Boston Firms 2021 edition Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’m a lateral looking to go to Boston, but I’m sure this will be helpful for 2Ls as well.

A lot of the Boston firm posts are stale (pre-Kirkland expansion). How do the firms stack up now? Are there firms that are more sweat-shoppy than others? Interested in transactional side info.

I remember the big 3 being Ropes, Wilmer, and Goodwin. Is that still the case? Is Goodwin still considered the sweatshop of the three with Ropes being the most laid back?

How do Choate, Kirkland, Proskauer, Foley Hoag, Nixon Peabody, etc. fit into everything?

Any intel appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a lateral looking to go to Boston, but I’m sure this will be helpful for 2Ls as well.

A lot of the Boston firm posts are stale (pre-Kirkland expansion). How do the firms stack up now? Are there firms that are more sweat-shoppy than others? Interested in transactional side info.

I remember the big 3 being Ropes, Wilmer, and Goodwin. Is that still the case? Is Goodwin still considered the sweatshop of the three with Ropes being the most laid back?

How do Choate, Kirkland, Proskauer, Foley Hoag, Nixon Peabody, etc. fit into everything?

Any intel appreciated.

On transactional side, a few thoughts. Things like culture and hours are hard to be objective on without being anecdotal, so have less thoughts on those

Ropes - Not sure where “laid back” came from. I’ve heard of some hours amounts from their capital markets and private equity group that are shockingly high. Still one of top PEG practices in Boston with really strong funds group. Personal view based on leverage numbers (that are a few years old) is they may be the biggest churn and burn firm.

Wilmer - Shouldn’t really be considered Big 3 when you’re talking transactional. I’m not really sure where they focus these days - as they were tech and life sciences focused 5+ years back, but I believe they’ve skinnied down those groups - I certainly don’t see them a lot.

Goodwin - Top tier life science practice (including Moderna). Tech top tier as well, but more in line with Cooley, Gunderson, etc on the tech side. PE practice is a step below Ropes and K&E but still solid - more middle market players.

K&E - Become very competitive with Ropes for top PE practice in Boston. Kirkland culture, hours, etc. I think speak for themselves.

Choate - Lost a lot of biggest partners like Atwood to K&E. Corporate is really private equity focused. Can’t speak to hours, but has kind of a stuffy, formal reputation. Kind of an old man’s country club feeling.

Proskauer - Don’t see a ton of them. I think their Boston group is really funds focused with some PE deal workflow still going through. Could be a bit wrong on this one - I don’t have a great sense on where they’re at these days

Foley Hoag - Decent early stage practice, but a step below Cooley, Gunderson, Goodwin. They’ve held onto a couple impressive early stage companies (like I think they still have Indigo), but I think a lot of top clients get poached by three I mentioned above. But they have a pretty decent M&A practice (unlike a few others like Nutter who seem to lose those deals on startups).

Nixon - don’t really see them in the mix here

[Anonymous User]

I’m a lateral looking to go to Boston, but I’m sure this will be helpful for 2Ls as well.

A lot of the Boston firm posts are stale (pre-Kirkland expansion). How do the firms stack up now? Are there firms that are more sweat-shoppy than others? Interested in transactional side info.

I remember the big 3 being Ropes, Wilmer, and Goodwin. Is that still the case? Is Goodwin still considered the sweatshop of the three with Ropes being the most laid back?

How do Choate, Kirkland, Proskauer, Foley Hoag, Nixon Peabody, etc. fit into everything?

Any intel appreciated.

On transactional side, a few thoughts. Things like culture and hours are hard to be objective on without being anecdotal, so have less thoughts on those

Ropes - Not sure where “laid back” came from. I’ve heard of some hours amounts from their capital markets and private equity group that are shockingly high. Still one of top PEG practices in Boston with really strong funds group. Personal view based on leverage numbers (that are a few years old) is they may be the biggest churn and burn firm.

Wilmer - Shouldn’t really be considered Big 3 when you’re talking transactional. I’m not really sure where they focus these days - as they were tech and life sciences focused 5+ years back, but I believe they’ve skinnied down those groups - I certainly don’t see them a lot.

Goodwin - Top tier life science practice (including Moderna). Tech top tier as well, but more in line with Cooley, Gunderson, etc on the tech side. PE practice is a step below Ropes and K&E but still solid - more middle market players.

K&E - Become very competitive with Ropes for top PE practice in Boston. Kirkland culture, hours, etc. I think speak for themselves.

Choate - Lost a lot of biggest partners like Atwood to K&E. Corporate is really private equity focused. Can’t speak to hours, but has kind of a stuffy, formal reputation. Kind of an old man’s country club feeling.

Proskauer - Don’t see a ton of them. I think their Boston group is really funds focused with some PE deal workflow still going through. Could be a bit wrong on this one - I don’t have a great sense on where they’re at these days

Foley Hoag - Decent early stage practice, but a step below Cooley, Gunderson, Goodwin. They’ve held onto a couple impressive early stage companies (like I think they still have Indigo), but I think a lot of top clients get poached by three I mentioned above. But they have a pretty decent M&A practice (unlike a few others like Nutter who seem to lose those deals on startups).

