Boies Schiller Forum

[Anonymous User]

I received an offer from BSF a couple weeks ago and really like the people and the work they do (most of it...) but am concerned with the firm for obvious reasons. How much do people think the Weinstein stuff (and to a lesser extent the Theranos stuff) is reason to avoid the firm? Further, is there a likelihood that being associated with the firm at this point could negatively impact future positions measurably more so than other firms?

Thanks for your input!

[Anonymous User]

I received an offer from BSF a couple weeks ago and really like the people and the work they do (most of it...) but am concerned with the firm for obvious reasons. How much do people think the Weinstein stuff (and to a lesser extent the Theranos stuff) is reason to avoid the firm? Further, is there a likelihood that being associated with the firm at this point could negatively impact future positions measurably more so than other firms?

Thanks for your input!

I would be more concerned about the rumors of bullpens for associates in their new office. Not joking, I would literally be more concerned about that because the stuff you mentioned is nothing and bullpens is a huge deal.

[Anonymous User]

I received an offer from BSF a couple weeks ago and really like the people and the work they do (most of it...) but am concerned with the firm for obvious reasons. How much do people think the Weinstein stuff (and to a lesser extent the Theranos stuff) is reason to avoid the firm? Further, is there a likelihood that being associated with the firm at this point could negatively impact future positions measurably more so than other firms?

Thanks for your input!

I would be more concerned about the rumors of bullpens for associates in their new office. Not joking, I would literally be more concerned about that because the stuff you mentioned is nothing and bullpens is a huge deal.

I second this. I cannot imagine having to work in a bullpen. Having your own office is a life saver

[Anonymous User]

I heard the new office is absolutely stunning with free breakfast/lunch and barrista on site. Its supposed to be flexible and hip like Google, not a bull pen. As to the Weinstein stuff, no firm is a saint. Weinstein was just a hot story this year and unfortunately bsf got wrapped up in it. It shows that bsf gets Hugh profile work. I don’t think anyone worth your time is going to judge you for going to bsf.

[Anonymous User]

My sister worked for BSF for five years as a paralegal. Reasons I would not suggest working there + stories she told me (1) virtually no support staff to help you do things like make binders, or check work etc. (2) office culture is really insane. She was told she wasn't allowed to leave the office during hurricane sandy until she finished a brief while everyone else was evacuating. Another staff person was told to watch her by a partner (3) some nights she would come home and want to rip out all of her hair because she was so stressed (4) recent grads from yale and harvard would start there and lateral out within the first two years with startling consistency (5) the 'insane bonuses' are really not shared by most associates, the 300k bonus given out a few years back was Schiller's son and another person, the people who decide the bonuses are really old and pretty out of touch right now (5) Boies isn't really involved at the moment, he comes in every so often to work on his memoirs and wink at the paralegals (6) the hours are really insane (7) I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices (8) Boies brings in 15% of the clientele and he doesn't have a whole lot of involvement anymore or time left in the firm (personal opinion) and if that's the case there are some serious questions as to what the firm is going to look like when he departs/retires/dies and if people are going to consider it as prestigious without him (could be a plus for an insanse self-starter, I guess though).

Those are just some of the things I gleaned from my sister's time. All in all, I would recommend BSF for a very, very specific type of person. Those are just some of the things I gleaned from my sister's time. All in all, I would recommend BSF for a very, very specific person and I think for most people who are smart, ambitious and fairly normal in their desire for a habitable work environment I'd say it'd be a no from me, dog. if you want to talk more reply back we can figure out a pm

[Anonymous User]

