Boies Schiller Sauce? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone one corroborate or elaborate on the CNBC expose re: mass exodus, brain drain, accusations of nepotism, Theranos, etc?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/boies-s ... stein.html

[Anonymous User]

There isn’t really anything in here that hasn’t been reported on previously. Some of the law.com pieces published in the wake of Harrison stepping down were arguably more damning and accurate, although it is not great for the firm that its downfall now colors the general business press, and not just legal industry websites.

(Anon because I previously worked at the firm and have personal knowledge of some of the events)

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Under/over to when the firm dissolves? I’ll set the line at 14 months.

[Anonymous User]

Under/over to when the firm dissolves? I’ll set the line at 14 months.

I doubt it will dissolve, but it will probably continue to slip down the rankings and in the esteem of people in the industry. Part of being a Big Law firm is being able to manage PR. In terms of esteem, BSF will end up somewhere between Quinn Emanuel and Kasowitz.

[Joachim2017]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

As someone who recently went through the recruiting process in a 100% lottery system, if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass.

[Joachim2017]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

As someone who recently went through the recruiting process in a 100% lottery system, if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass.

OK, but BSF is probably not interested in hiring someone who's going to make decisions based on the first results of a Google search. They probably want someone who's a little more careful and thorough in their own judgments. And Boies Schiller has gotten positive press recently too, in relation to their Epstein coverage and work for women and girls caught in that net. So it's not as though it's all bad press.

[almostperfectt]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

As someone who recently went through the recruiting process in a 100% lottery system, if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass.

OK, but BSF is probably not interested in hiring someone who's going to make decisions based on the first results of a Google search. They probably want someone who's a little more careful and thorough in their own judgments. And Boies Schiller has gotten positive press recently too, in relation to their Epstein coverage and work for women and girls caught in that net. So it's not as though it's all bad press.

A firm not interested in hiring a law student based on how they research firms? Have you ever went through a biglaw OCI process? 1Ls going through OCI have no idea the actual differences between firms and any given firm is hiring them based on school name, gpa and personality. No one at any step in the process cares if you can figure out that X firm has Y leverage in Z practice area or whatever people think makes their firm stand out.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

As someone who recently went through the recruiting process in a 100% lottery system, if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass.

OK, but BSF is probably not interested in hiring someone who's going to make decisions based on the first results of a Google search. They probably want someone who's a little more careful and thorough in their own judgments. And Boies Schiller has gotten positive press recently too, in relation to their Epstein coverage and work for women and girls caught in that net. So it's not as though it's all bad press.

This is a fair response. But the recruiting situation is more dire than you think. There is no way the firm will continue to recruit talent anywhere close to pre-2019 levels. BSF (DC and NY) used to be a magnet for top students and appellate clerks on the level of any other top litigation shop, which allowed the firm to be extraordinarily selective. It was only a few years back when BSF drew the most SCOTUS clerks of any firm. Now, EIP/FIP participants and clerks are running away as quickly as they can. Campus recruiting was a bloodbath. Clerk recruiting has essentially closed, despite financial incentives. The firm desperately needed new junior and mid level associates for the past six months to replace the brain drain, and hasn’t been able to draw them in. As someone with friends who are still there, I want the firm to recover, but I don’t think it ever can go back to the way it was.

[Joachim2017]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

As someone who recently went through the recruiting process in a 100% lottery system, if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass.

OK, but BSF is probably not interested in hiring someone who's going to make decisions based on the first results of a Google search. They probably want someone who's a little more careful and thorough in their own judgments. And Boies Schiller has gotten positive press recently too, in relation to their Epstein coverage and work for women and girls caught in that net. So it's not as though it's all bad press.

This is a fair response. But the recruiting situation is more dire than you think. There is no way the firm will continue to recruit talent anywhere close to pre-2019 levels. BSF (DC and NY) used to be a magnet for top students and appellate clerks on the level of any other top litigation shop, which allowed the firm to be extraordinarily selective. It was only a few years back when BSF drew the most SCOTUS clerks of any firm. Now, EIP/FIP participants and clerks are running away as quickly as they can. Campus recruiting was a bloodbath. Clerk recruiting has essentially closed, despite financial incentives. The firm desperately needed new junior and mid level associates for the past six months to replace the brain drain, and hasn’t been able to draw them in. As someone with friends who are still there, I want the firm to recover, but I don’t think it ever can go back to the way it was.

