Cooley - Boston Forum

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Recently received an offer from WH. Is it a no-brainer to go that route as someone interested in litigation?

While my QoL will probably be crummy in BL no matter what, will it be markedly worse in at WH compared to a satellite office of a national firm like Cooley?

Yes; no.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Recently received an offer from WH. Is it a no-brainer to go that route as someone interested in litigation?

While my QoL will probably be crummy in BL no matter what, will it be markedly worse in at WH compared to a satellite office of a national firm like Cooley?

I'm curious as to why you're so focused on Cooley? Is it something in their marketing materials? Something someone said? I know it's hard to get a sense of firms/practices as a rising 2L, but it just seems like such a no brainer to pick WH (the best Boston-based lit shop in the country) unless you have a super compelling personal reason in mind for Cooley. Maybe that's not self-evident to law students .

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Recently received an offer from WH. Is it a no-brainer to go that route as someone interested in litigation?

While my QoL will probably be crummy in BL no matter what, will it be markedly worse in at WH compared to a satellite office of a national firm like Cooley?

I'm curious as to why you're so focused on Cooley? Is it something in their marketing materials? Something someone said? I know it's hard to get a sense of firms/practices as a rising 2L, but it just seems like such a no brainer to pick WH (the best Boston-based lit shop in the country) unless you have a super compelling personal reason in mind for Cooley. Maybe that's not self-evident to law students .

I worked at WH, and I’ve seen this a lot among current rising 2Ls. They’ve reached out to ask if they should go to WH or X for litigation in Boston.

It honestly blows my mind how someone could pick some of those firms over WH Boston for lit. I’ve seen people choose Ropes, which is completely defensible (although Ropes bait and switched people a few times by forcing them into corporate). As you mentioned, it’s the best Boston-based lit firm. It’s also considered one of the best litigation firms, period.

Cooley isn’t even in the same stratosphere in litigation, especially in Boston.

I get that the 2000 hour requirement is a huge turnoff, but if you want to hit it, you will. WH is one of those firms that “pressures” associates to do pro bono so that it can top those charts. I’ve known associates who’ve done 500+ hours of pro bono on important matters the firm cares about.

I know it’s not as flashy and Ropes and Goodwin because of its bread and butter practices, but for someone to consider Cooley Lit over WH…

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Recently received an offer from WH. Is it a no-brainer to go that route as someone interested in litigation?

While my QoL will probably be crummy in BL no matter what, will it be markedly worse in at WH compared to a satellite office of a national firm like Cooley?

I'm curious as to why you're so focused on Cooley? Is it something in their marketing materials? Something someone said? I know it's hard to get a sense of firms/practices as a rising 2L, but it just seems like such a no brainer to pick WH (the best Boston-based lit shop in the country) unless you have a super compelling personal reason in mind for Cooley. Maybe that's not self-evident to law students .

I worked at WH, and I’ve seen this a lot among current rising 2Ls. They’ve reached out to ask if they should go to WH or X for litigation in Boston.

It honestly blows my mind how someone could pick some of those firms over WH Boston for lit. I’ve seen people choose Ropes, which is completely defensible (although Ropes bait and switched people a few times by forcing them into corporate). As you mentioned, it’s the best Boston-based lit firm. It’s also considered one of the best litigation firms, period.

Cooley isn’t even in the same stratosphere in litigation, especially in Boston.

I get that the 2000 hour requirement is a huge turnoff, but if you want to hit it, you will. WH is one of those firms that “pressures” associates to do pro bono so that it can top those charts. I’ve known associates who’ve done 500+ hours of pro bono on important matters the firm cares about.

I know it’s not as flashy and Ropes and Goodwin because of its bread and butter practices, but for someone to consider Cooley Lit over WH…

Don't GP/Cooley have 1950 requirements, and Ropes has 1900? Those aren't materially different.