My sister worked for BSF for five years as a paralegal. My sister is extremely hard working and really smart, she did well there but what she told me about the firm is really, really startling. Reasons I would not suggest working there + stories she told me (1) virtually no support staff to help you do things like make binders, or check work etc. (2) office culture is really insane. She was told she wasn't allowed to leave the office during hurricane sandy until she finished a brief while everyone else was evacuating. Another staff person was told to watch her by a partner (3) some nights she would come home and want to rip out all of her hair because she was so stressed (4) recent grads from yale and harvard would start there and lateral out within the first two years with startling consistency (5) the 'insane bonuses' are really not shared by most associates, the 300k bonus given out a few years back was Schiller's son and another person, the people who decide the bonuses are really old and pretty out of touch right now (5) Boies isn't really involved at the moment, he comes in every so often to work on his memoirs and wink at the paralegals (6) the hours are really insane (7) I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices (8) Boies brings in 15% of the clientele and he doesn't have a whole lot of involvement anymore or time left in the firm (personal opinion) and if that's the case there are some serious questions as to what the firm is going to look like when he departs/retires/dies and if people are going to consider it as prestigious without him (could be a plus for an insanse self-starter, I guess though).

Those are just some of the things I gleaned from my sister's time. All in all, I would recommend BSF for a very, very specific person and I think for most people who are smart, ambitious and fairly normal in their desire for a habitable work environment I'd say it'd be a no from me, dog. if you want to talk more reply back we can figure out a pm

I was a paralegal at BSF NYC for two years until about a month ago. This was not my experience at all. The stuff about being forced to stay in the office during the hurricane is out of character from anything I or any of my paralegal colleagues experienced. Of course you stay in the office to get work done, but there was never a partner “watching” over my shoulder. My experience re time in the office was similar to my paralegal friends at other firms.

The office culture was—in my experience—actually pretty laid back. Ppl do their work, take care of their shit, go home, and can logon from home if they need to. Because the firm is small (30ish associates in NYC) and generally—on median— hires older attys who have clerkled/lateraled, there really aren’t that many people in the office past 7pm. That’s of course not to say that people aren’t doing work, but in my experience, ppl like to work from home a bit more after hours, and the firm supported it.

I have heard anecdotes of lawyers I worked with getting well over market bonuses—and I know of one 2nd year I worked with getting 50k+ bonus. Can’t speak to bonuses beyond that.

Sure support staff isn’t as great as Cravath, but I promise I made a million binders and don’t know of any associates in the NYC office making their own binders.

[Anonymous User]

My sister worked for BSF for five years as a paralegal. My sister is extremely hard working and really smart, she did well there but what she told me about the firm is really, really startling. Reasons I would not suggest working there + stories she told me (1) virtually no support staff to help you do things like make binders, or check work etc. (2) office culture is really insane. She was told she wasn't allowed to leave the office during hurricane sandy until she finished a brief while everyone else was evacuating. Another staff person was told to watch her by a partner (3) some nights she would come home and want to rip out all of her hair because she was so stressed (4) recent grads from yale and harvard would start there and lateral out within the first two years with startling consistency (5) the 'insane bonuses' are really not shared by most associates, the 300k bonus given out a few years back was Schiller's son and another person, the people who decide the bonuses are really old and pretty out of touch right now (5) Boies isn't really involved at the moment, he comes in every so often to work on his memoirs and wink at the paralegals (6) the hours are really insane (7) I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices (8) Boies brings in 15% of the clientele and he doesn't have a whole lot of involvement anymore or time left in the firm (personal opinion) and if that's the case there are some serious questions as to what the firm is going to look like when he departs/retires/dies and if people are going to consider it as prestigious without him (could be a plus for an insanse self-starter, I guess though).

Those are just some of the things I gleaned from my sister's time. All in all, I would recommend BSF for a very, very specific person and I think for most people who are smart, ambitious and fairly normal in their desire for a habitable work environment I'd say it'd be a no from me, dog. if you want to talk more reply back we can figure out a pm

This guy has posted this multiple times in the past. Seems to have a vendetta again bsf or something.

