Litigation Boutique Associate - AMA Forum

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

I remember being a law student and not being able to find much info about lit boutiques on TLS, so I figured I'd answer some questions that maybe you can't find via search or Google. I'm currently a junior associate at a litigation boutique with above market compensation. Defining "market" as "Cravath Scale" or "Milbank Scale" or whatever it's called nowadays.

I won't answer questions about my city, firm size, my practice, or anything else that will drastically narrow the set of firms I could be working at, as "above market compensation" is already a small set of firms.

[Anonymous User]

What are typical exit options? Further on that point, do you find that being at a litigation boutique (especially with no corporate practice) makes it harder for in-house opportunities? Are other big firms amenable to laterals from your litigation boutique?

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

What are typical exit options? Further on that point, do you find that being at a litigation boutique (especially with no corporate practice) makes it harder for in-house opportunities? Are other big firms amenable to laterals from your litigation boutique?

I can only answer this based on my knowledge of people who have left my firm. I’d say a minority went in-house to clients—no idea if this is because there is a limited number of spots at clients or if the people here just want to keep litigating.

I know of nobody who has gone in-house to a non-client, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

I would say most people went to other biglaw firms, though for many it wasn’t so much an “exit option” as a necessary life change, such as a need to move. I believe some of the more senior associate who may have quietly been told they’re not on partner track decided to go to biglaw, but I can’t confirm that.

There are other miscellaneous ones that I’m not clear on. I think at least one person went to hang a shingle doing lower-stakes work solo. Unfortunately, due to the size of the firm, it’s not really possible to get a large enough representative sample size. Most people stick around.

That said, we make fewer partners than new associates we hire, so associates who don’t make partner are gonna have to go somewhere...

[Anonymous User]

Thanks so much for doing this! So for those associates who are told that they are not on partner track, it sounds like they are able to land at other biglaw firms (despite being senior associates)? That is, they are still marketable as "laterals" despite being more of a senior associate?

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Thanks so much for doing this! So for those associates who are told that they are not on partner track, it sounds like they are able to land at other biglaw firms (despite being senior associates)? That is, they are still marketable as "laterals" despite being more of a senior associate?

Yes. I will say that, unless you're being fired for a serious issue, you're going to be highly marketable to firms generally. People who get jobs at above market lit boutiques typically have excellent law school credentials, one or more clerkships (though I don't have one), and substantive litigation experience.

From what I've heard, in biglaw, experience is hit or miss. Depending on the case you're on and the partner you work for, you could even go 6 years without taking a deposition. At my firm, and I'm sure others like mine, you will almost certainly have not only dep experience, but speaking experience in federal court by your mid-level years. This type of experience makes you very marketable.

Additionally, at firms like mine, you regularly work with or against other biglaw firms, so you can build a reputation if you do a good job. I'll add one caveat in that lit boutiques typically have practice areas they specialize in, and it will be difficult to lateral to a firm that doesn't really work in your area. For example, if you work at a white collar heavy (or exclusive) litigation boutique, it might be difficult to lateral to a biglaw firm with limited to no white collar work, as they won't even recognize your firm name.

[JusticeSquee]

Any opinions on McKool Smith NY or Sher Tremonte NY?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks so much for doing this! So for those associates who are told that they are not on partner track, it sounds like they are able to land at other biglaw firms (despite being senior associates)? That is, they are still marketable as "laterals" despite being more of a senior associate?

Yes. I will say that, unless you're being fired for a serious issue, you're going to be highly marketable to firms generally. People who get jobs at above market lit boutiques typically have excellent law school credentials, one or more clerkships (though I don't have one), and substantive litigation experience.

From what I've heard, in biglaw, experience is hit or miss. Depending on the case you're on and the partner you work for, you could even go 6 years without taking a deposition. At my firm, and I'm sure others like mine, you will almost certainly have not only dep experience, but speaking experience in federal court by your mid-level years. This type of experience makes you very marketable.

Additionally, at firms like mine, you regularly work with or against other biglaw firms, so you can build a reputation if you do a good job. I'll add one caveat in that lit boutiques typically have practice areas they specialize in, and it will be difficult to lateral to a firm that doesn't really work in your area. For example, if you work at a white collar heavy (or exclusive) litigation boutique, it might be difficult to lateral to a biglaw firm with limited to no white collar work, as they won't even recognize your firm name.

PM sent

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

PM sent

I'm not sure if it's because I'm a new user, or because I'm unable to navigate this interface, but I'm not sure I can respond to your PMs yet, at least until I'm no longer "new." Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring your PM. In general, I am happy to field more specific questions via PM.

[Anonymous User]

PM sent

I'm not sure if it's because I'm a new user, or because I'm unable to navigate this interface, but I'm not sure I can respond to your PMs yet, at least until I'm no longer "new." Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring your PM. In general, I am happy to field more specific questions via PM.

