Thoughts about top NY lit practices? Forum

[mtrosen]

Does anyone have thoughts on the pros and cons of the top litigation practices in New York? I'm curious about their long-term outlook and office culture. I'm specially interested in learning more about BSF and Susman, and anywhere else you'd regard similarly.

[Anonymous User]

Boies seems mildly overrated in my view. I haven't been impressed with their plaintiffs-side filings in the cases we have been cross-wise on.

Susman is probably awesome, but you need to be realistic with yourself and ask if you are ok billing 2500+ hours every year, accounting for the health/relationship/everything else costs that that will take on your life.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have thoughts on the pros and cons of the top litigation practices in New York? I'm curious about their long-term outlook and office culture. I'm specially interested in learning more about BSF and Susman, and anywhere else you'd regard similarly.

As someone who also looked into these shops very closely, I'd be a little concerned about Boies Schiller's outlook. They insist they'll be fine after David Boies himself leaves, but they've had a string of pretty high-profile setbacks (losing the Times as a client, the Theranos fiasco, the Terra incident where 3 associates were let go after a big loss, and, most recently, the contingency-based Venezuela oil lawsuit (which I think they straight up got zero $$$ after the case was dismissed for lack of standing).

They're also notoriously cheap when it comes to associate perks and fringe benefits (e.g., you have to use your own cell phone/data plan (not reimbursed)). Their claim is you make this all up in end-of-year bonus, but obviously that's only if you put in the (many, many) hours AND there's enough work to go around. At other firms these perks are standard. The high bonus figures are also, it seems, often 1 or 2 associates being outliers: it's not like you can bill just 2000 hours and get a $100k bonus. In the near-term, with litigation slowing down and the economy faltering, I think those high BSF bonuses are history. (And if you're a junior, rumor is they're changing their bonus formula to favor their seniors over their juniors, but I can't confirm that.)

Long story short, heading into a likely recession, I think Susman is definitely the way to go here if you have both options: they're smaller, more profitable, less dependent on a name partner, and more generous to their associates on a day-to-day level. I'd be worried about (and wary of) BSF even if SG wasn't on the table: at this point Quinn Emanuel might be the better option.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have thoughts on the pros and cons of the top litigation practices in New York? I'm curious about their long-term outlook and office culture. I'm specially interested in learning more about BSF and Susman, and anywhere else you'd regard similarly.

As someone who also looked into these shops very closely, I'd be a little concerned about Boies Schiller's outlook. They insist they'll be fine after David Boies himself leaves, but they've had a string of pretty high-profile setbacks (losing the Times as a client, the Theranos fiasco, the Terra incident where 3 associates were let go after a big loss, and, most recently, the contingency-based Venezuela oil lawsuit (which I think they straight up got zero $$$ after the case was dismissed for lack of standing).

They're also notoriously cheap when it comes to associate perks and fringe benefits (e.g., you have to use your own cell phone/data plan (not reimbursed)). Their claim is you make this all up in end-of-year bonus, but obviously that's only if you put in the (many, many) hours AND there's enough work to go around. At other firms these perks are standard. The high bonus figures are also, it seems, often 1 or 2 associates being outliers: it's not like you can bill just 2000 hours and get a $100k bonus. In the near-term, with litigation slowing down and the economy faltering, I think those high BSF bonuses are history. (And if you're a junior, rumor is they're changing their bonus formula to favor their seniors over their juniors, but I can't confirm that.)

Long story short, heading into a likely recession, I think Susman is definitely the way to go here if you have both options: they're smaller, more profitable, less dependent on a name partner, and more generous to their associates on a day-to-day level. I'd be worried about (and wary of) BSF even if SG wasn't on the table: at this point Quinn Emanuel might be the better option.

Any thoughts on WLRK for lit?

[Anonymous User]

Relative to BSF or SG? WLRK is more comparable to SG: smaller, more stable business outlook, insane hours, but also insane pay. If you're willing to work those hours, WLRK is a clear favorite over BSF. Much tougher and closer call vis-a-vis SG, but my sense (from knowing people at both) is that WLRK is more structured and rigid, whereas at SG you get more autonomy early on. Again, both are great, and both are clear > BSF.