Nixon - don’t really see them in the mix here

This is generally pretty accurate, though I believe Ropes can be more chill if you find yourself in the right practice group (i.e. not capital markets or PE). Also, Ropes is definitely superior for life sciences relative to Goodwin and Cooley, but not so on tech transactions. I've heard mixed reviews on Wilmer - some like the variety of transactional experience; whereas others find it to be a sweatshop without the prestige of a K&E.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a lateral looking to go to Boston, but I’m sure this will be helpful for 2Ls as well.

A lot of the Boston firm posts are stale (pre-Kirkland expansion). How do the firms stack up now? Are there firms that are more sweat-shoppy than others? Interested in transactional side info.

I remember the big 3 being Ropes, Wilmer, and Goodwin. Is that still the case? Is Goodwin still considered the sweatshop of the three with Ropes being the most laid back?

How do Choate, Kirkland, Proskauer, Foley Hoag, Nixon Peabody, etc. fit into everything?

Any intel appreciated.

On transactional side, a few thoughts. Things like culture and hours are hard to be objective on without being anecdotal, so have less thoughts on those

Ropes - Not sure where “laid back” came from. I’ve heard of some hours amounts from their capital markets and private equity group that are shockingly high. Still one of top PEG practices in Boston with really strong funds group. Personal view based on leverage numbers (that are a few years old) is they may be the biggest churn and burn firm.

Wilmer - Shouldn’t really be considered Big 3 when you’re talking transactional. I’m not really sure where they focus these days - as they were tech and life sciences focused 5+ years back, but I believe they’ve skinnied down those groups - I certainly don’t see them a lot.

Goodwin - Top tier life science practice (including Moderna). Tech top tier as well, but more in line with Cooley, Gunderson, etc on the tech side. PE practice is a step below Ropes and K&E but still solid - more middle market players.

K&E - Become very competitive with Ropes for top PE practice in Boston. Kirkland culture, hours, etc. I think speak for themselves.

Choate - Lost a lot of biggest partners like Atwood to K&E. Corporate is really private equity focused. Can’t speak to hours, but has kind of a stuffy, formal reputation. Kind of an old man’s country club feeling.

Proskauer - Don’t see a ton of them. I think their Boston group is really funds focused with some PE deal workflow still going through. Could be a bit wrong on this one - I don’t have a great sense on where they’re at these days

Foley Hoag - Decent early stage practice, but a step below Cooley, Gunderson, Goodwin. They’ve held onto a couple impressive early stage companies (like I think they still have Indigo), but I think a lot of top clients get poached by three I mentioned above. But they have a pretty decent M&A practice (unlike a few others like Nutter who seem to lose those deals on startups).

Nixon - don’t really see them in the mix here

This is generally pretty accurate, though I believe Ropes can be more chill if you find yourself in the right practice group (i.e. not capital markets or PE). Also, Ropes is definitely superior for life sciences relative to Goodwin and Cooley, but not so on tech transactions. I've heard mixed reviews on Wilmer - some like the variety of transactional experience; whereas others find it to be a sweatshop without the prestige of a K&E.

I don't think Ropes is "definitely superior" to Goodwin and Cooley for life sciences. For example, Goodwin was ranked as the "biotechnology law firm of the year" for 2020, with Cooley and Ropes being ranked "National Tier 1" (https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/biotechnology-law). Not that a ranking like that is the end-all be-all, but they are all probably pretty interchangeable.

[Anonymous User]

Is K&E Boston more prestigious than Wilmer Boston? Also, I didn’t realize that Wilmer was a sweatshop. I always thought Goodwin was the sweatshop.

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

[Anonymous User]

In terms of prestige, it will depend on your practice. Definitely Kirkland if you want to do PE work. I'd say Wilmer if you want to do Litigation, especially because Kirkland Boston is almost exclusively looking for corporate transactional lawyers for that office.

In Boston, Ropes hands down is the most prestigious due to it local name recognition. But Kirkland is right there when it comes to transactional PE work, but since it's relatively newer not sure if the name spreads as well as Ropes.

And in terms of "sweatshops", I don't think Goodwin or Wilmer are known as sweatshops for Boston, considering Boston is not the same atmosphere as say NYC (though biglaw is biglaw to a certain extent).

[WhatIsLaw69]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

Damn, Boston's BigLaw market is tiny, yeah? That doesn't seem like a lot of firms.

[Anonymous User]

Foley Hoag has a very strong Public International Law practice, in case anyone is considering them for lit. They do a lot of work representing nations, which is an interesting niche IMO.

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

Damn, Boston's BigLaw market is tiny, yeah? That doesn't seem like a lot of firms.

