S&G v. S&C Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am deciding between Selendy & Gay and Sullivan & Cromwell. I am interested in antitrust and white-collar work but am intrigued by S&G's focus on trials. I would like to retain the option of exiting to a USAO but want to maximize partner chances. Any idea how to decide between these?

[Anonymous User]

If you are interested in being an AUSA/criminal work Sullivan is by far the better choice. Chances are you aren't making partner at either, so that shouldn't really be a consideration.

[Anonymous User]

If you're interested in antitrust and white collar, choose S&C. Selendy won't have much antitrust work, and S&C has quite a strong group there. Also, S&C has a truly kick-ass white collar / investigations team (probs their best lit practice area). Selendy is fine, but S&C name will also get you a lot farther as a place to start. Harder to go from a very new boutique to big law than the other way around...

[Anonymous User]

If you are interested in being an AUSA/criminal work Sullivan is by far the better choice. Chances are you aren't making partner at either, so that shouldn't really be a consideration.

Why would it be impossible to make partner at Selendy?

[Anonymous User]

Oddly enough I have basically this choice and I'm going S&C. Beyond just enjoying my interviews/convos more with them, I had a two other thoughts.
1. S&C just has more cache/bigger network which I think is important for starting a legal career. There's nothing wrong with choosing to work at a tippy top firm in NYC for a few years, even without a long-term plan.
2. If I decide I really want trial work, I can go clerk-→boutique or lateral from S&C to a firm like S&G with little issue. I think it's much harder to do the reverse.

Just my two cents but you also can't really go that wrong. Good Luck!

[Anonymous User]

If you are interested in being an AUSA/criminal work Sullivan is by far the better choice. Chances are you aren't making partner at either, so that shouldn't really be a consideration.

Why would it be impossible to make partner at Selendy?

OP. My understanding was that Selendy is looking to promote internally as they continue to have more summer classes so I thought making partner would be comparatively easier there if I joined while they are relatively new. One issue I am concerned about is exit options available if Selendy doesn't work out for whatever reason (e.g., cultural fit).

[Anonymous User]

If you are interested in being an AUSA/criminal work Sullivan is by far the better choice. Chances are you aren't making partner at either, so that shouldn't really be a consideration.

Why would it be impossible to make partner at Selendy?

.

[Anonymous User]

Oddly enough I have basically this choice and I'm going S&C. Beyond just enjoying my interviews/convos more with them, I had a two other thoughts.
1. S&C just has more cache/bigger network which I think is important for starting a legal career. There's nothing wrong with choosing to work at a tippy top firm in NYC for a few years, even without a long-term plan.
2. If I decide I really want trial work, I can go clerk-→boutique or lateral from S&C to a firm like S&G with little issue. I think it's much harder to do the reverse.

Just my two cents but you also can't really go that wrong. Good Luck!

OP. Thanks for your input. Regarding your second point, did you feel that it would be easy to lateral to a boutique from S&C? From speaking to some of the S&G associates, it seemed they were of the opinion that as you get more senior in biglaw, the skills gap between the average biglaw and boutique associate increases—thus making you less marketable. Thoughts on this?

[Anonymous User]

Oddly enough I have basically this choice and I'm going S&C. Beyond just enjoying my interviews/convos more with them, I had a two other thoughts.
1. S&C just has more cache/bigger network which I think is important for starting a legal career. There's nothing wrong with choosing to work at a tippy top firm in NYC for a few years, even without a long-term plan.
2. If I decide I really want trial work, I can go clerk-→boutique or lateral from S&C to a firm like S&G with little issue. I think it's much harder to do the reverse.

Just my two cents but you also can't really go that wrong. Good Luck!

OP. Thanks for your input. Regarding your second point, did you feel that it would be easy to lateral to a boutique from S&C? From speaking to some of the S&G associates, it seemed they were of the opinion that as you get more senior in biglaw, the skills gap between the average biglaw and boutique associate increases—thus making you less marketable. Thoughts on this?

