Best V20 lit firms? Forum

[Anonymous User]

What are the best V20 firms for litigation? NY/DC/LA are target markets. I’ve read V20 is a proxy for NY but that’s my number 1 market so probably useful to refer to. But curious about strength in lit specifically. Thanks!

Also, for lit firms, many elite ones are lower down the Vault rankings which is basically just a crowdpoll of what NYC corp associates think are the most presTTTigious firms. Ask top 10% 2Ls and 3Ls at your school - they'll know which ones are elite.

Aside from lit boutiques (Susman, Kellogg, Bartlit, Kaplan, etc), notable ones down the Vault list include Munger, Jenner (DC), and Williams & Connolly. Any one of those three are more selective than any V10 firm not named Wachtell by multiple orders of magnitude.

This isn't true, Kellogg and Kaplan both hire from ~median at my school if you check certain boxes (partisanship, clerkships, the right undergrad)

I can't believe I'm about to defend Vault...

Some firms are just too small and new to matter in the popular consciousness of a profession. It's tough when you think your firm is great because of SCOTUS clerk this or YHS summa that, but most don't know the name and it doesn't pop up on Vault. But there is a good reason for this, specifically, Susman and other small lit firms can hire 25 decently strong first years, but they can't hire 150 strong first years.

The V10-15 will have far more top credentialed first-year associates per firm than any of the lit boutiques (going by numbers, not the percentage). Vault, as flawed as it is, takes this into account. If Susman could hire 150 top associates, people would know who they are. But they can't, so Susman and the others get punished with a low vault ranking.

What? Susman couple hire that many associates in a heartbeat if they wanted to. They just don’t want to because overleverage isn’t their model. They could easily be Quinn if they wanted.

At the end of the day, the V20 is shit for litigation if you’re an associate. You won’t learn many skills until year 5 and beyond. And even then, who knows.

It’s good for making money, however. So go and do that if you’re going to a V20 firm. But you likely won’t be a good lawyer when you come out. That’s fine because most true biglaw lit partners are very average (I litigate against them everyday).

I agree. Vault surveys all associates, and they skew New York / transactional. The top boutiques are very much in the "popular consciousness" of any litigators worth their salt. There's a reason Meta uses Kellogg Hansen for all their major litigation despite having zero presence on the west coast.

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg has recently hired some people with good-but-not-outstanding credentials from my school, including one without Latin honors or a clerkship, idk what’s up but the previous poster isn’t crazy. Of course they also have a bunch of associates going to SCOTUS in the near future so shrug.

I mean the reason is because they are willing to bend their hiring criteria for people with conservative bonafides. That's not particularly shocking given the borderline self-professed political leanings of the firm.

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg has recently hired some people with good-but-not-outstanding credentials from my school, including one without Latin honors or a clerkship, idk what’s up but the previous poster isn’t crazy. Of course they also have a bunch of associates going to SCOTUS in the near future so shrug.

I mean the reason is because they are willing to bend their hiring criteria for people with conservative bonafides. That's not particularly shocking given the borderline self-professed political leanings of the firm.

There are a grand total of two associates listed on their website without latin honors and a clerkship and they're recent hires (probably have a clerkship lined up in the future or will after a stint at Kellogg). There's not a single associate that did not graduate with honors from a t14 or have a CoA clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

What are the best V20 firms for litigation? NY/DC/LA are target markets. I’ve read V20 is a proxy for NY but that’s my number 1 market so probably useful to refer to. But curious about strength in lit specifically. Thanks!

Also, for lit firms, many elite ones are lower down the Vault rankings which is basically just a crowdpoll of what NYC corp associates think are the most presTTTigious firms. Ask top 10% 2Ls and 3Ls at your school - they'll know which ones are elite.

Aside from lit boutiques (Susman, Kellogg, Bartlit, Kaplan, etc), notable ones down the Vault list include Munger, Jenner (DC), and Williams & Connolly. Any one of those three are more selective than any V10 firm not named Wachtell by multiple orders of magnitude.

This isn't true, Kellogg and Kaplan both hire from ~median at my school if you check certain boxes (partisanship, clerkships, the right undergrad)

I can't believe I'm about to defend Vault...

Some firms are just too small and new to matter in the popular consciousness of a profession. It's tough when you think your firm is great because of SCOTUS clerk this or YHS summa that, but most don't know the name and it doesn't pop up on Vault. But there is a good reason for this, specifically, Susman and other small lit firms can hire 25 decently strong first years, but they can't hire 150 strong first years.

The V10-15 will have far more top credentialed first-year associates per firm than any of the lit boutiques (going by numbers, not the percentage). Vault, as flawed as it is, takes this into account. If Susman could hire 150 top associates, people would know who they are. But they can't, so Susman and the others get punished with a low vault ranking.

