Boies Schiller Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have thoughts on boies Schiller? I know they had a bunch of partners leave recently.

[Anonymous User]

There are many threads and ATL articles documenting the demise of BSF. Like you said partners are leaving left and right. Don't think it'll be around in its current form much longer.

[Anonymous User]

If you're thinking about an offer and you want to make a throwaway account (or I can), I can DM you. I have some info that might be helpful (neutral/in BSF's favor, kind of). It's going through a very unstable/uncertain period right now but it makes sense in some circumstances.

[jotarokujo]

wouldn't go for corporate. litigation is not out of the question but everything is relative to your other options

[Anonymous User]

Agreed with the above. In 2019, I would've put BSF at the very top of litigation firms in NYC. Now, I would not go unless you have no other comparable options (i.e., I would still go to BSF over say Arent Fox obviously).

[Anonymous User]

This might be a helpful read

[Anonymous User]

This might be a helpful read

David Lat is a David Boies sycophant. Any article he writes is going to be pure propaganda. Even though Lat isn't at ATL anymore, it's very interesting that ATL is the only legal news source that's not publishing negatives stories about the firm.

[Anonymous User]

If you're thinking about an offer and you want to make a throwaway account (or I can), I can DM you. I have some info that might be helpful (neutral/in BSF's favor, kind of). It's going through a very unstable/uncertain period right now but it makes sense in some circumstances.

would you mind sharing this information?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any more insight on this?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any more insight on this?

What other insight do you need? As someone who had some inside info to BSF, I don’t think there’s much else to say. The firm is in trouble right now and it might get better and it might not. There’s no real way to say. They don’t offer above-market bonuses to new associates anymore, so it’s hard to justify going there right given the uncertainty, but there’s probably plenty of work to go around for associates given how many departures they’ve had.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have any more insight on this?

What other insight do you need? As someone who had some inside info to BSF, I don’t think there’s much else to say. The firm is in trouble right now and it might get better and it might not. There’s no real way to say. They don’t offer above-market bonuses to new associates anymore, so it’s hard to justify going there right given the uncertainty, but there’s probably plenty of work to go around for associates given how many departures they’ve had.

^ Yep. BSF is a top tier lit boutique that is very publicly - and very suddenly - going through some very hard times. They have lost around 40-50% of their people in about twelve months - going from 340 to 180 attorneys. The LA office basically entirely disappeared and the DC office lost about half. I think the NYC office faired somewhat better. A new management committee was put in place at the end of 2020 after the last one imploded. The transition from first to second generation is one of the hardest times in the lifespan of a firm. If the firm gets back on its feet and continues being the firm it was in 2019, it would be a phenomenal place to be if you want substantive litigation and trial work. But if partner departures continue at the current rate, the firm may very well not exist in a few years. It is just very hard to predict what direction it's going to go. It's a high-risk choice right now, however you spin it.

I have heard that associates have no shortage of work. Bonuses are also still quite decent: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/12/despite ... e-bonuses/ (hard to know if this is going to continue)

I'd recommend reaching out to someone you know through your school who is or was at the firm to get their frank assessment on the matter.

[throwaway007]

If you're thinking about an offer and you want to make a throwaway account (or I can), I can DM you. I have some info that might be helpful (neutral/in BSF's favor, kind of). It's going through a very unstable/uncertain period right now but it makes sense in some circumstances.

would you mind sharing this information?

Feel free to DM. Can't post publicly.

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid going to Boies Schiller at this point. It'd be unusual if your only options were BSF and a much worse litigation offer - in the markets where BSF is, there are plenty of great litigation options.

While there's the possibility that BSF will stabilize, we won't know for at least a few years. But these are the few critical years in your associate career. So best spend them somewhere stable, without a troubled reputation, which doesn't need to max out on PPP loans, and where your mentors won't suddenly disappear.

I've been wondering, given how dramatic the departure numbers are: is BSF possibly under investigation, or has some kind of exposure, and the crisis there isn't just the result of "people being unhappy with the compensation system?" It's not as though BSF didn't have this compensation system for a long time, and wasn't able to maintain its roster or attract lateral partners. That all the departures happened around the same time makes it seem like something(s) specific precipitated them.