My thought process is if I'm pursuing trial work, I'm gonna have to go clerk anyway then go boutique/firm with trial focus (S&C has done a few big trials but obvisouly not a focus). Just looking at the mid-to-senior associate bios at various boutiques, so many are laterals from top firms that I know it's clearly a viable path. Ofc the market could change but the broader issue is just that trial work is not as economically viable as it used to be so a hard road. I don't think starting at a top firm like S&C is gonna close those doors though.

[Anonymous User]

Oddly enough I have basically this choice and I'm going S&C. Beyond just enjoying my interviews/convos more with them, I had a two other thoughts.
1. S&C just has more cache/bigger network which I think is important for starting a legal career. There's nothing wrong with choosing to work at a tippy top firm in NYC for a few years, even without a long-term plan.
2. If I decide I really want trial work, I can go clerk-→boutique or lateral from S&C to a firm like S&G with little issue. I think it's much harder to do the reverse.

Just my two cents but you also can't really go that wrong. Good Luck!

OP. Thanks for your input. Regarding your second point, did you feel that it would be easy to lateral to a boutique from S&C? From speaking to some of the S&G associates, it seemed they were of the opinion that as you get more senior in biglaw, the skills gap between the average biglaw and boutique associate increases—thus making you less marketable. Thoughts on this?

My thought process is if I'm pursuing trial work, I'm gonna have to go clerk anyway then go boutique/firm with trial focus (S&C has done a few big trials but obvisouly not a focus). Just looking at the mid-to-senior associate bios at various boutiques, so many are laterals from top firms that I know it's clearly a viable path. Ofc the market could change but the broader issue is just that trial work is not as economically viable as it used to be so a hard road. I don't think starting at a top firm like S&C is gonna close those doors though.

Those are great points—thank you. Good luck with the clerkship hunt and congrats on your offers!

[Anonymous User]

Oddly enough I have basically this choice and I'm going S&C. Beyond just enjoying my interviews/convos more with them, I had a two other thoughts.
1. S&C just has more cache/bigger network which I think is important for starting a legal career. There's nothing wrong with choosing to work at a tippy top firm in NYC for a few years, even without a long-term plan.
2. If I decide I really want trial work, I can go clerk-→boutique or lateral from S&C to a firm like S&G with little issue. I think it's much harder to do the reverse.

Just my two cents but you also can't really go that wrong. Good Luck!

OP. Thanks for your input. Regarding your second point, did you feel that it would be easy to lateral to a boutique from S&C? From speaking to some of the S&G associates, it seemed they were of the opinion that as you get more senior in biglaw, the skills gap between the average biglaw and boutique associate increases—thus making you less marketable. Thoughts on this?

My thought process is if I'm pursuing trial work, I'm gonna have to go clerk anyway then go boutique/firm with trial focus (S&C has done a few big trials but obvisouly not a focus). Just looking at the mid-to-senior associate bios at various boutiques, so many are laterals from top firms that I know it's clearly a viable path. Ofc the market could change but the broader issue is just that trial work is not as economically viable as it used to be so a hard road. I don't think starting at a top firm like S&C is gonna close those doors though.

Different anon (the one who originally asked about partnership) - facing a similar choice between Selendy and another V5 firm. If I see myself doing trials and boutique work, I'm not sure I see the benefit in delaying going to a place like Selendy. I'm sure you can lateral from S&C/Cravath/etc to a boutique, but do you learn anything there or gain anything you wouldn't get just going straight to the boutique? All of their associates are laterals from BigLaw, and I thought partnership would be more attainable. Am I thinking about this decision wrong?

[Anonymous User]

Oddly enough I have basically this choice and I'm going S&C. Beyond just enjoying my interviews/convos more with them, I had a two other thoughts.
1. S&C just has more cache/bigger network which I think is important for starting a legal career. There's nothing wrong with choosing to work at a tippy top firm in NYC for a few years, even without a long-term plan.
2. If I decide I really want trial work, I can go clerk-→boutique or lateral from S&C to a firm like S&G with little issue. I think it's much harder to do the reverse.

