What is actually better about Munger/Keker/W&C et al? Forum

[Anonymous User]

It seems like these firms are able to grab the best of the best from HYS, but I can't tell why, since they seem to pay the same. Do they offer more trial work early on? Is it all muh preftige?

[Anonymous User]

MTO and Keker pay market while W&C pays slightly below market (although MTO and Keker have above market clerkship bonuses). The advantages are better partnership prospects, lower leverage ratio, earlier substantive work, smarter colleagues, better exit options, and "prestige."

I'm a little confused as to why you discount "prestige." If Keker and Paul Hastings actually were the same on every metric ("they seem to pay the same") wouldn't "prestige" be the only differentiator?

[jotarokujo]

It seems like these firms are able to grab the best of the best from HYS, but I can't tell why, since they seem to pay the same. Do they offer more trial work early on? Is it all muh preftige?

the work they do is better which improves exit options

[Anonymous User]

You get more substantive work much sooner than at a regular big law shop. But W&C shouldn't be in this list because they don't even pay market

[Anonymous User]

Top Big Law shops all uniformly claim that they give junior and mid-levels substantive responsibilities early on. It's uniformly bluff and hot air. In top lit boutiques, it's actually true. You are first-chairing depositions, making strategic decisions with co-counsel, attending (sometimes even speaking) during court conferences, etc. I'm a mid-level in Big Law and was just told there was "no need" for me to even be on the line on mute for a court conference today even though I had done pretty much all the grunt work so far. That doesn't happen at W&C or Keker.

[Anonymous User]

I'd add that at my HYS, the people who summered at W&C all had post-grad clerkships. After clerking, none went back. It gets "the best of the best" for the summer, but (perhaps because of its below-market pay) it doesn't get many of them as associates.

[Anonymous User]

Top Big Law shops all uniformly claim that they give junior and mid-levels substantive responsibilities early on. It's uniformly bluff and hot air. In top lit boutiques, it's actually true. You are first-chairing depositions, making strategic decisions with co-counsel, attending (sometimes even speaking) during court conferences, etc. I'm a mid-level in Big Law and was just told there was "no need" for me to even be on the line on mute for a court conference today even though I had done pretty much all the grunt work so far. That doesn't happen at W&C or Keker.

Yep, this is true. I came into a lit boutique as a second year and in a year and a half, I took multiple depos, examined a witness at trial, attended dozens of hearings, argued motions, and was involved in nearly every strategic decision for the cases I worked on. My friends at traditional biglaw firms didn’t do any of those things

[Anonymous User]

Top Big Law shops all uniformly claim that they give junior and mid-levels substantive responsibilities early on. It's uniformly bluff and hot air. In top lit boutiques, it's actually true. You are first-chairing depositions, making strategic decisions with co-counsel, attending (sometimes even speaking) during court conferences, etc. I'm a mid-level in Big Law and was just told there was "no need" for me to even be on the line on mute for a court conference today even though I had done pretty much all the grunt work so far. That doesn't happen at W&C or Keker.

Yep, this is true. I came into a lit boutique as a second year and in a year and a half, I took multiple depos, examined a witness at trial, attended dozens of hearings, argued motions, and was involved in nearly every strategic decision for the cases I worked on. My friends at traditional biglaw firms didn’t do any of those things

Were the "speaking" roles you just listed (trial exam, arguing motions) for pro bono/CJA cases? Or for paying clients involved in sophisticated legal issues with high stakes? Not trying to be a jerk here, just trying to understand how it actually breaks down. Unless you're at Susman, or maybe Kellogg, IME as a second year even at a lit boutique you're only doing the on-your-feet work in the types of cases you could choose to do them in at Big Law too (pro bono, or smaller, low-$ reps).

[Anonymous User]

Just noting that taking a substantive witness in a CJA case is no small thing—those are real-deal cases with high stakes. Not that pro bono cases aren’t, but major felony jury trials are very demanding (both technically and often personally) and not for the faint of heart.

[Lxwind]

The people I met from lit boutiques all say that they get substantive work much earlier. At smaller firms even first years get to argue motions etc. They say they frequently argue against people 10 years more senior than them from traditional biglaws.

[Anonymous User]

Just noting that taking a substantive witness in a CJA case is no small thing—those are real-deal cases with high stakes. Not that pro bono cases aren’t, but major felony jury trials are very demanding (both technically and often personally) and not for the faint of heart.

Agreed, but I think the implication from the original post was that such experiences are also available at traditional big law shops.

To that original poster, the argument opportunities at small boutiques like these are not limited to pro bono. Many are doing so for paying clients within first year or two. Though I don't know about W&C TBF.

[Anonymous User]

Just noting that taking a substantive witness in a CJA case is no small thing—those are real-deal cases with high stakes. Not that pro bono cases aren’t, but major felony jury trials are very demanding (both technically and often personally) and not for the faint of heart.

