Elite Plaintiff Firms vs. Biglaw Forum

[Anonymous User]

Which is the better gig? What is the difference in starting salaries/hours/earning potential? How does clerking compare to biglaw summer associate positions?

[AReasonableMan]

Elite Plaintiff Firms are more prestigious than Sweet Defense Firms, but less than Final Appellate Firms. Of course, the greatest honor is to argue in the National Congress.

[rpupkin]

Which is the better gig? It depends on what you value.

What is the difference in starting salaries/hours/earning potential? It varies widely, even within the category of "elite plaintiff firms." Some pay at or above big law market; others pay well below that level. Some pay huge bonuses to associates if the firm wins a big judgment; others don't. Some have short-term partner tracks with a decent chance at making partner; others give you only a slightly better partnership shot than big law. As for hours, I'd say generally that they're the same or slightly worse than big law.

How does clerking compare to biglaw summer associate positions? I don't understand this question at all.

[lavarman84]

I'd take an elite plaintiff firm but there are plenty of people that just aren't interested in that sort of work.

[Anonymous User]

When I had the choice I chose biglaw because lol at living on 100k in San Francisco, and when I pushed for more info on salary progression, it was clear that the real payoff wouldn't come for at least a decade, if ever. Also, I wasn't convinced that I wanted to make a career out of plaintiff work, and I just didn't see a reputable defense firm hiring a 5th year from e.g. Labaton, but I did see Labaton hiring a 5th year from e.g. Latham and Watkins.

Of course your plaintiff firm might pay more. Or you might be more sold on plaintiff work. So take my choice with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous User]

Which is the better gig? What is the difference in starting salaries/hours/earning potential? How does clerking compare to biglaw summer associate positions?

Elite plaintiffs firm here. Thinking about lateral to biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

How elite are we talking? The elite plaintiff firms I'm familiar with pay their first years very low wages and work them as hard or harder than biglaw. I'd say go biglaw unless you're a true believer in the plaintiff's fight. You can always go from biglaw to something else, and usually the reverse is not true.

[Avian]

How does clerking compare to biglaw summer associate positions?

Do you mean clerking as in a summer internship position? If so it depends entirely on if they're going to give you an offer at the end of it.

[lavarman84]

Frankly, the real question is what you want to do with your career. If you want to do trial work, especially on the plaintiff's side, you're going to get better and more substantive experience at a top plaintiff's firm. If you don't know or don't want to do trial work, it makes more sense to go with biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

Is the earning potential better at major PI firms? Seems like there's a more uneven distribution of wealth in these smaller plaintiff firms, but I could be wrong. Anyone have any data on starting salaries at these plaintiff firms? I'm sure it's all over the map, but just curious if anyone can throw out some numbers.

[Anonymous User]

Is the earning potential better at major PI firms? Seems like there's a more uneven distribution of wealth in these smaller plaintiff firms, but I could be wrong. Anyone have any data on starting salaries at these plaintiff firms? I'm sure it's all over the map, but just curious if anyone can throw out some numbers.

I should note, as previous posters have, that things are FAR more variable at plaintiffs firms than at defense firms, as there is no true "national" market for elite plaintiffs firms (the way that there is for elite defense firms). That said, I'll try to do my best to answer these questions as they relate to truly elite plaintiffs firms (e.g., one of the ~15 or so "national" firms that have made the NLJ plaintiffs hot list 3 or more times over the past 10 years).

Associate salary: Obviously highly variable from firm-to-firm (and even from associate-to-associate). My sense is that base salary is usually 70-100% of whatever the relevant biglaw market is and the salary progression largely follows biglaw market.

Bonuses: Bonuses tend to be much more variable and case-success dependent, but over your associate years will likely (but not certainly) exceed what you'd get in biglaw.

Associate work: There tends to be less hierarchy and therefore more early substantive experience for highly regarded associates. The elite firms are almost exclusively litigating against biglaw firms, but tend to staff much leaner, so you're really literally doing the same work as you would at biglaw (just sooner and from the other side).

