Boston lit - satellite vs. HQ? Forum

[Anonymous User]

West Coaster moving to Boston next year. Does anybody have any intel on whether any of the Boston satellites that actually have litigators are worth looking at? Right now I'm sorting firms into two rough groups: Boston mainstays Ropes/Wilmer/Goodwin on one hand and teeny tiny outposts like White & Case on the other, with like Skadden/Quinn somewhere in the middle. Is this a meaningful way to think about litigation opportunities in the city?

[Anonymous User]

West Coaster moving to Boston next year. Does anybody have any intel on whether any of the Boston satellites that actually have litigators are worth looking at? Right now I'm sorting firms into two rough groups: Boston mainstays Ropes/Wilmer/Goodwin on one hand and teeny tiny outposts like White & Case on the other, with like Skadden/Quinn somewhere in the middle. Is this a meaningful way to think about litigation opportunities in the city?

For the most part, yeah. It's not as bad as it used to be, but Boston is very insular, which means locals mostly remember the big Boston names over the new local offices for other national firms. I can't see any reason to pick a satellite over Ropes/WH/Goodwin aside from a promise of partnership in the near term. I'd probably add Choate into that group as well, though not quite as firmly.

P.S. Don't say Wilmer - that's a DC firm.

[Anonymous User]

No one really cares anymore if you say Wilmer instead of WilmerHale (I would know, I worked there).

For litigation, it’s Wilmer > Ropes > Goodwin. Ropes and Goodwin have sub practices that are better, but if you just want a broad litigation practice, you can’t beat WH in Boston.

[Anonymous User]

For litigation, it’s Wilmer > Ropes > Goodwin. Ropes and Goodwin have sub practices that are better, but if you just want a broad litigation practice, you can’t beat WH in Boston.

Agreed - this is how it's always been and always will. WH has a better pipeline into the AG's office, and Ropes to the AUSA's office, but that's splitting hairs.

[Anonymous User]

No one really cares anymore if you say Wilmer instead of WilmerHale (I would know, I worked there).

For litigation, it’s Wilmer > Ropes > Goodwin. Ropes and Goodwin have sub practices that are better, but if you just want a broad litigation practice, you can’t beat WH in Boston.

Can you elaborate on the sub practices that are better at Ropes and Goodwin?

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Is the work at a satellite categorically worse than at one of the flagships? I get the value prop of the flagships. (Which flagship is something I'll consider next....) I'm seeing if anyone has comparative insights on picking a stellite over any of the big 3.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw partner. If you are looking for a strong litigation shop in Boston, I would consider Nutter in addition to other Boston native firms. They are our go-to firm when we need Massachusetts counsel and I have been really impressed with them. My sense of Boston is that it is not a litigation-centric market and that there are relatively few big firms outside of WH/Ropes/Goodwin that have a strong litigation practice.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Is the work at a satellite categorically worse than at one of the flagships? I get the value prop of the flagships. (Which flagship is something I'll consider next....) I'm seeing if anyone has comparative insights on picking a stellite over any of the big 3.

I’m biased because I worked at WH, but I think the work at any of the satellites will be demonstrably worse than WH because WH is one of the best litigation firms in Boston and nationally. Also, the satellites that do litigation in Boston are small. The transactional satellites are the ones with sizable Boston offices.

If you want to go to a satellite, just do it. You’ll be a junior associate in litigation, so you’ll be doing the same thing wherever you go.