[QContinuum]

My sister worked for BSF for five years as a paralegal. My sister is extremely hard working and really smart, she did well there but what she told me about the firm is really, really startling. Reasons I would not suggest working there + stories she told me (1) virtually no support staff to help you do things like make binders, or check work etc. (2) office culture is really insane. She was told she wasn't allowed to leave the office during hurricane sandy until she finished a brief while everyone else was evacuating. Another staff person was told to watch her by a partner (3) some nights she would come home and want to rip out all of her hair because she was so stressed (4) recent grads from yale and harvard would start there and lateral out within the first two years with startling consistency (5) the 'insane bonuses' are really not shared by most associates, the 300k bonus given out a few years back was Schiller's son and another person, the people who decide the bonuses are really old and pretty out of touch right now (5) Boies isn't really involved at the moment, he comes in every so often to work on his memoirs and wink at the paralegals (6) the hours are really insane (7) I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices (8) Boies brings in 15% of the clientele and he doesn't have a whole lot of involvement anymore or time left in the firm (personal opinion) and if that's the case there are some serious questions as to what the firm is going to look like when he departs/retires/dies and if people are going to consider it as prestigious without him (could be a plus for an insanse self-starter, I guess though).

Those are just some of the things I gleaned from my sister's time. All in all, I would recommend BSF for a very, very specific person and I think for most people who are smart, ambitious and fairly normal in their desire for a habitable work environment I'd say it'd be a no from me, dog. if you want to talk more reply back we can figure out a pm

This guy has posted this multiple times in the past. Seems to have a vendetta again bsf or something.

I thought the post looked familiar. Parts of it are effectively worthless, anyway, like point 7: "I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices." This is a factual question; unsupported speculation from an anon whose sister formerly worked at BSF as a paralegal isn't helpful. And point 6, "the hours are really insane," doesn't tell us much either, as hours are very bad (arguably insane) at all of the top firms. Are the hours at BSF materially worse than the hours at Kirkland? The post doesn't tell us. As to point 3, paralegals being stressed out at BSF doesn't tell us much w.r.t. how associates are treated. Etc.

I don't have any Boies affiliation so this post isn't meant to say anything about either Boies' greatness or lack thereof. But IMO posters should be wary of being taken in by the multiple-posting anon.

[Anonymous User]

My sister worked for BSF for five years as a paralegal. My sister is extremely hard working and really smart, she did well there but what she told me about the firm is really, really startling. Reasons I would not suggest working there + stories she told me (1) virtually no support staff to help you do things like make binders, or check work etc. (2) office culture is really insane. She was told she wasn't allowed to leave the office during hurricane sandy until she finished a brief while everyone else was evacuating. Another staff person was told to watch her by a partner (3) some nights she would come home and want to rip out all of her hair because she was so stressed (4) recent grads from yale and harvard would start there and lateral out within the first two years with startling consistency (5) the 'insane bonuses' are really not shared by most associates, the 300k bonus given out a few years back was Schiller's son and another person, the people who decide the bonuses are really old and pretty out of touch right now (5) Boies isn't really involved at the moment, he comes in every so often to work on his memoirs and wink at the paralegals (6) the hours are really insane (7) I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices (8) Boies brings in 15% of the clientele and he doesn't have a whole lot of involvement anymore or time left in the firm (personal opinion) and if that's the case there are some serious questions as to what the firm is going to look like when he departs/retires/dies and if people are going to consider it as prestigious without him (could be a plus for an insanse self-starter, I guess though).

Those are just some of the things I gleaned from my sister's time. All in all, I would recommend BSF for a very, very specific person and I think for most people who are smart, ambitious and fairly normal in their desire for a habitable work environment I'd say it'd be a no from me, dog. if you want to talk more reply back we can figure out a pm

This guy has posted this multiple times in the past. Seems to have a vendetta again bsf or something.

I thought the post looked familiar. Parts of it are effectively worthless, anyway, like point 7: "I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices." This is a factual question; unsupported speculation from an anon whose sister formerly worked at BSF as a paralegal isn't helpful. And point 6, "the hours are really insane," doesn't tell us much either, as hours are very bad (arguably insane) at all of the top firms. Are the hours at BSF materially worse than the hours at Kirkland? The post doesn't tell us. As to point 3, paralegals being stressed out at BSF doesn't tell us much w.r.t. how associates are treated. Etc.

I don't have any Boies affiliation so this post isn't meant to say anything about either Boies' greatness or lack thereof. But IMO posters should be wary of being taken in by the multiple-posting anon.