Agreed, but I think the implication from the original post was that such experiences are also available at traditional big law shops.

Correct. At a Big Law shop like DPW or K&E, you can certainly argue motions and get speaking roles before judges in pro bono cases, it's the cases where the client is Apple or John Hancock Life Insurance where you just do discovery objections and M&C R&O bs all day every day.

[Anonymous User]

Just noting that taking a substantive witness in a CJA case is no small thing—those are real-deal cases with high stakes. Not that pro bono cases aren’t, but major felony jury trials are very demanding (both technically and often personally) and not for the faint of heart.

Agreed, but I think the implication from the original post was that such experiences are also available at traditional big law shops.

Correct. At a Big Law shop like DPW or K&E, you can certainly argue motions and get speaking roles before judges in pro bono cases, it's the cases where the client is Apple or John Hancock Life Insurance where you just do discovery objections and M&C R&O bs all day every day.

At my old firm, speaking roles in front of judges on pro bono cases were going to relatively senior associates. I know a junior who basically brought a case with her from law school who got to argue her client's criminal appeal. On similar criminal appeals in the firm, juniors and mids were on the briefs but did not argue.

Generally at big firms, any speaking role, including on pro bono cases, are valuable, rationed, and ultimately fought over.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

Just noting that taking a substantive witness in a CJA case is no small thing—those are real-deal cases with high stakes. Not that pro bono cases aren’t, but major felony jury trials are very demanding (both technically and often personally) and not for the faint of heart.

The CJA mention stuck out for me too. My only CJA case was a guy that was facing a 10 year mandatory minimum, who was pissed at me because I couldn't cut him a deal to get him out of jail immediately, who told me I was fucking up his case for unexplained reasons every time I met with him, and who was 100% going to go after me for ineffective assistance if he lost. I lost so much fucking sleep over that case.

[Anonymous User]

I worked at one of these firms. Taking depos and drafting substantive briefs (or splitting the drafting with a fellow associate) within the first year was very common. That included people who had graduated less than a year before. (Some people had gaps between law school grad and their clerkships.) My friends at conventional big law were third years and still not doing these things.

[Anonymous User]

I'm at a plaintiff-side firm that is up against W&C on mass tort cases, and, um, junior associates there are *not* arguing motions, "first-chairing" depositions, or examining anyone at trial in these cases.

I'm not saying it never happens, but I am saying I've never seen it happen, even though someone from W&C has done those things against us. Juniors and mid-levels are "on the line" during depositions, writing deposition outlines, drafting motions, and so forth, but, really, I can't see any difference between W&C and Dechert, A&P, Kirkland, and other biglaw firms in terms of junior experience. I guess one mid-level did a pre-planned couple minute thing at a hearing before the partner did the rest of the presentation and took questions? But that was pretty minor.

Susman and Keker do seem different. I have no personal knowledge about Munger.

[Anonymous User]

Top Big Law shops all uniformly claim that they give junior and mid-levels substantive responsibilities early on. It's uniformly bluff and hot air. In top lit boutiques, it's actually true. You are first-chairing depositions, making strategic decisions with co-counsel, attending (sometimes even speaking) during court conferences, etc. I'm a mid-level in Big Law and was just told there was "no need" for me to even be on the line on mute for a court conference today even though I had done pretty much all the grunt work so far. That doesn't happen at W&C or Keker.

Yep, this is true. I came into a lit boutique as a second year and in a year and a half, I took multiple depos, examined a witness at trial, attended dozens of hearings, argued motions, and was involved in nearly every strategic decision for the cases I worked on. My friends at traditional biglaw firms didn’t do any of those things

Were the "speaking" roles you just listed (trial exam, arguing motions) for pro bono/CJA cases? Or for paying clients involved in sophisticated legal issues with high stakes? Not trying to be a jerk here, just trying to understand how it actually breaks down. Unless you're at Susman, or maybe Kellogg, IME as a second year even at a lit boutique you're only doing the on-your-feet work in the types of cases you could choose to do them in at Big Law too (pro bono, or smaller, low-$ reps).

OP here. They were all paying cases. Not really low $ reps, but many weren’t sophisticated corporate clients. That said, by the time I was a third year, the #2 person in the legal department of a major company was often calling me directly with asks. Although I think I probably got a bit more experience than most people in my class level at the firm, the partners made an effort to include associates, even junior associates, in client meetings so that the client could gain confidence that they could handle substantive tasks

[Anonymous User]

Not always true and depends on the boutique, but the partnership prospects are often materially different. For example, Susman makes most of their associates partner, at least the ones that stick around long enough in spite of the hours and lifestyle.