Original poster to what you quoted above. Yes, it's a very small market. It's essentially (I) three very large, Boston-headquartered nationals firms (Ropes/Goodwin/Wilmer), (II) a handful of very well-to-somewhat well respected regional firms (Choate, Mintz, Foley Hoag, Morgan Lewis/Bingham, Goulston, Nixon Peabody, Nutter, Sullivan & Worcester, Brown Rudnick), and (III) a bunch of satellite offices of national firms, all of which vary in local presence but tend to be on the small side (Proskauer, K&E, Cooley, Skadden, Jones Day, K&L Gates, Dechert, MoFo, WSGR, McDermott, Hogan Lovells, Greenberg Traurig, Quinn Emanuel, etc.).

While some of the satellite offices get more buzz than others (namely K&E, which I promise you gets more buzz and respect from the younger, law student / young associate-leaning demographic at TLS than more senior attorneys in Boston), most of these satellites take incoming associate classes in the single digits (and in many cases, the low single digits). If you're on the transactional side and you have offers at both the "Big 3" versus a national satellite, I would have a very, very hard time telling anyone to take the national satellite, unless you had a significantly better connection with the people you interviewed with at the satellite. And this viewpoint isn't specific to Boston--I would say the same if someone targeting Northern California had offers at both Fenwick/WSGR/Cooley and S&C/DPW/Skadden's Silicon Valley offices.

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

Damn, Boston's BigLaw market is tiny, yeah? That doesn't seem like a lot of firms.

Original poster to what you quoted above. Yes, it's a very small market. It's essentially (I) three very large, Boston-headquartered nationals firms (Ropes/Goodwin/Wilmer), (II) a handful of very well-to-somewhat well respected regional firms (Choate, Mintz, Foley Hoag, Morgan Lewis/Bingham, Goulston, Nixon Peabody, Nutter, Sullivan & Worcester, Brown Rudnick), and (III) a bunch of satellite offices of national firms, all of which vary in local presence but tend to be on the small side (Proskauer, K&E, Cooley, Skadden, Jones Day, K&L Gates, Dechert, MoFo, WSGR, McDermott, Hogan Lovells, Greenberg Traurig, Quinn Emanuel, etc.).

While some of the satellite offices get more buzz than others (namely K&E, which I promise you gets more buzz and respect from the younger, law student / young associate-leaning demographic at TLS than more senior attorneys in Boston), most of these satellites take incoming associate classes in the single digits (and in many cases, the low single digits). If you're on the transactional side and you have offers at both the "Big 3" versus a national satellite, I would have a very, very hard time telling anyone to take the national satellite, unless you had a significantly better connection with the people you interviewed with at the satellite. And this viewpoint isn't specific to Boston--I would say the same if someone targeting Northern California had offers at both Fenwick/WSGR/Cooley and S&C/DPW/Skadden's Silicon Valley offices.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Ropes is "definitely superior" to Goodwin and Cooley for life sciences. For example, Goodwin was ranked as the "biotechnology law firm of the year" for 2020, with Cooley and Ropes being ranked "National Tier 1" (https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/biotechnology-law). Not that a ranking like that is the end-all be-all, but they are all probably pretty interchangeable.

At Ropes doing Life Sciences work. Real difference between Ropes and Cooley/Goodwin is the client base. We're opposite Cooley/Goodwin on a lot of deals, and more often than not the breakdown is Ropes is representing the legacy big pharma and Cooley/Goodwin representing the newer company (not necessarily a startup anymore, some of those clients are big pharma in their own right but went public 5 years ago instead of 20). Ropes does have some smaller/newer biotech and pharma clients, and Cooley/Goodwin does represent some of the legacy players, but due to the nature of conflict rules the firms have to have a slightly different focus in this space.

Cooley seems to be a player in this space because of their strong startup pipeline and not any particular focus on life sciences, but Goodwin is definitely focused on their life sciences practice in Boston.

[Anonymous User]

Great insight into these firms' transactional practices.

What's the scoop on their litigation practices? Any known sweatshops relative to the rest? Any known for good/bad culture? Any giving meaningful litigation work to entry- or mid-level associates?

[Anonymous User]

On a related note, have people received offers from Boston firms so far this cycle? Namely, anyone who interviewed with Goodwin or Foley Hoag last week?

[Anonymous User]

I'm not going to debate the rest of this, but the fact that Choate "lost a lot of biggest partners to K&E" simply is not true. They lost one partner (Atwood). The others who are listed as "partner" at K&E were associates at Choate but you just get called a "partner" earlier at K&E when you are non-equity and would still be a senior associate at most other firms.

I’m a lateral looking to go to Boston, but I’m sure this will be helpful for 2Ls as well.

A lot of the Boston firm posts are stale (pre-Kirkland expansion). How do the firms stack up now? Are there firms that are more sweat-shoppy than others? Interested in transactional side info.

I remember the big 3 being Ropes, Wilmer, and Goodwin. Is that still the case? Is Goodwin still considered the sweatshop of the three with Ropes being the most laid back?

How do Choate, Kirkland, Proskauer, Foley Hoag, Nixon Peabody, etc. fit into everything?

Any intel appreciated.

