Top Law Schools

Hi All-- I am a current CA2 clerk who graduated near the top of his class at a T14. Also clerked on district court. Had substantial work experience before law school, so I am a bit older and have some pretty strong managerial experience.

I want substantive experience, and may have an eye toward a USAO after I get some experience in a law firm. (Though, I am open to staying at a law firm if I like it-- I just think I'd enjoy a USAO more.) I am looking to find a law firm that will give me lots of responsibility and ability to manage my workload, draft briefs, argue in court, etc. Probably looking to stay in NYC or maybe Boston. So far, the list I have is:

1) Susman (applied, didn't get it)
2) Wilkinson Walsh
3) Kreiger Kim
4) Lankler
5) Morvillo

Anyone else know of any other firms that will give me a TON of responsibility, preferably the salary to boot (though not a necessity), and actually go to trial or otherwise actively litigate? I'd love any feedback this awesome community could help me out with

MoloLamken maybe?

Check out robbins gellar, bernstein litowitz, buckley sandler, selendy gay, kobre kim, wachtell

I'm an AUSA in CA now but I used to be in biglaw on the east coast. So I know a little but take my suggestions with a grain of salt.

First 2 are plaintiffs firms. junior associates get tons of experience, not a lot of trials though because class actions settle often. I know this becausae I used to litigate against them when I was in biglaw. People my year there would take depos that my partners would defend. I would just take notes in the corner

buckley sandler is a DC firm but we, here in CA, come in contact with their NY office a fair amount. They have a partner there was who was chief of civil in SDNY USAO.

selendy gay, no personal knowledge but theyve got a reputation around the water cooler here. quinn spinoff.

don't know anything about wachtell beyond what most people know but i've been impressed with anybody who comes from there that I've met (grand total of 3 people).

kobre kim, another frequent flyer here in CA. We actuallydeal with other offices more often here but NY is their headquarters so i imagine its a prett ysolid place. 2 former ausas started it and they send a fair amount of folks to doj, etc.

I echo momolamken too.

Wilkinson Walsh belongs in any top boutique list but they are very much a DC firm.

nothing to add on the boutique from, but If OP's goal is to go to SDNY/EDNY after a few years in private practice, definitely don't need to be at a lit boutique to do it fwiw. most of the new hires are coming from traditional V10 BigLaw lit practices

Right except OP said "I want substantive experience."

Won't happen at a V10. Doesn't even happen at a lot of boutiques.

(I have worked at both)

Anonymous User wrote:nothing to add on the boutique from, but If OP's goal is to go to SDNY/EDNY after a few years in private practice, definitely don't need to be at a lit boutique to do it fwiw. most of the new hires are coming from traditional V10 BigLaw lit practices

OP here. Yes, goal is to go to USAO, but just trying to do so *not* through the biglaw route, mostly because I think I would hate most V10 BigLaw places, and (as just observed) I wouldn't get much substantive experience. Thankfully, I've worked hard to create a resume lets me be a bit more choose-y.

Looked at MoloLamken-- looks very interesting, but didn't know if they hired without experience at another firm.

A mentor mentioned Lieff Cabraser-- plaintiffs firm. Anyone heard anything? Some searches on this forum look like it's considered an elite plaintiff's forum, but seems to be placed in a different class than other elite plaintiff places like Susman.

Thanks for all the input so far. Very helpful. Any other thoughts would be great!

Shaggier1 wrote:Right except OP said "I want substantive experience."

Won't happen at a V10. Doesn't even happen at a lot of boutiques.

(I have worked at both)

OP here-- any boutiques you'd recommend shying away from because they don't have the "substantive experience" component?

Anonymous User wrote:

Shaggier1 wrote:Right except OP said "I want substantive experience."

Won't happen at a V10. Doesn't even happen at a lot of boutiques.

(I have worked at both)

OP here-- any boutiques you'd recommend shying away from because they don't have the "substantive experience" component?

This information would be helpful for me, too. Also can anyone speak to whether Kobre & Kim actually does litigation, or is it mostly internal investigations at this point? It's hard to find information on that firm.

