Lit boutique vs. WLRK Forum

[LawBurner1]

OCI is wrapping up and I'm narrowing down my options. The lit boutique gives full-time offers to SAs and is pretty well-regarded (I know Vault rankings are terrible, but think ~top 10 on their boutiques list.)

Long-term, I'd like to be an AUSA (and both firms have USAO alums.) Short-term, I'd like to get stand-up trial experience as soon as possible. I'm open to various flavors of litigation but I'm definitely lit-only.

I really liked everyone I met at the boutique and my understanding is they take way more cases to trial than WLRK. Folks I interviewed with told me that second- and third-year associates have taken witnesses in the past. And overall, I prefer the types of cases the boutique takes on. But at the same time, I've heard from others that 'it's always easier to go to a big firm first, then go to a smaller firm later' - and of course the WLRK name brand must carry some value.

I also know there's a pay difference between the boutique (paying market or slightly above) and WLRK, but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to factor that into your thoughts (given that each person has unique financial circumstances, etc.)

Curious what folks' thoughts are. Is it downright stupid to pass up WLRK right now when I could recruit to a boutique after a (hopeful) clerkship? Or is it reasonable to let hopes of trial experience + more interesting (to me) substantive work + cultural preference sway me in favor of the boutique?

[Joachim2017]

WLRK has a decent record of placing associates into AUSA positions. That said, on balance it seems you'd be better off at (not to mention better enjoy) the lit boutique option. You'll get a much better variety of cases and experience, get a more well-rounded view of all aspects of the litigation process, a more rewarding day-to-day workload (given your preferences) and a higher chance of stand-up trial experience that's not merely token pro bono work. (Factor in how much of WLRK litigation is driven by corporate concerns, setting aside their smaller-in-actuality-than-advertised white collar and non-corporate-driven lit.)

Obviously the WLRK $$$ is nothing to sneeze at, but long-term, this set of options, given your preferences, doesn't seem like too close a call.

[Elston Gunn]

Kinda depends if it’s one of the lit boutiques that expects WLRK type hours, but if they only pay market I guess probably not.

The financial difference is a big deal that I don’t think you should underestimate, especially if you have substantial loans. But the misery of working WLRK hours for most people also shouldn’t be underestimated.

I think you’ll be a bit happier in the short term and certainly not hurt your career (because you’ll be getting more relevant experience) by choosing the boutique, but you also won’t hurt your career and will make a lot more money with WLRK. Imo really comes down to how much you value the extra cash for the year or two before you clerk.

[Anonymous User]

OCI is wrapping up and I'm narrowing down my options. The lit boutique gives full-time offers to SAs and is pretty well-regarded (I know Vault rankings are terrible, but think ~top 10 on their boutiques list.)

Long-term, I'd like to be an AUSA (and both firms have USAO alums.) Short-term, I'd like to get stand-up trial experience as soon as possible. I'm open to various flavors of litigation but I'm definitely lit-only.

I really liked everyone I met at the boutique and my understanding is they take way more cases to trial than WLRK. Folks I interviewed with told me that second- and third-year associates have taken witnesses in the past. And overall, I prefer the types of cases the boutique takes on. But at the same time, I've heard from others that 'it's always easier to go to a big firm first, then go to a smaller firm later' - and of course the WLRK name brand must carry some value.

I also know there's a pay difference between the boutique (paying market or slightly above) and WLRK, but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to factor that into your thoughts (given that each person has unique financial circumstances, etc.)

Curious what folks' thoughts are. Is it downright stupid to pass up WLRK right now when I could recruit to a boutique after a (hopeful) clerkship? Or is it reasonable to let hopes of trial experience + more interesting (to me) substantive work + cultural preference sway me in favor of the boutique?

If it's in the Vault top ten boutique list, you'd probably be fine going there over WLRK unless it's Selendy or McKool. Kaplan Hecker has gotten some horrible press recently though. I can't imagine any boutique paying more than WLRK.

[Anonymous User]

There's a difference between "has USAO alums" (I can't imagine a top firm -- especially a lit boutique -- that doesn't) and has ongoing and sustained connections to the USAO. If AUSA is really your long term goal, the quality and depth of those connections would be an important factor. If it's a handful of partners, there's a reasonably good chance you won't work with those partners often or closely on good matters, so it would be harder to build those relationships than if it is a good number of partners.

