Top Law Schools

Hi everyone,

So I'm a clerk in 2d/9th/DC Cir. trying to decide between two offers, one a V5 I summered at, and the other an elite litigation boutique (Think Susman, Kellogg, Kaplan). I really liked the V5 I was at, but also got good vibes from the boutique. I'd like the substantive responsibility of the boutique, but am concerned that the V5 may offer better exit options. Can anyone who's made a similar decision let me know the things you considered or weigh in on any factors? Thanks!

I haven’t made this choice myself, but the boutique both pays you more (and in Susman’s case, an eye watering amount more) and is likely going to give you a lot more valuable skills and experience. Exit options for litigators are much more about actual experience and (for some jobs) clerkships, rather than what firm you’re at.

I know this sounds crazy, but the only reason to consider the V5 is that you will probably work less. From what I’ve heard re: Susman and Kellogg, those are places where virtually everyone lives at the office. As a V5 litigator, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll “only” bill like 2000-2200.

This all assumes the V5 is not Wachtell, in which case if really depends on the lit boutique and what kind of work you think you’ll find interesting.

If you're only thinking litigation, the only (current) V5 firms that are worth considering are Wachtell and S&C. If it's a decision between Cravath, Skadden, or Latham litigation and Susman/Kellogg/Kaplan, then going with the lit boutique is an easy decision.

If you are 100% thinking of exiting and don't really have aspirations of becoming a trial lawyer yourself, then that might weigh in favor of Wachtell/S&C. If you want to try cases, and want an actual shot at getting on your feet in court as much as possible, definitely go to the lit boutiques.

Food for thought: the lit boutique options are not all cut from the same cloth. For example, KH has a robust appellate practice in a manner that neither SG nor any of the V5 have.

Also OP, what type of exit options are you interested in? In-house, other firms, or government? Or all of the above haha?

LitBoutiqueAssociate wrote:If you're only thinking litigation, the only (current) V5 firms that are worth considering are Wachtell and S&C. If it's a decision between Cravath, Skadden, or Latham litigation and Susman/Kellogg/Kaplan, then going with the lit boutique is an easy decision.

If you are 100% thinking of exiting and don't really have aspirations of becoming a trial lawyer yourself, then that might weigh in favor of Wachtell/S&C. If you want to try cases, and want an actual shot at getting on your feet in court as much as possible, definitely go to the lit boutiques.

I agree with this.

The only traditional full-service firms in NY I'd consider (given a solid litigation boutique option) would be WLRK, S&C, Gibson, PW, and Kirkland. (I know very little about PW/Kirkland but assume they're busy since they're hiring.)

Regarding WLRK specifically: If OP has an offer there and didn't summer, seriously consider taking it -- putting aside compensation, exits, smartest people people I've ever worked for were WLRK lawyers. But talk to people -- current/former associates -- to get a sense of whether you'd fit. Not everyone does.

Is Cravath litigation not busy or something? Seems like multiple posters are suggesting that.

Not an associate there but from the outside looking in: PG&E and Qualcomm as ongoing matters with other litigation as well...

If you have an offer from Cravath and are considering your long-term optionality (ie, you may be interested in moving in-house, to government, etc.), I think that's hard to turn down. Obviously lit boutiques can give you some of that, too, but Cravath's name still echoes in a lot more places a lot more deeply, and provides a kind of versatility. S&C is also in a similar boat. They've been around a lot longer, have deep rather than one-off relationships, and provide built-in networks that are more wide-ranging.

That said, the lit boutiques are your easy answer if either (a) you really want to be a trial lawyer in court, long-term; or (b) you want to make a lot of money, short-term. (The Susman and Kellogg starting bonuses alone ensure that.)

For long-term career prospects, I actually think the tip-top V5 are better in terms of exit options as well as QoL (you get the standard Cravath scale bonus for working less hours; if you're on a busy case or team, even that can be managed to require less hours than the boutiques will require no matter what.)

cali7802000 wrote:Is Cravath litigation not busy or something? Seems like multiple posters are suggesting that.

