Best plaintiff class action firms? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Currently clerking and interested in sophisticated class action work, especially consumer or antitrust. Which firms should I be focusing on? I'm geographically pretty flexible.

[top_of_the_bellcurve]

If you haven't seen it already, the Harvard list is a good place to start: https://hls.harvard.edu/bernard-koteen- ... irm-guide/

When I was learning more about the plaintiffs' side, I'd look at the firms litigating the biggest cases (e.g., for antitrust, I looked at counsel in the boiler chicken case lol).

Some firms will specialize in an area of law, but many on the list will have a diverse set of practice areas.

My sense is that the plaintiff-side antitrust bar is smaller than the consumer bar (there are fewer cases, and lead counsel will go to the most experienced). You can have a great, small consumer law-focused firm with 5-20 attorneys that cleans up within a given region and has a few (relatively) large cases per decade. Or, you can have larger firms (e.g., Lieff Cabraser) that always have tons of cases going.

Names from the Harvard list that stand out to me for antitrust (I might've looked at their website and seen mention of big cases; read the briefings; or heard good things about the firm from practitioners): Berger Montague; Berman Tabacco; Cohen Milstein; Cotchett Pitre; Edelson; Girard Sharp; Hagens Berman; Hausfeld; Keller Postman; Lieff Cabraser. I'm sure I'm missing some. Others can chime in.

I'd start your search with Keller Postman. They're very "intellectual" - it's clear that they like hiring clerks (and they have a few SCOTUS clerks), and they seem to be on the cutting edge (e.g., bringing mass arbitration test cases).

Good luck. Let me know how I can help.

[tdotpollo]

The top p-side antitrust boutique is the Joseph Saveri Law Firm. They are very active and highly sophisticated.

[Anonymous User]

Not the OP but also curious if anyone else has recs not mentioned above.

[Anonymous User]

If you haven’t done it already, I would recommend doing a deep dive with some class action attorneys to see what the work is really like. My impression is that a lot of young plaintiff-friendly lawyers want to go into class action work because they see it as the most “complex” and assume that will make the work the most fulfilling.

I’ve dipped my toe into CA work, and I think there are some real downsides to the practice. The timeframe of the lawsuits are extremely long (think 5-10 years), which means you wait forever to get the “reward” of your labor. For national class actions, the plaintiffs’ team usually ends up being constructed of co-counsel from multiple law firms, which creates massive coordination headaches and greatly minimizes the chances that young attorneys will do important work. And for class actions like antitrust, a lot of the work comes down to paying absurd sums of money for economists to write 100+ page papers, and then deposing or defending those experts.

To cap it all off, even when you win, courts will be skeptical of awarding the plaintiffs’ team significant fees.

I would be happy to be corrected about any of the above by a more experienced CA attorney.

[top_of_the_bellcurve]

Definitely talk to current practitioners. I found that plaintiff-side lawyers are very willing to chat about their practice and career path.

I don't think that the points the above poster make are necessarily a bad thing.

The timeframe of the lawsuits are extremely long (think 5-10 years), which means you wait forever to get the “reward” of your labor.

This is true. But, it's not as if you won't have "wins" along the way. And, so long as your firm has active cases at different stages, you should be staffed on some matters that resolve.

For national class actions, the plaintiffs’ team usually ends up being constructed of co-counsel from multiple law firms, which creates massive coordination headaches and greatly minimizes the chances that young attorneys will do important work.

There are definitely knife fights to be lead counsel. And this makes things awkward when you then have to work closely with those same firms. There's lots of politics - something I didn't learn much about in law school.

Try to be at a firm that is frequently in a leadership role. There, you'll get to do "important work." If you're at a firm that never is in a leadership role, then, yes, you'll be much less likely to do "important work."

As a junior associate coming off a clerkship, you won't really have to worry about the coordination headaches. Above the paygrade.

And for class actions like antitrust, a lot of the work comes down to paying absurd sums of money for economists to write 100+ page papers, and then deposing or defending those experts.

Also true. Experts are expensive. They play an important part in litigation - probably too important of a role. But that's the game. I don't mind it and like engaging with experts.

To cap it all off, even when you win, courts will be skeptical of awarding the plaintiffs’ team significant fees.

Also true. Your firm will have to justify the proposed fee award. But, if your firm did good work and obtained a good outcome for the class, it's not as if the firm won't get paid? Like, if you recover $xx-xxx millions, then you'll tell the court, hey, look at these other similar cases that settled for a similar amount - counsel got $yy millions in fees. As we did XYZ things that led to recovery for the class, we should get $yy, too.

Personally, I'd rather have that set up than having to justify every six minutes of my life to a client who wants to minimize their legal bills.