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid going to Boies Schiller at this point. It'd be unusual if your only options were BSF and a much worse litigation offer - in the markets where BSF is, there are plenty of great litigation options.

While there's the possibility that BSF will stabilize, we won't know for at least a few years. But these are the few critical years in your associate career. So best spend them somewhere stable, without a troubled reputation, which doesn't need to max out on PPP loans, and where your mentors won't suddenly disappear.

I've been wondering, given how dramatic the departure numbers are: is BSF possibly under investigation, or has some kind of exposure, and the crisis there isn't just the result of "people being unhappy with the compensation system?" It's not as though BSF didn't have this compensation system for a long time, and wasn't able to maintain its roster or attract lateral partners. That all the departures happened around the same time makes it seem like something(s) specific precipitated them.

I can say with some confidence that this is not the case. It really is just a matter of a tough transition that might or might not happen successfully, but there isn't a single deep secret or investigation or exposure underlying it. It's law firm business to be expected at that size/type of a lit boutique. The Wilkinson Walsh firm that's changed it's name 4 times in 2 years is in a similar (albeit less public) position; I assume Selendy and Gay will approach a similar crossroads, as will Kobre & Kim in a few years.

The large amount of departures at BSF happened last year because of the nature of the game-of-thrones shift of leadership, as Boies and Schiller themselves decided to finally hand things off to the next generation of leadership in a material way. Those top dogs who were vying for leadership but did not get it -- and the service partners/associates who work for them -- left with them. Some of them didn't have a choice, as that was their source of business as service partners.

The simple reality is that if BSF can (1) continue to get some new matters in and (2) keep paying associates above-market bonuses (which they did in 2020, in a big way), at their current size/leverage, they will continue to be successful and an attractive spot for associates eager to do substantive litigation. Of course these are big "ifs", but there's no secret or puzzle or mystery at the center of it.

[Anonymous User]

I’m lit focused with a BSF offer as well as S&C, CSM litigation - my plan is to clerk after a few years of firm work but am leaning S&C (just enjoyed the interviews more and know some great people in my class also heading there). Is there any reason to go BSF, even with their problems? I assume I can lateral to boutique life after clerking if it’s want to do trial work but am I making a mistake?

[Anonymous User]

I’m lit focused with a BSF offer as well as S&C, CSM litigation - my plan is to clerk after a few years of firm work but am leaning S&C (just enjoyed the interviews more and know some great people in my class also heading there). Is there any reason to go BSF, even with their problems? I assume I can lateral to boutique life after clerking if it’s want to do trial work but am I making a mistake?

You might want to explore splitting if you're really interested in the type of work BSF does (trial-focused / plaintiff-side work).

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

I’m lit focused with a BSF offer as well as S&C, CSM litigation - my plan is to clerk after a few years of firm work but am leaning S&C (just enjoyed the interviews more and know some great people in my class also heading there). Is there any reason to go BSF, even with their problems? I assume I can lateral to boutique life after clerking if it’s want to do trial work but am I making a mistake?

Go to S&C. I was in a similar boat - summered at S&C, clerked, and then decided to go to an elite lit boutique. S&C's lit group is great and I very seriously considered returning. Between S&C and Boies in its current state, S&C is the much better choice. If you decide to go to another firm after clerking, you can make that transition (for better or worse, S&C's grade cut-off means that you have an academic record that's attractive to boutiques), and you'll still have S&C as a great option.

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid going to Boies Schiller at this point. It'd be unusual if your only options were BSF and a much worse litigation offer - in the markets where BSF is, there are plenty of great litigation options.

While there's the possibility that BSF will stabilize, we won't know for at least a few years. But these are the few critical years in your associate career. So best spend them somewhere stable, without a troubled reputation, which doesn't need to max out on PPP loans, and where your mentors won't suddenly disappear.

