Choosing among boutique (or boutique-esque) firms Forum

[Anonymous User]

How would someone go ahead choosing one of, e.g., Susman, MTO, Keker, W&C, Kaplan Hecker?

Other than city (and I suppose the fact that W&C pays below market?) what considerations should lead one to choose one of these firms over the other(s)? For instance, Susman does more plaintiff-side work; what other facts set these firms apart/are relevant to a decision among them?

[Anonymous User]

How would someone go ahead choosing one of, e.g., Susman, MTO, Keker, W&C, Kaplan Hecker?

Other than city (and I suppose the fact that W&C pays below market?) what considerations should lead one to choose one of these firms over the other(s)? For instance, Susman does more plaintiff-side work; what other facts set these firms apart/are relevant to a decision among them?

Well seeing as they are all located in different cities for the most part, that would be an obvious first differentiator.

[Anonymous User]

How would someone go ahead choosing one of, e.g., Susman, MTO, Keker, W&C, Kaplan Hecker?

Other than city (and I suppose the fact that W&C pays below market?) what considerations should lead one to choose one of these firms over the other(s)? For instance, Susman does more plaintiff-side work; what other facts set these firms apart/are relevant to a decision among them?

Well seeing as they are all located in different cities for the most part, that would be an obvious first differentiator.

Well, right. I did note that in the OP. But some are in the same city, or some people might be amenable to multiple of the cities. Or maybe there really are no other material differentiators, which would still be useful information, I think.

[Anonymous User]

How would someone go ahead choosing one of, e.g., Susman, MTO, Keker, W&C, Kaplan Hecker?

Other than city (and I suppose the fact that W&C pays below market?) what considerations should lead one to choose one of these firms over the other(s)? For instance, Susman does more plaintiff-side work; what other facts set these firms apart/are relevant to a decision among them?

Well seeing as they are all located in different cities for the most part, that would be an obvious first differentiator.

Well, right. I did note that in the OP. But some are in the same city, or some people might be amenable to multiple of the cities. Or maybe there really are no other material differentiators, which would still be useful information, I think.

I'm not sure how anyone can answer this for you. You will get great work at all of them, and you will be worked to death at all of them. The major differentiator is that W&C comes in below market pay, and a few of them pay above-market. Otherwise, it's just the general vibe. I have heard not great things about the culture at Kaplan, but no other real knowledge.

[Anonymous User]

I recently made this very decision; frankly, I found it very hard to really get a sense of the differences between boutiques. One thing that stood out to me: all the firms talk about giving young associates substantive experience, but there were only a few boutiques where associates actually seemed to get opportunities to do depositions , argue motions, present witnesses, etc. In general, I believe the firms that do plaintiffs side work appeared to be better about giving associates stand up time, because firms have more control over the litigation when they serve as plaintiff's counsel.

I also think that some of the boutiques (e.g. Kellogg, Susman) have reputations for being a sweat shop. But in my recruitment process, I came to learn that nearly all of the boutiques will work you very very hard--some of the firms just have a reputation for doing so.

Sorry if this isn't more helpful. If you have these options, you'll end up somewhere great and at the end of the day, if you aren't sure, its not a bad strategy to just go where you know you'll get paid the most. Chances are you aren't going to spend more than a few years there.

[Anonymous User]

How would someone go ahead choosing one of, e.g., Susman, MTO, Keker, W&C, Kaplan Hecker?

Other than city (and I suppose the fact that W&C pays below market?) what considerations should lead one to choose one of these firms over the other(s)? For instance, Susman does more plaintiff-side work; what other facts set these firms apart/are relevant to a decision among them?

These firms do considerably different work? Without beginning to get into it and vastly oversimplifying, Susman does probably the most trial and considerably more plaintiff side and contingency work. MTO has a bunch of leading media and entertainment practices, etc. Keker does the most high tech work. W&C is one of the best white collar and investigations firms in the world. Kaplan does the most pro bono, a lot of appellate--and a ton of stuff in the progressive arena.

They also have entirely different firm structures, parternship prospectives, cultures etc. Susman, for instance, goes around the whole firm before taking on new matters, has a short partnership trajectory, but is very perfomance / PnL based to an extent that it can feel like a hedge fund more than a law firm. On the other end of the spectrum, W&C is very old world white shoe stuffy law firm with its firm management and structure. Comp is also quite different, as are hours. MTO, W&C, and Keker are closer to normal hours for biglaw afaik. Susman is considerably higher. But Susman comp is significantly above market with fat bonuses. As mentioned, W&C is below market (albeit not by much). Idk how comp looks at Kaplan or Keker, but afaik it's market at MTO.

[Anonymous User]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw? Is it just culture, or the type of work they do? Or just need to work you to the bone to make it work finance without a corporate group to generate revenue?

[The Lsat Airbender]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw?

Short answer: boutiques aren't biglaw

[Anonymous User]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw?

