Top Law Schools

Is there a sense out there on how Boies Schiller has recovered from the Weinstein press? Want to apply there post-clerkship. The internet thinks things are better, but I'm clerking out west and don't really have an ear to the ground. Thanks

if you don't trust "the internet" why would u ask here

Haha, get it because this is the internet

I’m sure the firm is and will be just fine. Weinstein is/was a client, it’s not like he worked there and diddled associates or anything.

They didn’t lose any clients except the NYTimes. Commercially the firm has had its most profitable period over the past three years. Bonuses are still huge (in NY and CA, at least). There are reasons not to go there, but they are the same reasons that existed before the New Yorker et al.

Anonymous User wrote:They didn’t lose any clients except the NYTimes. Commercially the firm has had its most profitable period over the past three years. Bonuses are still huge (in NY and CA, at least). There are reasons not to go there, but they are the same reasons that existed before the New Yorker et al.

what are those?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:They didn’t lose any clients except the NYTimes. Commercially the firm has had its most profitable period over the past three years. Bonuses are still huge (in NY and CA, at least). There are reasons not to go there, but they are the same reasons that existed before the New Yorker et al.

what are those?

mostly that you are overworked. low leverage and smaller size mean more responsibility, which is a double edged sword. if you want to fade into the background and avoid being tested, you'll do much better on a massive team at paul weiss where no one will ask you to take a deposition until you've been there seven years.

At least in NY, they are still signing huge clients, getting top notch litigation, and handing out near top of the market bonuses (for litigation boutiques) . Impression is that no one in the legal world cares and the popular press has moved on. The changes to the executive committee are also reassuring to people. The firm is moving forward (from the Weinstein debacle and generally) in a good way.

They also continue to snag partners from top litigation boutiques.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:They didn’t lose any clients except the NYTimes. Commercially the firm has had its most profitable period over the past three years. Bonuses are still huge (in NY and CA, at least). There are reasons not to go there, but they are the same reasons that existed before the New Yorker et al.

what are those?

mostly that you are overworked. low leverage and smaller size mean more responsibility, which is a double edged sword. if you want to fade into the background and avoid being tested, you'll do much better on a massive team at paul weiss where no one will ask you to take a deposition until you've been there seven years.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:They didn’t lose any clients except the NYTimes. Commercially the firm has had its most profitable period over the past three years. Bonuses are still huge (in NY and CA, at least). There are reasons not to go there, but they are the same reasons that existed before the New Yorker et al.

what are those?

mostly that you are overworked. low leverage and smaller size mean more responsibility, which is a double edged sword. if you want to fade into the background and avoid being tested, you'll do much better on a massive team at paul weiss where no one will ask you to take a deposition until you've been there seven years.

Also that they are known for being relatively cost-conscious and quick to fire people when things get slow.
I don't have a ton of experience* with Boies (or at all) but I think there may be a certain white-shoe culture at some of its peer firms that Boies does not have to the same degree. I would imagine this can be seen as good or bad, but it could correlate generally with some of the seemingly unrelated criticisms, like the Weinstein thing, layoffs, style of interaction with co-counsel, and yes, also huge bonuses.

*To give a picture, I had a couple friends at Boies, both of whom had very short tenures there, and one of whom I discussed it with a length, and I worked on cases with them a couple times.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:They didn’t lose any clients except the NYTimes. Commercially the firm has had its most profitable period over the past three years. Bonuses are still huge (in NY and CA, at least). There are reasons not to go there, but they are the same reasons that existed before the New Yorker et al.

what are those?

mostly that you are overworked. low leverage and smaller size mean more responsibility, which is a double edged sword. if you want to fade into the background and avoid being tested, you'll do much better on a massive team at paul weiss where no one will ask you to take a deposition until you've been there seven years.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:They didn’t lose any clients except the NYTimes. Commercially the firm has had its most profitable period over the past three years. Bonuses are still huge (in NY and CA, at least). There are reasons not to go there, but they are the same reasons that existed before the New Yorker et al.

what are those?

mostly that you are overworked. low leverage and smaller size mean more responsibility, which is a double edged sword. if you want to fade into the background and avoid being tested, you'll do much better on a massive team at paul weiss where no one will ask you to take a deposition until you've been there seven years.

Also that they are known for being relatively cost-conscious and quick to fire people when things get slow.
I don't have a ton of experience* with Boies (or at all) but I think there may be a certain white-shoe culture at some of its peer firms that Boies does not have to the same degree. I would imagine this can be seen as good or bad, but it could correlate generally with some of the seemingly unrelated criticisms, like the Weinstein thing, layoffs, style of interaction with co-counsel, and yes, also huge bonuses.

*To give a picture, I had a couple friends at Boies, both of whom had very short tenures there, and one of whom I discussed it with a length, and I worked on cases with them a couple times.

can you elaborate at all? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying (sorry)