Just my two cents but you also can't really go that wrong. Good Luck!

OP. Thanks for your input. Regarding your second point, did you feel that it would be easy to lateral to a boutique from S&C? From speaking to some of the S&G associates, it seemed they were of the opinion that as you get more senior in biglaw, the skills gap between the average biglaw and boutique associate increases—thus making you less marketable. Thoughts on this?

My thought process is if I'm pursuing trial work, I'm gonna have to go clerk anyway then go boutique/firm with trial focus (S&C has done a few big trials but obvisouly not a focus). Just looking at the mid-to-senior associate bios at various boutiques, so many are laterals from top firms that I know it's clearly a viable path. Ofc the market could change but the broader issue is just that trial work is not as economically viable as it used to be so a hard road. I don't think starting at a top firm like S&C is gonna close those doors though.

Different anon (the one who originally asked about partnership) - facing a similar choice between Selendy and another V5 firm. If I see myself doing trials and boutique work, I'm not sure I see the benefit in delaying going to a place like Selendy. I'm sure you can lateral from S&C/Cravath/etc to a boutique, but do you learn anything there or gain anything you wouldn't get just going straight to the boutique? All of their associates are laterals from BigLaw, and I thought partnership would be more attainable. Am I thinking about this decision wrong?

You're losing some intangible, maybe meaningless things like prestige/network in general but mainly just flexibility coming out of law school. Very few law students, even top ones, are 100% dead set on a particular form of work. Starting at selendy then realizing you don't live trials the way you thought you did is much much worse than starting at a V5 and changing your mind.

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a dumb 3L, but from my perspective, if you want to be a trial lawyer, you should go to a firm that does trials absent a strong reason to the contrary. Since S&C is in the same place, pays the same (or less), treats its juniors worse by reputation, and doesn't do trial work, I really don't see why you would go to it.

That said, if you want to do white collar, going to S&C would make more sense. Though I believe that biglaw white collar and trial work are basically incompatible desires.

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a dumb 3L, but from my perspective, if you want to be a trial lawyer, you should go to a firm that does trials absent a strong reason to the contrary. Since S&C is in the same place, pays the same (or less), treats its juniors worse by reputation, and doesn't do trial work, I really don't see why you would go to it.

That said, if you want to do white collar, going to S&C would make more sense. Though I believe that biglaw white collar and trial work are basically incompatible desires.

Hmm not sure I agree but I do think it depends on the V5. With regards to S&C in particular, it does top litigation work - you will get exposure to how the biggest cases get done and the truth is the vast majority simply settle because the economics of trials are terrible. You'll also get to build relationships with partners doing that work. That's a pretty valuable experience which is why boutiques want laterals from the top big litigations firms. Lifestyle wise I think its a wash (you're gonna get ground down either way). Second, if you want to be an elite trial lawyer, you're gonna need to clerk. As such, you get to try out biglaw, decide if you want trials, and then get a chance to re-assess in a few years coming out of a clerkship. I think that's a pretty good deal but just me.

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a dumb 3L, but from my perspective, if you want to be a trial lawyer, you should go to a firm that does trials absent a strong reason to the contrary. Since S&C is in the same place, pays the same (or less), treats its juniors worse by reputation, and doesn't do trial work, I really don't see why you would go to it.

That said, if you want to do white collar, going to S&C would make more sense. Though I believe that biglaw white collar and trial work are basically incompatible desires.

Hmm not sure I agree but I do think it depends on the V5. With regards to S&C in particular, it does top litigation work - you will get exposure to how the biggest cases get done and the truth is the vast majority simply settle because the economics of trials are terrible. You'll also get to build relationships with partners doing that work. That's a pretty valuable experience which is why boutiques want laterals from the top big litigations firms. Lifestyle wise I think its a wash (you're gonna get ground down either way). Second, if you want to be an elite trial lawyer, you're gonna need to clerk. As such, you get to try out biglaw, decide if you want trials, and then get a chance to re-assess in a few years coming out of a clerkship. I think that's a pretty good deal but just me.