On transactional side, a few thoughts. Things like culture and hours are hard to be objective on without being anecdotal, so have less thoughts on those

Ropes - Not sure where “laid back” came from. I’ve heard of some hours amounts from their capital markets and private equity group that are shockingly high. Still one of top PEG practices in Boston with really strong funds group. Personal view based on leverage numbers (that are a few years old) is they may be the biggest churn and burn firm.

Wilmer - Shouldn’t really be considered Big 3 when you’re talking transactional. I’m not really sure where they focus these days - as they were tech and life sciences focused 5+ years back, but I believe they’ve skinnied down those groups - I certainly don’t see them a lot.

Goodwin - Top tier life science practice (including Moderna). Tech top tier as well, but more in line with Cooley, Gunderson, etc on the tech side. PE practice is a step below Ropes and K&E but still solid - more middle market players.

K&E - Become very competitive with Ropes for top PE practice in Boston. Kirkland culture, hours, etc. I think speak for themselves.

Choate - Lost a lot of biggest partners like Atwood to K&E. Corporate is really private equity focused. Can’t speak to hours, but has kind of a stuffy, formal reputation. Kind of an old man’s country club feeling.

Proskauer - Don’t see a ton of them. I think their Boston group is really funds focused with some PE deal workflow still going through. Could be a bit wrong on this one - I don’t have a great sense on where they’re at these days

Foley Hoag - Decent early stage practice, but a step below Cooley, Gunderson, Goodwin. They’ve held onto a couple impressive early stage companies (like I think they still have Indigo), but I think a lot of top clients get poached by three I mentioned above. But they have a pretty decent M&A practice (unlike a few others like Nutter who seem to lose those deals on startups).

Nixon - don’t really see them in the mix here

This is generally pretty accurate, though I believe Ropes can be more chill if you find yourself in the right practice group (i.e. not capital markets or PE). Also, Ropes is definitely superior for life sciences relative to Goodwin and Cooley, but not so on tech transactions. I've heard mixed reviews on Wilmer - some like the variety of transactional experience; whereas others find it to be a sweatshop without the prestige of a K&E.

I don't think Ropes is "definitely superior" to Goodwin and Cooley for life sciences. For example, Goodwin was ranked as the "biotechnology law firm of the year" for 2020, with Cooley and Ropes being ranked "National Tier 1" (https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/biotechnology-law). Not that a ranking like that is the end-all be-all, but they are all probably pretty interchangeable.

[Anonymous User]

This is generally pretty accurate, though I believe Ropes can be more chill if you find yourself in the right practice group (i.e. not capital markets or PE). Also, Ropes is definitely superior for life sciences relative to Goodwin and Cooley, but not so on tech transactions. I've heard mixed reviews on Wilmer - some like the variety of transactional experience; whereas others find it to be a sweatshop without the prestige of a K&E.

It would be hard to beat Ropes for PE, but this take is wildly off base regarding Ropes and life sciences. Goodwin and Cooley lead the way in life sciences, and then you see Ropes and Wilmer in a distinct next tier with Latham I'd think. It's not hard to figure out, just look at the cover page for all of the IPOs over the last couple of years to get a sense for which firms represent all of the biotechs.

[Anonymous User]

This is generally pretty accurate, though I believe Ropes can be more chill if you find yourself in the right practice group (i.e. not capital markets or PE). Also, Ropes is definitely superior for life sciences relative to Goodwin and Cooley, but not so on tech transactions. I've heard mixed reviews on Wilmer - some like the variety of transactional experience; whereas others find it to be a sweatshop without the prestige of a K&E.

It would be hard to beat Ropes for PE, but this take is wildly off base regarding Ropes and life sciences. Goodwin and Cooley lead the way in life sciences, and then you see Ropes and Wilmer in a distinct next tier with Latham I'd think. It's not hard to figure out, just look at the cover page for all of the IPOs over the last couple of years to get a sense for which firms represent all of the biotechs.

As someone who works in the industry, IPOs are just one portion of Life Sciences work. You also need to consider life sciences M&A, licensing/tech transactions, regulatory and litigation.

Goodwin and Cooley have stronger company-side capital markets practices, but Ropes is as decorated, if not more decorated in the other subpractices. As someone earlier also mentioned, you also need to consider the client base. Ropes represents more big pharma clients than Goodwin and Cooley combined.

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

I am a senior transactional associate at Goodwin. I would say I think people in this thread are underselling the stealth layoffs at Goodwin. If I were a 2L looking at firms knowing what I know now, I would stay away from Goodwin and prefer Ropes or a strong satellite like Cooley, Latham, Proskauer, Weil. Maybe Kirkland if you are into that. Kirkland does a lot of PE work, though expect it to be more "middle market" than Kirkland NY or Chicago.

Ropes is an obvious choice. Very financially stable and they do everything transactional from Boston so if you are not sure exactly what practice group it puts you in the strongest position in terms of flexibility. Agreed with the posts above on life sciences. Ropes represents more traditional big pharma and Goodwin/Cooley represents pharma startups and publicly traded pharma that were startups relatively recently.