Never said that what I had to add was the be-all-end-all of the debate, nor for that matter that the experiences were similar between paralegal and associate. My advice is of course ENTIRELY anecdotal, I don't see that as a bad thing. My sister isn't a liar and this is what she experienced. That's the point of hearing what someone felt while working at the firm. I can guarantee you, moreover, that a first year at a firm that doesn't value the very small, very overworked support staff they do have isn't going to feel that much more valued by partners who are also going to be relying on that first year to cover the gaps that a normal support staff would be taking on.

There's a world of difference between the experience of the paralegal and the associate, but that world is a whole lot smaller than that of the person considering BSF who has no experience with the firm, no information about what the culture may be like, and nobody to give them an insider perspective and the experience of the paralegal. Again, I just don't see anecdotal evidence or musings as a waste of time, you can feel free to disagree with me about that. If OP wanted to have a strictly objective assessment he/she could just do his/her own research and make a decision, he/she is posting on a forum asking for other people's thoughts on the matter. These are mine.

Additionally, I'd buttress what I have said by the fact that in addition to my sister's anecdotes I have talked to a number of BSF associates who have all (very politely, and kindly) alluded to some of these things being very true. One current associate there spoke for ten minutes to me about how having no support staff was really difficult for him/her especially in combination with the long hours. For more reference, that individual also remembers working closely with my sister, often on the same case and in the same room, until extremely early in the morning and this wasn't that uncommon for them at the time. I think that alone sort of makes a little less valid the point that associates and paralegals at BSF have substantively different experiences (at the time they worked together, he/she was a first year).

Again, I'm not trying to push the idea that this firm is not a good one on you, I'm just giving the information that I have. You can do what you want with it. Not sure it's accurate to say that it has no value. Are the hours at Kirkland high? Yeah, probably, have I heard from stressed associates? Yeah.

I'm just trying to reply to OP not satisfy every person on the internet's threshold for what constitutes a useful comment.

EDIT: This hasn't been posted 'multiple' other times in the past, only once on a thread asking about it. No, I do not have a vendetta against BSF. I just have information about it that I think is relevant. I actually think it's a pretty cool place. It gives a lot of opportunities to individuals who want to self-start and who can handle the stress level and do their own thing. But, like I said, I think it's for a very specific person and that person may not be the average, normal individual.

To the people who've had different experiences, I'm really glad to hear that, it makes me really happy that my sister's experience may have been a one-off. I don't have a vendetta against BSF. Boies is a really smart talented lawyer and there's a lot of talent to be around there. It takes on cool cases and does a lot of interesting pro-bono. Again,I never said that my sister's experience was the be-all-end-all, I just think the information's relevant to someone who might make a decision. Of course people who have bad experiences may be the exception not the rule, that comes with thinking critically about what someone says. I didn't assert that all people have the same experience, just that from what I have seen/heard from others that's what I thought.

Maybe I just don't understand TLS culture very well because in my mind I thought this was a place to share relevant information. Didn't know posting it twice made me a vengeful person etc. Was genuinely just trying to be helpful to someone.

[Anonymous User]

Is boies prestigious? Is picking boies over V5 for nyc lit recommended?

[Anonymous User]

duplicate

[Wild Card]

I received an offer from BSF a couple weeks ago and really like the people and the work they do (most of it...) but am concerned with the firm for obvious reasons. How much do people think the Weinstein stuff (and to a lesser extent the Theranos stuff) is reason to avoid the firm? Further, is there a likelihood that being associated with the firm at this point could negatively impact future positions measurably more so than other firms?

Thanks for your input!

I would be more concerned about the rumors of bullpens for associates in their new office. Not joking, I would literally be more concerned about that because the stuff you mentioned is nothing and bullpens is a huge deal.

lmfao. This reminds me of those limpwrists who piss and moan about Jones Day, Morgan Lewis, and Kasowitz representing the administration. If you have better options, then go. If you don't, shut up, suck it up, and be grateful.

[Anonymous User]

Is boies prestigious? Is picking boies over V5 for nyc lit recommended?

This happens often. Do some research on this forum, you’ll find many “bsf v. Wachtell/cravath etc.” posts and you’ll hear from people who chose bsf over v5. It just comes down to fit.

