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

[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?

it's much harder to be a "control freak" or funnel cases away from certain associates at true boutiques because there's simply too much work to go around for their small sizes. as above mentioned, I don't think W&C really belongs in this convo, but other boutiques will have too much work for their small size so there's only so much they can do if they're truly trying to avoid giving certain work to certain associates.

[Anonymous User]

Worked at one of these and also at a V-10. At the firm from the title I worked at, I do think junior associates tended to get a bit more substantive work earlier than at the biglaw firm. Substantive work was mainly taking/defending depos, drafting briefs, doing meet and confers, and an occasional oral argument on a non-dispositive motion. But, I know exceptions both at my "elite" firm, where associates did not get that much early substantive work, and at other biglaw firms where associates got seemingly ridiculous levels of substantive work, which usually corresponded to a partner getting more work than they could handle and passing it off to associates who were in the right place at the right time (in other words, I would not correlate it to the quality of the associate).

All that said, there's a ton of value in knowing the docs, both because you understand the facts better and because you can help set the course for the appropriate legal theories. So I don't think that you end up being a better lawyer by virtue of getting earlier "substantive work." I do think being around smarter, better attorneys makes you better. And being around attorneys who will ensure you get the credit you deserve and help create appropriate opportunities is key to long-term success in just about every law firm. So if I were giving advice to someone choosing a firm, as difficult as this task is for someone from the outside, I'd be thinking more about that than about the prestige or the relative differences in early opportunities at the firms.

[Anonymous User]

Hot take: nothing at all. The top biglaw litigation offices, particularly in DC, offer similar substantive experience and a softer work-life balance (thinking about Gibson Dun DC; Paul, Weiss DC; Wilmer DC etc). Disclosure: that's the type of firm I work at. As I understand it from friends/co-clerks, the big advantages of being at a smaller, elite lit shop are (1) talent around you, particularly at the partner level; (2) interesting and high-profile case-load; (3) more responsibility earlier in your career. (1) and (2) are definitely matched by most elite lit practices / offices at top biglaw firms. (3) may be true at some firms, but applies most obviously to trial work; you may or not want to actually do gritty hands-on trial work earlier in your career if you can avoid it. Generally, you'll be on smaller teams and will have more responsibility though; I wonder whether the actual benefit from this is often overstated, and obviously you pay for it in hours. Another downside risk: less infrastructure for adjacent lit work like regulatory work that can be interesting and break up the pace of "real litigation" work.

The big reason to go to a boutique, which is not reflected in the firms you mention, is comp and partnership track. Susman, Kellogg etc pay well above market and has a short partnership track. You work for it, but that's a real benefit. Conversely, W&C pays...below market, and has a pretty conventionally difficult partnership trajectory.