Agreed that Weil is a PE hub. I dont think they do other transactional work from Boston - on deals across from Weil Boston for example all specialists are in NY.

Goodwin has all groups in Boston too, but I would proceed with caution. Saying that "everyone does" stealth layoffs is misleading and makes Goodwin sound better than they are. In the first weeks of the pandemic the firm fired, per reports on this website and Above the Law, 50-100 associates. Then it quickly became clear there would not be a pandemic slow down and the firm has hired dozens of new associates in the last six months or so. No "undoing" the layoffs of course. The firm still publicly denies the layoffs but I can tell you from experience the cuts were wide and deep and affected people with good reviews and well above minimum hours. First and second years were included and that can be a real career blow.

Goodwin plays other games too. The first of these is that bonuses are allegedly merit based and driven by a numerical 1-5 rating. They advertise this can mean above market bonuses but it just as well can cover not getting any bonus whatsoever. Goodwin used to reveal the percentage of associates that do not get bonuses to associates but conveniently they did not do so this year. Assume that means they don't want that information getting out. They also will hold back associates with low ratings from moving up in class year for salary and frequently bring in laterals at one to two years below their current actual class year. The alleged merit-based system frequently gives arbitrary ratings and personal favorites get high rating regardless of hours. Also I will note I have not been affected by these things but now plenty of people that have. Can't speak for other firms in Boston if they are doing the same things but I know enough people that have been affected by these that I really think its worth considering. I would take other offers if you have them.

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

I am a senior transactional associate at Goodwin. I would say I think people in this thread are underselling the stealth layoffs at Goodwin. If I were a 2L looking at firms knowing what I know now, I would stay away from Goodwin and prefer Ropes or a strong satellite like Cooley, Latham, Proskauer, Weil. Maybe Kirkland if you are into that. Kirkland does a lot of PE work, though expect it to be more "middle market" than Kirkland NY or Chicago.

Ropes is an obvious choice. Very financially stable and they do everything transactional from Boston so if you are not sure exactly what practice group it puts you in the strongest position in terms of flexibility. Agreed with the posts above on life sciences. Ropes represents more traditional big pharma and Goodwin/Cooley represents pharma startups and publicly traded pharma that were startups relatively recently.

Agreed that Weil is a PE hub. I dont think they do other transactional work from Boston - on deals across from Weil Boston for example all specialists are in NY.

Goodwin has all groups in Boston too, but I would proceed with caution. Saying that "everyone does" stealth layoffs is misleading and makes Goodwin sound better than they are. In the first weeks of the pandemic the firm fired, per reports on this website and Above the Law, 50-100 associates. Then it quickly became clear there would not be a pandemic slow down and the firm has hired dozens of new associates in the last six months or so. No "undoing" the layoffs of course. The firm still publicly denies the layoffs but I can tell you from experience the cuts were wide and deep and affected people with good reviews and well above minimum hours. First and second years were included and that can be a real career blow.

Goodwin plays other games too. The first of these is that bonuses are allegedly merit based and driven by a numerical 1-5 rating. They advertise this can mean above market bonuses but it just as well can cover not getting any bonus whatsoever. Goodwin used to reveal the percentage of associates that do not get bonuses to associates but conveniently they did not do so this year. Assume that means they don't want that information getting out. They also will hold back associates with low ratings from moving up in class year for salary and frequently bring in laterals at one to two years below their current actual class year. The alleged merit-based system frequently gives arbitrary ratings and personal favorites get high rating regardless of hours. Also I will note I have not been affected by these things but now plenty of people that have. Can't speak for other firms in Boston if they are doing the same things but I know enough people that have been affected by these that I really think its worth considering. I would take other offers if you have them.

Former Goodwin associate chiming in. The above post is spot on and consistent with my experience there. Their business model is profitable by churning through associates, so unless you are one of the few that are going to make partner, the average shelf life (at least as far as I've seen) is about 2-3 years. They also have a lot of loopholes that allow them to skimp on comp while pretending to pay across the board market salary + bonuses.

I would also like to add that the firm does unlimited vacation days, which for me meant working through days off and never really getting a break from work once that policy was implemented. Would recommend avoiding Goodwin if you can.

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

I am a senior transactional associate at Goodwin. I would say I think people in this thread are underselling the stealth layoffs at Goodwin. If I were a 2L looking at firms knowing what I know now, I would stay away from Goodwin and prefer Ropes or a strong satellite like Cooley, Latham, Proskauer, Weil. Maybe Kirkland if you are into that. Kirkland does a lot of PE work, though expect it to be more "middle market" than Kirkland NY or Chicago.

Ropes is an obvious choice. Very financially stable and they do everything transactional from Boston so if you are not sure exactly what practice group it puts you in the strongest position in terms of flexibility. Agreed with the posts above on life sciences. Ropes represents more traditional big pharma and Goodwin/Cooley represents pharma startups and publicly traded pharma that were startups relatively recently.