[Anonymous User]

There's a difference between "has USAO alums" (I can't imagine a top firm -- especially a lit boutique -- that doesn't) and has ongoing and sustained connections to the USAO. If AUSA is really your long term goal, the quality and depth of those connections would be an important factor. If it's a handful of partners, there's a reasonably good chance you won't work with those partners often or closely on good matters, so it would be harder to build those relationships than if it is a good number of partners.

I don’t think there is a biglaw firm in NYC (including P,W and Gibson Dunn) that is a bigger feeder than WLRK to SDNY-USAO. Not too many years ago SDNY basically filled its entire class with WLRK alum, which is remarkable given the firm has < 40 lit associates usually.

Also, not shilling for WLRK at all, but I’d guess the firm goes to trial more than most biglaw firms in the city, and probably more than many of the boutiques. Chancery cases go to trial a surprising amount, and I know the firm also appears in arbitrations/trials in local jurisdictions across the country. I wouldn’t be so sure you’d be going to trial at eg Selendy or Molo more. Susman? Sure Kaplan Hecker? I’d stay away…

[Anonymous User]

Grain of salt: This is all based on my anecdotal experience in a non-NYC market.

I was in your position after 1L and ultimately chose to join one of the top Biglaw litigation shops in my market. My priority was also early experience, but I decided to err on the side of the caution and start in Biglaw with the idea that I could go the boutique route later.

In hindsight, while I have enjoyed aspects of my time at a big firm, I regret not going the boutique route immediately. I am clerking next year, and I plan to move to a boutique afterwards. If you want boutique experience, go the boutique route as soon as possible. It is true that it is hard to go from a small/mid-sized firm to Biglaw, but that applies more in the corporate context. Big firms hire litigation associates from respected boutiques on a routine basis in most markets.

That said, for perspective, you have two great options, and this decision ultimately comes down to how you want to spend the first few years of a very long career.

[Anonymous User]

Several of the lit boutiques on the Vault top 10 list don't hire summers, so the range of options here is pretty narrow. (I know Hueston Hennigan and Bartlit Beck don't; I think Molo also doesn't, and am not sure of the rest outside KVN, Susman, and Kellogg, which do have summer programs.) So while a place like Hueston has very significant USAO connections, it's not really in play here, to the extent people might be thinking of Hueston/Bartlit/Molo as potentially being OP's unnamed boutique.

In terms of USAO goals, other people have covered the massive advantage WLRK has for SDNY.

But a relatively significant part of your post seems to be whether you're "missing out" by not picking WLRK when you could make it to one of these boutiques post-clerkship, and relatedly whether the WLRK prestige is something you shouldn't pass up at this point. FWIW, I'm not sure it's that much easier to get a KVN, Kellogg, etc. gig compared to WLRK, either now or after clerking, and those firms have just about the same cache as WLRK for people in the know. Frankly, some of the firms on the boutique list, like Bartlit, are probably harder to get hired at than WLRK. So if the other boutique is in the Susman/KVN/Kellogg tier, I wouldn't worry about the cache/prestige/selectivity thing basically at all. That's less true of some of the other firms on the Vault top 10 list, like others have mentioned re: Kaplan Hecker, McKool, Selendy, etc. I'd also second Joachim's point that WLRK's lit practice is corporate-driven; I've talked to a couple former WLRK litigators who've pointed to that as reasons why they wanted to move to more traditional generalist lit boutiques later.

Setting aside WLRK hours and whether you'll really be able to stomach them, I think the main consideration here is how deadset you are on being an AUSA and when you want to make that move. The more time you think you'll spend in private practice, and the less certain you are of USAO, the more the boutique starts to have a significant advantage, depending on which one it is. If you just want to clerk, do a year or two, then bounce to SDNY, it's really hard to beat WLRK for that.

[LawBurner1]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts! I'll say that it's not one of Susman/KVN/Kellogg, so not the slam-dunk group. This is super helpful.