OP: could you share when you were rejected by Susman? I sent in an app and am waiting on it, no word from them.

Susman and Lieff are not really comparable. Susman is not strictly speaking a plaintiff's firm; it is a litigation boutique that does a mix of plaintiff- and defendant-side work. Lieff truly does nothing other than plaintiff's side work, mostly focusing on class actions and complex lit. The (guaranteed) pay is significantly less than biglaw, unlike Susman and similar elite litigation boutiques, and so is the TLS/Biglaw/Vault measure of prestige (although Lieff is very highly regarded by those who know their work). Also, associates at firms like Lieff tend to have more of a public-interest or issue-area background. I know some and they wanted to do public-interest work and ended up at a public interest-y firm instead.

There are a few other "elite" plaintiff-side firms with offices in NY that come to mind: Cohen Milstein (mostly anti-trust and mostly in DC); Outten & Golden (plaintiff-side employment work); Sanford Heisler (same); Emery Celli (a mix of s. 1983 litigation and complex commercial lit). These firms are probably more likely to give you substantive experience than most lit boutiques that do work similar to biglaw--at some, you will be taking depositions as first chair within a few months--but, depending on the firm and their issue focus, may not go to trial. I have no idea how a USAO would regard this kind of experience. Certainly, most AUSAs tend to go the clerkship then biglaw or white-collar litigation boutique route. But USAOs may be open to it, esp. if you can pitch them on it as getting a lot more hands-on experience than you would have in BigLaw.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Shaggier1 wrote:Right except OP said "I want substantive experience."

Won't happen at a V10. Doesn't even happen at a lot of boutiques.

(I have worked at both)

OP here-- any boutiques you'd recommend shying away from because they don't have the "substantive experience" component?

This information would be helpful for me, too. Also can anyone speak to whether Kobre & Kim actually does litigation, or is it mostly internal investigations at this point? It's hard to find information on that firm.

OP: could you share when you were rejected by Susman? I sent in an app and am waiting on it, no word from them.

Not OP, but Susman has been interviewing candidates in their NY office since at least December. No word on offers yet, though.

Anonymous User wrote:Susman and Lieff are not really comparable. Susman is not strictly speaking a plaintiff's firm; it is a litigation boutique that does a mix of plaintiff- and defendant-side work. Lieff truly does nothing other than plaintiff's side work, mostly focusing on class actions and complex lit. The (guaranteed) pay is significantly less than biglaw, unlike Susman and similar elite litigation boutiques, and so is the TLS/Biglaw/Vault measure of prestige (although Lieff is very highly regarded by those who know their work). Also, associates at firms like Lieff tend to have more of a public-interest or issue-area background. I know some and they wanted to do public-interest work and ended up at a public interest-y firm instead.

There are a few other "elite" plaintiff-side firms with offices in NY that come to mind: Cohen Milstein (mostly anti-trust and mostly in DC); Outten & Golden (plaintiff-side employment work); Sanford Heisler (same); Emery Celli (a mix of s. 1983 litigation and complex commercial lit). These firms are probably more likely to give you substantive experience than most lit boutiques that do work similar to biglaw--at some, you will be taking depositions as first chair within a few months--but, depending on the firm and their issue focus, may not go to trial. I have no idea how a USAO would regard this kind of experience. Certainly, most AUSAs tend to go the clerkship then biglaw or white-collar litigation boutique route. But USAOs may be open to it, esp. if you can pitch them on it as getting a lot more hands-on experience than you would have in BigLaw.

I'd add Neufeld Scheck to this list. These aren't really traditional lit boutiques, though; more like better-paying alternatives to the ACLU or other public interest orgs in terms of exit options (academia, other public interest), workplace culture, and associate background. Never heard of someone going from one of these firms to prosecution, and given that some of them do a lot of 1983 work, I don't think expressing that desire in an interview would necessarily go over well. The people I know at them are quite happy, though, and get a lot of responsibility.

Another, more traditional lit boutique (albeit with a public interest bent) is Kaplan and Co or whatever it's called now.