Okay, are you able to see the PM and just can't respond? Or not able to access that area at all?

[Anonymous User]

Speaking generally, what do you think distinguishes the above market comp boutiques from those that are still “elite” but pay market comp? Presumably the above market firms are more profitable? If so, why? Different practice area emphasis? Longer associate hours?

[Anonymous User]

Also curious what you think of below market paying elite litigation shops like Williams and Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, and some others...

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

PM sent

I'm not sure if it's because I'm a new user, or because I'm unable to navigate this interface, but I'm not sure I can respond to your PMs yet, at least until I'm no longer "new." Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring your PM. In general, I am happy to field more specific questions via PM.

Okay, are you able to see the PM and just can't respond? Or not able to access that area at all?

I can see the PM; I just don't have a reply option. I can't even seem to PM people at all. The space under "Contact [user]" is blank, no matter who I click on.

Speaking generally, what do you think distinguishes the above market comp boutiques from those that are still “elite” but pay market comp? Presumably the above market firms are more profitable? If so, why? Different practice area emphasis? Longer associate hours?

This is pure conjecture, but I think it's a number of factors. One is the philosophy of partners. Many "elite" firms do not need to pay above market compensation in order to attract top talent--see Williams & Connolly. And, why pay more for no gain?

Some partnerships perhaps have a philosophy of compensating their associates not at the bare minimum, but what they view to be "fair" given how much associate work, how much they contribute, and what revenue is. This is an overly charitable view of partners, sure, but I do think that boutique partners care more about associates generally than do biglaw partners, if only because of the small size and small firm culture of boutiques.

Practice area profitability is most likely part of it as well. I remember looking at boutiques that did appellate litigation--very attractive work--but paid substantially below market. Granted, they had shorter hours as well, as appellate litigators don't have to deal with a lot of busywork that trial litigators do. Some practice areas have matters that have higher stakes, and with higher stakes comes higher fees/contingency payouts/etc.

I don't think people at my firm work longer hours than market firms, especially the traditionally "sweatshop" ones, so it's not longer hours.

Another issue you didn't raise is leverage. At biglaw firms where the equity-to-nonequity leverage is high, raises cost equity partners a ton. Boutiques are typically less leveraged, so increases in pay are less expensive.

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Also curious what you think of below market paying elite litigation shops like Williams and Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, and some others...

I submitted my previous post before I saw this. I don't really have any specific thoughts about them. Pretty sure anybody would work at an above market place than a below market place, all else equal, but all else is never equal. If you want to be in DC and/or have a particular interest in the areas in which Williams and Connolly excel, then you naturally would pick them over a much higher paying boutique (that is not in DC).

[Anonymous User]

Compared to your peers at biglaw firms, have you had more substantive responsibility (e.g. depositions, writing/arguing motions/gone to trial) at this point in your career?

Also, I hear of the lack of support staff at boutiques compared to biglaw--any other particular downsides in comparison to biglaw?

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Compared to your peers at biglaw firms, have you had more substantive responsibility (e.g. depositions, writing/arguing motions/gone to trial) at this point in your career?

Also, I hear of the lack of support staff at boutiques compared to biglaw--any other particular downsides in comparison to biglaw?

It's hard for me to answer definitively, because none of my close law school friends that I keep in touch with went into litigation. In fact, all of the ones who went into private practice are corporate! I do have colleagues who started in biglaw, however. And I think the real answer is, as always, "it depends."

There are people who will have gone to 2+ trials within their first year in biglaw. This is super super rare, but not impossible. I will speculate that, on average, I think people at boutiques like mine will have more substantive experience than a biglaw associate. I don't know of a single person at my firm who is a 3rd year or up who has not been to at least one trial. I'm sure there are countless biglaw lit associates who have never been to trial.

With respect to other types of substantive work, such as deps, arguing motions, etc, I think the gap between boutique and biglaw increases with seniority. There's no real difference between the capabilities of a 1st year lit boutique associate and a 1st year biglaw associate, assuming they have similar backgrounds (setting aside the increased selectivity of above market lit boutiques), so no 1st year at my firm is going to be drafting dispositive motions or taking deps, though it's not entirely out of the question I suppose, especially if it's an inconsequential 3rd party dep. However, the gap increases because I believe lit boutiques invest more time and attention in associates, so by your 5th or 6th year, you will have multiple deps under your belt, have argued motions, and will be taking lead on dispositive motions. I'm sure this happens in biglaw too, but again, everyone at my firm has these experiences by their 5th or so year, which probably can't be said about biglaw.

[Anon-non-anon]

Any regrets? Think you're in it for the long haul?

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Any regrets? Think you're in it for the long haul?

I don't regret choosing lit boutique over biglaw lit, especially considering I'm making more money for working the same amount.

