Boston Biglaw Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am looking for feedback about joining any of the following firms in Boston as an associate:

Ropes & Gray
Goodwin
WilmerHale
Latham & Watkins
Kirkland & Ellis
Skadden
Choate, Hall & Stuart
Cooley
Mintz
Foley Hoag

[Anonymous User]

What are you? Law student? Lateral? Lit/corporate? Practice group?

[Anonymous User]

[Dupe -- please delete]

[Anonymous User]

1L interested in litigation & planning for 2L

[Anonymous User]

I am looking for feedback about joining any of the following firms in Boston as an associate:

Ropes & Gray
Goodwin
WilmerHale
Latham & Watkins
Kirkland & Ellis
Skadden
Choate, Hall & Stuart
Cooley
Mintz
Foley Hoag

I'm at one of these and interviewed at almost all of them. It really depends on practice group and personal preference. What are your near/long term goals? How important is preftige?

[Anonymous User]

I'm not prestige driven, but want to keep as many doors open as possible. Long term, I'm interested in possibly becoming a partner, but also am very interested in government (Judge, DOJ). My personal interests are environmental, civil liberties, and appellate, but I'm open. Maybe government enforcement or IP? I'd much rather litigation than corporate. I understand there will be long hours. I want to be in a respectful, collaborative environment. I'm at my best when I can run during daylight hours on a regular basis.

[Anonymous User]

I think you have three main considerations between the firms you listed:

1. Home office vs. satellite office.

2. Push for rankings or push for feel in your particular practice of interest.

3. Traditional “big law” firm vs. a regional player that pays big law money or close to it (Choate, Mintz, Nutter). The latter are great choices if you want to stay in Boston; maybe less so if you want to go to a market where they aren’t as well known. That phenomenon is less relevant the longer you’ve practiced.

There is advantage to starting your career at a home office of a firm. Ropes and Wilmer are top dog in the area and both have four day RTO if you care about that. I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone go to Goodwin anymore, which pains me given how many years I devoted to the firm. Just search online for recent horror stories. You will have zero job security, and likely much less than even “normal” biglaw. I’ve heard good things about Cooley’s lit team.

For litigation practice rankings, go off Chambers and not Vault: https://chambers.com/legal-rankings/lit ... :1?l=en-GB

I’d also suggest you poke around on the Firm Prospects site to get a sense for the practice mix at each firm you’re interested in. At some of these firms, litigation is an afterthought as they are so corporate focused (like Goodwin). Other firms are much more balanced, with litigation and regulatory comprising a much larger percentage of the firm’s attorneys and revenues. I imagine there you will have better training, more of your firm leadership may be litigators, etc.

[Anonymous User]

I'm looking to join a Biglaw firm in Boston that pays top money. I want to join litigation, not corporate. I'm open to exploring different practice areas within litigation. I know my interests already include appellate, civil liberties, and environmental. The feel of the practice is more important to me.

Short-term goals: Pay down my debt and work on becoming the best litigator I can be.

Long-term goals: Build my career. I'm not sure if I'll want to stay in Big law. I definitely have interest in government. I could see myself at the DOJ eventually. Becoming a judge also interests me.

Prestige is not what I'm striving from, but it matters to me to join a firm that is respected for quality. I'm also considering trying for a federal clerkship before starting at a firm.

I appreciate all of the questions, suggestions of what to consider, and the link to Chambers. Of the firms listed as headquartered in Boston, I'm most interested in Choate, Mintz, and WilmerHale. I've read manywrite, "Ropes and Chains.". That concerns me. With respect to the satellite firms, Latham & Watkins interests me the most so far.

[Anonymous User]

I'm looking to join a Biglaw firm in Boston that pays top money. I want to join litigation, not corporate. I'm open to exploring different practice areas within litigation. I know my interests already include appellate, civil liberties, and environmental. The feel of the practice is more important to me.

Short-term goals: Pay down my debt and work on becoming the best litigator I can be.

Long-term goals: Build my career. I'm not sure if I'll want to stay in Big law. I definitely have interest in government. I could see myself at the DOJ eventually. Becoming a judge also interests me.

Prestige is not what I'm striving from, but it matters to me to join a firm that is respected for quality. I'm also considering trying for a federal clerkship before starting at a firm.

I appreciate all of the questions, suggestions of what to consider, and the link to Chambers. Of the firms listed as headquartered in Boston, I'm most interested in Choate, Mintz, and WilmerHale. I've read manywrite, "Ropes and Chains.". That concerns me. With respect to the satellite firms, Latham & Watkins interests me the most so far.

A lot to unpack here. A few misc thoughts:

I'll set appellate work aside, since that's a niche area with its own set of challenges. You've probably read this elsewhere, but you'll want a fed appellate clerkship under your belt, but even that doesn't guarantee you a purely appellate practice. Probably a nonstarter until you have that lined up. Regardless, any fed clerkship would set you up well for litigation.