I've been wondering, given how dramatic the departure numbers are: is BSF possibly under investigation, or has some kind of exposure, and the crisis there isn't just the result of "people being unhappy with the compensation system?" It's not as though BSF didn't have this compensation system for a long time, and wasn't able to maintain its roster or attract lateral partners. That all the departures happened around the same time makes it seem like something(s) specific precipitated them.

I can say with some confidence that this is not the case. It really is just a matter of a tough transition that might or might not happen successfully, but there isn't a single deep secret or investigation or exposure underlying it. It's law firm business to be expected at that size/type of a lit boutique. The Wilkinson Walsh firm that's changed it's name 4 times in 2 years is in a similar (albeit less public) position; I assume Selendy and Gay will approach a similar crossroads, as will Kobre & Kim in a few years.

The large amount of departures at BSF happened last year because of the nature of the game-of-thrones shift of leadership, as Boies and Schiller themselves decided to finally hand things off to the next generation of leadership in a material way. Those top dogs who were vying for leadership but did not get it -- and the service partners/associates who work for them -- left with them. Some of them didn't have a choice, as that was their source of business as service partners.

The simple reality is that if BSF can (1) continue to get some new matters in and (2) keep paying associates above-market bonuses (which they did in 2020, in a big way), at their current size/leverage, they will continue to be successful and an attractive spot for associates eager to do substantive litigation. Of course these are big "ifs", but there's no secret or puzzle or mystery at the center of it.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but plenty of firms have leadership turnover and even significant factions within the firm backing different potential leaders, and yet losing 50% of their head count essentially overnight doesn’t happen. I.e., just because they don’t become the next firm leaders doesn’t mean they jump en masse to random competitors. And this doesn’t explain the overnight vaporization of the LA office. Something extra is going on at BS.

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid going to Boies Schiller at this point. It'd be unusual if your only options were BSF and a much worse litigation offer - in the markets where BSF is, there are plenty of great litigation options.

While there's the possibility that BSF will stabilize, we won't know for at least a few years. But these are the few critical years in your associate career. So best spend them somewhere stable, without a troubled reputation, which doesn't need to max out on PPP loans, and where your mentors won't suddenly disappear.

I've been wondering, given how dramatic the departure numbers are: is BSF possibly under investigation, or has some kind of exposure, and the crisis there isn't just the result of "people being unhappy with the compensation system?" It's not as though BSF didn't have this compensation system for a long time, and wasn't able to maintain its roster or attract lateral partners. That all the departures happened around the same time makes it seem like something(s) specific precipitated them.

I can say with some confidence that this is not the case. It really is just a matter of a tough transition that might or might not happen successfully, but there isn't a single deep secret or investigation or exposure underlying it. It's law firm business to be expected at that size/type of a lit boutique. The Wilkinson Walsh firm that's changed it's name 4 times in 2 years is in a similar (albeit less public) position; I assume Selendy and Gay will approach a similar crossroads, as will Kobre & Kim in a few years.

The large amount of departures at BSF happened last year because of the nature of the game-of-thrones shift of leadership, as Boies and Schiller themselves decided to finally hand things off to the next generation of leadership in a material way. Those top dogs who were vying for leadership but did not get it -- and the service partners/associates who work for them -- left with them. Some of them didn't have a choice, as that was their source of business as service partners.

The simple reality is that if BSF can (1) continue to get some new matters in and (2) keep paying associates above-market bonuses (which they did in 2020, in a big way), at their current size/leverage, they will continue to be successful and an attractive spot for associates eager to do substantive litigation. Of course these are big "ifs", but there's no secret or puzzle or mystery at the center of it.

I don't think BSF is under investigation or anything, but this is not accurate, for several reasons. First, BSF has stopped paying above-market bonuses to new associates:

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020 ... te-scheme/

Second, the problems at BSF are not just "transition matters." If that was true, then the first set of new leaders the firm announced in December 2019 would have stayed. But almost all of them have left, taking tons of clients and talented lawyers with them. And then the firm announced two new leaders in early 2020, one of whom also left left in late 2020. Now the firm has announced a third set of leaders. It's a complete disaster.