Sure, I agree with most of this. Maybe I am a little too optimistic about BSF's chances. I do think that if the firm shows (and not just says) that it will continue to pay well above-market bonuses and brings in interesting matters (either through plaintiff or defense side work), it can get reasonably close to top-level associate talent. SCOTUS level, or elite CA2/9/DC? Maybe not anymore. But as they contract, they will need to bring in fewer folks to handle their work. For the most part though, I agree with you.

The other poster who wrote that firms are "not interested in hiring a law student based on how they research firms" and "No one at any step in the process cares if you can figure out that X firm has Y leverage in Z practice area or whatever people think makes their firm stand out" is just flat-out wrong. Not sure if you have not participated in interviewing or hiring decisions, or what caliber of firm you work at, but these factors are taken into account, as they are (among other things) demonstrative of maturity, judgment, diligence, resourcefulness, and seriousness. I can state this firsthand, from both the hiring and applying side.

[Elston Gunn]

Even leaving aside any moral judgment about the BSF stories, it’s slightly absurd to suggest it shows a lack of maturity to not want to have to tell people you work at the Weinstein firm. Even beyond that, doing more thorough research about the firm isn’t going to make you less concerned about its future. I’m sure there are many, many students BSF would like to hire who don’t want to go to BSF because they read the “first results of a Google search.”

[Anonymous User]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

As someone who recently went through the recruiting process in a 100% lottery system, if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass.

OK, but BSF is probably not interested in hiring someone who's going to make decisions based on the first results of a Google search. They probably want someone who's a little more careful and thorough in their own judgments. And Boies Schiller has gotten positive press recently too, in relation to their Epstein coverage and work for women and girls caught in that net. So it's not as though it's all bad press.

Lol wtf? I ended up at a V5 so your speculation about how big firms hire is just wrong, and suggests someone who either went to some off-brand school where you have to apply to interview or has never gone through recruiting at all — or, god forbid, you work at BSF and you’re trying desperately to blunt criticism of the firm. The point is, why would I risk joining a firm grappling very publicly with accusations of nepotism, racism, and dodgy clients (or rather, that doesn’t have the PR wherewithal to keep such accusations within the industry, at the very least) when I can just join a firm of better rank that pays the same if not more? You have no clue what you’re talking about, as the posters above me have also pointed out.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think BSF will dissolve, but it probably won't regain its former reach, size, scope, or strength. That's not because of the Weinstein or Theranos debacles, in themselves, but how the firm responded to them.

The question is more: can it continue to recruit top talent, as it transitions into a new shape and form? I'm not convinced it can't do that, quite yet, but the next 1-2 years will probably be determinative. If there's another BIG exodus of 2-3 major partners and 5-7 mid-level associates, like we saw last year, then it probably won't ever recover.

As someone who recently went through the recruiting process in a 100% lottery system, if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass.

OK, but BSF is probably not interested in hiring someone who's going to make decisions based on the first results of a Google search. They probably want someone who's a little more careful and thorough in their own judgments. And Boies Schiller has gotten positive press recently too, in relation to their Epstein coverage and work for women and girls caught in that net. So it's not as though it's all bad press.

This is a fair response. But the recruiting situation is more dire than you think. There is no way the firm will continue to recruit talent anywhere close to pre-2019 levels. BSF (DC and NY) used to be a magnet for top students and appellate clerks on the level of any other top litigation shop, which allowed the firm to be extraordinarily selective. It was only a few years back when BSF drew the most SCOTUS clerks of any firm. Now, EIP/FIP participants and clerks are running away as quickly as they can. Campus recruiting was a bloodbath. Clerk recruiting has essentially closed, despite financial incentives. The firm desperately needed new junior and mid level associates for the past six months to replace the brain drain, and hasn’t been able to draw them in. As someone with friends who are still there, I want the firm to recover, but I don’t think it ever can go back to the way it was.

Sure, I agree with most of this. Maybe I am a little too optimistic about BSF's chances. I do think that if the firm shows (and not just says) that it will continue to pay well above-market bonuses and brings in interesting matters (either through plaintiff or defense side work), it can get reasonably close to top-level associate talent. SCOTUS level, or elite CA2/9/DC? Maybe not anymore. But as they contract, they will need to bring in fewer folks to handle their work. For the most part though, I agree with you.