[justanotherlurker]

Relative to BSF or SG? WLRK is more comparable to SG: smaller, more stable business outlook, insane hours, but also insane pay. If you're willing to work those hours, WLRK is a clear favorite over BSF. Much tougher and closer call vis-a-vis SG, but my sense (from knowing people at both) is that WLRK is more structured and rigid, whereas at SG you get more autonomy early on. Again, both are great, and both are clear > BSF.

My general impression is also that WLRK's lit work is closely tied to their industry-leading M&A practice. If you're interested in doing a broader range of litigation, SG would be the way to go.

Needless to say, but for a shot at either SG in NY or WLRK, a top-tier clerkship(s) (SDNY and/or COA) is practically a necessity.

[Anonymous User]

Relative to BSF or SG? WLRK is more comparable to SG: smaller, more stable business outlook, insane hours, but also insane pay. If you're willing to work those hours, WLRK is a clear favorite over BSF. Much tougher and closer call vis-a-vis SG, but my sense (from knowing people at both) is that WLRK is more structured and rigid, whereas at SG you get more autonomy early on. Again, both are great, and both are clear > BSF.

My general impression is also that WLRK's lit work is closely tied to their industry-leading M&A practice. If you're interested in doing a broader range of litigation, SG would be the way to go.

Needless to say, but for a shot at either SG in NY or WLRK, a top-tier clerkship(s) (SDNY and/or COA) is practically a necessity.

Coming from someone with very, very close experience at 2/3 of the shops mentioned here, I’ll just chime in to say that top tier clerkships and top tier grades from top schools is necessary at SG but certainly not sufficient. They take 3-5 associates a year in their NY office and as of late usually have 1-2 scotus-bound clerks in the fold. Lots of good SDNY/2d Cir candidates (think magna at HYSCCN, LR, speaking experience) don’t get callbacks every year. The office is just too small. 1/3 of the size of Kellogg Hansen, basically.

WLRK’s lit practice is much, much less varied than SG’s, but otherwise comparisons between the two are probably fair re compensation, benefits, and lifestyles. BSF’s lit practice is likely more varied than SG’s, and I highly doubt the doom-and-gloom re: the demise of BSF. I do agree that BSF tends to skimp on associate benefits, but I don’t believe that bonuses will be going down anytime soon. In any event, total compensation is more variable than SG’s. And the idea that Quinn is somehow a safer bet in the longterm is pretty laughable, in my opinion.

Hope this posts helps.

[Anonymous User]

These are all actually fairly different firms that are only really comparable in that they all have mega bonuses. BSF has the most varied practice of the three: with plaintiff-side, traditional defense work, criminal matters, etc. whereas WLRK and SG seem to specialize a bit more. If I were in this spot and wanted to do plaintiff-side, it would be SG hands down. If not, I would likely be torn between WLRK and BSF with a preference for WLRK if I wanted to do more traditional big law style defense work. I would not be worried at all about the longevity of any of these firms, but I would be worried about the hours at all three.

It is also factually inaccurate that those 100k BSF bonuses for juniors are a rarity now, however I agree that the skimping of associate perks probably is a legit drawback.

Source: interviewed with all three firms post-clerkship, but ended up at none of them.

[Anonymous User]

These are all actually fairly different firms that are only really comparable in that they all have mega bonuses. BSF has the most varied practice of the three: with plaintiff-side, traditional defense work, criminal matters, etc. whereas WLRK and SG seem to specialize a bit more. If I were in this spot and wanted to do plaintiff-side, it would be SG hands down. If not, I would likely be torn between WLRK and BSF with a preference for WLRK if I wanted to do more traditional big law style defense work. I would not be worried at all about the longevity of any of these firms, but I would be worried about the hours at all three.

It is also factually inaccurate that those 100k BSF bonuses for juniors are a rarity now, however I agree that the skimping of associate perks probably is a legit drawback.

Source: interviewed with all three firms post-clerkship, but ended up at none of them.

If you don't mind sharing, why did you choose not to go to any of the three (assuming you had the option)? Was there some other firm you preferred, or some other reason none of them were ultimately appealing enough?

[Pulsar]

If you're not actually at BSF, then I'm not sure how you have any basis more than the rest of us to opine that their bonuses aren't overrated. FWIW, I too have been told that they are notoriously stingy on perks, and that above-market bonuses aren't really to be counted on.