Don't mean to presume your politics, but you're probably not going to find many civil liberties/environmental practices that align with your typical law student's view of the world (much less in Boston), if you know what I mean. Many firms will handle feel good cases on a pro bono basis (and WilmerHale, in particular, has a long and strong history of that), but not as a practice group. Your typical biglaw litigation is going to be some combination of white collar, general business disputes, IP, very large tort cases (think mass tort or catastrophic events like airplane/train crashes) and a few others mixed in.

If you want to do that work long term, then you should view biglaw as a place to hone your litigation skills. Of the biglaw firms you listed, WilmerHale and Quinn (not on your list) are your best bets for that. They are trial forward firms. Look at their literature online and that should stand out. These firms couldn't be more opposite in terms of style, though. Quinn lawyers are known for being litigation sharks, whereas WilmerHale is known for being more even handed.

Even if you're not striving for preftige, your long term goals (DOJ, judgeship) require it.

Very few of the satellite firms you list have large litigation groups in Boston (Quinn obviously does, though). For litigation, I agree the firms you listed should be toward the top.

As for hours, you're right that Ropes has a reputation for working people hard, but you're going to find that to some degree wherever you go. Choate and Mintz have a 2k hours requirement, so it's not like you'll be living easy there.

[Anonymous User]

It sounds like you're willing to work hard to become a great litigator. Kirkland should definitely be on your list (and seconding Wilmer and Quinn). I wouldn't put Choate and Mintz at the top of your list. Choate especially has portability issues, NY doesn't even know how to pronounce it for example.

[Anonymous User]

It sounds like you're willing to work hard to become a great litigator. Kirkland should definitely be on your list (and seconding Wilmer and Quinn). I wouldn't put Choate and Mintz at the top of your list. Choate especially has portability issues, NY doesn't even know how to pronounce it for example.

Why Kirkland Boston? Agree it doesn't hurt to put it on the list and they generally have decent litigators at K&E, but not sure it's a top choice for OP. They only have 27 litigators in the Boston office on their website, only 8 of which are partners (and none of which have P.C. next to their name - we know what that means...). Not sure the experience/partner exposure would be on the same level as some of the more local firms.

[Anonymous User]

It sounds like you're willing to work hard to become a great litigator. Kirkland should definitely be on your list (and seconding Wilmer and Quinn). I wouldn't put Choate and Mintz at the top of your list. Choate especially has portability issues, NY doesn't even know how to pronounce it for example.

Why Kirkland Boston? Agree it doesn't hurt to put it on the list and they generally have decent litigators at K&E, but not sure it's a top choice for OP. They only have 27 litigators in the Boston office on their website, only 8 of which are partners (and none of which have P.C. next to their name - we know what that means...). Not sure the experience/partner exposure would be on the same level as some of the more local firms.

Kirkland, more so than say Skadden or Latham, is much chiller with cross-staffing and letting you find whatever case you want to work on across the country. Whereas in like Latham Boston you'll be doing a lot of (but certainly not near exclusively) insurance and portco lit coming out of the Boston office. That Kirkland Boston also has no adults around to mind the shop is a good indicator that their expansion into Boston is a labor play. Good for associates stuck in Boston geographically but with ambitions and interests better satisfied elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

It sounds like you're willing to work hard to become a great litigator. Kirkland should definitely be on your list (and seconding Wilmer and Quinn). I wouldn't put Choate and Mintz at the top of your list. Choate especially has portability issues, NY doesn't even know how to pronounce it for example.

Why Kirkland Boston? Agree it doesn't hurt to put it on the list and they generally have decent litigators at K&E, but not sure it's a top choice for OP. They only have 27 litigators in the Boston office on their website, only 8 of which are partners (and none of which have P.C. next to their name - we know what that means...). Not sure the experience/partner exposure would be on the same level as some of the more local firms.

Kirkland, more so than say Skadden or Latham, is much chiller with cross-staffing and letting you find whatever case you want to work on across the country. Whereas in like Latham Boston you'll be doing a lot of (but certainly not near exclusively) insurance and portco lit coming out of the Boston office. That Kirkland Boston also has no adults around to mind the shop is a good indicator that their expansion into Boston is a labor play. Good for associates stuck in Boston geographically but with ambitions and interests better satisfied elsewhere.

Previous poster here. Interesting take - hadn't thought about it that way. So you mean they're just looking for some extra bodies in a city that's presumably cheaper to operate in? If OP interviews, definitely a topic to explore (post offer, probably). I'd still say it would be better to pick a firm with more direct partner exposure, but if K&E lets OP do something they prefer (say a practice located mostly in DC) from the Boston office, maybe it's a good option.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks again for all of the feedback! Goodwin is definitely off of my list, but Mintz continues to remain high on my list. I'm curious as to why one poster suggested that I not keep it high on my list.

Re: Kirkland and Ellis it sounds great to have the freedom to seek out cases that interest me, but I'm wondering about the quality of mentoring I'll get in that situation.

I'm also wondering if anyone has feedback regarding Morgan Lewis or Holland & Knight.