Distinguishing "boutiques" from just small firms? Forum

[towel13661]

Hi all, quick question about researching firms.

I'm wondering if theres a good way to distinguish "lit boutiques" from tiny firms that happen to have very well-qualified lawyers, or if there's even a practical difference? I'm thinking about a Lehotsky Keller, which seems to be just five guys hanging out but they are all extremely credentialed and seem to do high-level work, or similar firms.

Any thoughts on this question or this kind of shop generally appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

When I think of lit boutiques, I think of small firms representing high profile clients in government investigations or business disputes. They often have different fee arrangements with their clients than the standard big law fee by the hour. I think of boutiques as working on standard big law matters, especially white collar matters, but more efficiently. I’ve seen instances where a big law firm is representing the big financial institution in a government investigation, but the boutique is representing the individual employees who have some personal criminal exposure and a conflict with the bank.

I’ve never heard of Lehotsky Keller. It looks like they’re a relatively new boutique bringing constitutional challenges packaged for right leaning judges. I don’t think young associates are going to be interviewing witnesses or helping negotiate deferred prosecution agreements like they would at Sher Tremonte or Nick Lewin’s firm.

More important than “is this firm a boutique” is, “who are this firm’s clients, and what skills will I build as a young lawyer.”

[Anonymous User]

Hi all, quick question about researching firms.

I'm wondering if theres a good way to distinguish "lit boutiques" from tiny firms that happen to have very well-qualified lawyers, or if there's even a practical difference? I'm thinking about a Lehotsky Keller, which seems to be just five guys hanging out but they are all extremely credentialed and seem to do high-level work, or similar firms.

Any thoughts on this question or this kind of shop generally appreciated.

Just my 2c: When posters on this forum mention "elite lit boutiques," they typically mean the handful of small litigation firms with the brand recognition of biglaw. That list includes Susman Godfrey, Kellogg Hansen, Bartlit Beck, Keker Van Nest, and probably a few others. Other boutiques are every bit as good, but aren't as well-known because of their small size, unique focus, or short history of existing. Lehotsky Keller is in this category, along with great firms like Goldstein Russell and Gupta Wessler.

[Anonymous User]

Lehotsky Keller is just a few months old so it's hard to tell what it will look like. If it survives and grows I assume it will eventually be something like Cooper & Kirk or Consovoy McCarthy, which are lit boutiques.

I agree that competing for biglaw clients and having biglaw-caliber lawyers/fees is probably what distinguishes lit boutiques. Like I would probably call Weinhardt, a five-attorney firm in Des Moines, a lit boutique because it has above-market comp, biglaw-level lawyers, and a book of business comparable to the big/midlaw firms in its market.

[Anonymous User]

In my mind, a "boutique" is a smaller firm that has similar draws to big law (sophisticated clients/matters, market compensation, well-credentialed attorneys etc.). This may be a bit circular, but I would consider a firm a boutique from an associate's perspective if it is competitive for applicants who could go to big law.

The Keller in Lehotsky Keller is Scott Keller, who was Texas Solicitor General and then was co-chair (IIRC) of Baker Botts's Appellate/SCOTUS group. It's probably a good outfit for right-leaning appellate types. That said, I'm not even sure they're looking to hire associates yet, but it will undoubtedly be conservative SCOTUS/CADC/CA5 (etc.) clerks they are after.

[Anonymous User]

"Boutiques" as a label is only really useful for very general conversations and very different firms will get lumped together in unhelpful ways at times. Before really diving into your research it will be more helpful to narrow down what specific factor you are looking for (market pay in a smaller setting, substantive, hands on experience, a legitimate chance at partnership, connections to a specific industry to the government for future jobs, a more collegial atmosphere or setting, brand recognition etc.) I think generally what people on tls mean when they say "lit boutique" is "small firm with hands on experience, market pay, brand recognition and maybe a more realistic partner track" but from my experience targeting lit boutiques in job hunts there aren't actually a ton of boutiques that hit all those marks outside the Susman-tier firms (which should be easier to get research on online.)


