Lit boutique partnership prospects? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone able to opine on the partnership prospects at the well-regarded litigation boutiques? Particularly interested in those with NYC offices (e.g., Susman; Kaplan Hecker; Patterson Belknap; MoloLamken; Holwell Shuster; Morvillo; Walden Macht Haran; Selendy; Lankler Siffert; etc.), as well as general discussion on whether partnership prospects are (1) better or worse than biglaw, (2) reasonably achievable without doing a government stint (DOJ/SEC) and (3) what the compensation might look like for a partner at a boutique.

For context, I'm currently clerking and am thinking a lot about my later career when choosing my next firm. In-house options are appearing more and more desolate for litigators these days (see, for example, that thread that's been floating around recently wherein midlevel biglaw litigators describe having applied to hundreds of in-house positions with no offers). Seems that litigators' primary long-term options are either forever at a firm (i.e., partner or non-equity partner or eternal-counsel) or going into government. I'm not interested in government work, so I'm trying to get a sense of what forever-at-a-firm might look like 5 to 10 years from now if I'm able to join up at one of these boutiques.

Much appreciate the thoughts!

[Anonymous User]

Anyone able to opine on the partnership prospects at the well-regarded litigation boutiques? Particularly interested in those with NYC offices (e.g., Susman; Kaplan Hecker; Patterson Belknap; MoloLamken; Holwell Shuster; Morvillo; Walden Macht Haran; Selendy; Lankler Siffert; etc.), as well as general discussion on whether partnership prospects are (1) better or worse than biglaw, (2) reasonably achievable without doing a government stint (DOJ/SEC) and (3) what the compensation might look like for a partner at a boutique.

For context, I'm currently clerking and am thinking a lot about my later career when choosing my next firm. In-house options are appearing more and more desolate for litigators these days (see, for example, that thread that's been floating around recently wherein midlevel biglaw litigators describe having applied to hundreds of in-house positions with no offers). Seems that litigators' primary long-term options are either forever at a firm (i.e., partner or non-equity partner or eternal-counsel) or going into government. I'm not interested in government work, so I'm trying to get a sense of what forever-at-a-firm might look like 5 to 10 years from now if I'm able to join up at one of these boutiques.

Much appreciate the thoughts!

I am at one of those firms, and they almost never promote to partner from within. The expectation is that you come, put in a few years, go to the government, and maybe come back. A few people come in as partner from other firms, but that is not the norm. Of course I don't know that this is true of all the firms you listed -- just look at the bios/linked-in pages of partners for the firms you are interested in, and that will give you a sense of people's backgrounds.

[Anonymous User]

I am at one of those firms, and they almost never promote to partner from within. The expectation is that you come, put in a few years, go to the government, and maybe come back. A few people come in as partner from other firms, but that is not the norm. Of course I don't know that this is true of all the firms you listed -- just look at the bios/linked-in pages of partners for the firms you are interested in, and that will give you a sense of people's backgrounds.

Thanks for the insight! Totally understand that I provided a long list and prospects will certainly vary across the firms listed.

I've done some of the bio/linkedin research you suggest, and it leads me to believe that what you've represented for your firm holds true for most boutiques like these -- quite unlikely to be promoted to partner purely from within and without a government stint.

Do any of your colleagues have partnership aspirations at the firm, or is the boutique seen as a stepping stone to government for most of them? I honestly have no idea of what comes after the lit boutique career-wise for those not interested in government work. Seems kinda sad if the only move is to a smaller firm with similar hours and doing similar work but less complex and for less money.

[Anonymous User]

I am at one of those firms, and they almost never promote to partner from within. The expectation is that you come, put in a few years, go to the government, and maybe come back. A few people come in as partner from other firms, but that is not the norm. Of course I don't know that this is true of all the firms you listed -- just look at the bios/linked-in pages of partners for the firms you are interested in, and that will give you a sense of people's backgrounds.

Thanks for the insight! Totally understand that I provided a long list and prospects will certainly vary across the firms listed.

I've done some of the bio/linkedin research you suggest, and it leads me to believe that what you've represented for your firm is holds true for most boutiques like these -- quite unlikely to be promoted to partner purely from within and without a government stint.

Do any of your colleagues have partnership aspirations at the firm, or is the boutique seen as a stepping stone to government for most of them? I honestly have no idea of what comes after the lit boutique career-wise for those not interested in government work. Seems kinda sad if the only move is to a smaller firm with similar hours and doing similar work but less complex and for less money.