In any event, the problems also appear to be related to partner compensation, especially junior partners. That's why the firm is losing so many young partners. And folks continue to leave the NYC and D.C. offices.

Third, I don't know what you mean about their current "leverage" -- do a search of their website and see how many partners they have, and how many associates. You will see that they still have way too many partners, all of whom they are paying partner salaries too. The leverage at BSF is completely backwards.

Don't go to BSF right now.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the above poster, the successive changes in leadership are more concerning than the loss of 50% of lawyers, but the problem is compounded, not exclusive of one another. It's not a good time to join BSF. There are other lit shops out there with less baggage.

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid going to Boies Schiller at this point. It'd be unusual if your only options were BSF and a much worse litigation offer - in the markets where BSF is, there are plenty of great litigation options.

While there's the possibility that BSF will stabilize, we won't know for at least a few years. But these are the few critical years in your associate career. So best spend them somewhere stable, without a troubled reputation, which doesn't need to max out on PPP loans, and where your mentors won't suddenly disappear.

I've been wondering, given how dramatic the departure numbers are: is BSF possibly under investigation, or has some kind of exposure, and the crisis there isn't just the result of "people being unhappy with the compensation system?" It's not as though BSF didn't have this compensation system for a long time, and wasn't able to maintain its roster or attract lateral partners. That all the departures happened around the same time makes it seem like something(s) specific precipitated them.

I can say with some confidence that this is not the case. It really is just a matter of a tough transition that might or might not happen successfully, but there isn't a single deep secret or investigation or exposure underlying it. It's law firm business to be expected at that size/type of a lit boutique. The Wilkinson Walsh firm that's changed it's name 4 times in 2 years is in a similar (albeit less public) position; I assume Selendy and Gay will approach a similar crossroads, as will Kobre & Kim in a few years.

The large amount of departures at BSF happened last year because of the nature of the game-of-thrones shift of leadership, as Boies and Schiller themselves decided to finally hand things off to the next generation of leadership in a material way. Those top dogs who were vying for leadership but did not get it -- and the service partners/associates who work for them -- left with them. Some of them didn't have a choice, as that was their source of business as service partners.

The simple reality is that if BSF can (1) continue to get some new matters in and (2) keep paying associates above-market bonuses (which they did in 2020, in a big way), at their current size/leverage, they will continue to be successful and an attractive spot for associates eager to do substantive litigation. Of course these are big "ifs", but there's no secret or puzzle or mystery at the center of it.

I don't think BSF is under investigation or anything, but this is not accurate, for several reasons. First, BSF has stopped paying above-market bonuses to new associates:

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020 ... te-scheme/

Second, the problems at BSF are not just "transition matters." If that was true, then the first set of new leaders the firm announced in December 2019 would have stayed. But almost all of them have left, taking tons of clients and talented lawyers with them. And then the firm announced two new leaders in early 2020, one of whom also left left in late 2020. Now the firm has announced a third set of leaders. It's a complete disaster.

In any event, the problems also appear to be related to partner compensation, especially junior partners. That's why the firm is losing so many young partners. And folks continue to leave the NYC and D.C. offices.

Third, I don't know what you mean about their current "leverage" -- do a search of their website and see how many partners they have, and how many associates. You will see that they still have way too many partners, all of whom they are paying partner salaries too. The leverage at BSF is completely backwards.

Don't go to BSF right now.

Associates have a choice between the old bonus structure or the market structure: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/12/despite ... e-bonuses/

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid going to Boies Schiller at this point. It'd be unusual if your only options were BSF and a much worse litigation offer - in the markets where BSF is, there are plenty of great litigation options.

While there's the possibility that BSF will stabilize, we won't know for at least a few years. But these are the few critical years in your associate career. So best spend them somewhere stable, without a troubled reputation, which doesn't need to max out on PPP loans, and where your mentors won't suddenly disappear.

I've been wondering, given how dramatic the departure numbers are: is BSF possibly under investigation, or has some kind of exposure, and the crisis there isn't just the result of "people being unhappy with the compensation system?" It's not as though BSF didn't have this compensation system for a long time, and wasn't able to maintain its roster or attract lateral partners. That all the departures happened around the same time makes it seem like something(s) specific precipitated them.