[Anonymous User]

To respond to the substance of the question, Boies is considered one of the best litigation firms in the country, maybe the best place to litigate in New York after Susman, and its reputation from the associate standpoint is not diminished by allegations of ethical impropriety by the chair. I have never in my interactions with lawyers and of counsel heard anything reflecting negatively on BSF associates for having worked at the firm. So the whole black mark concern is a nothingburger.

Also, to one of the above posters, by all factual (i.e., not TLS rumormill) accounts, the New York office will NOT be a bullpen. It will resemble the new DC office in layout (which preserves individualized associate offices) because it was designed by the same outfit.

The main reason not to go to Boies still is, and has always been, the hours. I have no vested interest in BSF, so I’m not going to lie and pretend that it’s always a pleasant place to work or that it does a good job of preserving associate work-life balance. Like most biglaw, it often doesn’t. (But unlike market-paying biglaw, it compensates you accordingly, and more misery generally leads to fatter bonus checks). People have been forced to work through Thanksgiving or Christmas except the day of when their case team requires. I’ve heard that it’s not a firm like Davis Polk where they will pretend to “always respect your vacations” (which is also kind of bullshit), and they’re not going to bring in sympathy puppies because everyone on the team has had a 300 hour month. It seems they expect the paycheck to make up for it. So that’s a cultural consideration that you just have to debate yourself.

If you like the people and you are sure you want to litigate, it may be the best firm for you. None of the other top corporate-focused firms offer a comparable product or (with the exception of Wachtell) the same level of compensation after about 2100-2200 hours. If you just want what best approaches comfortable biglaw and don’t care that much about a trial-focused and junior substantive experience, it’s not a great fit and you’d be happier at somewhere like Cleary (and the partners I’ve met from BSF would probably tell you that).

[Anonymous User]

I heard the new office is absolutely stunning with free breakfast/lunch and barrista on site. Its supposed to be flexible and hip like Google, not a bull pen.

You spend maybe 60 minutes every day eating breakfast and lunch. You spend every other waking hour trying to focus on work and avoid distractions. For what attorney is that a worthwhile trade-off?

And an on-site barista just sounds like an incredible waste of money.

[Anonymous User]

My sister worked for BSF for five years as a paralegal. My sister is extremely hard working and really smart, she did well there but what she told me about the firm is really, really startling. Reasons I would not suggest working there + stories she told me (1) virtually no support staff to help you do things like make binders, or check work etc. (2) office culture is really insane. She was told she wasn't allowed to leave the office during hurricane sandy until she finished a brief while everyone else was evacuating. Another staff person was told to watch her by a partner (3) some nights she would come home and want to rip out all of her hair because she was so stressed (4) recent grads from yale and harvard would start there and lateral out within the first two years with startling consistency (5) the 'insane bonuses' are really not shared by most associates, the 300k bonus given out a few years back was Schiller's son and another person, the people who decide the bonuses are really old and pretty out of touch right now (5) Boies isn't really involved at the moment, he comes in every so often to work on his memoirs and wink at the paralegals (6) the hours are really insane (7) I would 100% believe there are bullpens in the hudson yard offices (8) Boies brings in 15% of the clientele and he doesn't have a whole lot of involvement anymore or time left in the firm (personal opinion) and if that's the case there are some serious questions as to what the firm is going to look like when he departs/retires/dies and if people are going to consider it as prestigious without him (could be a plus for an insanse self-starter, I guess though).

Those are just some of the things I gleaned from my sister's time. All in all, I would recommend BSF for a very, very specific person and I think for most people who are smart, ambitious and fairly normal in their desire for a habitable work environment I'd say it'd be a no from me, dog. if you want to talk more reply back we can figure out a pm

This guy has posted this multiple times in the past. Seems to have a vendetta again bsf or something.

To the person with the sister, please post this helpful and informative post in every thread about Boies. Ignore the person telling you to stop. They could have a tie to Boies for all we know.

[Anonymous User]

This guy has posted this multiple times in the past. Seems to have a vendetta again bsf or something.