However, I do recognize that going in-house or higher paying non-biglaw options for litigators is far more difficult than it is for corporate associates, so that sucks.

That said, I enjoy litigation, and would much rather spend ~6 year of my life doing litigation than corporate. I'd require at least a 20% raise to switch to doing corporate, tbh. That's how much I don't want to be a corp associate. I'm also not convinced that corp in-house is that rosy; it's seems like similarly boring/shitty work, just in lower quantities and for lower pay. I could be wrong though.

I'd like to be in it for the long haul, but elite lit boutiques are elite because of the abilities and client relationships of the partners. This also means that, in order to make partner, you have to (1) be a top notch litigator/trial lawyer, and/or (2) have strong client relationships. Lit boutiques will do their best to provide you with the training and experience to get (1), but ultimately it's still up to you, and it's not easy to reach (1). At least at my firm, partnership is far from guaranteed, though 2 out of (incoming associate class) here is still much better odds than 5-6 out of (incoming biglaw associate class). (2) kinda follows (1). I don't know of any partners at my firm who are sub-par trial lawyers but are only kept around because they're bffs with some big deal GC.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Compared to your peers at biglaw firms, have you had more substantive responsibility (e.g. depositions, writing/arguing motions/gone to trial) at this point in your career?

OP has already addressed this upthread, lmao

[Libya]

Any thoughts on marketability for DOJ/AUSA or other bigfed positions?

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Any thoughts on marketability for DOJ/AUSA or other bigfed positions?

I don't really have any data points for this, but my assumption would be that it's no different from being a biglaw associate. I think DOJ/AUSA hiring is highly dependent on which office you want, and is also much more contingent on clerkship experience, law school credentials, network/connections, and luck.

Assuming the above factors I mentioned are equal, biglaw might give you an edge purely from name recognition, depending on the firm, but boutique would give you an edge if you happen to have more substantive experience and can convey this in an interview.

All that said, I haven't applied to fed jobs, nor do I know anyone who has gone through the DOJ/AUSA process, so this is all conjecture.

[Anonymous User]

To what extent do law school grades matter in hiring at your firm? Would someone from a lower t14 with decent but not stellar grades and two clerkships (District Court & CoA) be competitive? What other factors go into hiring?

[Libya]

How much does where you clerk matter? Would someone in a non top-tier, but neither “flyover” district (so say N.D. Ohio, S.D. Fla., or N.D. Tex.) as well as a non 2/9/DC COA clerkship be competitive, all else equal?

Would your firm consider hiring someone who did a year in biglaw before clerking?

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

To what extent do law school grades matter in hiring at your firm? Would someone from a lower t14 with decent but not stellar grades and two clerkships (District Court & CoA) be competitive? What other factors go into hiring?

Grades matter for juniors, but less and less the more senior you get. If you have two federal clerkships, you'd get serious looks regardless of your law school grades. Boutiques often care heavily about fit. It's a small firm, so every associate needs to fit into the firm culture. Biglaw firms care about "fit" too, but I think boutiques are much more exacting wrt this metric because of how intimate teams are. See more detail about clerkships below.

How much does where you clerk matter? Would someone in a non top-tier, but neither “flyover” district (so say N.D. Ohio, S.D. Fla., or N.D. Tex.) as well as a non 2/9/DC COA clerkship be competitive, all else equal?

Would your firm consider hiring someone who did a year in biglaw before clerking?

Clerkships are valuable for two main reasons: (1) they signal excellent law school performance; and (2) they provide new lawyers with very valuable experience. On the experience point, what's more important than general relative prestige is whether the court you clerk in hears cases that the boutique specializes in. For example, a DNJ clerk who clerked for a judge that hears a lot of ANDA cases would be very competitive for boutiques that do a lot of pharma/ANDA litigation. Similarly, SDNY/ND Cal/DDC/etc. clerks are coveted because clerks in those courts likely have experience with the type of high-stakes litigation boutiques specialize in. Many of those judges also have reputations for working their clerks very hard. I know of some who went biglaw -> fed clerkship at one of these courts and say they work longer hours in their clerkship.

I think CoA clerkships can be much more hit-or-miss for lit boutiques, because the experience can be much more hit-or-miss. CoA clerks also don't really have the generally applicable trial-level behind-the-scenes knowledge that D.Ct. clerks will. There are plenty of CoA clerks that don't have (1) or (2) from above. In those cases, the clerkships aren't going to help you that much, but a clerkship will never count against you either.

I'm sure boutiques absolutely would consider people who did biglaw -> clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Does your firm advertise that it pays above market? Is the general rule that any above-market firm will say so (e.g. on its website)? If not, is there a list somewhere?

[Anonymous User]

Do you think that what matters more is that your firm only does litigation or that it is small and gives early experience to juniors? I.e. is there any benefit to a lit boutique over a firm like MTO, which is full-service but small and low-leverage?