[Anonymous User]

I considered this choice post-clerkship, and my overall impression was that Wachtell does not offer the same “early experience” that you would receive at a boutique, and should not be the top pick for a litigator who wants to do trial work. I am not suggesting Wachtell’s litigation practice is inferior; in certain areas (especially deal lit, board disputes, and securities), it is top notch. However, the experience of a junior at Wachtell will be different from the boutiques listed ITT. The model is different. Wachtell takes on certain huge cases for its institutional corporate clients, and it staffs a lot of junior lawyers on them. It’s not a 1:1 firm.

This means that the senior partners chair those trials and the junior partners, or perhaps very senior associates, take the depositions (and do the witness interviews to prepare for an investigation or future depos). As a first or second year, you’re reviewing documents, conducting legal research, and maybe writing some pieces of briefs that will be heavily edited by others. There will be the occasional smaller matter where it’s just you and the partner (and that’s the pitch you’ve probably received and will continue to receive when you inquire about “substantive experience”), but that’s not what generates the PPP, and it’s not where you’ll be spending most of your time.

At a boutique, or a lit-focused larger firm with boutique-like staffing (like MTO to some extent or W&C or BSF before its demise), you’ll actually be writing your own briefs as a junior, taking depos as a mid level, and getting stand up experience far earlier than at WLRK. I argued dispositive motions as a fifth year in paying cases. That just doesn’t happen at Wachtell. You work really hard at Wachtell, and your work is incredibly sophisticated, but you’re not the face of the case. And your work will undergo additional stages of review, so the as-filed brief will look a lot more different from the draft you so proudly emailed to the senior associate at 1:30am than at the boutique, where they just literally won’t have the hands to guide you so gently. You’ll write something and it might actually get filed, and you might actually be expected to participate in arguing it.

Wachtell’s litigation department also doesn’t have quite the breadth of subject matter as many boutiques. It’s deeply financial industry focused. There’s a lot of broken deals and Delaware chancery and 10b-5 and disputes between executives and boards. But you’re not going to have as much exposure to other subject matter, and you’re hardly ever going to be plaintiffs’ side, as you would at many boutiques.

I think the experience at the boutique will be more rewarding for a litigator with your interests. As others have said, it’s not a huge deal because with your credentials, you’ll almost certainly clerk and go to a boutique anyway. But why spend the summer somewhere like Wachtell then, where you’ll actually have to work. If you really want to experience traditional biglaw, go to Gibson Dunn and have shot girl summer 2.0 (with no delta!) and then boutique after your clerkships. That’s my two cents.

[Anonymous User]

Without outing myself, I have a lot of familiarity with WRLK's lit practice. The very long post above is incorrect in important respects. To take some of the more egregious points:

- WLRK only very rarely staffs a lit matter with "a lot of junior lawyers." There are about 40 lit associates at the firm, across all class years, so it's hard to imagine how that would even work. (As a comparison, Kellogg also has about 40 associates, and Susman has about 50.)
- Lit associates, even junior ones, do indeed write briefs. Yes, partners edit them. But I seriously doubt that any legitimate boutique files briefs that are in (even approximately) the form of a first-year associate's first draft. I also don't know why, if such a thing occurs, it would be desirable for a junior lawyer's career development.
- I agree that WLRK's lit practice is "narrower" than many boutique practices, but again, the above post gets things wrong in a way that makes me doubt the poster has any insight into the firm. For example, the lit practice is not "financial industry focused," much less "deeply" so, particularly in comparison with other NYC biglaw firms like S&C.

To be sure, there are many differences between WLRK's lit practice and those at boutiques, including some points noted in the above post. Many litigators would surely prefer, and do better at, a boutique. But I'd advise anyone making this choice to actually talk to people who have worked at the relevant firms, not just rely on secondhand internet posts from people who have clearly never done so.

[Anonymous User]

Without outing myself, I have a lot of familiarity with WRLK's lit practice. The very long post above is incorrect in important respects. To take some of the more egregious points:

- WLRK only very rarely staffs a lit matter with "a lot of junior lawyers." There are about 40 lit associates at the firm, across all class years, so it's hard to imagine how that would even work. (As a comparison, Kellogg also has about 40 associates, and Susman has about 50.)
- Lit associates, even junior ones, do indeed write briefs. Yes, partners edit them. But I seriously doubt that any legitimate boutique files briefs that are in (even approximately) the form of a first-year associate's first draft. I also don't know why, if such a thing occurs, it would be desirable for a junior lawyer's career development.
- I agree that WLRK's lit practice is "narrower" than many boutique practices, but again, the above post gets things wrong in a way that makes me doubt the poster has any insight into the firm. For example, the lit practice is not "financial industry focused," much less "deeply" so, particularly in comparison with other NYC biglaw firms like S&C.

