se.

At your second visit, your gut will do most of the legwork.

Second, to respond to some of your comments:

-You are right to characterize WilmerHale as litigation-heavy, but I wouldn't necessarily do the same for Goodwin, at all. They are huge on the corporate side, especially in finance, life sciences/tech, and decently in PE. Ropes is probably known best nationally for its PE practice, but they're not necessarily shrimpy in litigation either.

-Goodwin is no slouch in terms of hours, either, while Ropes varies on the department/practice group. I come from the corporate side, but ask some of your interviewers what their work/life balance is actually like--don't rely just on reputation here. Also, Goodwin doesn't make you declare within the litigation group for a couple of years, so I'm not sure why you think you'd be silo'd.

-Each of these firms offers ample pro bono opportunities. Stop putting this in your equation. Confirm that each counts pro bono hours towards your billables, and move on.

-Your comments on reputation are very superficial, just based on rankings. Spend some time researching and try to get an idea of where the firm is trending. Are any of the firms on big cases recently that pique your interest? Aside from the $'s, are you seeing a lot of partners lateraling out of these firms? (hint: yes, one of these firms has lost a lot of partners/practice group heads in the past couple of years).

Wilmer?

[Anonymous User]

If you know you want litigation in Boston, you should go to Wilmer.

[Anonymous User]

Had offers from two of the three (though opted for a firm in a different market).

Think it really comes down to fit/interpersonal preference. Personally, loved the people at Goodwin (more laid back, candid - at least in my interaction). Though of the three, agree Ropes carries marginally more prestige (not sure how you quantify that, or if it matters). Exit options for mid-year associates seemed similar.

Exact same situation as this poster. Wanted to add I've had federal prosecutors (who have never worked at Ropes) tell me that in 2014 Ropes is every bit as good as those other two at litigation. FWIW.

[Anonymous User]

Exact same situation as this poster. Wanted to add I've had federal prosecutors (who have never worked at Ropes) tell me that in 2014 Ropes is every bit as good as those other two at litigation. FWIW.

Interesting. I suppose that could be true for litigation generally and is very likely the case for certain subsections or industries.

However, the OP seems to have his heart set on appellate work. I wouldn't trust anyone who advanced a theory contrary to Wilmer being at the top of that game in Boston.

[Anonymous User]

Exact same situation as this poster. Wanted to add I've had federal prosecutors (who have never worked at Ropes) tell me that in 2014 Ropes is every bit as good as those other two at litigation. FWIW.

Interesting. I suppose that could be true for litigation generally and is very likely the case for certain subsections or industries.

However, the OP seems to have his heart set on appellate work. I wouldn't trust anyone who advanced a theory contrary to Wilmer being at the top of that game in Boston.

Yeah, while it wasn't explicitly said, it was in the context of working at the US Atty's Office one day which I imagine might skew white collar.

[Anonymous User]

Exact same situation as this poster. Wanted to add I've had federal prosecutors (who have never worked at Ropes) tell me that in 2014 Ropes is every bit as good as those other two at litigation. FWIW.

Interesting. I suppose that could be true for litigation generally and is very likely the case for certain subsections or industries.

However, the OP seems to have his heart set on appellate work. I wouldn't trust anyone who advanced a theory contrary to Wilmer being at the top of that game in Boston.

Agree w/ WH for appellate (their litigation hiring partner is insanely impressive in that regard - and shockingly approachable). If undecided on practice area, personally prefer Ropes (prestige, excellent at everything) or Goodwin (just great people). WH's great as well, but seems too lit/DC centric for my taste.

/original poster above considering 2 of 3

[Anonymous User]

I know plenty of people who picked Ropes over Wilmer for litigation work. While its lit practice is not considered as strong as Wilmer's, it's a holistically better place to work. Hours, work satisfaction, people, etc.

Also, don't let a few bad interviews sway you. Ropes screens more heavily for personality than any other Boston law firm.

Lastly, congrats on sweeping the big 3 in Boston.

[Anonymous User]

OP seems to have his heart set on appellate work. I wouldn't trust anyone who advanced a theory contrary to Wilmer being at the top of that game in Boston.

Agree w/ WH for appellate (their litigation hiring partner is insanely impressive in that regard - and shockingly approachable).

This needs to be seconded.

It should go without saying that one should not base one's decision entirely on the near-deity status of one attorney. Nevertheless, this fellow -- we can call him MF, can't we? -- is an absolute rock star of a litigator and, at the same time, one of the most decent, thoughtful and genuine people you'll ever meet.

(And this from someone who was dinged by WH at the screener stage.)

[Anonymous User]

I had a friend that was an associate at Goodwin and really did not enjoy it. People worked long hours, kept to themselves. Granted it was a few years ago so not as great a time to be an associate. I also just didn't get the best vibes from them. I looked at all three firms and it seems like the QOL difference at Ropes is the real deal. For me, thats enough to win. I've heard Ropes is amenable to splitting summers even where you don't have an offer at the other office, so maybe you could spend a few weeks in DC.

[Anonymous User]

I have no idea how Goodwin has gotten 4 votes. 4 future Goodwin SAs are trolling the thread.

[Anonymous User]

Ropes. Unless you really want to work for Bill Lee.

[Anonymous User]

Also deciding between a Ropes & Wilmer offer... Any arguments to choose Wilmer over Ropes for Litigation?

[Anonymous User]

Ropes has a larger corporate practice, which gives the outsider impression that its litigation plays second fiddle (while the opposite can be said about Wilmer--corporate practice is smaller, so the litigation seems superior). In actuality, I would say both firms are pretty dead even in the quality of work across both practice groups (dead even in lit, with Ropes being a smidge better in corporate).

From my experience on the corporate side, I've been told that Ropes's litigation often seems to mirror its larger corporate clientele--e.g. a decent amount of work with securities/public companies, life sciences/healthcare/tech, etc.

Also, I believe each firm has different "generalist periods" (e.g. when you are unassigned). Can't go wrong with either--probably pick which group you enjoyed more.