Does S&G want people from BigLaw now? They needed them when they started out for obvious reasons, but they've been recruiting OCI and clerks pretty hard. Does anyone know what the difference in substantive work between a place like Selendy and S&C in your first 2-3 years would look like?

My theory is that if I hated trial work, I figure I could just try clerking anyway, and if I liked the experience I'd be set and have a higher chance at partnership.

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a dumb 3L, but from my perspective, if you want to be a trial lawyer, you should go to a firm that does trials absent a strong reason to the contrary. Since S&C is in the same place, pays the same (or less), treats its juniors worse by reputation, and doesn't do trial work, I really don't see why you would go to it.

That said, if you want to do white collar, going to S&C would make more sense. Though I believe that biglaw white collar and trial work are basically incompatible desires.

Hmm not sure I agree but I do think it depends on the V5. With regards to S&C in particular, it does top litigation work - you will get exposure to how the biggest cases get done and the truth is the vast majority simply settle because the economics of trials are terrible. You'll also get to build relationships with partners doing that work. That's a pretty valuable experience which is why boutiques want laterals from the top big litigations firms. Lifestyle wise I think its a wash (you're gonna get ground down either way). Second, if you want to be an elite trial lawyer, you're gonna need to clerk. As such, you get to try out biglaw, decide if you want trials, and then get a chance to re-assess in a few years coming out of a clerkship. I think that's a pretty good deal but just me.

Does S&G want people from BigLaw now? They needed them when they started out for obvious reasons, but they've been recruiting OCI and clerks pretty hard. Does anyone know what the difference in substantive work between a place like Selendy and S&C in your first 2-3 years would look like?

My theory is that if I hated trial work, I figure I could just try clerking anyway, and if I liked the experience I'd be set and have a higher chance at partnership.

I can't speak directly to S&G but have been recruited from a clerkship to a # of v similar boutiques over the last 12 months after a stint at a v5. I don't think OP can go wrong and either of the paths are very viable. Can't speak to partner track at either. However, I do think starting at S&G over S&C becomes a mistake if there's a moderate chance trial work isn't your thing.

[Anonymous User]

Could you be conflicted out of representations if you decide to move from S&G to a biglaw firm like S&C?

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a dumb 3L, but from my perspective, if you want to be a trial lawyer, you should go to a firm that does trials absent a strong reason to the contrary. Since S&C is in the same place, pays the same (or less), treats its juniors worse by reputation, and doesn't do trial work, I really don't see why you would go to it.

That said, if you want to do white collar, going to S&C would make more sense. Though I believe that biglaw white collar and trial work are basically incompatible desires.

Hmm not sure I agree but I do think it depends on the V5. With regards to S&C in particular, it does top litigation work - you will get exposure to how the biggest cases get done and the truth is the vast majority simply settle because the economics of trials are terrible. You'll also get to build relationships with partners doing that work. That's a pretty valuable experience which is why boutiques want laterals from the top big litigations firms. Lifestyle wise I think its a wash (you're gonna get ground down either way). Second, if you want to be an elite trial lawyer, you're gonna need to clerk. As such, you get to try out biglaw, decide if you want trials, and then get a chance to re-assess in a few years coming out of a clerkship. I think that's a pretty good deal but just me.

They do huge cases, but working on huge cases is if anything a negative for trial-focused associates' skill development for the reasons you give. And from the associate's perspective, there's very little net benefit to the sheer bigness and complexity of the case, opioids stuff is huge but it blows. That's why the very best litigation associates generally don't go to do commercial lit at V5s (except WLRK with its low leverage and crazy comp) anymore. If you want to go to a lit boutique to do trials, just go to a lit boutique to do trials, there's no reason to spend a few years in biglaw then maybe be able to lateral to a more trial-focused firm later.