Associate life: Elite plaintiffs firms tend not to have as many fringe benefits (like seamless) as defense firms, and don't usually have large SA programs with all of the accompanying perks. Total hours, for an associate, are probably pretty similar to biglaw. That said, there are rarely billable requirements, and plaintiffs firms usually frown on busy and unnecessary work. You likewise also don't see the same sort of face time requirements, and office culture tends to be more relaxed (in large part because just about all plaintiffs firms have relatively tiny offices). Overall, I think you'll find that although you might not work less hard at an elite plaintiffs firm, your hours will be spent doing more substantive work on more rewarding projects. Also, because your firm is effectively your client, my sense is that there are fewer "Friday at 5pm" assignments.

Partnership track: Few elite plaintiffs firms have a formal partnership track. Probably 5-7 years is pretty normal for non-equity partnership (e.g., a couple of years faster than at biglaw), but there's more variation within that--every once in a while you'll hear of someone making partner in 3-4 years at one of these firms. I think your chances of becoming a non-equity partner at an elite plaintiffs firm is generally much higher than at biglaw -- there's a reasonable shot you'll make it if you stick it out (and "sticking it out" tends to be an actual option).

However, most of these plaintiffs firms are controlled by a small cadre of "old guard" lawyers, so my sense is that your chances of equity partner are pretty darn low--potentially even lower than at biglaw.

Partnership compensation: My sense is that non-equity plaintiff partners tend to be compensated similarly to non-equity biglaw partners when bonuses are factored in. Your compensation at a plaintiffs firm, however, will be MUCH more variable (as usually base salary is relatively low but case-dependent bonuses are relatively high). That's obviously not entirely a good thing. Even though your five-year average cash flow is likely to be similar at a plaintiffs firm as it would at a big defense firm, there's going to be far less year-to-year consistency. Also, because compensation tends to be case-success dependent, I am sure that there are some non-equity partners at these firms who go five years making substantially less than they would in biglaw.

Equity partners at the elite plaintiffs firms--and I should reiterate that few people make it to this level and you should probably assume that you won't--tend to make far more than biglaw equity partners. Like, millions of dollars more. But unless your dad is an owner of one of these firms, you should probably assume that this isn't an option for you.

tl;dr: your earnings potential at an elite plaintiffs firm is far higher than in biglaw. Your most likely earnings, however, are probably pretty similar.

[anon168]

Is the earning potential better at major PI firms? Seems like there's a more uneven distribution of wealth in these smaller plaintiff firms, but I could be wrong. Anyone have any data on starting salaries at these plaintiff firms? I'm sure it's all over the map, but just curious if anyone can throw out some numbers.

I should note, as previous posters have, that things are FAR more variable at plaintiffs firms than at defense firms, as there is no true "national" market for elite plaintiffs firms (the way that there is for elite defense firms). That said, I'll try to do my best to answer these questions as they relate to truly elite plaintiffs firms (e.g., one of the ~15 or so "national" firms that have made the NLJ plaintiffs hot list 3 or more times over the past 10 years).

Associate salary: Obviously highly variable from firm-to-firm (and even from associate-to-associate). My sense is that base salary is usually 70-100% of whatever the relevant biglaw market is and the salary progression largely follows biglaw market.

Bonuses: Bonuses tend to be much more variable and case-success dependent, but over your associate years will likely (but not certainly) exceed what you'd get in biglaw.

Associate work: There tends to be less hierarchy and therefore more early substantive experience for highly regarded associates. The elite firms are almost exclusively litigating against biglaw firms, but tend to staff much leaner, so you're really literally doing the same work as you would at biglaw (just sooner and from the other side).