I would favor SG, with the caveat that OP really may not have any idea how crushing those hours could be. Longevity and fit at a firm where one could actually work a few years and be semi-happy could be a better outcome than two years of $$$ and then flaming out. (If OP is able to be happy and super rich at SG, though, then so much the better).

There's certainly no question that SG has better lawyers than BSF. Also, David Boies is a huge asshole, which is -1 points in my view.

[Anonymous User]

I only got an offer from WLRK out of those three and decided to go smaller firm with better hours that pays substantially less. However, I did extensive research when I was interviewing (fairly recently). Because of what I had read on TLS about the declining bonuses at BSF, I asked this question to a friend of mine from undergrad who is a third year there, as well as to the two associated with whom I interviewed and they all relayed that the declining bonus thing is a myth. However, associates and of counsel attorneys at BSF have no offices, which is another thing to think about if you do care about that.

[Anonymous User]

I only got an offer from WLRK out of those three and decided to go smaller firm with better hours that pays substantially less. However, I did extensive research when I was interviewing (fairly recently). Because of what I had read on TLS about the declining bonuses at BSF, I asked this question to a friend of mine from undergrad who is a third year there, as well as to the two associated with whom I interviewed and they all relayed that the declining bonus thing is a myth. However, associates and of counsel attorneys at BSF have no offices, which is another thing to think about if you do care about that.

Hmm. I'm the earlier anon who interviewed at both BSF and WLRK and spoke to multiple associates. I would not be so quick to dismiss the declining bonus worry at BSF given the confluence of events happening/about to happen: a looming recession, a decline in litigation more generally, David Boies's personal retirement, a changing bonus formula that favors seniors, and BSF's recent setbacks. I'm not saying associates in the past haven't had great bonuses (although, again, the "average" is thrown off by the big numbers of a few outliers), but what's relevant to OP is the next few years.

Also, FWIW, getting an offer from WLRK but not from BSF is just wild. Very weird. But good on you for choosing the better lifestyle/lower pay tradeoff!

[Anonymous User]

Where does Paul Weiss fit into the scheme of things? Asking for a friend.

[Anonymous User]

Edit- Sorry for the triple post.

[Anonymous User]

Edit- Sorry for the triple post.

[Anonymous User]

Heard terrible things about working at BSF, and there just seems to be a great deal of talk and rumors about BSF tanking or at the risk of a decline. I would personally be wary.

Also, I wouldn't throw Quinn out of consideration. If you're that into litigation and want to get substantive experience, they have a huge variety of lit work, a completely free market system, and a fair amount of autonomy/no-face time policy. Also, completely anecdotal evidence, but looking at some alumnis of my HYSCCN and it seems like the people who went into/lateralled into Quinn seem to be the happiest. Might be very fit dependent/part of cult mentality though, no idea. Also no idea how different their offices are.

[Anonymous User]

Heard terrible things about working at BSF, and there just seems to be a great deal of talk and rumors about BSF tanking or at the risk of a decline. I would personally be wary.

I'm an earlier anon (not the one quoted above) and am posting anon again because you can gather who I am pretty easily if I didn't.

Some of the earlier posts in defense of Boies Schiller mentioned that the perception that BSF's bonuses are overrated is false, and that in reality they are sky-high. That seemed off to me, so I did some more research. The below link is a great example. If you just read the headline and the breathless David Lat fanboy reporting, you'd think they're giving out $300K bonuses left and right. In fact, that was an outlier. As Boies himself mentioned, junior associates got paid closer to $20k for 2015. That's just $5k more than the Cravath scale, for what I assume is MANY more hours PLUS the uncertainty about finding that sort of work again PLUS the fact that you're expected to shoulder various expenses on your own with no firm reimbursements.

So it really does seem misleading to talk about high BSF bonuses given that on average they're right around Cravath scale.

Link:
https://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/associa ... 50k-again/

[Anonymous User]

I’m a BSF associate. From the looks of it there are multiple posters offering speculation about the firm with no direct experience and no reference to an actual source of information, so hopefully this clears some of that up.

Regarding compensation: the bonuses are not overrated IME. By way of example, every first year in the New York office last year received a six figure bonus (compared to $15,000 Cravath scale). Many beat their peers at Wachtell. I personally am on track to beat the bonus a law school classmate at Wachtell understands he will receive for 2019 (although not by much). In all events, compensation at BSF regularly beats Susman, except for Susman’s clerkship bonuses.

