Top Law Schools

Theory: As leverage and PPP increase, the likelihood that litigation associates will be doing substantive, meaningful legal work at a firm decreases. Megafirms are making their 7 figure PPPs by forcing associates to do shitloads of doc review, discovery and other time-consuming but non-"substantive" work. Skills like brief writing, depo taking and (lol) trial work are put on the back burner.

Therefore, you should always choose a smaller (less leveraged) boutique over a big firm to start your career, because nothing matters when you're a junior associate more than substantive experience.

Twist: "Substantive" work in litigation is flame, anyway. Every task you'll be asked to perform is dull and a net-drain on society. Enjoy!

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Theory: As leverage and PPP increase, the likelihood that litigation associates will be doing substantive, meaningful legal work at a firm decreases. Megafirms are making their 7 figure PPPs by forcing associates to do shitloads of doc review, discovery and other time-consuming but non-"substantive" work. Skills like brief writing, depo taking and (lol) trial work are put on the back burner.

Therefore, you should always choose a smaller (less leveraged) boutique over a big firm to start your career, because nothing matters when you're a junior associate more than substantive experience.

I agree with the general conclusion, especially as it relates to juniors. But I'm not sure if leverage is really the enemy. With low leverage, won't partners take a more active role in cases? The partners I know who are highly leveraged essentially do client management only and then sign off on stuff. Sure, the juniors are doing bitchwork, but someone who isn't the partner is doing all the rest.

But Megafirms just treat ligation differently. They create busy work. And nobody is going to pay millions of dollars for matter and have a fucking 3rd year handle motions.

Paul Weiss is now leveraged 6:1, lol

911 crisis actor wrote:Paul Weiss is now leveraged 6:1, lol

What are leverage ratios at peer litigation practices (Cravath/S&C/Skadden/etc.)?

Test your theory. The firm I clerk at part time is an IP boutique with 7 attorneys. All of the junior associates here have been writing substantive motions on their own from day one. We handle rather sophisticated cases (either 1st or 2nd chair w/biglaw often). The pay is not biglaw, but reasonable for the market. Its also a great work environment, and 9-6 is expected hours.

Do you start here, or start in biglaw, given the choice?

Biglaw, because IP lit will be dead in 2 years.

911 crisis actor wrote:Paul Weiss is now leveraged 6:1, lol

Where'd you get that from?

Their search form lists 436 associates, 146 partners, a 3:1 ratio.

Paul Weiss: 3:1 (436:146)
Cravath: 3.5:1 (330:92)
S&C: 2.8:1 (482:172)
Skadden: 2.5:1 (986:387)

Latest Amlaw article on their 2014 financials. They're at close to 1000 lawyers now, brother.

Desert Fox wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Theory: As leverage and PPP increase, the likelihood that litigation associates will be doing substantive, meaningful legal work at a firm decreases. Megafirms are making their 7 figure PPPs by forcing associates to do shitloads of doc review, discovery and other time-consuming but non-"substantive" work. Skills like brief writing, depo taking and (lol) trial work are put on the back burner.

Therefore, you should always choose a smaller (less leveraged) boutique over a big firm to start your career, because nothing matters when you're a junior associate more than substantive experience.

I agree with the general conclusion, especially as it relates to juniors. But I'm not sure if leverage is really the enemy. With low leverage, won't partners take a more active role in cases? The partners I know who are highly leveraged essentially do client management only and then sign off on stuff. Sure, the juniors are doing bitchwork, but someone who isn't the partner is doing all the rest.

But Megafirms just treat ligation differently. They create busy work. And nobody is going to pay millions of dollars for matter and have a fucking 3rd year handle motions.

I'm with DF on this one. Lower ratios often just mean partners do more billable work.

Dr. Review wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Theory: As leverage and PPP increase, the likelihood that litigation associates will be doing substantive, meaningful legal work at a firm decreases. Megafirms are making their 7 figure PPPs by forcing associates to do shitloads of doc review, discovery and other time-consuming but non-"substantive" work. Skills like brief writing, depo taking and (lol) trial work are put on the back burner.

Therefore, you should always choose a smaller (less leveraged) boutique over a big firm to start your career, because nothing matters when you're a junior associate more than substantive experience.

I agree with the general conclusion, especially as it relates to juniors. But I'm not sure if leverage is really the enemy. With low leverage, won't partners take a more active role in cases? The partners I know who are highly leveraged essentially do client management only and then sign off on stuff. Sure, the juniors are doing bitchwork, but someone who isn't the partner is doing all the rest.

But Megafirms just treat ligation differently. They create busy work. And nobody is going to pay millions of dollars for matter and have a fucking 3rd year handle motions.

I'm with DF on this one. Lower ratios often just mean partners do more billable work.

This is definitely true for some practices areas, like IP lit. But for some (most?) lit practice areas, like white collar for example, just LOL. It's not true at all. I have never heard of a high-profile white collar partner at my firm doing anything other than trial witness prep, client relations, seminars, trial, appellate etc.--all stuff that associates never do (or almost never do). Same thing with class action, securities, most regulatory practices, etc.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Theory: As leverage and PPP increase, the likelihood that litigation associates will be doing substantive, meaningful legal work at a firm decreases. Megafirms are making their 7 figure PPPs by forcing associates to do shitloads of doc review, discovery and other time-consuming but non-"substantive" work. Skills like brief writing, depo taking and (lol) trial work are put on the back burner.

Therefore, you should always choose a smaller (less leveraged) boutique over a big firm to start your career, because nothing matters when you're a junior associate more than substantive experience.

Isn't this shit all getting rapidly outsourced to bunkers in West Virginia though? For PPP to rise associates have to be doing something clients are going to pay for right?

2014 wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Theory: As leverage and PPP increase, the likelihood that litigation associates will be doing substantive, meaningful legal work at a firm decreases. Megafirms are making their 7 figure PPPs by forcing associates to do shitloads of doc review, discovery and other time-consuming but non-"substantive" work. Skills like brief writing, depo taking and (lol) trial work are put on the back burner.

Therefore, you should always choose a smaller (less leveraged) boutique over a big firm to start your career, because nothing matters when you're a junior associate more than substantive experience.

Isn't this shit all getting rapidly outsourced to bunkers in West Virginia though? For PPP to rise associates have to be doing something clients are going to pay for right?

My firm's clients pay for 5th years to do doc review, so not everything is getting shipped to Cooley grads in West Virginia.