Associate life: Elite plaintiffs firms tend not to have as many fringe benefits (like seamless) as defense firms, and don't usually have large SA programs with all of the accompanying perks. Total hours, for an associate, are probably pretty similar to biglaw. That said, there are rarely billable requirements, and plaintiffs firms usually frown on busy and unnecessary work. You likewise also don't see the same sort of face time requirements, and office culture tends to be more relaxed (in large part because just about all plaintiffs firms have relatively tiny offices). Overall, I think you'll find that although you might not work less hard at an elite plaintiffs firm, your hours will be spent doing more substantive work on more rewarding projects. Also, because your firm is effectively your client, my sense is that there are fewer "Friday at 5pm" assignments.

Partnership track: Few elite plaintiffs firms have a formal partnership track. Probably 5-7 years is pretty normal for non-equity partnership (e.g., a couple of years faster than at biglaw), but there's more variation within that--every once in a while you'll here of someone making partner in 3-4 years at one of these firms. I think your chances of becoming a non-equity partner at an elite plaintiffs firm is generally much higher than at biglaw -- there's a reasonable shot you'll make it if you stick it out (and "sticking it out" tends to be an actual option).

However, most of these plaintiffs firms are controlled by a small cadre of "old guard" lawyers, so my sense is that your chances of equity partner are pretty darn low--potentially even lower than at biglaw.

Partnership compensation: My sense is that non-equity plaintiff partners tend to be compensated similarly to non-equity biglaw partners when bonuses are factored in. Your compensation at a plaintiffs firm, however, will be MUCH more variable (as usually base salary is relatively low but case-dependent bonuses are relatively high). That's obviously not entirely a good thing. Even though your five-year average cash flow is likely to be similar at a plaintiffs firm as it would at a big defense firm, there's going to be far less year-to-year consistency. Also, because compensation tends to be case-success dependent, I am sure that there are some non-equity partners at these firms who go five years making substantially less than they would in biglaw.

Equity partners at the elite plaintiffs firms--and I should reiterate that few people make it to this level and you should probably assume that you won't--tend to make far more than biglaw equity partners. Like, millions of dollars more. But unless your dad is an owner of one of these firms, you should probably assume that this isn't an option for you.

tl;dr: your earnings potential at an elite plaintiffs firm is far higher than in biglaw. Your most likely earnings, however, are probably pretty similar.

Listen to this person.

He/She knows what they are talking about.

[Cool_wHip]

Is the earning potential better at major PI firms? Seems like there's a more uneven distribution of wealth in these smaller plaintiff firms, but I could be wrong. Anyone have any data on starting salaries at these plaintiff firms? I'm sure it's all over the map, but just curious if anyone can throw out some numbers.

I should note, as previous posters have, that things are FAR more variable at plaintiffs firms than at defense firms, as there is no true "national" market for elite plaintiffs firms (the way that there is for elite defense firms). That said, I'll try to do my best to answer these questions as they relate to truly elite plaintiffs firms (e.g., one of the ~15 or so "national" firms that have made the NLJ plaintiffs hot list 3 or more times over the past 10 years).

Associate salary: Obviously highly variable from firm-to-firm (and even from associate-to-associate). My sense is that base salary is usually 70-100% of whatever the relevant biglaw market is and the salary progression largely follows biglaw market.

Bonuses: Bonuses tend to be much more variable and case-success dependent, but over your associate years will likely (but not certainly) exceed what you'd get in biglaw.

Associate work: There tends to be less hierarchy and therefore more early substantive experience for highly regarded associates. The elite firms are almost exclusively litigating against biglaw firms, but tend to staff much leaner, so you're really literally doing the same work as you would at biglaw (just sooner and from the other side).

Associate life: Elite plaintiffs firms tend not to have as many fringe benefits (like seamless) as defense firms, and don't usually have large SA programs with all of the accompanying perks. Total hours, for an associate, are probably pretty similar to biglaw. That said, there are rarely billable requirements, and plaintiffs firms usually frown on busy and unnecessary work. You likewise also don't see the same sort of face time requirements, and office culture tends to be more relaxed (in large part because just about all plaintiffs firms have relatively tiny offices). Overall, I think you'll find that although you might not work less hard at an elite plaintiffs firm, your hours will be spent doing more substantive work on more rewarding projects. Also, because your firm is effectively your client, my sense is that there are fewer "Friday at 5pm" assignments.