Regarding firm stability: David Boies plays a substantially smaller role in client development and the firm’s management now than even several years ago, and the firm’s finances haven’t skipped a beat. The firm is managed chiefly by a committee of four partners in New York and DC, none of whom are Boies or Schiller. Nor has there been any noticeable fallout from clients or revenue as a result of the Weinstein/Theranos PR. I’m not going to defend all aspects of Boies’ conduct in those matters—it was not great—but it is simply false as an empirical matter that those events have had any notable impact on the firm’s stability or longevity.

Susman is a terrific litigation shop and certainly worthy of consideration if one can get an offer there. I would disagree that Wachtell would be a comparable place to litigate; the firm’s litigation group has a narrower span of work with more focus on securities and investigations, and it maintains higher leverage with less in-court opportunities for younger associates.

If you're not actually at BSF, then I'm not sure how you have any basis more than the rest of us to opine that their bonuses aren't overrated. FWIW, I too have been told that they are notoriously stingy on perks, and that above-market bonuses aren't really to be counted on.

I would favor SG, with the caveat that OP really may not have any idea how crushing those hours could be. Longevity and fit at a firm where one could actually work a few years and be semi-happy could be a better outcome than two years of $$$ and then flaming out. (If OP is able to be happy and super rich at SG, though, then so much the better).

There's certainly no question that SG has better lawyers than BSF. Also, David Boies is a huge asshole, which is -1 points in my view.

[Anonymous User]

I only got an offer from WLRK out of those three and decided to go smaller firm with better hours that pays substantially less. However, I did extensive research when I was interviewing (fairly recently). Because of what I had read on TLS about the declining bonuses at BSF, I asked this question to a friend of mine from undergrad who is a third year there, as well as to the two associated with whom I interviewed and they all relayed that the declining bonus thing is a myth. However, associates and of counsel attorneys at BSF have no offices, which is another thing to think about if you do care about that.

Hmm. I'm the earlier anon who interviewed at both BSF and WLRK and spoke to multiple associates. I would not be so quick to dismiss the declining bonus worry at BSF given the confluence of events happening/about to happen: a looming recession, a decline in litigation more generally, David Boies's personal retirement, a changing bonus formula that favors seniors, and BSF's recent setbacks. I'm not saying associates in the past haven't had great bonuses (although, again, the "average" is thrown off by the big numbers of a few outliers), but what's relevant to OP is the next few years.

Also, FWIW, getting an offer from WLRK but not from BSF is just wild. Very weird. But good on you for choosing the better lifestyle/lower pay tradeoff!

It’s not wild that someone would receive an offer at WLRK but not BSF. BSF is historically very selective in its summer class and takes even fewer people from top schools than Wachtell.

Even from news reports and other anecdotes, it would seem that BSF bonuses increased last year and were very competitive, so these concerns about an imminent decline seem odd. Generally this post does not seem like it comes from someone who actually interviewed with these firms.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a BSF associate. From the looks of it there are multiple posters offering speculation about the firm with no direct experience and no reference to an actual source of information, so hopefully this clears some of that up.

Regarding compensation: the bonuses are not overrated IME. By way of example, every first year in the New York office last year received a six figure bonus (compared to $15,000 Cravath scale). Many beat their peers at Wachtell. I personally am on track to beat the bonus a law school classmate at Wachtell understands he will receive for 2019 (although not by much). In all events, compensation at BSF regularly beats Susman, except for Susman’s clerkship bonuses.

Regarding firm stability: David Boies plays a substantially smaller role in client development and the firm’s management now than even several years ago, and the firm’s finances haven’t skipped a beat. The firm is managed chiefly by a committee of four partners in New York and DC, none of whom are Boies or Schiller. Nor has there been any noticeable fallout from clients or revenue as a result of the Weinstein/Theranos PR. I’m not going to defend all aspects of Boies’ conduct in those matters—it was not great—but it is simply false as an empirical matter that those events have had any notable impact on the firm’s stability or longevity.

Susman is a terrific litigation shop and certainly worthy of consideration if one can get an offer there. I would disagree that Wachtell would be a comparable place to litigate; the firm’s litigation group has a narrower span of work with more focus on securities and investigations, and it maintains higher leverage with less in-court opportunities for younger associates.