If your compensation is closely tied to the firm's wins, then, yes, the fee award can be stressful. I get the sense that the bigger firms are moving away from the more "traditional" p-side comp model (lower base salary; highly variable bonuses, based on the firm's wins) to having a higher base salary and smaller bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

Definitely talk to current practitioners. I found that plaintiff-side lawyers are very willing to chat about their practice and career path.

I don't think that the points the above poster make are necessarily a bad thing.

The timeframe of the lawsuits are extremely long (think 5-10 years), which means you wait forever to get the “reward” of your labor.

This is true. But, it's not as if you won't have "wins" along the way. And, so long as your firm has active cases at different stages, you should be staffed on some matters that resolve.

For national class actions, the plaintiffs’ team usually ends up being constructed of co-counsel from multiple law firms, which creates massive coordination headaches and greatly minimizes the chances that young attorneys will do important work.

There are definitely knife fights to be lead counsel. And this makes things awkward when you then have to work closely with those same firms. There's lots of politics - something I didn't learn much about in law school.

Try to be at a firm that is frequently in a leadership role. There, you'll get to do "important work." If you're at a firm that never is in a leadership role, then, yes, you'll be much less likely to do "important work."

As a junior associate coming off a clerkship, you won't really have to worry about the coordination headaches. Above the paygrade.

And for class actions like antitrust, a lot of the work comes down to paying absurd sums of money for economists to write 100+ page papers, and then deposing or defending those experts.

Also true. Experts are expensive. They play an important part in litigation - probably too important of a role. But that's the game. I don't mind it and like engaging with experts.

To cap it all off, even when you win, courts will be skeptical of awarding the plaintiffs’ team significant fees.

Also true. Your firm will have to justify the proposed fee award. But, if your firm did good work and obtained a good outcome for the class, it's not as if the firm won't get paid? Like, if you recover $xx-xxx millions, then you'll tell the court, hey, look at these other similar cases that settled for a similar amount - counsel got $yy millions in fees. As we did XYZ things that led to recovery for the class, we should get $yy, too.

Personally, I'd rather have that set up than having to justify every six minutes of my life to a client who wants to minimize their legal bills.

If your compensation is closely tied to the firm's wins, then, yes, the fee award can be stressful. I get the sense that the bigger firms are moving away from the more "traditional" p-side comp model (lower base salary; highly variable bonuses, based on the firm's wins) to having a higher base salary and smaller bonuses.

do some/all of these firms have two track associate groups? it seems like they hire some very credentialed people, including scotus clerks, alongside some associates from much lower ranked schools. is the former group being groomed for partnership while the latter does the grunt work?

[top_of_the_bellcurve]

do some/all of these firms have two track associate groups? it seems like they hire some very credentialed people, including scotus clerks, alongside some associates from much lower ranked schools. is the former group being groomed for partnership while the latter does the grunt work?

Not sure. My firm doesn't have a two-track program for associates. We do have lots of staff attorneys. They do great work and many have been with the firm for a long time. They tend not to be as well-credentialed as associates. They're not on partner track, nor does the firm place on them the same expectations as those on the partner track.

If you're referencing Keller Postman, I can't speak from personal experience. But I do remember seeing, generally, two sets of attorneys on their website: folks with excellent credentials; and folks who don't have the same credentials but have phenomenal experience (e.g., associate for firm that was in leadership for a massive MDL).

[NickLKP63]

I spent a good deal of time on the plaintiff-side. I looked over that Harvard list, and it seems solid.

But I saw some firms on that list who are…less than professional. One in particular did some very unethical stuff.

I do think that list is over inclusive, and I do not think the majority of firms on it do the high-profile work you seems to be pursuing.

[Anonymous User]

do some/all of these firms have two track associate groups? it seems like they hire some very credentialed people, including scotus clerks, alongside some associates from much lower ranked schools. is the former group being groomed for partnership while the latter does the grunt work?

Not sure. My firm doesn't have a two-track program for associates. We do have lots of staff attorneys. They do great work and many have been with the firm for a long time. They tend not to be as well-credentialed as associates. They're not on partner track, nor does the firm place on them the same expectations as those on the partner track.

If you're referencing Keller Postman, I can't speak from personal experience. But I do remember seeing, generally, two sets of attorneys on their website: folks with excellent credentials; and folks who don't have the same credentials but have phenomenal experience (e.g., associate for firm that was in leadership for a massive MDL).

Are any p-side firms known for hiring clerks besides Keller Postman? It seems like credentials vary widely at a lot of these firms.

[Anonymous User]

do some/all of these firms have two track associate groups? it seems like they hire some very credentialed people, including scotus clerks, alongside some associates from much lower ranked schools. is the former group being groomed for partnership while the latter does the grunt work?

Not sure. My firm doesn't have a two-track program for associates. We do have lots of staff attorneys. They do great work and many have been with the firm for a long time. They tend not to be as well-credentialed as associates. They're not on partner track, nor does the firm place on them the same expectations as those on the partner track.