Partnership track: Few elite plaintiffs firms have a formal partnership track. Probably 5-7 years is pretty normal for non-equity partnership (e.g., a couple of years faster than at biglaw), but there's more variation within that--every once in a while you'll hear of someone making partner in 3-4 years at one of these firms. I think your chances of becoming a non-equity partner at an elite plaintiffs firm is generally much higher than at biglaw -- there's a reasonable shot you'll make it if you stick it out (and "sticking it out" tends to be an actual option).

However, most of these plaintiffs firms are controlled by a small cadre of "old guard" lawyers, so my sense is that your chances of equity partner are pretty darn low--potentially even lower than at biglaw.

Partnership compensation: My sense is that non-equity plaintiff partners tend to be compensated similarly to non-equity biglaw partners when bonuses are factored in. Your compensation at a plaintiffs firm, however, will be MUCH more variable (as usually base salary is relatively low but case-dependent bonuses are relatively high). That's obviously not entirely a good thing. Even though your five-year average cash flow is likely to be similar at a plaintiffs firm as it would at a big defense firm, there's going to be far less year-to-year consistency. Also, because compensation tends to be case-success dependent, I am sure that there are some non-equity partners at these firms who go five years making substantially less than they would in biglaw.

Equity partners at the elite plaintiffs firms--and I should reiterate that few people make it to this level and you should probably assume that you won't--tend to make far more than biglaw equity partners. Like, millions of dollars more. But unless your dad is an owner of one of these firms, you should probably assume that this isn't an option for you.

tl;dr: your earnings potential at an elite plaintiffs firm is far higher than in biglaw. Your most likely earnings, however, are probably pretty similar.

This is great! I am looking to go to work at one of these and was hoping you could PM me to discuss specific firms.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak specifically to NY offices of BLBG, Labaton, and Lieff Cabraser? Any info on these would be much appreciated!

[Anonymous User]

Is the earning potential better at major PI firms? Seems like there's a more uneven distribution of wealth in these smaller plaintiff firms, but I could be wrong. Anyone have any data on starting salaries at these plaintiff firms? I'm sure it's all over the map, but just curious if anyone can throw out some numbers.

I should note, as previous posters have, that things are FAR more variable at plaintiffs firms than at defense firms, as there is no true "national" market for elite plaintiffs firms (the way that there is for elite defense firms). That said, I'll try to do my best to answer these questions as they relate to truly elite plaintiffs firms (e.g., one of the ~15 or so "national" firms that have made the NLJ plaintiffs hot list 3 or more times over the past 10 years).

Associate salary: Obviously highly variable from firm-to-firm (and even from associate-to-associate). My sense is that base salary is usually 70-100% of whatever the relevant biglaw market is and the salary progression largely follows biglaw market.

Bonuses: Bonuses tend to be much more variable and case-success dependent, but over your associate years will likely (but not certainly) exceed what you'd get in biglaw.

Associate work: There tends to be less hierarchy and therefore more early substantive experience for highly regarded associates. The elite firms are almost exclusively litigating against biglaw firms, but tend to staff much leaner, so you're really literally doing the same work as you would at biglaw (just sooner and from the other side).

Associate life: Elite plaintiffs firms tend not to have as many fringe benefits (like seamless) as defense firms, and don't usually have large SA programs with all of the accompanying perks. Total hours, for an associate, are probably pretty similar to biglaw. That said, there are rarely billable requirements, and plaintiffs firms usually frown on busy and unnecessary work. You likewise also don't see the same sort of face time requirements, and office culture tends to be more relaxed (in large part because just about all plaintiffs firms have relatively tiny offices). Overall, I think you'll find that although you might not work less hard at an elite plaintiffs firm, your hours will be spent doing more substantive work on more rewarding projects. Also, because your firm is effectively your client, my sense is that there are fewer "Friday at 5pm" assignments.