What an interesting choice of words! Boies and Holmes accused George Schultz's son (a hero who saved countless lives by exposing Theranos's fraud) of having a "vendetta." Read below, from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... blood.html

Carreyrou [the author of the book that exposed Theranos's life-endangering fraud] calls three former Theranos employees who were his primary sources “heroes” — Tyler Shultz, the grandson of Theranos board member George Shultz, Erika Cheung, and a former Theranos lab director whom he calls Alan Beam. All three faced repercussions; they were followed by private investigators and threatened with litigation and ruin. But it was Shultz who got the harshest treatment.

Shortly after a meeting between Carreyrou and Tyler Shultz on Stanford’s campus, in May 2016, Shultz’s lawyers heard from Theranos’s lawyers that they knew about the meeting. As Carreyrou writes in Bad Blood, “I now suspected Theranos had had both of us under continuous surveillance for a year. And, more than likely, Erika Cheung and Alan Beam too.”

After Tyler Shultz resigned in early 2014, Holmes called his grandfather and, as Shultz’s mother frantically described the message to Tyler, told George that if his grandson insisted on “carrying out your vendetta,” he would lose. In a now-infamous confrontation, George Shultz invited Tyler over to his home to try to convince him to keep things quiet. (One source close to Shultz told me that they were astounded that a man who as secretary of State had gone up against the Soviets was so easily deceived.) After Tyler said he would consider signing a document stating that he would maintain his commitment to confidentiality, George told him, “Good, there are two Theranos lawyers upstairs; can I go get them?”

The lawyers, who were from David Boies’s firm Boies Schiller, tried to pressure Tyler into signing the document; he declined, but the next day came close to signing an affidavit admitting that he had made a mistake by speaking to Carreyrou. A Boies Schiller source told me that the firm mishandled their interactions with Shultz: “In retrospect, given his age and given the fact that he didn’t have a lawyer there — while there wasn’t any legal obligation, I think under all the circumstances, he should have been treated more gently than he was.” The source added that at the time Boies Schiller was being told by Theranos that Shultz was “revealing trade secrets.” As Shultz later told Carreyrou, “Fraud isn’t a trade secret.”

David Boies, who is famous for, among other things, representing Al Gore during the 2000 election recount battle, was initially hired by Theranos to determine whether the lab industry’s two dominant players, Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America, were attempting to undermine the company. For this Boies received 300,000 Theranos shares; later he advised the company on a wide range of matters and joined the board of directors. Heather King, a partner at Boies Schiller, left the firm to join Theranos as its general counsel.

The clash between Boies Schiller and Carreyrou came to a head during a June 2015 meeting at the Journal, before Holmes made her plea to Murdoch in September. Boies and King brought along Peter Fritsch, a former Journal reporter turned opposition researcher, in addition to four other lawyers. Since leaving the Journal, Fritsch had co-founded the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which put together the now-infamous Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier. A Boies Schiller source said that Fritsch was retained because they thought he could “speak to [Carreyrou and his editor] with credibility.”

In the book, Carreyrou says both King and Boies himself were inappropriately aggressive (a Boies Schiller source denies this claim), and a few days after the meeting Boies threatened in a letter to sue the Journal if it moved forward with the story. Carreyrou told me it was a “a very stressful time. I knew that they were working hard on intimidating sources and turning sources, and making people recant.” He described Boies Schiller’s actions as “beyond the pale.”

Carreyrou said that in the past, subjects of his stories have hired private investigators to conduct research, but he told me that Boies Schiller went far beyond what he had ever experienced. “I’ve been a reporter for over 20 years, and I’d never experienced anything of that magnitude. I mean, it’s not even close,” he told me. A Boies Schiller source said the firm does not think it’s appropriate to hire private investigators to follow journalists, but declined to say whether it’s appropriate to do the same for company employees or whistle-blowers.

[jbagelboy]

This guy has posted this multiple times in the past. Seems to have a vendetta again bsf or something.