Agreed that Weil is a PE hub. I dont think they do other transactional work from Boston - on deals across from Weil Boston for example all specialists are in NY.

Goodwin has all groups in Boston too, but I would proceed with caution. Saying that "everyone does" stealth layoffs is misleading and makes Goodwin sound better than they are. In the first weeks of the pandemic the firm fired, per reports on this website and Above the Law, 50-100 associates. Then it quickly became clear there would not be a pandemic slow down and the firm has hired dozens of new associates in the last six months or so. No "undoing" the layoffs of course. The firm still publicly denies the layoffs but I can tell you from experience the cuts were wide and deep and affected people with good reviews and well above minimum hours. First and second years were included and that can be a real career blow.

Goodwin plays other games too. The first of these is that bonuses are allegedly merit based and driven by a numerical 1-5 rating. They advertise this can mean above market bonuses but it just as well can cover not getting any bonus whatsoever. Goodwin used to reveal the percentage of associates that do not get bonuses to associates but conveniently they did not do so this year. Assume that means they don't want that information getting out. They also will hold back associates with low ratings from moving up in class year for salary and frequently bring in laterals at one to two years below their current actual class year. The alleged merit-based system frequently gives arbitrary ratings and personal favorites get high rating regardless of hours. Also I will note I have not been affected by these things but now plenty of people that have. Can't speak for other firms in Boston if they are doing the same things but I know enough people that have been affected by these that I really think its worth considering. I would take other offers if you have them.

Former Goodwin associate chiming in. The above post is spot on and consistent with my experience there. Their business model is profitable by churning through associates, so unless you are one of the few that are going to make partner, the average shelf life (at least as far as I've seen) is about 2-3 years. They also have a lot of loopholes that allow them to skimp on comp while pretending to pay across the board market salary + bonuses.

I would also like to add that the firm does unlimited vacation days, which for me meant working through days off and never really getting a break from work once that policy was implemented. Would recommend avoiding Goodwin if you can.

For the sake of full disclosure, I was an SA at Goodwin this past summer. Thank you both for adding your insight. But isn't 2-3 years the average shelf-life for biglaw associates? This doesn't seem unusual from my limited knowledge of the profession, but I can see stealthing first and second years being career ruining.

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

I am a senior transactional associate at Goodwin. I would say I think people in this thread are underselling the stealth layoffs at Goodwin. If I were a 2L looking at firms knowing what I know now, I would stay away from Goodwin and prefer Ropes or a strong satellite like Cooley, Latham, Proskauer, Weil. Maybe Kirkland if you are into that. Kirkland does a lot of PE work, though expect it to be more "middle market" than Kirkland NY or Chicago.

Ropes is an obvious choice. Very financially stable and they do everything transactional from Boston so if you are not sure exactly what practice group it puts you in the strongest position in terms of flexibility. Agreed with the posts above on life sciences. Ropes represents more traditional big pharma and Goodwin/Cooley represents pharma startups and publicly traded pharma that were startups relatively recently.

Agreed that Weil is a PE hub. I dont think they do other transactional work from Boston - on deals across from Weil Boston for example all specialists are in NY.

Goodwin has all groups in Boston too, but I would proceed with caution. Saying that "everyone does" stealth layoffs is misleading and makes Goodwin sound better than they are. In the first weeks of the pandemic the firm fired, per reports on this website and Above the Law, 50-100 associates. Then it quickly became clear there would not be a pandemic slow down and the firm has hired dozens of new associates in the last six months or so. No "undoing" the layoffs of course. The firm still publicly denies the layoffs but I can tell you from experience the cuts were wide and deep and affected people with good reviews and well above minimum hours. First and second years were included and that can be a real career blow.

Goodwin plays other games too. The first of these is that bonuses are allegedly merit based and driven by a numerical 1-5 rating. They advertise this can mean above market bonuses but it just as well can cover not getting any bonus whatsoever. Goodwin used to reveal the percentage of associates that do not get bonuses to associates but conveniently they did not do so this year. Assume that means they don't want that information getting out. They also will hold back associates with low ratings from moving up in class year for salary and frequently bring in laterals at one to two years below their current actual class year. The alleged merit-based system frequently gives arbitrary ratings and personal favorites get high rating regardless of hours. Also I will note I have not been affected by these things but now plenty of people that have. Can't speak for other firms in Boston if they are doing the same things but I know enough people that have been affected by these that I really think its worth considering. I would take other offers if you have them.

Former Goodwin associate chiming in. The above post is spot on and consistent with my experience there. Their business model is profitable by churning through associates, so unless you are one of the few that are going to make partner, the average shelf life (at least as far as I've seen) is about 2-3 years. They also have a lot of loopholes that allow them to skimp on comp while pretending to pay across the board market salary + bonuses.

I would also like to add that the firm does unlimited vacation days, which for me meant working through days off and never really getting a break from work once that policy was implemented. Would recommend avoiding Goodwin if you can.

Delete for triple post

[Anonymous User]

Currently at a Boston-based firm, on the transactional side. The second post in this thread is fairly accurate, but wanted to provide my perspective (again, only from the transactional side).