Partnership track: Few elite plaintiffs firms have a formal partnership track. Probably 5-7 years is pretty normal for non-equity partnership (e.g., a couple of years faster than at biglaw), but there's more variation within that--every once in a while you'll hear of someone making partner in 3-4 years at one of these firms. I think your chances of becoming a non-equity partner at an elite plaintiffs firm is generally much higher than at biglaw -- there's a reasonable shot you'll make it if you stick it out (and "sticking it out" tends to be an actual option).

However, most of these plaintiffs firms are controlled by a small cadre of "old guard" lawyers, so my sense is that your chances of equity partner are pretty darn low--potentially even lower than at biglaw.

Partnership compensation: My sense is that non-equity plaintiff partners tend to be compensated similarly to non-equity biglaw partners when bonuses are factored in. Your compensation at a plaintiffs firm, however, will be MUCH more variable (as usually base salary is relatively low but case-dependent bonuses are relatively high). That's obviously not entirely a good thing. Even though your five-year average cash flow is likely to be similar at a plaintiffs firm as it would at a big defense firm, there's going to be far less year-to-year consistency. Also, because compensation tends to be case-success dependent, I am sure that there are some non-equity partners at these firms who go five years making substantially less than they would in biglaw.

Equity partners at the elite plaintiffs firms--and I should reiterate that few people make it to this level and you should probably assume that you won't--tend to make far more than biglaw equity partners. Like, millions of dollars more. But unless your dad is an owner of one of these firms, you should probably assume that this isn't an option for you.

tl;dr: your earnings potential at an elite plaintiffs firm is far higher than in biglaw. Your most likely earnings, however, are probably pretty similar.

Yeah, this is TCR. Most of this is spot on from my experience as a mid-level at an "elite" plaintiffs firm. But a few tweaks: One, I've seen partnership track go as low as 5-6 years; never smaller. 3 years sounds crazy to me. Two, partnership is much, much more doable at a plaintiffs firm than in biglaw. There's less forcing out than in biglaw, and most folks that really want it can stick around to make (at least) non-equity partner. Four, several elite plaintiffs firms pay greater than NYC base salary, even at non-NYC offices. Five, in my experience, associate bonuses are less likely to be lock-step than in NYC and, in fact, are more likely to be spread quite wide across a class. For top associates in good years, though, associate bonuses tend to exceed NYC market. Six, exit options are, frankly, not as good as biglaw. You're just not exposed to the kinds of clients (that you would want do in-house work for) at the rate you are in biglaw. And even "elite" plaintiffs firms lack the cachet and connections that you'd see in biglaw. This is the big downside to this kind of work, imo.

Add it up, though, and it's still a good gig if you can get it. Especially if you can deal with the added autonomy, responsibility, and stress right out of gate.

[curious bobcat]

What sort of qualifications/personal traits are these firms looking for when they are making hiring and promotion decisions?

[Anonymous User]

What sort of qualifications/personal traits are these firms looking for when they are making hiring and promotion decisions?

grown up work/clerking experience. something that translates into a likelihood of success with minimal oversight. there's not a lot of hand-holding. so you need to be able to project confidence that you'll survive once you're thrown into the fire. also, since we're talking litigation, mock trial/clinic/moot court experience helps. but more than just that background, you want to be able to convey the ability to think on your feet and communicate clearly during the interview.

i think personality is more of a factor too. these are generally smaller firms/offices, so there's a good chance the interviewer will be stuck working with the interviewee if there's an eventual offer. so the interviewer is really thinking about fit, i think, more so than in biglaw. questions like -- can i stand this dude enough to work late nights, every night, at a 4-week trial? or, can i see myself enjoying a happy hour with this girl when things are slow? a unique background or maybe a fun "interests" section on your resume can help here.

also, yeah, top grades from a top school.