What an interesting choice of words! Boies and Holmes accused George Schultz's son (a hero who saved countless lives by exposing Theranos's fraud) of having a "vendetta." Read below, from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... blood.html

Carreyrou [the author of the book that exposed Theranos's life-endangering fraud] calls three former Theranos employees who were his primary sources “heroes” — Tyler Shultz, the grandson of Theranos board member George Shultz, Erika Cheung, and a former Theranos lab director whom he calls Alan Beam. All three faced repercussions; they were followed by private investigators and threatened with litigation and ruin. But it was Shultz who got the harshest treatment.

Shortly after a meeting between Carreyrou and Tyler Shultz on Stanford’s campus, in May 2016, Shultz’s lawyers heard from Theranos’s lawyers that they knew about the meeting. As Carreyrou writes in Bad Blood, “I now suspected Theranos had had both of us under continuous surveillance for a year. And, more than likely, Erika Cheung and Alan Beam too.”

After Tyler Shultz resigned in early 2014, Holmes called his grandfather and, as Shultz’s mother frantically described the message to Tyler, told George that if his grandson insisted on “carrying out your vendetta,” he would lose. In a now-infamous confrontation, George Shultz invited Tyler over to his home to try to convince him to keep things quiet. (One source close to Shultz told me that they were astounded that a man who as secretary of State had gone up against the Soviets was so easily deceived.) After Tyler said he would consider signing a document stating that he would maintain his commitment to confidentiality, George told him, “Good, there are two Theranos lawyers upstairs; can I go get them?”

The lawyers, who were from David Boies’s firm Boies Schiller, tried to pressure Tyler into signing the document; he declined, but the next day came close to signing an affidavit admitting that he had made a mistake by speaking to Carreyrou. A Boies Schiller source told me that the firm mishandled their interactions with Shultz: “In retrospect, given his age and given the fact that he didn’t have a lawyer there — while there wasn’t any legal obligation, I think under all the circumstances, he should have been treated more gently than he was.” The source added that at the time Boies Schiller was being told by Theranos that Shultz was “revealing trade secrets.” As Shultz later told Carreyrou, “Fraud isn’t a trade secret.”

David Boies, who is famous for, among other things, representing Al Gore during the 2000 election recount battle, was initially hired by Theranos to determine whether the lab industry’s two dominant players, Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America, were attempting to undermine the company. For this Boies received 300,000 Theranos shares; later he advised the company on a wide range of matters and joined the board of directors. Heather King, a partner at Boies Schiller, left the firm to join Theranos as its general counsel.

The clash between Boies Schiller and Carreyrou came to a head during a June 2015 meeting at the Journal, before Holmes made her plea to Murdoch in September. Boies and King brought along Peter Fritsch, a former Journal reporter turned opposition researcher, in addition to four other lawyers. Since leaving the Journal, Fritsch had co-founded the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which put together the now-infamous Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier. A Boies Schiller source said that Fritsch was retained because they thought he could “speak to [Carreyrou and his editor] with credibility.”

In the book, Carreyrou says both King and Boies himself were inappropriately aggressive (a Boies Schiller source denies this claim), and a few days after the meeting Boies threatened in a letter to sue the Journal if it moved forward with the story. Carreyrou told me it was a “a very stressful time. I knew that they were working hard on intimidating sources and turning sources, and making people recant.” He described Boies Schiller’s actions as “beyond the pale.”

Carreyrou said that in the past, subjects of his stories have hired private investigators to conduct research, but he told me that Boies Schiller went far beyond what he had ever experienced. “I’ve been a reporter for over 20 years, and I’d never experienced anything of that magnitude. I mean, it’s not even close,” he told me. A Boies Schiller source said the firm does not think it’s appropriate to hire private investigators to follow journalists, but declined to say whether it’s appropriate to do the same for company employees or whistle-blowers.

This is a completely useless post that has nothing to do with OP’s choices

It seems there are some (or one) posters who have decided they hate BSF on TLS. Like any firm there are probably reasons it sucks, but just reposting news articles about novelists and their aggrandizing portrayal of lawyers is bizarre

[Anonymous User]

This is a completely useless post that has nothing to do with OP’s choices

It seems there are some (or one) posters who have decided they hate BSF on TLS. Like any firm there are probably reasons it sucks, but just reposting news articles about novelists and their aggrandizing portrayal of lawyers is bizarre

Very interesting. Can I ask you . . . if Boies's tactics were successful, and Shultz and the reporter was silenced, and Theranos's defective blood tests were rolled out to Wallgreens nationwide, and they failed to catch issues with people's blood samples, and people died, would you be happy?