I think almost everyone goes to government, but I know that some people have gone in-house and others just stick around as counsels. The only people I know of who have gone to other firms have done so as part of a geographic move. And when I say they go to government, I don't just mean the USAO -- people go to regulatory agencies, Main Justice, state and local gov, etc. If none of that is interesting to you, I don't know if at least some of the boutiques would be the right post-clerkship move.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone able to opine on the partnership prospects at the well-regarded litigation boutiques? Particularly interested in those with NYC offices (e.g., Susman; Kaplan Hecker; Patterson Belknap; MoloLamken; Holwell Shuster; Morvillo; Walden Macht Haran; Selendy; Lankler Siffert; etc.), as well as general discussion on whether partnership prospects are (1) better or worse than biglaw, (2) reasonably achievable without doing a government stint (DOJ/SEC) and (3) what the compensation might look like for a partner at a boutique.

For context, I'm currently clerking and am thinking a lot about my later career when choosing my next firm. In-house options are appearing more and more desolate for litigators these days (see, for example, that thread that's been floating around recently wherein midlevel biglaw litigators describe having applied to hundreds of in-house positions with no offers). Seems that litigators' primary long-term options are either forever at a firm (i.e., partner or non-equity partner or eternal-counsel) or going into government. I'm not interested in government work, so I'm trying to get a sense of what forever-at-a-firm might look like 5 to 10 years from now if I'm able to join up at one of these boutiques.

Much appreciate the thoughts!

Piggy-backing off of this a little bit, but I am in a similar situation on the West Coast. Does anyone have thoughts on the same questions, but for California-based boutiques like Hueston Hennigan, Irell (is that a boutique now?), Munger, Keker, Durie? Or are there other boutiques in the area (either LA or SF) that should be on my radar?

[Anonymous User]

I am at one of those firms, and they almost never promote to partner from within. The expectation is that you come, put in a few years, go to the government, and maybe come back. A few people come in as partner from other firms, but that is not the norm. Of course I don't know that this is true of all the firms you listed -- just look at the bios/linked-in pages of partners for the firms you are interested in, and that will give you a sense of people's backgrounds.

Thanks for the insight! Totally understand that I provided a long list and prospects will certainly vary across the firms listed.

I've done some of the bio/linkedin research you suggest, and it leads me to believe that what you've represented for your firm is holds true for most boutiques like these -- quite unlikely to be promoted to partner purely from within and without a government stint.

Do any of your colleagues have partnership aspirations at the firm, or is the boutique seen as a stepping stone to government for most of them? I honestly have no idea of what comes after the lit boutique career-wise for those not interested in government work. Seems kinda sad if the only move is to a smaller firm with similar hours and doing similar work but less complex and for less money.

I think almost everyone goes to government, but I know that some people have gone in-house and others just stick around as counsels. The only people I know of who have gone to other firms have done so as part of a geographic move. And when I say they go to government, I don't just mean the USAO -- people go to regulatory agencies, Main Justice, state and local gov, etc. If none of that is interesting to you, I don't know if at least some of the boutiques would be the right post-clerkship move.

Understood -- much appreciate your perspective. Had started to think that the boutiques might not be for me for this reason. I'm NYC-committed and just can't imagine working in government during my mid to late thirties and maybe beyond, making less than I made as a first year associate while trying to afford getting married, buying a home, having kids, etc. in New York (without an independently wealthy family or spouse). Obviously some folks do it but I struggle to wrap my head around the financials -- they don't seem to spell out a comfortable NYC life with family. I suppose my disillusionment with the long-term litigation career prospects continues . . .

[Anonymous User]

At Susman your chances of making partner are very good and there's no need to do a stint in government. The catch is that you have to be hired by Susman in the first place, and then survive there...

[Anonymous User]

Susman is supposed to have very good prospects, but the lifestyle is going to be rough. MTO is reputed to as well. Bartlit Beck all but guarantees partnership. Overall for litigation partnership prospects the best move is maybe going to a secondary or tertiary market. Though I'm slightly concerned that OP thinks you need a biglaw salary to survive in NYC--it's a ludicrously expensive city but the AUSAs aren't starving.

There are also alternative models like remote firms, which often pitch themselves as being lifestyle-oriented and which will probably continue to grow.

[LBJ's Hair]

Susman is supposed to have very good prospects, but the lifestyle is going to be rough. MTO is reputed to as well. Bartlit Beck all but guarantees partnership. Overall for litigation partnership prospects the best move is maybe going to a secondary or tertiary market. Though I'm slightly concerned that OP thinks you need a biglaw salary to survive in NYC--it's a ludicrously expensive city but the AUSAs aren't starving.