For example, a lot of boutqiues don't follow the Cravath scale (or stop following the scale as you get more senior) this can mean that you're paid less then market or simply paid differently. So if comp is a #1 factor for you then your search will be very different than if hands on experience is more important.

This is one area where I find talking to recruiters can really help (but not all recruiters are equal, talk to a few and find one who fits well with you.) You don't even necessarily have to use the recruiter, but a 30 min. conversation can help you get a feel for what is out there.

[Anonymous User]

Delete - accidental double post.

[YA_Tittle]

A boutique is a small firm that people have heard of.

A small firm is a firm you can tell people is a boutique when you get hired there after striking out at OCI.

[Anonymous User]

I think beyond just the elite boutiques mentioned above, a good way to know if it’s a a respected boutique in any region (regardless of practice area) is the work history and credentials of the people at the small firm.

I used to work in a tertiary market, where the “boutique” had about 15 lawyers that all had at least one of: T14, federal clerkship, summa/magna honors if associate from local school, NY/major market V10 experience before landing in the small market, etc. Yet the work wasn’t very sophisticated and was mostly insurance defense, but it was the boutique in that market’s context and it paid market.

[JusticeJackson]

This thread reminds me of the liner notes of a John Grisham book I read a long time ago:


The partners at Finley & Figg—all two of them—often refer to themselves as "a boutique law firm." Boutique, as in chic, selective, and prosperous. They are, of course, none of these things. What they are is a two-bit operation always in search of their big break, ambulance chasers who've been in the trenches much too long making way too little. Their specialties, so to speak, are quickie divorces and DUIs, with the occasional jackpot of an actual car wreck thrown in. After twenty plus years together, Oscar Finley and Wally Figg bicker like an old married couple but somehow continue to scratch out a half-decent living from their seedy bungalow offices in southwest Chicago.

[objctnyrhnr]

Check their bios. If 1/4 of them at least have fedclerked, you’re probably okay.

Can likely do the same thing, albeit perhaps with different %’s for prior vault50 experience and/or t14.

I went through figuring this out firm by firm a while back when looking to lateral, but it’s actually not hard.

[Anonymous User]

In my mind, a "boutique" is a smaller firm that does the kind of work that's typically only done in biglaw. For a few examples that I know personally:

1) Firm that specializes in secured transactions for energy.
2) Firm that specializes in drafting specialized insurance/annuity policies; one of the founders co-invented variable insurance back in the day
3) Firm that specializes in Delaware bankruptcies for Fortune 5000 companies
4) An estate planning firm that is known for having developed several new types of trusts
5) A sports boutique whose clients are all players or coaches in NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
6) boutique that specializes in VC/HF

Note: I don't mean the solo who has one out-sized client, I mean firms who do that work all the time, and very little else.

[Anonymous User]

I know this is probably different for litigation, but at least for tax boutiques, many of them are recognized by the trade publications (Chambers, Legal 500, etc.).

I work(ed) at one, and the hours and requirements are pretty much the same as biglaw. The pay was slightly less, but it was a bit more humane than the biglaw hours before.

As previous posters have mentioned, you can usually figure out what’s actually a boutique based on partner profiles. For example, for any of the tax boutiques (Caplin Drysdale, Ivins, Roberts & Holland, Miller, Kostelanetz, etc.), many of the top partners are former high level IRS/Treasury people and/or former biglaw partners.

[Anonymous User]

In my mind, a "boutique" is a smaller firm that has similar draws to big law (sophisticated clients/matters, market compensation, well-credentialed attorneys etc.). This may be a bit circular, but I would consider a firm a boutique from an associate's perspective if it is competitive for applicants who could go to big law.

The Keller in Lehotsky Keller is Scott Keller, who was Texas Solicitor General and then was co-chair (IIRC) of Baker Botts's Appellate/SCOTUS group. It's probably a good outfit for right-leaning appellate types. That said, I'm not even sure they're looking to hire associates yet, but it will undoubtedly be conservative SCOTUS/CADC/CA5 (etc.) clerks they are after.

Speaking of Lehotsky Keller, Scott Keller was just hired by Fox for their defamation defense.