The other poster who wrote that firms are "not interested in hiring a law student based on how they research firms" and "No one at any step in the process cares if you can figure out that X firm has Y leverage in Z practice area or whatever people think makes their firm stand out" is just flat-out wrong. Not sure if you have not participated in interviewing or hiring decisions, or what caliber of firm you work at, but these factors are taken into account, as they are (among other things) demonstrative of maturity, judgment, diligence, resourcefulness, and seriousness. I can state this firsthand, from both the hiring and applying side.

Found the BSF staff attorney from Suffolk Law

[Joachim2017]

Well this has turned out to be somewhat amusing. Notice that the brave anon who insists s/he "ended up at a V5" (congrats on snagging your offer at Latham bro) starts by saying:

"if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass"

And, when I pointed out that elite smaller firms look at the reasons why applicants apply (and won't be bothered by someone who makes hard decisions based on initial internet searches) then backtracks to:

"The point is, why would I risk joining a firm grappling very publicly with accusations of nepotism, racism, and dodgy clients (or rather, that doesn’t have the PR wherewithal to keep such accusations within the industry, at the very least) when I can just join a firm of better rank that pays the same if not more?"

That's a different position, and one I don't necessarily disagree with. I'm not at BSF, but I have experience both applying to, and now interviewing at, elite smaller firms that don't just drop their panties at applicants who have good grades from top schools -- these firms ask and scrutinize answers to the "why X firm?" question. Your experience sounds like you did OCI at a decent school and interviewed with generic Big Law where all that matters is the numbers. That's fine, but it's not the relevant metric.

I think another poster above noted that my initial point was a fair one, so I have no idea where your "You have no clue what you’re talking about, as the posters above me have also pointed out" comes from. But I'm not going to waste more time with an anon on TLS who makes a dumb claim and then pivots to a more reasonable one when called out on it to save face. Feel free to throw more shade at "off-brand schools" if you like, I'm out.

[almostperfectt]

Well this has turned out to be somewhat amusing. Notice that the brave anon who insists s/he "ended up at a V5" (congrats on snagging your offer at Latham bro) starts by saying:

"if the first results when I Google a prospective firm is bad press coverage in mainstream rather than industry outlets, especially of the sort emerging from BSF, that’s going to be a hard pass"

And, when I pointed out that elite smaller firms look at the reasons why applicants apply (and won't be bothered by someone who makes hard decisions based on initial internet searches) then backtracks to:

"The point is, why would I risk joining a firm grappling very publicly with accusations of nepotism, racism, and dodgy clients (or rather, that doesn’t have the PR wherewithal to keep such accusations within the industry, at the very least) when I can just join a firm of better rank that pays the same if not more?"

That's a different position, and one I don't necessarily disagree with. I'm not at BSF, but I have experience both applying to, and now interviewing at, elite smaller firms that don't just drop their panties at applicants who have good grades from top schools -- these firms ask and scrutinize answers to the "why X firm?" question. Your experience sounds like you did OCI at a decent school and interviewed with generic Big Law where all that matters is the numbers. That's fine, but it's not the relevant metric.

I think another poster above noted that my initial point was a fair one, so I have no idea where your "You have no clue what you’re talking about, as the posters above me have also pointed out" comes from. But I'm not going to waste more time with an anon on TLS who makes a dumb claim and then pivots to a more reasonable one when called out on it to save face. Feel free to throw more shade at "off-brand schools" if you like, I'm out.

Just because I'm a dick I'd like to point out that you moved the goalposts here. I know we're talking about BSF generally, but I (and you in your response to me) were talking about firms generally, and you even barbed "Not sure ... what caliber of firm you work at" suggesting that your point applies across the board at "generic Big Law where all that matters is the numbers".

But now that people are disagreeing you're clarifying to elite smaller firms. I don't know shit about litigation boutiques. I just thought it was silly to suggest that a specific firm purports to be above typical YHSCCN law student research.

[Joachim2017]

My saying "Not sure ... what caliber of firm you work at" in this context (that is, firms like BSF -- you know, what we're talking about ITT?) suggests precisely NOT generic Big Law across the board, where all that matters in hiring are the numbers. You helpfully note that you don't know shit about litigation boutiques. That's one of two things I agree with you about in your latest post. I'll let you guess what the other one is.

[Anonymous User]

My saying "Not sure ... what caliber of firm you work at" in this context (that is, firms like BSF -- you know, what we're talking about ITT?) suggests precisely NOT generic Big Law across the board, where all that matters in hiring are the numbers. You helpfully note that you don't know shit about litigation boutiques. That's one of two things I agree with you about in your latest post. I'll let you guess what the other one is.