There are also alternative models like remote firms, which often pitch themselves as being lifestyle-oriented and which will probably continue to grow.

eh, SDNY/EDNY have insanely high attrition rates precisely b/c of pay.*

had an interesting conversation with a (now-former) unit chief who actually thought it was a good thing, from a managerial perspective - let the office keep strong top-down culture b/c they don't have the 10-year vet line attorneys who do whatever the hell they want

but it's a huge driver of turnover, and if you've ever spent time with AUSAs in NYC---as an intern, friend group, w/e---compensation is like, the perennial topic of conversation - "I love it, I'm here for 3 years until I can go to biglaw b/c my kid is gonna be starting elementary school and we can't afford tuition" "thank god my wife made Director at Barclays" "why do I make less than I did as a first year associate" "XYZ can stay here forever b/c her parents are ABC"

*to preempt the "actually it's more of a pull factor b/c of exit options" yes there are both "push" and "pull" elements

[Anonymous User]

Susman is supposed to have very good prospects, but the lifestyle is going to be rough. MTO is reputed to as well. Bartlit Beck all but guarantees partnership. Overall for litigation partnership prospects the best move is maybe going to a secondary or tertiary market. Though I'm slightly concerned that OP thinks you need a biglaw salary to survive in NYC--it's a ludicrously expensive city but the AUSAs aren't starving.

There are also alternative models like remote firms, which often pitch themselves as being lifestyle-oriented and which will probably continue to grow.

You may not need a mid-level biglaw salary to survive, but an AUSA salary is tough with kids unless you have a high-earning spouse. We have a nanny who is wonderful (and cheaper than daycare because we have multiple kids), and we don't even pay her at the top of the payscale and it costs over $60k a year once you factor in taxes. That would be exceedingly difficult to afford on a government salary. I'm hoping to make the move to government, but realistically can't do that until the kids can start school, which also means we live in a more expensive neighborhood than we otherwise might because we want to be in a good school district because there is no way we could afford private school tuition for K-12 unless I stayed in biglaw and never saw them. Can you live in NYC on 150k? Absolutely, and lots of people do and on a lot less than that, but kids make it tricky and that is just a fact.

[Anonymous User]

Susman is supposed to have very good prospects, but the lifestyle is going to be rough. MTO is reputed to as well. Bartlit Beck all but guarantees partnership. Overall for litigation partnership prospects the best move is maybe going to a secondary or tertiary market. Though I'm slightly concerned that OP thinks you need a biglaw salary to survive in NYC--it's a ludicrously expensive city but the AUSAs aren't starving.

There are also alternative models like remote firms, which often pitch themselves as being lifestyle-oriented and which will probably continue to grow.

You may not need a mid-level biglaw salary to survive, but an AUSA salary is tough with kids unless you have a high-earning spouse. We have a nanny who is wonderful (and cheaper than daycare because we have multiple kids), and we don't even pay her at the top of the payscale and it costs over $60k a year once you factor in taxes. That would be exceedingly difficult to afford on a government salary. I'm hoping to make the move to government, but realistically can't do that until the kids can start school, which also means we live in a more expensive neighborhood than we otherwise might because we want to be in a good school district because there is no way we could afford private school tuition for K-12 unless I stayed in biglaw and never saw them. Can you live in NYC on 150k? Absolutely, and lots of people do and on a lot less than that, but kids make it tricky and that is just a fact.

OP here. Totally agree with the above, as well as the previous comment re: the vast majority of AUSAs leaving because of money.

I definitely don't think I need a biglaw salary to "survive" in New York, and I really don't think anything I said should make anyone concerned that my lifestyle expectations are too lavish. Take the SDNY/EDNY AUSA income and try to budget it out for a family of four living in NYC. It's simply a fact that an AUSA in NYC with kids (and without a high-earning spouse and with no family money) is going to have to make some legitimate sacrifices because of finances -- that could mean living in an apt that's cramped for 4, or getting a house in the suburbs and committing 3 hours round trip to commuting each day, or choosing a cheap daycare over a well-qualified nanny or a public school over a private school. And as the previous poster explained, it's tough to find a happy medium -- I have no problem at all sending my kids to public school, but you're going to have to live in a more expensive area if you want those public schools to be good quality.

It's a raw deal, but that's life in ~the big city~ I suppose.