What? Susman couple hire that many associates in a heartbeat if they wanted to. They just don’t want to because overleverage isn’t their model. They could easily be Quinn if they wanted.

At the end of the day, the V20 is shit for litigation if you’re an associate. You won’t learn many skills until year 5 and beyond. And even then, who knows.

It’s good for making money, however. So go and do that if you’re going to a V20 firm. But you likely won’t be a good lawyer when you come out. That’s fine because most true biglaw lit partners are very average (I litigate against them everyday).

I agree. Vault surveys all associates, and they skew New York / transactional. The top boutiques are very much in the "popular consciousness" of any litigators worth their salt. There's a reason Meta uses Kellogg Hansen for all their major litigation despite having zero presence on the west coast.

100% that Kellogg is fantastic and has a reputation for doing great work on complex matters. But meta also uses everyone else — the place is one massive defensive lit boondoggle at this point. And I suspect that KHs distinct lack of morality in client / matter selection also plays into this (eg look at them defending the Saudis in the 9/11 families suit, which I’m not sure many larger firms would do). Meta is also a notably horrible client, as anyone who has worked with them can attest. Not sure they’re a good benchmark

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg has recently hired some people with good-but-not-outstanding credentials from my school, including one without Latin honors or a clerkship, idk what’s up but the previous poster isn’t crazy. Of course they also have a bunch of associates going to SCOTUS in the near future so shrug.

I mean the reason is because they are willing to bend their hiring criteria for people with conservative bonafides. That's not particularly shocking given the borderline self-professed political leanings of the firm.

Kellogg’s lead appellate partner is David Frederick, who likely would have been Biden’s SG if that role didn’t get caught in diversity infighting, it’s open to conservatives but not a conservative firm

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg has recently hired some people with good-but-not-outstanding credentials from my school, including one without Latin honors or a clerkship, idk what’s up but the previous poster isn’t crazy. Of course they also have a bunch of associates going to SCOTUS in the near future so shrug.

I mean the reason is because they are willing to bend their hiring criteria for people with conservative bonafides. That's not particularly shocking given the borderline self-professed political leanings of the firm.

I was in FedSoc. Kellogg is not 'conservative.' there's like a 0% chance they would bend on grades to hire someone based on a conservative bona fides (which some FedSoc-affiliated federal judges do, freely acknowledge that)

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg has recently hired some people with good-but-not-outstanding credentials from my school, including one without Latin honors or a clerkship, idk what’s up but the previous poster isn’t crazy. Of course they also have a bunch of associates going to SCOTUS in the near future so shrug.

I mean the reason is because they are willing to bend their hiring criteria for people with conservative bonafides. That's not particularly shocking given the borderline self-professed political leanings of the firm.

This is just not true. Not sure where this new Kellogg is conservative narrative is coming from, maybe anon is some liberal who got rejected and looking for reasons. It's generally known as one of the most neutral firms in DC.

If you look at the bios of the few recent hires, it's clear that they were lateral hires who worked at other firms. Prob just badly needed bodies before the first years arrive. Anyone who has clerked know that most clerks start/end in the fall, and Kellogg hires almost exclusively from COA clerks. The usual first year class of COA clerks haven't started yet. If you think this means the average student can now get Kellogg without honors or a clerkship, good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg has recently hired some people with good-but-not-outstanding credentials from my school, including one without Latin honors or a clerkship, idk what’s up but the previous poster isn’t crazy. Of course they also have a bunch of associates going to SCOTUS in the near future so shrug.

I mean the reason is because they are willing to bend their hiring criteria for people with conservative bonafides. That's not particularly shocking given the borderline self-professed political leanings of the firm.

I was in FedSoc. Kellogg is not 'conservative.' there's like a 0% chance they would bend on grades to hire someone based on a conservative bona fides (which some FedSoc-affiliated federal judges do, freely acknowledge that)

Yeah, I'm in Y/S fedsoc rn. I know no one targeting Kellogg. Consovoy? Yep. Clement and Murphy? Oh hell yeah. Munger/Latham/other top-tier generally non-political appellate shops? 100%. Kellogg? Not that I'm aware of.

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg has recently hired some people with good-but-not-outstanding credentials from my school, including one without Latin honors or a clerkship, idk what’s up but the previous poster isn’t crazy. Of course they also have a bunch of associates going to SCOTUS in the near future so shrug.

I mean the reason is because they are willing to bend their hiring criteria for people with conservative bonafides. That's not particularly shocking given the borderline self-professed political leanings of the firm.