Short answer: boutiques aren't biglaw

Can you elaborate?

[The Lsat Airbender]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw?

Short answer: boutiques aren't biglaw

Can you elaborate?

It's apples and oranges. Boutiques have a different business model (e.g. associate leverage is typically lower which is probably relevant here). So it's not at all surprising that hours at a boutique might be different from biglaw.

edit: nvm

[Anonymous User]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw?

Short answer: boutiques aren't biglaw

Can you elaborate?

It's apples and oranges. Boutiques have a different business model (e.g. associate leverage is typically lower which is probably relevant here). So it's not at all surprising that hours at a boutique might be different from biglaw.

edit: nvm

So iow they under hire associates in order to have higher chances of partnership, which means those associates have to do more work. Sounds like option 2 of my question.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know how partnership comp works at these firms?

[Anonymous User]

How would someone go ahead choosing one of, e.g., Susman, MTO, Keker, W&C, Kaplan Hecker?

Other than city (and I suppose the fact that W&C pays below market?) what considerations should lead one to choose one of these firms over the other(s)? For instance, Susman does more plaintiff-side work; what other facts set these firms apart/are relevant to a decision among them?

These firms do considerably different work? Without beginning to get into it and vastly oversimplifying, Susman does probably the most trial and considerably more plaintiff side and contingency work. MTO has a bunch of leading media and entertainment practices, etc. Keker does the most high tech work. W&C is one of the best white collar and investigations firms in the world. Kaplan does the most pro bono, a lot of appellate--and a ton of stuff in the progressive arena.

They also have entirely different firm structures, parternship prospectives, cultures etc. Susman, for instance, goes around the whole firm before taking on new matters, has a short partnership trajectory, but is very perfomance / PnL based to an extent that it can feel like a hedge fund more than a law firm. On the other end of the spectrum, W&C is very old world white shoe stuffy law firm with its firm management and structure. Comp is also quite different, as are hours. MTO, W&C, and Keker are closer to normal hours for biglaw afaik. Susman is considerably higher. But Susman comp is significantly above market with fat bonuses. As mentioned, W&C is below market (albeit not by much). Idk how comp looks at Kaplan or Keker, but afaik it's market at MTO.

Comp at Keker is market, with slightly above-market bonuses for high performers and billers.

[Anonymous User]

At this point I feel like W&C is just a biglaw firm that focuses only on litigation. Ten years ago, sure I'd call it boutique-esque, but it really isn't a boutique anymore in the way it operates. Not commenting on its quality or anything, just saying calling W&C a boutique in 2022 seems like a stretch.

[Anonymous User]

At this point I feel like W&C is just a biglaw firm that focuses only on litigation. Ten years ago, sure I'd call it boutique-esque, but it really isn't a boutique anymore in the way it operates. Not commenting on its quality or anything, just saying calling W&C a boutique in 2022 seems like a stretch.

My read (from friends who work there) is that it's still boutique-ish. It still has a lot of the features that draw people to boutiques (really lean case teams, earli(er) experience taking depositions, a higher chance of going to trial than generic BigLaw), but that might be changing as the firm retools to take bigger cases, which means larger teams (particularly in their mass tort practice). But the leverage ratio is still about the same as a lot of boutiques, so I think a lot depends on what cases you're staffed on--there are still many cases handled by one or two partners and one or two associates.

[Anonymous User]

By the standards of these firms, MTO has a rep for having relatively humane hours, but it also isn't really a boutique--it has transactional practices

[Anonymous User]

How would someone go ahead choosing one of, e.g., Susman, MTO, Keker, W&C, Kaplan Hecker?

Other than city (and I suppose the fact that W&C pays below market?) what considerations should lead one to choose one of these firms over the other(s)? For instance, Susman does more plaintiff-side work; what other facts set these firms apart/are relevant to a decision among them?

These firms do considerably different work? Without beginning to get into it and vastly oversimplifying, Susman does probably the most trial and considerably more plaintiff side and contingency work. MTO has a bunch of leading media and entertainment practices, etc. Keker does the most high tech work. W&C is one of the best white collar and investigations firms in the world. Kaplan does the most pro bono, a lot of appellate--and a ton of stuff in the progressive arena.

They also have entirely different firm structures, parternship prospectives, cultures etc. Susman, for instance, goes around the whole firm before taking on new matters, has a short partnership trajectory, but is very perfomance / PnL based to an extent that it can feel like a hedge fund more than a law firm. On the other end of the spectrum, W&C is very old world white shoe stuffy law firm with its firm management and structure. Comp is also quite different, as are hours. MTO, W&C, and Keker are closer to normal hours for biglaw afaik. Susman is considerably higher. But Susman comp is significantly above market with fat bonuses. As mentioned, W&C is below market (albeit not by much). Idk how comp looks at Kaplan or Keker, but afaik it's market at MTO.

