Which biglaw firms do plaintiff-side contingency work? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I've seen Quinn and BSF mentioned. Do any other big firms take these cases? How about elite litigation boutiques?

[Anonymous User]

https://www.kirkland.com/news/in-the-ne ... cy-fee-lit

[Anonymous User]

Cravath does some surprisingly, mostly multidistrict class action

[Anonymous User]

Not sure any big law firms do it consistently anymore? I don't think Quinn really does it as much (though still some) - and BSF is off dying in a corner somewhere. Other firms do it occasionally but not sure you could ever really plan to do it consistently at a big law firm. It does seem to be more acceptable to except ad hoc contingency cases in big law though.

Having working at a plaintiff side shop and in big law I think big law training, strategy and structure is pretty antithetical to maximize value from contingency cases.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure any big law firms do it consistently anymore? I don't think Quinn really does it as much (though still some) - and BSF is off dying in a corner somewhere. Other firms do it occasionally but not sure you could ever really plan to do it consistently at a big law firm. It does seem to be more acceptable to except ad hoc contingency cases in big law though.

Having working at a plaintiff side shop and in big law I think big law training, strategy and structure is pretty antithetical to maximize value from contingency cases.

Kirkland launched a practice ~5 years ago and it is supposedly having a lot of success.

[Anonymous User]

Winston & Strawn does particularly in antitrust

[Anonymous User]

Irell does for IP lit. IP is weird, though, and there are a lot of market/above market smaller IP boutiques that do this work too.

I'm curious as to why you're interested in contingency work specifically. Don't get me wrong, there are pros to working at a shop that does this sort of stuff. It's just a lot rarer in biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

+1 on the "why does it matter" question. I've worked with QE as co-counsel on a contingency case, and it did not appear that their approach was any different from an hourly case. Not only that, the incentives were not different--there was pressure-testing on the front end, but once a case was approved, the partner and associates had an incentive to bill more hours. Associates, for normal bonus reasons, but partners, because, I was told they did not get more from the matter if the firm bill fewer hours to it (!). That means there's an agency problem between the firm and the particular partners on the project (rather than the firm and the client)--either way, the incentive is to bill hours in more or less the same way.

[Anonymous User]

Irell does for IP lit.

+1. Milbank and Desmarais (not biglaw per se) also do for IP lit.

[trebekismyhero]

+1 on the "why does it matter" question. I've worked with QE as co-counsel on a contingency case, and it did not appear that their approach was any different from an hourly case. Not only that, the incentives were not different--there was pressure-testing on the front end, but once a case was approved, the partner and associates had an incentive to bill more hours. Associates, for normal bonus reasons, but partners, because, I was told they did not get more from the matter if the firm bill fewer hours to it (!). That means there's an agency problem between the firm and the particular partners on the project (rather than the firm and the client)--either way, the incentive is to bill hours in more or less the same way.

Agree. I have friends in big law who did contingency cases and they were a nightmare in terms of hours billed. And as you said, the partners on the case also get pressure from the firm because if they lose, the firm is out a lot of money. As an associate, I can see the intrigue and pluses of representing plaintiff-side, but not sure why the focus on contingency

[Anonymous User]

+1 on the "why does it matter" question. I've worked with QE as co-counsel on a contingency case, and it did not appear that their approach was any different from an hourly case. Not only that, the incentives were not different--there was pressure-testing on the front end, but once a case was approved, the partner and associates had an incentive to bill more hours. Associates, for normal bonus reasons, but partners, because, I was told they did not get more from the matter if the firm bill fewer hours to it (!). That means there's an agency problem between the firm and the particular partners on the project (rather than the firm and the client)--either way, the incentive is to bill hours in more or less the same way.

Agree. I have friends in big law who did contingency cases and they were a nightmare in terms of hours billed. And as you said, the partners on the case also get pressure from the firm because if they lose, the firm is out a lot of money. As an associate, I can see the intrigue and pluses of representing plaintiff-side, but not sure why the focus on contingency

I think that's why some of the most successful contingency firms are smaller boutiques. Another poster mentioned Desmarais on the IP lit side (though they do a lot of defense work now - Desmarais himself started out as a bigtime K&E defense side litigator and entered the plaintiff space only after purchasing a huge patent portfolio that has since mostly run dry). Irell is a shadow of its former biglaw self and would probably fall in this category too. And there are others like McKool, etc. who have had some big wins.

With that said, litigation funding may be smoothing things out a bit. I don't know any of this for sure, but I imagine some of the funding goes to compensate the firm on a (lower) hourly basis, and the big payout for all parties comes with a win.

Anyway, I was the poster who asked why. The reason I asked is that I summered at a firm that does a lot of P side contingency work and absolutely hated it. It makes for an oddly competitive and stressful work environment that's atypical among other lit groups. And as others have said, the hours are no different (win at all costs seems to be the mantra). My other reference point is the defense side biglaw firm I'm at now which is known for being a pretty big sweatshop (not K&E, though), so I mean it when I say plaintiff side was truly horrid IMHO. OP - is there something in particular about contingency fee work that excites you? Maybe the prospect of more experience early on?