You also don't have to clerk to do trials. Clerkships are very helpful to get jobs at lit boutiques that do trials, but OP apparently has an offer without one. (Of course, OP may not really be that interested in trials or focused on stand-up experience, but for people who are, I don't think this is close.)

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a dumb 3L, but from my perspective, if you want to be a trial lawyer, you should go to a firm that does trials absent a strong reason to the contrary. Since S&C is in the same place, pays the same (or less), treats its juniors worse by reputation, and doesn't do trial work, I really don't see why you would go to it.

That said, if you want to do white collar, going to S&C would make more sense. Though I believe that biglaw white collar and trial work are basically incompatible desires.

Hmm not sure I agree but I do think it depends on the V5. With regards to S&C in particular, it does top litigation work - you will get exposure to how the biggest cases get done and the truth is the vast majority simply settle because the economics of trials are terrible. You'll also get to build relationships with partners doing that work. That's a pretty valuable experience which is why boutiques want laterals from the top big litigations firms. Lifestyle wise I think its a wash (you're gonna get ground down either way). Second, if you want to be an elite trial lawyer, you're gonna need to clerk. As such, you get to try out biglaw, decide if you want trials, and then get a chance to re-assess in a few years coming out of a clerkship. I think that's a pretty good deal but just me.

They do huge cases, but working on huge cases is if anything a negative for trial-focused associates' skill development for the reasons you give. And from the associate's perspective, there's very little net benefit to the sheer bigness and complexity of the case, opioids stuff is huge but it blows. That's why the very best litigation associates generally don't go to do commercial lit at V5s (except WLRK with its low leverage and crazy comp) anymore. If you want to go to a lit boutique to do trials, just go to a lit boutique to do trials, there's no reason to spend a few years in biglaw then maybe be able to lateral to a more trial-focused firm later.

You also don't have to clerk to do trials. Clerkships are very helpful to get jobs at lit boutiques that do trials, but OP apparently has an offer without one. (Of course, OP may not really be that interested in trials or focused on stand-up experience, but for people who are, I don't think this is close.)

Not OP but considering S&C for lit vs DPW and I'm really leaning there bc they do seem more committed to lit work. Know neither is big on trial but the partners I talked to have done them while the DPW ones had literally never had a big trial. My thought was I could always clerk/lateral if I figured trial work was important to me but S&c might be better. Any thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

I'm just a dumb 3L, but from my perspective, if you want to be a trial lawyer, you should go to a firm that does trials absent a strong reason to the contrary. Since S&C is in the same place, pays the same (or less), treats its juniors worse by reputation, and doesn't do trial work, I really don't see why you would go to it.

That said, if you want to do white collar, going to S&C would make more sense. Though I believe that biglaw white collar and trial work are basically incompatible desires.

Hmm not sure I agree but I do think it depends on the V5. With regards to S&C in particular, it does top litigation work - you will get exposure to how the biggest cases get done and the truth is the vast majority simply settle because the economics of trials are terrible. You'll also get to build relationships with partners doing that work. That's a pretty valuable experience which is why boutiques want laterals from the top big litigations firms. Lifestyle wise I think its a wash (you're gonna get ground down either way). Second, if you want to be an elite trial lawyer, you're gonna need to clerk. As such, you get to try out biglaw, decide if you want trials, and then get a chance to re-assess in a few years coming out of a clerkship. I think that's a pretty good deal but just me.

They do huge cases, but working on huge cases is if anything a negative for trial-focused associates' skill development for the reasons you give. And from the associate's perspective, there's very little net benefit to the sheer bigness and complexity of the case, opioids stuff is huge but it blows. That's why the very best litigation associates generally don't go to do commercial lit at V5s (except WLRK with its low leverage and crazy comp) anymore. If you want to go to a lit boutique to do trials, just go to a lit boutique to do trials, there's no reason to spend a few years in biglaw then maybe be able to lateral to a more trial-focused firm later.