Other differences include that Susman has a large IP/patent lit practice, that around half of Kaplan Hecker's practice is white-collar (specifically, the Hecker half), and that MTO is not really a boutique. But yes this is an important thing to understand about these firms. Plaintiff-side contingency work and individual-defense white-collar work are both common practices at litigation boutiques, and they are nothing alike.

[Anonymous User]

By the standards of these firms, MTO has a rep for having relatively humane hours, but it also isn't really a boutique--it has transactional practices

Could you say a little bit more about hours? Not expecting you to have hard numbers, but any more specificity would be appreciated (about any of the firms mentioned herein).

[Anonymous User]

I’m always surprised that anyone with the insane credentials required to get hired at any of these firms is even asking this forum for advice on picking between them. Like how do you get into a T6, make law review, graduate magna, land a COA clerkship and work there for a year, and then be like “hmm idk whether to pick Susman or Munger, who in my network can help me? Better ask the anonymous Internet strangers”

[The Lsat Airbender]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw?

Short answer: boutiques aren't biglaw

Can you elaborate?

It's apples and oranges. Boutiques have a different business model (e.g. associate leverage is typically lower which is probably relevant here). So it's not at all surprising that hours at a boutique might be different from biglaw.

edit: nvm

So iow they under hire associates in order to have higher chances of partnership, which means those associates have to do more work. Sounds like option 2 of my question.

They hardly use lower leverage to improve associates' partnership chances, and it's not a matter of sheer necessity like you suggested upthread (these firms could do less work and still be profitable). It's just that boutiques have a "leaner" business model in general. Biglaw firms lever up because they can get away with billing basically unlimited hours of doc review/diligence-type work for juniors. Boutiques try to be lower-volume, higher-margin, and a part of their pitch to clients is "we don't have a small army of associates doing paralegal work for $500/hr".

I still don't get the original premise of your question, that litigation intrinsically involves fewer hours than corporate. If you'd let that go then there's not much of a problem to solve

I’m always surprised that anyone with the insane credentials required to get hired at any of these firms is even asking this forum for advice on picking between them. Like how do you get into a T6, make law review, graduate magna, land a COA clerkship and work there for a year, and then be like “hmm idk whether to pick Susman or Munger, who in my network can help me? Better ask the anonymous Internet strangers”

A ton of it is law students or even 0Ls counting chickens before they hatch, or using these questions as a roundabout way to learn more about the firms in question

[Anonymous User]

I’m always surprised that anyone with the insane credentials required to get hired at any of these firms is even asking this forum for advice on picking between them. Like how do you get into a T6, make law review, graduate magna, land a COA clerkship and work there for a year, and then be like “hmm idk whether to pick Susman or Munger, who in my network can help me? Better ask the anonymous Internet strangers”

All of these firms participate in OCI, at which point a law student might not have a large network familiar with the firms.

[Anonymous User]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw?

I still don't get the original premise of your question, that litigation intrinsically involves fewer hours than corporate. If you'd let that go then there's not much of a problem to solve

I probably fucked up the quoting here, but to be fair, the anon you're responding to (not me) did say more stable, rather than involving lighter hours.

[Anonymous User]

I’m always surprised that anyone with the insane credentials required to get hired at any of these firms is even asking this forum for advice on picking between them. Like how do you get into a T6, make law review, graduate magna, land a COA clerkship and work there for a year, and then be like “hmm idk whether to pick Susman or Munger, who in my network can help me? Better ask the anonymous Internet strangers”

As someone who did everything single thing you listed, advice from this forum was actually a huge part of achieving all of them. Admittedly, it was not particularly helpful in helping me choose between boutiques, but there was useful information to be found through searching.

[Anonymous User]

I’m always surprised that anyone with the insane credentials required to get hired at any of these firms is even asking this forum for advice on picking between them. Like how do you get into a T6, make law review, graduate magna, land a COA clerkship and work there for a year, and then be like “hmm idk whether to pick Susman or Munger, who in my network can help me? Better ask the anonymous Internet strangers”

As someone who did everything single thing you listed, advice from this forum was actually a huge part of achieving all of them. Admittedly, it was not particularly helpful in helping me choose between boutiques, but there was useful information to be found through searching.

I'm nowhere near as elite as this but in undergrad a friend was taking the LSAT and I took a practice test for fun and scored higher than him. And I had a near 4 GPA. But it never occurred to me that law school was an option because I was afraid of debt. When I finally applied, I got a full scholarship at a T14. I simply didn't know that scholarships were a thing.

So yeah, people can be qualified and just missing information.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Just curious why are these boutiques sweatshops, when lit is considered to be a more stable group in biglaw?

I still don't get the original premise of your question, that litigation intrinsically involves fewer hours than corporate. If you'd let that go then there's not much of a problem to solve

I probably fucked up the quoting here, but to be fair, the anon you're responding to (not me) did say more stable, rather than involving lighter hours.

Exactly. They're not mutually exclusive. You could have a very stable sweatshop with consistent 12-hour days M-S