I. THE "BIG 3" (?):
To start, Ropes and Goodwin are head and shoulders the two preeminent firms in the market in terms of transactional work. Ropes has a preeminent PE M&A practice nationally, and is also nationally-regarded for its funds, healthcare, and life sciences work (but PE will always be what it's best known for). Goodwin has re-branded itself over the past 5-10 years as a national leader in tech and life sciences (i.e., aspiring to be the "WSGR, Cooley, Fenwick, etc." of the East Coast), while also having a growing PE practice. Both of them are probably more humane than your average white shoe NY firm in terms of culture (as are most Boston firms generally), but I would say the practice group you pick will be more indicative of hours and culture than the firm itself (i.e., a tech transactions associate at Goodwin probably has a similar work/life balance to a tech transactions associate at Ropes). Goodwin tends to be a more active player in the lateral markets, while also seeming to have a higher attrition rate in terms of rumored "stealth layoffs" (although frankly, everyone does it).

Between the two, Ropes has clearly the stronger PE practice. Goodwin is more active for emerging companies and company-side IPOs (while the Ropes's capital markets work is more underwriter-leaning). Both of them do tech transactions/licensing work extremely well.

Wilmer has fallen behind Ropes and Goodwin over the years on the transactional side, after a series of high-level lateral departures (most notably to Latham and a few others). They are still active in the tech and life sciences sector, but not nearly as much as was the case 10+ years ago.

II. THE REST:
After these three firms, it's completely subjective, as it's a mix of decent regional firms and satellites of international firms.

Kirkland has been very flashy about its arrival in Boston, but from as far as I can tell, they've mostly poached attorneys and clients from Proskauer and Choate, neither of whom were leaders in the market in the first place.

Choate, Foley Hoag, Mintz, and Morgan Lewis (aka Bingham McCutcheon, pre-merger) are all well-respected, second tier firms in Boston with their own respective niches, but without much notoriety outside of the Commonwealth. Goulston & Storrs is best known for their real estate work and gorgeous office, but not much else.

On the satellite side, Cooley is an active player in the PE and emerging company sectors, with a reputation for a high burn-out rate. Skadden has a tiny office, but prides itself in handling high-end M&A work (albeit fairly quietly and at a low volume). Proskauer has a great funds practice (after inheriting some partners from a few blown-up Boston firms from the early 2000s), but not much else. Weil is small and, as far as I know, is mostly a PE hub. Hogan Lovells, Pepper Hamilton, WSGR and MoFo are all new to the city (and are all very small). Jones Day, Dechert, Greenberg Traurig, and McDermott have all been around for awhile at this point, but I couldn't tell you what they're active in (and are also very small).

I am a senior transactional associate at Goodwin. I would say I think people in this thread are underselling the stealth layoffs at Goodwin. If I were a 2L looking at firms knowing what I know now, I would stay away from Goodwin and prefer Ropes or a strong satellite like Cooley, Latham, Proskauer, Weil. Maybe Kirkland if you are into that. Kirkland does a lot of PE work, though expect it to be more "middle market" than Kirkland NY or Chicago.

Ropes is an obvious choice. Very financially stable and they do everything transactional from Boston so if you are not sure exactly what practice group it puts you in the strongest position in terms of flexibility. Agreed with the posts above on life sciences. Ropes represents more traditional big pharma and Goodwin/Cooley represents pharma startups and publicly traded pharma that were startups relatively recently.

Agreed that Weil is a PE hub. I dont think they do other transactional work from Boston - on deals across from Weil Boston for example all specialists are in NY.

Goodwin has all groups in Boston too, but I would proceed with caution. Saying that "everyone does" stealth layoffs is misleading and makes Goodwin sound better than they are. In the first weeks of the pandemic the firm fired, per reports on this website and Above the Law, 50-100 associates. Then it quickly became clear there would not be a pandemic slow down and the firm has hired dozens of new associates in the last six months or so. No "undoing" the layoffs of course. The firm still publicly denies the layoffs but I can tell you from experience the cuts were wide and deep and affected people with good reviews and well above minimum hours. First and second years were included and that can be a real career blow.

Goodwin plays other games too. The first of these is that bonuses are allegedly merit based and driven by a numerical 1-5 rating. They advertise this can mean above market bonuses but it just as well can cover not getting any bonus whatsoever. Goodwin used to reveal the percentage of associates that do not get bonuses to associates but conveniently they did not do so this year. Assume that means they don't want that information getting out. They also will hold back associates with low ratings from moving up in class year for salary and frequently bring in laterals at one to two years below their current actual class year. The alleged merit-based system frequently gives arbitrary ratings and personal favorites get high rating regardless of hours. Also I will note I have not been affected by these things but now plenty of people that have. Can't speak for other firms in Boston if they are doing the same things but I know enough people that have been affected by these that I really think its worth considering. I would take other offers if you have them.