If you're not actually at BSF, then I'm not sure how you have any basis more than the rest of us to opine that their bonuses aren't overrated. FWIW, I too have been told that they are notoriously stingy on perks, and that above-market bonuses aren't really to be counted on.

I would favor SG, with the caveat that OP really may not have any idea how crushing those hours could be. Longevity and fit at a firm where one could actually work a few years and be semi-happy could be a better outcome than two years of $$$ and then flaming out. (If OP is able to be happy and super rich at SG, though, then so much the better).

There's certainly no question that SG has better lawyers than BSF. Also, David Boies is a huge asshole, which is -1 points in my view.

As someone considering Boies, is there a sort of average number of hours those first years had to work?

[Anonymous User]

I’m a BSF associate. From the looks of it there are multiple posters offering speculation about the firm with no direct experience and no reference to an actual source of information, so hopefully this clears some of that up.

Regarding compensation: the bonuses are not overrated IME. By way of example, every first year in the New York office last year received a six figure bonus (compared to $15,000 Cravath scale). Many beat their peers at Wachtell. I personally am on track to beat the bonus a law school classmate at Wachtell understands he will receive for 2019 (although not by much). In all events, compensation at BSF regularly beats Susman, except for Susman’s clerkship bonuses.

Regarding firm stability: David Boies plays a substantially smaller role in client development and the firm’s management now than even several years ago, and the firm’s finances haven’t skipped a beat. The firm is managed chiefly by a committee of four partners in New York and DC, none of whom are Boies or Schiller. Nor has there been any noticeable fallout from clients or revenue as a result of the Weinstein/Theranos PR. I’m not going to defend all aspects of Boies’ conduct in those matters—it was not great—but it is simply false as an empirical matter that those events have had any notable impact on the firm’s stability or longevity.

Susman is a terrific litigation shop and certainly worthy of consideration if one can get an offer there. I would disagree that Wachtell would be a comparable place to litigate; the firm’s litigation group has a narrower span of work with more focus on securities and investigations, and it maintains higher leverage with less in-court opportunities for younger associates.

If you're not actually at BSF, then I'm not sure how you have any basis more than the rest of us to opine that their bonuses aren't overrated. FWIW, I too have been told that they are notoriously stingy on perks, and that above-market bonuses aren't really to be counted on.

I would favor SG, with the caveat that OP really may not have any idea how crushing those hours could be. Longevity and fit at a firm where one could actually work a few years and be semi-happy could be a better outcome than two years of $$$ and then flaming out. (If OP is able to be happy and super rich at SG, though, then so much the better).

There's certainly no question that SG has better lawyers than BSF. Also, David Boies is a huge asshole, which is -1 points in my view.

As someone considering Boies, is there a sort of average number of hours those first years had to work?

My educated guess (I know people who work there but don't myself; I'm guessing they're not on these boards to answer) is that the floor for that kind of bonus is around 2200-2300 hours. But all these numbers will fluctuate year to year. If BSF has a bad year next year, bonuses could look very different even at those exact same hours. That's the risk with these kinds of firms (as opposed to a place like WLRK, where the bonus is a percentage of the base, or Biglaw, where it's set lockstep no matter the hours).

[Anonymous User]

I’m a BSF associate. From the looks of it there are multiple posters offering speculation about the firm with no direct experience and no reference to an actual source of information, so hopefully this clears some of that up.

Regarding compensation: the bonuses are not overrated IME. By way of example, every first year in the New York office last year received a six figure bonus (compared to $15,000 Cravath scale). Many beat their peers at Wachtell. I personally am on track to beat the bonus a law school classmate at Wachtell understands he will receive for 2019 (although not by much). In all events, compensation at BSF regularly beats Susman, except for Susman’s clerkship bonuses.

Regarding firm stability: David Boies plays a substantially smaller role in client development and the firm’s management now than even several years ago, and the firm’s finances haven’t skipped a beat. The firm is managed chiefly by a committee of four partners in New York and DC, none of whom are Boies or Schiller. Nor has there been any noticeable fallout from clients or revenue as a result of the Weinstein/Theranos PR. I’m not going to defend all aspects of Boies’ conduct in those matters—it was not great—but it is simply false as an empirical matter that those events have had any notable impact on the firm’s stability or longevity.

Susman is a terrific litigation shop and certainly worthy of consideration if one can get an offer there. I would disagree that Wachtell would be a comparable place to litigate; the firm’s litigation group has a narrower span of work with more focus on securities and investigations, and it maintains higher leverage with less in-court opportunities for younger associates.