Not an associate there but from the outside looking in: PG&E and Qualcomm as ongoing matters with other litigation as well...

Cravath is *definitely* busy these days.

Anonymous User wrote:Food for thought: the lit boutique options are not all cut from the same cloth. For example, KH has a robust appellate practice in a manner that neither SG nor any of the V5 have.

Also OP, what type of exit options are you interested in? In-house, other firms, or government? Or all of the above haha?

I don't think I'd like to go in house. As far as exit options, I'd say government is a goal of mine specifically DOJ/USAOs, though I'd love the flexibility to lateral to a different firm if I needed and wanted to. I dont know if a boutique offers worse prospects there than biglaw.

How would people's calculations change were I choosing between this boutique and one of the V5 mentioned? Are people saying that WLRK or S&C are better options than those boutiques, even if I did want to be a trial attorney?

To give more granularity in my opinions, WLRK is in a class of its own, and can't easily be lumped in with any other V5 firm. Assuming you have offers at all of the V5 firms, your analysis should be WLRK vs. S&C (and I guess Cravath, no strong opinion on this point) vs. the rest of the V5 vs lit boutiques.

If you're going to Susman or Kellogg, you will have no problems lateraling to biglaw. No, I do not think S&C or Cravath will prepare you as well as Susman or Kellogg or Kaplan will to be a trial lawyer. If you want to be a trial lawyer, the lit boutique is the way to go. General exit options, no matter what they are, are likely to be best out of WLRK. Your clerkship is going to matter more than which firm you work at for DOJ/USAO I believe, so if those are your exit goals, I wouldn't be too concerned about what type of firm you go to for exit option purposes. If you really, really want DOJ/USAO, I'd aim to a district court clerkship at some point, in the district you want to work in (if USAO).

Picking a lit boutique over Skadden or Latham is, in my opinion, an easy choice to make.

I can't speak to the lit boutiques, but I was an associate at Wachtell in litigation. It is a great, varied practice with a significant white collar/investigations practice. If you want to go to DOJ/AUSA, I'm not sure there's a better firm line on your resume. Off the top of my head, I know associates that went to SDNY/EDNY/EDVA/Main Justice/SEC.

Just to edit: I also know of associates that lateraled to elite litigation boutiques, including Susman. So if you go to Wachtell, you're not necessarily closing the door on elite lit boutiques down the road. On the other hand, it is ridiculously difficult to lateral to WLRK from another firm.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Food for thought: the lit boutique options are not all cut from the same cloth. For example, KH has a robust appellate practice in a manner that neither SG nor any of the V5 have.

Also OP, what type of exit options are you interested in? In-house, other firms, or government? Or all of the above haha?

I don't think I'd like to go in house. As far as exit options, I'd say government is a goal of mine specifically DOJ/USAOs, though I'd love the flexibility to lateral to a different firm if I needed and wanted to. I dont know if a boutique offers worse prospects there than biglaw.

How would people's calculations change were I choosing between this boutique and one of the V5 mentioned? Are people saying that WLRK or S&C are better options than those boutiques, even if I did want to be a trial attorney?

I'm earlier poster. If you want to go to a US Attorney's office, not be a better firm in NY to start at than WLRK. The white collar practice is excellent, there are lots of partners from Southern, and lots of ex-WLRK AUSAs. Southern's Chief of Appeals just rejoined the firm ... 24 hours ago, I think? Saw some press release about it on Law360.

But if you want to focus on trials (or appeals), a boutique might be a better fit. The firm does both in the course of litigation, but outside of Delaware, that's not a speciality. And my sense is that WLRK isn't interested in making it one.

If you really liked the firm you summered at, why not just go back? If you know you are going to like working there, then take it. If you go to a new firm you may have personality conflicts, etc. that could make the experience very negative. Just consider going with the devil you know. My 2 cents. Take it or leave it.