I can say with some confidence that this is not the case. It really is just a matter of a tough transition that might or might not happen successfully, but there isn't a single deep secret or investigation or exposure underlying it. It's law firm business to be expected at that size/type of a lit boutique. The Wilkinson Walsh firm that's changed it's name 4 times in 2 years is in a similar (albeit less public) position; I assume Selendy and Gay will approach a similar crossroads, as will Kobre & Kim in a few years.

The large amount of departures at BSF happened last year because of the nature of the game-of-thrones shift of leadership, as Boies and Schiller themselves decided to finally hand things off to the next generation of leadership in a material way. Those top dogs who were vying for leadership but did not get it -- and the service partners/associates who work for them -- left with them. Some of them didn't have a choice, as that was their source of business as service partners.

The simple reality is that if BSF can (1) continue to get some new matters in and (2) keep paying associates above-market bonuses (which they did in 2020, in a big way), at their current size/leverage, they will continue to be successful and an attractive spot for associates eager to do substantive litigation. Of course these are big "ifs", but there's no secret or puzzle or mystery at the center of it.

I don't think BSF is under investigation or anything, but this is not accurate, for several reasons. First, BSF has stopped paying above-market bonuses to new associates:

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020 ... te-scheme/

Second, the problems at BSF are not just "transition matters." If that was true, then the first set of new leaders the firm announced in December 2019 would have stayed. But almost all of them have left, taking tons of clients and talented lawyers with them. And then the firm announced two new leaders in early 2020, one of whom also left left in late 2020. Now the firm has announced a third set of leaders. It's a complete disaster.

In any event, the problems also appear to be related to partner compensation, especially junior partners. That's why the firm is losing so many young partners. And folks continue to leave the NYC and D.C. offices.

Third, I don't know what you mean about their current "leverage" -- do a search of their website and see how many partners they have, and how many associates. You will see that they still have way too many partners, all of whom they are paying partner salaries too. The leverage at BSF is completely backwards.

Don't go to BSF right now.

Associates have a choice between the old bonus structure or the market structure: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/12/despite ... e-bonuses/

This only applies to current associates. Future associates' bonuses will be at market.

[Anonymous User]

Not to get too into the weeds, but some of the above posters recounting BSF's recent history are not accurate.

There were not 3 different wholesale turnovers/leadership changes leading to "a complete disaster" in terms of the firm's leadership. BSF chose 2 people, Harrison and Gravante, over a different couple, to take over from Boies and Schiller. The other couple left (to Paul Weiss) and took some folks with them. Nothing surprising about that. Some partners who had pushed for the PW couple to take over power from Boies and Schiller rather than Harrison and Gravante then also left the firm. Again, nothing too surprising. The firm was open in saying from the start of the leadership transition that it wanted to downsize.

Meanwhile, Gravante wanted BSF to go in one direction, while Harrison and the remaining power centers at the firm wanted to go in another direction. So Gravante then left, also taking service partners/close associates with him. None of this is really that unusual. It reflects a difference in their vision for the future, not a problem with their current practice.

I'm not sure where exactly the firm is vis-a-vis future associates being able to choose above-market formula comp v. market bonus, I thought they were said to have that option. I do agree that if they're not offered the above-market option, while comparable lit firms like Susman, Kellogg, and QE have that, then yeah that's something you should consider. (Also, the whole 2000 hours minimum for a bonus is something lower-tier firms do, and if BSF, which likes to compare itself to the true elites, has implemented, that's also something to consider.)

All that said, I think BSF remains an elite firm and that it's not too late for that to remain a possibility going forward.

[Anonymous User]

From what I hear, BSF associates on the market system who met their hours got an above market bonus this year.

Also, not all departures are bad. Asking unproductive partners and counsel to leave (which may also be happening) is part of right-sizing. Leverage is also not something you can fix instantly. I doubt the plan for BSF is to have more partners than associates in the long-run.