[Anonymous User]

I'm at a plaintiff-side firm that is up against W&C on mass tort cases, and, um, junior associates there are *not* arguing motions, "first-chairing" depositions, or examining anyone at trial in these cases.

I'm not saying it never happens, but I am saying I've never seen it happen, even though someone from W&C has done those things against us. Juniors and mid-levels are "on the line" during depositions, writing deposition outlines, drafting motions, and so forth, but, really, I can't see any difference between W&C and Dechert, A&P, Kirkland, and other biglaw firms in terms of junior experience. I guess one mid-level did a pre-planned couple minute thing at a hearing before the partner did the rest of the presentation and took questions? But that was pretty minor.

Susman and Keker do seem different. I have no personal knowledge about Munger.

White and case or Williams?

[Anonymous User]

I'm at a plaintiff-side firm that is up against W&C on mass tort cases, and, um, junior associates there are *not* arguing motions, "first-chairing" depositions, or examining anyone at trial in these cases.

I'm not saying it never happens, but I am saying I've never seen it happen, even though someone from W&C has done those things against us. Juniors and mid-levels are "on the line" during depositions, writing deposition outlines, drafting motions, and so forth, but, really, I can't see any difference between W&C and Dechert, A&P, Kirkland, and other biglaw firms in terms of junior experience. I guess one mid-level did a pre-planned couple minute thing at a hearing before the partner did the rest of the presentation and took questions? But that was pretty minor.

Susman and Keker do seem different. I have no personal knowledge about Munger.

White and case or Williams?

Mass tort/opioids/large scale antitrust can be somewhat of a different beast here. W&C has a lot of smaller paying civil and criminal cases that are staffed very leanly and go to trial--and juniors do those things. And to be clear, they may be smaller in terms of scale or client, but not necessarily both. Younger associates will have leading roles on small matters for big clients and on big matters for small clients. But yes, I agree it's not very common when the firm is representing a $200 bn company in bet-the-company litigation.

[Anonymous User]

White and case or Williams?

Williams and Connolly.

[Anonymous User]

Am at a boutique that gets discussed in these conversations and agree that things perhaps aren’t quite as radical as people make them out to be. A few considerations:

1. Most boutiques essentially don’t have junior associates these days. Clerkship timelines have gotten so drawn out and so many people clerk twice that the typical incoming lit boutique associate is like a third or fourth year, which is a point where you can actually get entrusted with more in traditional biglaw.

2. As a corollary, time at a firm or on a case can sometimes outstrip overall seniority. It can take time to get up to speed on facts enough to do depositions regardless of how senior you are; if you’re staffed on something new, it takes time to get to trial. Versus someone who’s been on a biglaw case for a while might be a go-to person even if they’re a little young at a big firm. I wonder remote work has flattened this somewhat too.

3. As yet another corollary, that means that things still change for the senior associate experience. Lots of people who would be senior associates at big firms are partners instead! And the ~6ish year associates or whatever are running cases instead of projects within them, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Am at a boutique that gets discussed in these conversations and agree that things perhaps aren’t quite as radical as people make them out to be. A few considerations:

1. Most boutiques essentially don’t have junior associates these days. Clerkship timelines have gotten so drawn out and so many people clerk twice that the typical incoming lit boutique associate is like a third or fourth year, which is a point where you can actually get entrusted with more in traditional biglaw.

2. As a corollary, time at a firm or on a case can sometimes outstrip overall seniority. It can take time to get up to speed on facts enough to do depositions regardless of how senior you are; if you’re staffed on something new, it takes time to get to trial. Versus someone who’s been on a biglaw case for a while might be a go-to person even if they’re a little young at a big firm. I wonder remote work has flattened this somewhat too.

3. As yet another corollary, that means that things still change for the senior associate experience. Lots of people who would be senior associates at big firms are partners instead! And the ~6ish year associates or whatever are running cases instead of projects within them, etc.

On #1, there's another corollary which is actually that because clerkship timelines are drawn out, people are going to boutiques before they clerk. In my experience at one of the boutiques that has legitimate summer classes (Keker/Munger), the right comparator would be the people who are in their first three years out of law school. Those people are doing things that many big law firms wouldn't allow them to do. There simply is too much work and too few associates to have multi-layer levels of hierarchy.

[Anonymous User]

Some of this has to be dependent on the personalities at these firms, right? Like it must surely be the case that some new associates must just be goobers who really aren’t up to running cases or whatever, no? And presumably, there are some partners that are control freaks even at fancy boutiques?

[Anonymous User]

Some of this has to be dependent on the personalities at these firms, right? Like it must surely be the case that some new associates must just be goobers who really aren’t up to running cases or whatever, no? And presumably, there are some partners that are control freaks even at fancy boutiques?

I don't know about the control freaks, but I'm assuming part of the reason these jobs are harder to get than biglaw is that they actually work to filter out the goobers.