The actions of the Boies firm are a disgrace to the legal profession that will be remembered for a long time. The fact that you side with their acts and call the life-saving reporter a "novelist" shows that you don't have the character and fitness to practice law. Law students should do their diligence and read the book, and all of the Weinstein stories, and ask themselves if they want to work with such lawyers, before joining Boies. Start with this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv0PyGfxbpw

[Anonymous User]

A Boies Schiller source told me that the firm mishandled their interactions with Shultz: “In retrospect, given his age and given the fact that he didn’t have a lawyer there — while there wasn’t any legal obligation, I think under all the circumstances, he should have been treated more gently than he was.” The source added that at the time Boies Schiller was being told by Theranos that Shultz was “revealing trade secrets.” As Shultz later told Carreyrou, “Fraud isn’t a trade secret.”

Okay.. so BSF was not being super gentle with the young man who they thought were about to leak trade secret. Got it.

In the book, Carreyrou says both King and Boies himself were inappropriately aggressive (a Boies Schiller source denies this claim)

What is “inappropriately aggressive”?

and a few days after the meeting Boies threatened in a letter to sue the Journal if it moved forward with the story.

Sounds like what lawyers do when they think trade secret is about to be leaked?

Carreyrou told me it was a “a very stressful time. I knew that they were working hard on intimidating sources and turning sources, and making people recant.” He described Boies Schiller’s actions as “beyond the pale.”

Carreyrou said that in the past, subjects of his stories have hired private investigators to conduct research, but he told me that Boies Schiller went far beyond what he had ever experienced. “I’ve been a reporter for over 20 years, and I’d never experienced anything of that magnitude. I mean, it’s not even close,” he told me.

Can he actually point to which actions went “beyond the pale” and “far beyond what he had ever experienced”? These feel like completely unsubstantiated claims. I am considering BSF and do not take these allegations lightly. However, I have yet to read an article that didn’t feel like a smear campaign.

[Anonymous User]

Boies mischaracterized an employee's effort to save lives -- by preventing a defective blood test from hitting the national market -- as the leaking of a trade secret. They also used unethical tactics to attempt to keep a story about Harvey Weinstein's rapes quiet. They were exposed and utterly humiliated for both of these attempts.

[jbagelboy]

Boies mischaracterized an employee's effort to save lives -- by preventing a defective blood test from hitting the national market -- as the leaking of a trade secret. They also used unethical tactics to attempt to keep a story about Harvey Weinstein's rapes quiet. They were exposed and utterly humiliated for both of these attempts.

Not really

This stinks of 0L or law student. No one practicing thinks this way about it; and not for that matter do clients. If anything the firm was only “humiliated” in he eyes of the certain members of the press and some lay readership. (FWIW, as was Skadden in the wake of the Mueller guilty pleas over its role in expanding the influence of Ukrainian oligarchs, as was Jones Day for its role in the Trump Campaign, as was Quinn for its well publicized defense of the perps of the opioid crisis, as was Cravath for allegedly suppressing docs and abetting crimes against humanity in the Kiobe saga, as were tons of elite white shoe firms for preventing anyone from facing jail time for the financial crisis and RMBS). All of these firms were criticized and all their clients kept retaining them because that’s what clients want, and newsflash: most of your biglaw clients will be flawed people/entities that have done some terrible things. Notably, the only client lost by BSF as a result of this perceived “utter humiliat[ion]” is the Times for David Boies’ failure to report a potential conflict—and the Times had specific and political reasons for doing so. If your theory was correct, BSF would not be on its way to its most profitable year (according to American Lawyer).

I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. But law students making real career choices need to be able to distinguish the substance from the bullshit

[Anonymous User]

Edit: I had a bunch of links and stuff but, you know what, I don't need to beat up on Boies. They've been hit with enough stories. I'm done with this thread.