To be sure, there are many differences between WLRK's lit practice and those at boutiques, including some points noted in the above post. Many litigators would surely prefer, and do better at, a boutique. But I'd advise anyone making this choice to actually talk to people who have worked at the relevant firms, not just rely on secondhand internet posts from people who have clearly never done so.

As someone also with knowledge, I agree—the post I’m quoting is spot on. Would also chime in that anecdotally I know of lit associates who took depositions within the first couple years of practice (eg, second and third years, not sixth and seventh years) in paid, high-stakes matters—not pro bono. And the point about lack of brief-writing opportunities is laughable, as you do that starting day 1. (Not year 1, or year 3, or year 5). There’s really a ton of misinformation/misconceptions about WLRK’s litigation practice online.

[Anonymous User]

I’m the anon above getting roasted, perhaps fairly in part, for offering the view that Wachtell’s litigation group differs in some meaningful ways from a boutique.

I concede, as the post makes clear, that I did not work at Wachtell. OP, please feel free to defer to those voices over mine on the particulars. I had an offer off my second clerkship (COA) and considered it closely, but elected to go a different route. In making my choice, I spoke with a lot of people who were at or had recently been at the firm, including those who had clerked for my judges and who had no reason to provide me with false information. I thought my reasoning and experience might be applicable to the OP since he or she appears to be making the same choice. So a few quick things.

I never suggested that WLRK junior associates don’t write briefs. Obviously they do. Probably more so on average than associates at comparable top NY firms. They just aren’t as likely to have carriage at the same pace as at true boutiques.

I’ll take the criticism for my comment about “many associates” on a team. That’s probably less common than at a Cravath or Davis Polk, where there are literally 15 associate teams on major cases. But it happens. I’ve been across from Wachtell on big cases and seen it. To be fair, it happens at places like Hueston too, but IMHO you’re more likely to land those early opportunities. Discount that based on my experience as much as you see fit.

No one seems to be disputing that Wachtell litigators will do less plaintiffs’ work than boutiques and that the practice generally has a narrower focus. So I’ll leave that be.

Good luck with the choice OP. You’re in great hands. No one disputes that Wachtell is one of the best firms in the country and that you’ll have amazing opportunities if you go there, and again, you’ll have the chance to choose again when you clerk.

[Anonymous User]

I’m the anon above getting roasted, perhaps fairly in part, for offering the view that Wachtell’s litigation group differs in some meaningful ways from a boutique.

I concede, as the post makes clear, that I did not work at Wachtell. OP, please feel free to defer to those voices over mine on the particulars. I had an offer off my second clerkship (COA) and considered it closely, but elected to go a different route. In making my choice, I spoke with a lot of people who were at or had recently been at the firm, including those who had clerked for my judges and who had no reason to provide me with false information. I thought my reasoning and experience might be applicable to the OP since he or she appears to be making the same choice. So a few quick things.

I never suggested that WLRK junior associates don’t write briefs. Obviously they do. Probably more so on average than associates at comparable top NY firms. They just aren’t as likely to have carriage at the same pace as at true boutiques.

I’ll take the criticism for my comment about “many associates” on a team. That’s probably less common than at a Cravath or Davis Polk, where there are literally 15 associate teams on major cases. But it happens. I’ve been across from Wachtell on big cases and seen it. To be fair, it happens at places like Hueston too, but IMHO you’re more likely to land those early opportunities. Discount that based on my experience as much as you see fit.

No one seems to be disputing that Wachtell litigators will do less plaintiffs’ work than boutiques and that the practice generally has a narrower focus. So I’ll leave that be.

Good luck with the choice OP. You’re in great hands. No one disputes that Wachtell is one of the best firms in the country and that you’ll have amazing opportunities if you go there, and again, you’ll have the chance to choose again when you clerk.