You also don't have to clerk to do trials. Clerkships are very helpful to get jobs at lit boutiques that do trials, but OP apparently has an offer without one. (Of course, OP may not really be that interested in trials or focused on stand-up experience, but for people who are, I don't think this is close.)

Agreed with this. As someone who had to make a similar decision, there's no reason to go to a standard Big Law firm if you know you want to do litigation. You'll get more substantive work earlier and it'll be a different experience than your other Big Law firms. The fact that there aren't too many attorneys that go from lit boutiques to Big Law firms isn't because they can't; it's because they generally don't want to.

[Sackboy]

I don't know what all this hand-wringing is about. S&G is the obvious answer. It's a loaded lit boutique. Conventional wisdom here for eternity has been lit boutique >>>>> biglaw lit. If you have the credentials to land at S&G and S&C, you're going to have no problem transitioning from a lit boutique into biglaw. Lit boutiques are more selective, generally, so there is some risk of doing it the other way around. Worst case scenario you go clerk and end up at another also prestigious shop.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know what all this hand-wringing is about. S&G is the obvious answer. It's a loaded lit boutique. Conventional wisdom here for eternity has been lit boutique >>>>> biglaw lit. If you have the credentials to land at S&G and S&C, you're going to have no problem transitioning from a lit boutique into biglaw. Lit boutiques are more selective, generally, so there is some risk of doing it the other way around. Worst case scenario you go clerk and end up at another also prestigious shop.

OP. Thank you and the others for the helpful feedback. Others in this thread have commented on the long-term economic viability of trials work. Can anyone expand on this? As I somewhat alluded to above (and others have picked up on), I do not have a defined career end-goal (beyond wanting to work in litigation). Trial experience sounds extremely interesting to me, as does white-collar practice. Having done neither, I find it difficult to make a choice between these two options.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know what all this hand-wringing is about. S&G is the obvious answer. It's a loaded lit boutique. Conventional wisdom here for eternity has been lit boutique >>>>> biglaw lit. If you have the credentials to land at S&G and S&C, you're going to have no problem transitioning from a lit boutique into biglaw. Lit boutiques are more selective, generally, so there is some risk of doing it the other way around. Worst case scenario you go clerk and end up at another also prestigious shop.

OP. Thank you and the others for the helpful feedback. Others in this thread have commented on the long-term economic viability of trials work. Can anyone expand on this? As I somewhat alluded to above (and others have picked up on), I do not have a defined career end-goal (beyond wanting to work in litigation). Trial experience sounds extremely interesting to me, as does white-collar practice. Having done neither, I find it difficult to make a choice between these two options.

Trials are high-risk and labor-intensive so they've decreased over time, but top trial specialist firms like Bartlit Beck and Susman Godfrey are more profitable than general biglaw litigation, as they often work on contingency. K&E has recently tried to move into the contingency trial practice as well, so it's clearly viable. On the other hand it's probably a higher-risk model than normal biglaw, the long-term headwinds are against high-stakes trials, and S&G is a very young firm and could have some growing pains (see: Wilkinson _____).

In general, if you want to be a litigator's litigator, like if you're very competitive/adversarial and used to do debate or mock trial or something, trial work will probably be more interesting than white collar to you. Biglaw white collar is a lot of running investigations, compliance advisory, negotiations with prosecutors over DPAs, etc., and the big firms that represent the company virtually never go to trial. A lot of associates who do it do it because they want to exit to the USAO. Some people really like investigations, etc., though, it probably just depends on your personality and interest in corporate criminal law.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know what all this hand-wringing is about. S&G is the obvious answer. It's a loaded lit boutique. Conventional wisdom here for eternity has been lit boutique >>>>> biglaw lit. If you have the credentials to land at S&G and S&C, you're going to have no problem transitioning from a lit boutique into biglaw. Lit boutiques are more selective, generally, so there is some risk of doing it the other way around. Worst case scenario you go clerk and end up at another also prestigious shop.