I was in FedSoc. Kellogg is not 'conservative.' there's like a 0% chance they would bend on grades to hire someone based on a conservative bona fides (which some FedSoc-affiliated federal judges do, freely acknowledge that)

Yeah, I'm in Y/S fedsoc rn. I know no one targeting Kellogg. Consovoy? Yep. Clement and Murphy? Oh hell yeah. Munger/Latham/other top-tier generally non-political appellate shops? 100%. Kellogg? Not that I'm aware of.

I know conservatives who target it (it's popular with Roberts, Kavanaugh, and partner-emeritus Gorsuch) but Kellogg is absolutely not "conservative." David Frederick has one of the few firm plaintiff-side appellate practices in all of biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

What are the best V20 firms for litigation? NY/DC/LA are target markets. I’ve read V20 is a proxy for NY but that’s my number 1 market so probably useful to refer to. But curious about strength in lit specifically. Thanks!

Also, for lit firms, many elite ones are lower down the Vault rankings which is basically just a crowdpoll of what NYC corp associates think are the most presTTTigious firms. Ask top 10% 2Ls and 3Ls at your school - they'll know which ones are elite.

Aside from lit boutiques (Susman, Kellogg, Bartlit, Kaplan, etc), notable ones down the Vault list include Munger, Jenner (DC), and Williams & Connolly. Any one of those three are more selective than any V10 firm not named Wachtell by multiple orders of magnitude.

This isn't true, Kellogg and Kaplan both hire from ~median at my school if you check certain boxes (partisanship, clerkships, the right undergrad)

I can't believe I'm about to defend Vault...

Some firms are just too small and new to matter in the popular consciousness of a profession. It's tough when you think your firm is great because of SCOTUS clerk this or YHS summa that, but most don't know the name and it doesn't pop up on Vault. But there is a good reason for this, specifically, Susman and other small lit firms can hire 25 decently strong first years, but they can't hire 150 strong first years.

The V10-15 will have far more top credentialed first-year associates per firm than any of the lit boutiques (going by numbers, not the percentage). Vault, as flawed as it is, takes this into account. If Susman could hire 150 top associates, people would know who they are. But they can't, so Susman and the others get punished with a low vault ranking.

What? Susman couple hire that many associates in a heartbeat if they wanted to. They just don’t want to because overleverage isn’t their model. They could easily be Quinn if they wanted.

At the end of the day, the V20 is shit for litigation if you’re an associate. You won’t learn many skills until year 5 and beyond. And even then, who knows.

It’s good for making money, however. So go and do that if you’re going to a V20 firm. But you likely won’t be a good lawyer when you come out. That’s fine because most true biglaw lit partners are very average (I litigate against them everyday).

I agree. Vault surveys all associates, and they skew New York / transactional. The top boutiques are very much in the "popular consciousness" of any litigators worth their salt. There's a reason Meta uses Kellogg Hansen for all their major litigation despite having zero presence on the west coast.

100% that Kellogg is fantastic and has a reputation for doing great work on complex matters. But meta also uses everyone else — the place is one massive defensive lit boondoggle at this point. And I suspect that KHs distinct lack of morality in client / matter selection also plays into this (eg look at them defending the Saudis in the 9/11 families suit, which I’m not sure many larger firms would do). Meta is also a notably horrible client, as anyone who has worked with them can attest. Not sure they’re a good benchmark

Weird that this popped up here but just want to second that Meta is a terrible, terrible client that literally has caused formerly happy associates at our firm to lateral away.

[Anonymous User]

Also, for lit firms, many elite ones are lower down the Vault rankings which is basically just a crowdpoll of what NYC corp associates think are the most presTTTigious firms. Ask top 10% 2Ls and 3Ls at your school - they'll know which ones are elite.

Aside from lit boutiques (Susman, Kellogg, Bartlit, Kaplan, etc), notable ones down the Vault list include Munger, Jenner (DC), and Williams & Connolly. Any one of those three are more selective than any V10 firm not named Wachtell by multiple orders of magnitude.

This isn't true, Kellogg and Kaplan both hire from ~median at my school if you check certain boxes (partisanship, clerkships, the right undergrad)

I can't believe I'm about to defend Vault...

Some firms are just too small and new to matter in the popular consciousness of a profession. It's tough when you think your firm is great because of SCOTUS clerk this or YHS summa that, but most don't know the name and it doesn't pop up on Vault. But there is a good reason for this, specifically, Susman and other small lit firms can hire 25 decently strong first years, but they can't hire 150 strong first years.

The V10-15 will have far more top credentialed first-year associates per firm than any of the lit boutiques (going by numbers, not the percentage). Vault, as flawed as it is, takes this into account. If Susman could hire 150 top associates, people would know who they are. But they can't, so Susman and the others get punished with a low vault ranking.