To be clear, you were being roasted not “for offering the view that Wachtell’s litigation group differs in some meaningful ways from a boutique,” but instead for offering erroneous descriptions of the WLRK litigation department.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts! I'll say that it's not one of Susman/KVN/Kellogg, so not the slam-dunk group. This is super helpful.

The firm is having a reception for offerees this week. You should attend, ask your questions.

Obviously we'll be a little biased, and you'll have to factor that into your decisionmaking. But don't think anyone is going to bullshit you or give you a hard sell. Not really WLRK style. The firm isn't for everyone, and we only want to work with people who know what they're getting into (hours-wise, practice-wise) and want to be here.

The one thing I will "pitch" you on, I guess, is the summer rotation system. For me, it was beneficial to touch a few different practice areas before making a final decision. I came in with a COA clerkship lined up, thinking there was no way I'd do deal work. Ended up enjoying my litigation rotation, but another rotation even more, going with that after the clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts! I'll say that it's not one of Susman/KVN/Kellogg, so not the slam-dunk group. This is super helpful.

The firm is having a reception for offerees this week. You should attend, ask your questions.

Obviously we'll be a little biased, and you'll have to factor that into your decisionmaking. But don't think anyone is going to bullshit you or give you a hard sell. Not really WLRK style. The firm isn't for everyone, and we only want to work with people who know what they're getting into (hours-wise, practice-wise) and want to be here.

The one thing I will "pitch" you on, I guess, is the summer rotation system. For me, it was beneficial to touch a few different practice areas before making a final decision. I came in with a COA clerkship lined up, thinking there was no way I'd do deal work. Ended up enjoying my litigation rotation, but another rotation even more, going with that after the clerkship.

Can I ask what you enjoyed about deal work? So are you in m&a now?

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts! I'll say that it's not one of Susman/KVN/Kellogg, so not the slam-dunk group. This is super helpful.

The firm is having a reception for offerees this week. You should attend, ask your questions.

Obviously we'll be a little biased, and you'll have to factor that into your decisionmaking. But don't think anyone is going to bullshit you or give you a hard sell. Not really WLRK style. The firm isn't for everyone, and we only want to work with people who know what they're getting into (hours-wise, practice-wise) and want to be here.

The one thing I will "pitch" you on, I guess, is the summer rotation system. For me, it was beneficial to touch a few different practice areas before making a final decision. I came in with a COA clerkship lined up, thinking there was no way I'd do deal work. Ended up enjoying my litigation rotation, but another rotation even more, going with that after the clerkship.

Can I ask what you enjoyed about deal work? So are you in m&a now?

Different poster from any of the above. Do litigators have any shot at making partner at WLRK? At some lit boutiques partner is fairly likely for those who can stomach the hours.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts! I'll say that it's not one of Susman/KVN/Kellogg, so not the slam-dunk group. This is super helpful.

The firm is having a reception for offerees this week. You should attend, ask your questions.

Obviously we'll be a little biased, and you'll have to factor that into your decisionmaking. But don't think anyone is going to bullshit you or give you a hard sell. Not really WLRK style. The firm isn't for everyone, and we only want to work with people who know what they're getting into (hours-wise, practice-wise) and want to be here.

The one thing I will "pitch" you on, I guess, is the summer rotation system. For me, it was beneficial to touch a few different practice areas before making a final decision. I came in with a COA clerkship lined up, thinking there was no way I'd do deal work. Ended up enjoying my litigation rotation, but another rotation even more, going with that after the clerkship.

Can I ask what you enjoyed about deal work? So are you in m&a now?

Different poster from any of the above. Do litigators have any shot at making partner at WLRK? At some lit boutiques partner is fairly likely for those who can stomach the hours.

Over 28% of new partners at WLRK in the last five years have been litigators. So yes, litigators have a shot at making partner at WLRK.

[existentialcrisis]

Are Wachtell hours meaningfully worse than elite Biglaw for litigation?

I had always assumed that was largely a corporate specific phenomenon based on super lean staffing for mega deals.

[Anonymous User]

Are Wachtell hours meaningfully worse than elite Biglaw for litigation?

I had always assumed that was largely a corporate specific phenomenon based on super lean staffing for mega deals.