OP. Thank you and the others for the helpful feedback. Others in this thread have commented on the long-term economic viability of trials work. Can anyone expand on this? As I somewhat alluded to above (and others have picked up on), I do not have a defined career end-goal (beyond wanting to work in litigation). Trial experience sounds extremely interesting to me, as does white-collar practice. Having done neither, I find it difficult to make a choice between these two options.

Trials are high-risk and labor-intensive so they've decreased over time, but top trial specialist firms like Bartlit Beck and Susman Godfrey are more profitable than general biglaw litigation, as they often work on contingency. K&E has recently tried to move into the contingency trial practice as well, so it's clearly viable. On the other hand it's probably a higher-risk model than normal biglaw, the long-term headwinds are against high-stakes trials, and S&G is a very young firm and could have some growing pains (see: Wilkinson _____).

In general, if you want to be a litigator's litigator, like if you're very competitive/adversarial and used to do debate or mock trial or something, trial work will probably be more interesting than white collar to you. Biglaw white collar is a lot of running investigations, compliance advisory, negotiations with prosecutors over DPAs, etc., and the big firms that represent the company virtually never go to trial. A lot of associates who do it do it because they want to exit to the USAO. Some people really like investigations, etc., though, it probably just depends on your personality and interest in corporate criminal law.

OP. That makes sense. Either way, it seems as if I could change firms if I do get a clerkship and decide I want to do trials, though I'm not sure what exits would be available to me from there. I have been following the situation at Wilkinson—is this typical of newer firms? So far, not many of the founding partners at S&G have left, but not sure how indicative that is of future outlook.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know what all this hand-wringing is about. S&G is the obvious answer. It's a loaded lit boutique. Conventional wisdom here for eternity has been lit boutique >>>>> biglaw lit. If you have the credentials to land at S&G and S&C, you're going to have no problem transitioning from a lit boutique into biglaw. Lit boutiques are more selective, generally, so there is some risk of doing it the other way around. Worst case scenario you go clerk and end up at another also prestigious shop.

OP. Thank you and the others for the helpful feedback. Others in this thread have commented on the long-term economic viability of trials work. Can anyone expand on this? As I somewhat alluded to above (and others have picked up on), I do not have a defined career end-goal (beyond wanting to work in litigation). Trial experience sounds extremely interesting to me, as does white-collar practice. Having done neither, I find it difficult to make a choice between these two options.

Trials are high-risk and labor-intensive so they've decreased over time, but top trial specialist firms like Bartlit Beck and Susman Godfrey are more profitable than general biglaw litigation, as they often work on contingency. K&E has recently tried to move into the contingency trial practice as well, so it's clearly viable. On the other hand it's probably a higher-risk model than normal biglaw, the long-term headwinds are against high-stakes trials, and S&G is a very young firm and could have some growing pains (see: Wilkinson _____).

In general, if you want to be a litigator's litigator, like if you're very competitive/adversarial and used to do debate or mock trial or something, trial work will probably be more interesting than white collar to you. Biglaw white collar is a lot of running investigations, compliance advisory, negotiations with prosecutors over DPAs, etc., and the big firms that represent the company virtually never go to trial. A lot of associates who do it do it because they want to exit to the USAO. Some people really like investigations, etc., though, it probably just depends on your personality and interest in corporate criminal law.

OP. That makes sense. Either way, it seems as if I could change firms if I do get a clerkship and decide I want to do trials, though I'm not sure what exits would be available to me from there. I have been following the situation at Wilkinson—is this typical of newer firms? So far, not many of the founding partners at S&G have left, but not sure how indicative that is of future outlook.

I'm not sure how applicable looking at Wilkinson (name here) is for Selendy. Wilkinson is still getting a steady stream of SCOTUS level associates and the odd nature of the departures makes me wonder if something less financial and more personal occurred (1 departure quit law altogether, 1 hasn't joined a new firm in over a year, the latest departure also hasn't joined a new firm). It looks very different than the Boies implosion.