Anyway, I continue to be curious about this. Recruiting is one of the things WH could improve upon (used to be that they could just rest on their laurels/reputation, not so anymore), so I'm wondering what people see in these other firms that dupes them into actually considering turning down WH.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Recently received an offer from WH. Is it a no-brainer to go that route as someone interested in litigation?

While my QoL will probably be crummy in BL no matter what, will it be markedly worse in at WH compared to a satellite office of a national firm like Cooley?

I'm curious as to why you're so focused on Cooley? Is it something in their marketing materials? Something someone said? I know it's hard to get a sense of firms/practices as a rising 2L, but it just seems like such a no brainer to pick WH (the best Boston-based lit shop in the country) unless you have a super compelling personal reason in mind for Cooley. Maybe that's not self-evident to law students .

I worked at WH, and I’ve seen this a lot among current rising 2Ls. They’ve reached out to ask if they should go to WH or X for litigation in Boston.

It honestly blows my mind how someone could pick some of those firms over WH Boston for lit. I’ve seen people choose Ropes, which is completely defensible (although Ropes bait and switched people a few times by forcing them into corporate). As you mentioned, it’s the best Boston-based lit firm. It’s also considered one of the best litigation firms, period.

Cooley isn’t even in the same stratosphere in litigation, especially in Boston.

I get that the 2000 hour requirement is a huge turnoff, but if you want to hit it, you will. WH is one of those firms that “pressures” associates to do pro bono so that it can top those charts. I’ve known associates who’ve done 500+ hours of pro bono on important matters the firm cares about.

I know it’s not as flashy and Ropes and Goodwin because of its bread and butter practices, but for someone to consider Cooley Lit over WH…

Both Cooley and WH were named finalists (top 7) for litigation department of the year by Am Law last year. And the current Solicitor General joined the office from Cooley.

[Anonymous User]

Both Cooley and WH were named finalists (top 7) for litigation department of the year by Am Law last year. And the current Solicitor General joined the office from Cooley.

You're a fool if you think this proves the two to be equals. That's like saying BC is as good as Harvard because Princeton ranks BC's profs among the top 10. Besides, just look to the history of nominees/recipients for that award and you'll see why. And the fact that Prelogar joined Cooley for what, like a year, has everything to do with Cooley throwing money around trying to grow litigation and very little to do with whether that's working.

I'm not saying Cooley is bad for litigation - they do some good work (though I was frankly disappointed when I was across the v from them). I'm just saying these are not good reason to pick Cooley Boston over WH for lit.

[Anonymous User]

Both Cooley and WH were named finalists (top 7) for litigation department of the year by Am Law last year. And the current Solicitor General joined the office from Cooley.

You're a fool if you think this proves the two to be equals. That's like saying BC is as good as Harvard because Princeton ranks BC's profs among the top 10. Besides, just look to the history of nominees/recipients for that award and you'll see why. And the fact that Prelogar joined Cooley for what, like a year, has everything to do with Cooley throwing money around trying to grow litigation and very little to do with whether that's working.

I'm not saying Cooley is bad for litigation - they do some good work (though I was frankly disappointed when I was across the v from them). I'm just saying these are not good reason to pick Cooley Boston over WH for lit.

Agreed. Cooley doesn’t have a bad litigation department just like BC isn’t a bad law school. But you’re choosing between one of the best and something that is good to great but still not comparable.

WH’s list of litigation partners is much more impressive than just a Solicitor General. To what the person above said, they hire has more to do with Cooley throwing tons of money around to grow its litigation department. Again, not sure how this impacts COOLEY BOSTON.

And someone mentioned earlier that WH needs to work on its marketing, and I completely agree.

[wldecisions]

OP here. Recently received an offer from WH. Is it a no-brainer to go that route as someone interested in litigation?

While my QoL will probably be crummy in BL no matter what, will it be markedly worse in at WH compared to a satellite office of a national firm like Cooley?

Yes; no.