If you're referencing Keller Postman, I can't speak from personal experience. But I do remember seeing, generally, two sets of attorneys on their website: folks with excellent credentials; and folks who don't have the same credentials but have phenomenal experience (e.g., associate for firm that was in leadership for a massive MDL).

Are any p-side firms known for hiring clerks besides Keller Postman? It seems like credentials vary widely at a lot of these firms.

Susman Godfrey and Cohen Milstein, to give two examples.

[top_of_the_bellcurve]

I spent a good deal of time on the plaintiff-side. I looked over that Harvard list, and it seems solid.

But I saw some firms on that list who are…less than professional. One in particular did some very unethical stuff.

I do think that list is over inclusive, and I do not think the majority of firms on it do the high-profile work you seems to be pursuing.

Oh yeah, this list is definitely over inclusive. Lots of firms you don’t need to look at. But, I think it should capture the big/nationwide/“reputable” shops.

do some/all of these firms have two track associate groups? it seems like they hire some very credentialed people, including scotus clerks, alongside some associates from much lower ranked schools. is the former group being groomed for partnership while the latter does the grunt work?

Are any p-side firms known for hiring clerks besides Keller Postman? It seems like credentials vary widely at a lot of these firms.

Susman Godfrey and Cohen Milstein, to give two examples.

Dovel and Luner is another that comes to mind. They heavily recruit clerks, specifically clerks from Harvard. They seem to do a mix of mass tort/telemarketing cases…..

Hausfeld and Berger Montague both seem to hire former clerks.

My firm (DM for name) pays *a* clerkship bonus but not sure about the exact figure.

[Anonymous User]

I spent a good deal of time on the plaintiff-side. I looked over that Harvard list, and it seems solid.

But I saw some firms on that list who are…less than professional. One in particular did some very unethical stuff.

I do think that list is over inclusive, and I do not think the majority of firms on it do the high-profile work you seems to be pursuing.

I guess the question is which ones do that kind of work? The Harvard list seems like a fine resource in the abstract, but knowing a plaintiff firm exists says nothing about its rep or very much else.

[top_of_the_bellcurve]

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/ant ... 95:12788:1

https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/pro ... 90:12788:1

[Anonymous User]

I'm at Keller Postman, and we have some very cool cases, including nationwide antitrust class actions against Ticketmaster and Amazon, and representing public entities against Google for ad tech monopolization. We also do lots of mass tort cases (pharma cases, etc.). There are amazing opportunities to brief and argue novel issues.

That said, we generally don't pay clerkship bonuses, so it's more of a long-term play.

[Anonymous User]

What is job security like in the top-end firms (I realize that definition varies, so I guess I mean the ones that typically are lead, take on high profile and/or high-payout and/or complex cases, and high Chambers ranked in their respective field)? Particularly compared to biglaw if you don’t have the ability to generate a decent book. I’m considering making a move as a rising biglaw senior to one of these firms that is Chambers Band 1 and always or almost always comes in as lead plaintiff or co-lead.

Similar question would be do most of these have non-equity-partnership tracks where you can stay on as a ‘super senior’ or ‘service partner’ forever?

[top_of_the_bellcurve]

What is job security like in the top-end firms (I realize that definition varies, so I guess I mean the ones that typically are lead, take on high profile and/or high-payout and/or complex cases, and high Chambers ranked in their respective field)? Particularly compared to biglaw if you don’t have the ability to generate a decent book. I’m considering making a move as a rising biglaw senior to one of these firms that is Chambers Band 1 and always or almost always comes in as lead plaintiff or co-lead.

I get the sense one's job is pretty solid. At my firm (and others), you'll see that there are more partners than associates. So, associates stick around long enough to make partner.

Biz dev is different than defense side. If you join a top-tier firm, you probably won't have to worry about generating business, unless you want to. Your firm (and others) will file to become lead/class counsel and submit a firm résumé. Court picks your firm (and your client, as lead plaintiff).

At my firm, there business development/client generation team is pretty siloed from the folks doing the litigating.

Similar question would be do most of these have non-equity-partnership tracks where you can stay on as a ‘super senior’ or ‘service partner’ forever?

My firm makes non-equity partners. Comp is still tied to performance, and folks still do very well. But, my guess is that there are only a few equity partners, most of whom are named partners. I think that structure makes sense for the "larger" plaintiff-side firms: the non-equity partners benefit from (1) the firm's resources and (2) the clout of the equity partners, such that the firm always has active matters. No equity, but fewer lean years.

I found an old version of my firm's webpage before applying lol. I noticed a handful of partners had left over the past ~5 years. They'd all started their own shops. So, my guess is that they wanted equity.

[Anonymous User]

Bump. Any other top-tier class action firms worth considering?

[Anonymous User]

Edelson

[Anonymous User]

Kellogg Hansen does quite a lot of plaintiffs’ side work