Lol this kid is either trolling or deluded and sounds/writes like he works in the BSF mailroom.

[Anonymous User]

I’m one of the anons above who made the point that BSF’s recruiting is beyond repair.

Joachim is getting gaslit unfairly a bit here for his anodyne view that top associate talent actually considers the merits of firms beyond their recent searchable press coverage. What drove BSF into the ground was not, in fact, nasty stories in the New Yorker and American Lawyer about Harvey Weinstein (although the problematic representations were related to ultimate issues). Those stories have run since 2017 and had no discernible impact on recruiting (and a massively overblown impact on clients) until the firm started bleeding key partners last year. If Karen and Bill and DB monitors and BoA folks in New York and the Caldwell team in LA had stayed, and Gravante and Natasha hadn’t abandoned their posts (or hadn’t been selected in the first place; huge mistake), no one would be talking about BSF as on the verge of collapse. What killed the firm was largely how it handled the transition to second gen leadership and Jonathan Schiller’s megalomania, which drove a lot of the best lawyers out of the firm either because they weren’t picked or would make a lot less money. The firm is obviously f***** now, but plenty of talented people joined and worked at the firm notwithstanding negative press coverage until the lawyers worth working for packed up.

And for what it’s worth if we want to talk legal ethics and moral carnage, every “V5” represented financial managers who perpetrated the mortgage crisis and objectively destroyed the lives of as many human beings as any other client.

[Anonymous User]

BSF Vault rank
2017 - 16
2018 - 20
2019 - 23
2021 - 43

As a rising 2L, I was put off BSF at OCI not because of any negative press treatment or knowledge of palace intrigue. I simply noticed that BSF has for a while been heading in the wrong direction based on the only industry metric I and many of my classmates know about.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I do not know anyone at my T6 who even bid BSF, including those who were exclusively targeting lit (and focusing on boutiques). The only time BSF came up was when people were noting negative press or telling others not to bid. I could not even tell you whether BSF came to our OCI this year (or my year, for that matter--maybe people were just preemptively telling other students not to bid BSF).

[Anonymous User]

When every big firm pays the same, is located in the same markets, and is basically doing the same work, all that potential recruits have to go on is reputation. If you’re in a position to choose, you choose elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

I’m one of the anons above who made the point that BSF’s recruiting is beyond repair.

Joachim is getting gaslit unfairly a bit here for his anodyne view that top associate talent actually considers the merits of firms beyond their recent searchable press coverage. What drove BSF into the ground was not, in fact, nasty stories in the New Yorker and American Lawyer about Harvey Weinstein (although the problematic representations were related to ultimate issues). Those stories have run since 2017 and had no discernible impact on recruiting (and a massively overblown impact on clients) until the firm started bleeding key partners last year. If Karen and Bill and DB monitors and BoA folks in New York and the Caldwell team in LA had stayed, and Gravante and Natasha hadn’t abandoned their posts (or hadn’t been selected in the first place; huge mistake), no one would be talking about BSF as on the verge of collapse. What killed the firm was largely how it handled the transition to second gen leadership and Jonathan Schiller’s megalomania, which drove a lot of the best lawyers out of the firm either because they weren’t picked or would make a lot less money. The firm is obviously f***** now, but plenty of talented people joined and worked at the firm notwithstanding negative press coverage until the lawyers worth working for packed up.

And for what it’s worth if we want to talk legal ethics and moral carnage, every “V5” represented financial managers who perpetrated the mortgage crisis and objectively destroyed the lives of as many human beings as any other client.

to echo the point regarding BSF recruiting: I bid BSF summer 2018 and was seriously considering them, along with MTO/W&C/WLRK for a 2L SA. was aware of the unflattering New Yorker piece, Theranos stuff -- not a great look, but BSF had an otherwise-great reputation, lit-only, pays above market, etc.

ended up going with one of the others, but it wasn't an obvious decision at the time.

then partners started leaving in 2019 or so. and that was that.

[parkslope]

Can anyone one corroborate or elaborate on the CNBC expose re: mass exodus, brain drain, accusations of nepotism, Theranos, etc?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/boies-s ... stein.html

Most of this was rehashing stuff that has been reported elsewhere. The most interesting part of it was the discussion of nepotism with the architect and that it led to shared offices that associates clearly hated. It's one thing to hire a relative to design an office, it's another thing to hire a relative to design an office that is subpar relative to BSF's competitors.