What? Susman couple hire that many associates in a heartbeat if they wanted to. They just don’t want to because overleverage isn’t their model. They could easily be Quinn if they wanted.

At the end of the day, the V20 is shit for litigation if you’re an associate. You won’t learn many skills until year 5 and beyond. And even then, who knows.

It’s good for making money, however. So go and do that if you’re going to a V20 firm. But you likely won’t be a good lawyer when you come out. That’s fine because most true biglaw lit partners are very average (I litigate against them everyday).

I agree. Vault surveys all associates, and they skew New York / transactional. The top boutiques are very much in the "popular consciousness" of any litigators worth their salt. There's a reason Meta uses Kellogg Hansen for all their major litigation despite having zero presence on the west coast.

100% that Kellogg is fantastic and has a reputation for doing great work on complex matters. But meta also uses everyone else — the place is one massive defensive lit boondoggle at this point. And I suspect that KHs distinct lack of morality in client / matter selection also plays into this (eg look at them defending the Saudis in the 9/11 families suit, which I’m not sure many larger firms would do). Meta is also a notably horrible client, as anyone who has worked with them can attest. Not sure they’re a good benchmark

Weird that this popped up here but just want to second that Meta is a terrible, terrible client that literally has caused formerly happy associates at our firm to lateral away.

Responding to the comment above you, I have no idea where this idea that KH has a "distinct lack of morality" comes from. Why is the 9/11 family suit any different from the nonsense every other big firm handles? Not picking a fight, genuinely curious.

[Anonymous User]

Also, for lit firms, many elite ones are lower down the Vault rankings which is basically just a crowdpoll of what NYC corp associates think are the most presTTTigious firms. Ask top 10% 2Ls and 3Ls at your school - they'll know which ones are elite.

Aside from lit boutiques (Susman, Kellogg, Bartlit, Kaplan, etc), notable ones down the Vault list include Munger, Jenner (DC), and Williams & Connolly. Any one of those three are more selective than any V10 firm not named Wachtell by multiple orders of magnitude.

This isn't true, Kellogg and Kaplan both hire from ~median at my school if you check certain boxes (partisanship, clerkships, the right undergrad)

I can't believe I'm about to defend Vault...

Some firms are just too small and new to matter in the popular consciousness of a profession. It's tough when you think your firm is great because of SCOTUS clerk this or YHS summa that, but most don't know the name and it doesn't pop up on Vault. But there is a good reason for this, specifically, Susman and other small lit firms can hire 25 decently strong first years, but they can't hire 150 strong first years.

The V10-15 will have far more top credentialed first-year associates per firm than any of the lit boutiques (going by numbers, not the percentage). Vault, as flawed as it is, takes this into account. If Susman could hire 150 top associates, people would know who they are. But they can't, so Susman and the others get punished with a low vault ranking.

What? Susman couple hire that many associates in a heartbeat if they wanted to. They just don’t want to because overleverage isn’t their model. They could easily be Quinn if they wanted.

At the end of the day, the V20 is shit for litigation if you’re an associate. You won’t learn many skills until year 5 and beyond. And even then, who knows.

It’s good for making money, however. So go and do that if you’re going to a V20 firm. But you likely won’t be a good lawyer when you come out. That’s fine because most true biglaw lit partners are very average (I litigate against them everyday).

I agree. Vault surveys all associates, and they skew New York / transactional. The top boutiques are very much in the "popular consciousness" of any litigators worth their salt. There's a reason Meta uses Kellogg Hansen for all their major litigation despite having zero presence on the west coast.

100% that Kellogg is fantastic and has a reputation for doing great work on complex matters. But meta also uses everyone else — the place is one massive defensive lit boondoggle at this point. And I suspect that KHs distinct lack of morality in client / matter selection also plays into this (eg look at them defending the Saudis in the 9/11 families suit, which I’m not sure many larger firms would do). Meta is also a notably horrible client, as anyone who has worked with them can attest. Not sure they’re a good benchmark

Weird that this popped up here but just want to second that Meta is a terrible, terrible client that literally has caused formerly happy associates at our firm to lateral away.

Literally the worst client there is. They also use everyone - the majority of v20 for sure.

[Anonymous User]

Literally the worst client there is. They also use everyone - the majority of v20 for sure.

Ha, I'm on the plaintiff-side suing Facebook and this makes me happy in a kind of perverse way.

[Lacepiece23]

Literally the worst client there is. They also use everyone - the majority of v20 for sure.

Ha, I'm on the plaintiff-side suing Facebook and this makes me happy in a kind of perverse way.

I know how you feel. I sued Amazon and the lawyers on the other side were especially tough on me I felt. And then I started talking to friends about how miserable of a client they are and kind of got it. Probably were being told to be like that.