Former Goodwin associate chiming in. The above post is spot on and consistent with my experience there. Their business model is profitable by churning through associates, so unless you are one of the few that are going to make partner, the average shelf life (at least as far as I've seen) is about 2-3 years. They also have a lot of loopholes that allow them to skimp on comp while pretending to pay across the board market salary + bonuses.

I would also like to add that the firm does unlimited vacation days, which for me meant working through days off and never really getting a break from work once that policy was implemented. Would recommend avoiding Goodwin if you can.

Deleted for triple post

[Anonymous User]

For the sake of full disclosure, I was an SA at Goodwin this past summer. Thank you both for adding your insight. But isn't 2-3 years the average shelf-life for biglaw associates? This doesn't seem unusual from my limited knowledge of the profession, but I can see stealthing first and second years being career ruining.

I think that as an associate you want more like 4-5 years and my impression is that is more the norm. The idea being that being a mid-level in a transactional group is more or less mandatory to get a legit in-house gig, assuming that's a goal. There are some people that go in house earlier but that's the norm for what tend to be the better roles. You can search corporate counsel jobs on a job board like Indeed and see what I'm talking about in terms of getting more experience. Even if your goal is to move to another firm being a mid-level gives you more options in terms of being marketable. From people I know at other firms it's normal to be a 4-6 year at the time firms start pushing people out more though I can't speak for every place. This is because mid levels are among the most profitable and in demand in part because that's when people tend to start leaving for in house. I would say the average tenure at Goodwin is shorter than what my friends at other firms see.

For the Goodwin SA anon, one thing to be aware of is that they only now give you a year to float between corporate practice groups so you need to find a fit early to put yourself in the best position. I know of a couple first years that were still between groups and that were not fully in one group that were included in the layoffs. It's much easier to get into private equity or tech/life sciences right now compared to real estate or funds and my impression is that specialist groups are difficult to get into as well. Also there are some practices that seem to only hire laterals like ERISA so avoid those. You'll put yourself in a better position in terms of being preserved by strongly indicating for the groups that need more juniors. But there were people in those groups affected by the cuts too to be sure. Ideally you would slot in relatively quickly with a client/deal team and are getting consistent work such that you would be less affected by any future measures.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not going to debate the rest of this, but the fact that Choate "lost a lot of biggest partners to K&E" simply is not true. They lost one partner (Atwood). The others who are listed as "partner" at K&E were associates at Choate but you just get called a "partner" earlier at K&E when you are non-equity and would still be a senior associate at most other firms.

FWIW especially to those considering offers, Choate seems to have lost almost all of its corporate associates in the last few months (potentially to Kirkland?). The website is looking pretty sparse.

The difference in PE practices between Ropes and Kirkland and other firms mentioned in the thread is that clients send tricky or big dollar value deals to Ropes/Kirkland and "normal" LBO work to Choate, Goodwin, etc. Clients can't justify paying the R/K high hourly rates for regular upper or middle market deals. Between Ropes and Kirkland, Ropes is stuffier but more humane with hours and better name recognition in Boston. Kirkland is Kirkland, some clients will always prefer their style of work so they will continue gaining a foothold into the Boston market.

[Anonymous User]

For the sake of full disclosure, I was an SA at Goodwin this past summer. Thank you both for adding your insight. But isn't 2-3 years the average shelf-life for biglaw associates? This doesn't seem unusual from my limited knowledge of the profession, but I can see stealthing first and second years being career ruining.

I think that as an associate you want more like 4-5 years and my impression is that is more the norm. The idea being that being a mid-level in a transactional group is more or less mandatory to get a legit in-house gig, assuming that's a goal. There are some people that go in house earlier but that's the norm for what tend to be the better roles. You can search corporate counsel jobs on a job board like Indeed and see what I'm talking about in terms of getting more experience. Even if your goal is to move to another firm being a mid-level gives you more options in terms of being marketable. From people I know at other firms it's normal to be a 4-6 year at the time firms start pushing people out more though I can't speak for every place. This is because mid levels are among the most profitable and in demand in part because that's when people tend to start leaving for in house. I would say the average tenure at Goodwin is shorter than what my friends at other firms see.

For the Goodwin SA anon, one thing to be aware of is that they only now give you a year to float between corporate practice groups so you need to find a fit early to put yourself in the best position. I know of a couple first years that were still between groups and that were not fully in one group that were included in the layoffs. It's much easier to get into private equity or tech/life sciences right now compared to real estate or funds and my impression is that specialist groups are difficult to get into as well. Also there are some practices that seem to only hire laterals like ERISA so avoid those. You'll put yourself in a better position in terms of being preserved by strongly indicating for the groups that need more juniors. But there were people in those groups affected by the cuts too to be sure. Ideally you would slot in relatively quickly with a client/deal team and are getting consistent work such that you would be less affected by any future measures.

I'm the SA anon. Thanks so much for your helpful insight! I was actually considering a specialist group, so now I know to stick with corporate and preface PE or life sciences. My goal is definitely to stick it out for as long as possible to have the best exit ops.