If you're not actually at BSF, then I'm not sure how you have any basis more than the rest of us to opine that their bonuses aren't overrated. FWIW, I too have been told that they are notoriously stingy on perks, and that above-market bonuses aren't really to be counted on.

I would favor SG, with the caveat that OP really may not have any idea how crushing those hours could be. Longevity and fit at a firm where one could actually work a few years and be semi-happy could be a better outcome than two years of $$$ and then flaming out. (If OP is able to be happy and super rich at SG, though, then so much the better).

There's certainly no question that SG has better lawyers than BSF. Also, David Boies is a huge asshole, which is -1 points in my view.

As someone considering Boies, is there a sort of average number of hours those first years had to work?

My educated guess (I know people who work there but don't myself; I'm guessing they're not on these boards to answer) is that the floor for that kind of bonus is around 2200-2300 hours. But all these numbers will fluctuate year to year. If BSF has a bad year next year, bonuses could look very different even at those exact same hours. That's the risk with these kinds of firms (as opposed to a place like WLRK, where the bonus is a percentage of the base, or Biglaw, where it's set lockstep no matter the hours).

BSF associate here.

The bonuses are based on a formula, so they do not simply fluctuate with the performance of the firm or market conditions. There is (basically) no risk that the firm will arbitrarily cut all bonuses because of a “bad year.” The precise figures used to calculate the formula may change based on that year’s collection rate or the billing rates for that class year, but the only way your bonus would change dramatically year over year is if you personally bill many fewer (or many more) hours. And of course if you bill fewer hours, you have more time for other things, so that’s a trade off everyone at the firm has the latitude to make. I don’t follow the argument that market based firms are “safer” than formula comp.

To the poster asking how many hours would net a six figure bonus for a junior associate: yes, over 2200. For a first year, probably more. If you want to cruise at 1900 hours for a market bonus, BSF is not your firm (although many firms have billable hour minimums anyway). But many junior associates at top firms in NY are billing considerably more than 2200 and still only making market. At BSF if you are billing at those rates you are making several multiples over and every extra hour carries financial upside.

[Anonymous User]

Not a BSF associate but have litigated alongside them at another boutique. I think people vastly overestimate the importance of Boies to the firm's bottom line. There are a lot of other partners there bringing in good business. Also, coming recession/downturn in litigation wouldn't concern me that much either. At my firm there's too much work to go around, and I suspect that's true for other similarly situated firms. The firms that are getting killed by the trend of moving more and more routine litigation downmarket are more traditional big law firms, especially those that aren't true stand outs in litigation. The firms at the top are doing just fine. Also, I think the anon from earlier about comp is right—BSF will often beat SG on annual bonuses. But I think if you're interested in early responsibility and stand up experience, SG is tough to beat.

[64Fl]

I think people vastly overestimate the importance of Boies to the firm's bottom line.

I have no affiliation with BSF or experience working with them, but I feel like you can just look at the numbers and get to your conclusion. They have nearly 60 equity partners (about the same as Cahill and 75% of Cravath/Wachtell's equity partnership). Their equity partnership is the size that, to me, indicates that they'll be just fine if they lose 1-2 equity partners, including Boies. When looking at firms, people put way too much weight into "great man" theories. No firm the size of the V100 is a single individual.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

I think people vastly overestimate the importance of Boies to the firm's bottom line.

I have no affiliation with BSF or experience working with them, but I feel like you can just look at the numbers and get to your conclusion. They have nearly 60 equity partners (about the same as Cahill and 75% of Cravath/Wachtell's equity partnership). Their equity partnership is the size that, to me, indicates that they'll be just fine if they lose 1-2 equity partners, including Boies. When looking at firms, people put way too much weight into "great man" theories. No firm the size of the V100 is a single individual.

You're looking at the wrong metric. Sure, 60 equity partners is a decent amount. But we don't really know much about variance between partnership stakes at Boies. If Boies has an outsized share, his departure will still hurt. Also, we don't now how many of these equity partners are dependent on Boies' connections/goodwill to generate their business. I would not be at all surprised if a significant portion of those 60 partners were just service partners working on business Boies has generated. Number of partners at a firm is not really a good indicator for firm's health stability.