Meaningfully worse than firms in other markets like W&C and Munger and HH, yes. Not meaningfully worse than firms like Cravath, S&C, SG, etc. at least anecdotally.

That’s just the litigation department though. The corporate department’s hours are tough(er).

[Anonymous User]

Are Wachtell hours meaningfully worse than elite Biglaw for litigation?

As a third year at MTO, I met up with a law school friend (a litigation associate at WLRK) at a recruiting event. He laughed when I mentioned I'd had a pretty busy year at 2600 hours.

[Anonymous User]

Are Wachtell hours meaningfully worse than elite Biglaw for litigation?

As a third year at MTO, I met up with a law school friend (a litigation associate at WLRK) at a recruiting event. He laughed when I mentioned I'd had a pretty busy year at 2600 hours.

Am one of the WLRK posters. 2,600 still sucks, wouldn't make light of it.

[existentialcrisis]

Are Wachtell hours meaningfully worse than elite Biglaw for litigation?

As a third year at MTO, I met up with a law school friend (a litigation associate at WLRK) at a recruiting event. He laughed when I mentioned I'd had a pretty busy year at 2600 hours.

Am one of the WLRK posters. 2,600 still sucks, wouldn't make light of it.

Sure, of course it does. I wasn't trying to make light of how hard Wachtell lit associates work or how miserable even 2000 hours can be.

But I don't think at certain boutiques, 2600 is an unheard of figure.

Meanwhile Wachtell corporate folks are seemingly billing meaningfully more than DPW/S&C/CSM associates, which I think makes the calculous on money vs hours a bit different. I do also suspect that Wachtell associates might be inclined to be a little looser with the timer than their biglaw equivalents, given that their clients aren't actually charged that way.

[Anonymous User]

Are Wachtell hours meaningfully worse than elite Biglaw for litigation?

As a third year at MTO, I met up with a law school friend (a litigation associate at WLRK) at a recruiting event. He laughed when I mentioned I'd had a pretty busy year at 2600 hours.

Am one of the WLRK posters. 2,600 still sucks, wouldn't make light of it.

Sure, of course it does. I wasn't trying to make light of how hard Wachtell lit associates work or how miserable even 2000 hours can be.

But I don't think at certain boutiques, 2600 is an unheard of figure.

Meanwhile Wachtell corporate folks are seemingly billing meaningfully more than DPW/S&C/CSM associates, which I think makes the calculous on money vs hours a bit different. I do also suspect that Wachtell associates might be inclined to be a little looser with the timer than their biglaw equivalents, given that their clients aren't actually charged that way.

MTO anon. I wasn't clear on this, but my WLRK friend suggested he was north of 3k (hence the laugh at 2600). THAT was pretty unheard of there, at least while I was at the firm. I can think of maybe one or two people I saw pull those kind of hours in ~4 years. 2600 put me in the top 10 or so among all attorneys that year. And to be fair, he got paid a hell of a lot more for 3000+ than I did for 2600.

[existentialcrisis]

Are Wachtell hours meaningfully worse than elite Biglaw for litigation?

As a third year at MTO, I met up with a law school friend (a litigation associate at WLRK) at a recruiting event. He laughed when I mentioned I'd had a pretty busy year at 2600 hours.

Am one of the WLRK posters. 2,600 still sucks, wouldn't make light of it.

Sure, of course it does. I wasn't trying to make light of how hard Wachtell lit associates work or how miserable even 2000 hours can be.

But I don't think at certain boutiques, 2600 is an unheard of figure.

Meanwhile Wachtell corporate folks are seemingly billing meaningfully more than DPW/S&C/CSM associates, which I think makes the calculous on money vs hours a bit different. I do also suspect that Wachtell associates might be inclined to be a little looser with the timer than their biglaw equivalents, given that their clients aren't actually charged that way.

MTO anon. I wasn't clear on this, but my WLRK friend suggested he was north of 3k (hence the laugh at 2600). THAT was pretty unheard of there, at least while I was at the firm. I can think of maybe one or two people I saw pull those kind of hours in ~4 years. 2600 put me in the top 10 or so among all attorneys that year. And to be fair, he got paid a hell of a lot more for 3000+ than I did for 2600.

Does WLRK bill clients like other firms for litigation, or do they have some kind of alternative arrangement like they do for deal work?