Top Law Schools

2011 alum of HLS/YLS, LR, 1/2/3 circuit clerk, currently at a choosy litigation boutique. Happy to talk law school, clerkship, practice.

You transferred from HLS to YLS? Why?

No. I graduated from one of the two schools. Trying to maintain anonymity to speak freely. (Ditto "1/2/3 circuit clerk" -- only clerked on one of those courts.)

Thanks for doing this.

What's a typical day and/or week like? Billable req., salary, and benefits? How did you find out about the firm? Do your co-workers generally have a similar background?

No problem. I relied on these forums and want to contribute now that I know something.

"Typical" varies. Typical day when focus is appellate litigation: Spend most of the day reading cases/documents/briefs, writing or outlining your brief, and corresponding with partners/client(s) about strategy. Typical day when focus is discovery: Some days involve doc review/learning about case and are relatively relaxed. Other days, e.g. when in the midst of depositions, the pace of questions from partners/client(s) is furious. Preparing for and going to trial are nonstop work.

No billable requirement at my firm. I've averaged 2425-ish annually. (But am slow at the moment, obviously.) Salary matches NY biglaw; bonus generally exceeds the prevailing scale by a bit. Benefits are nothing unusual. Co-workers' backgrounds vary, but T14 schools, law review, and appellate clerkship are common.

Thanks for taking questions.

How long do you plan on remaining in the private sector? After your clerkship, did you consider working in government or were you certain you wanted to do corporate defense work? I'm assuming you switched firms between your SA and after your clerkship; if you did switch, did you apply to your current employer while clerking through networking and contacts or through a more formal procedure?

1. How long do you plan on remaining in the private sector?

As long as I can. Raising a family in NY/DC/SF is expensive.

2. After your clerkship, did you consider working in government or were you certain you wanted to do corporate defense work?

Not government. See #1. In the long run, you might make more $ starting in government -- seasoned prosecutors are sought after. But I was/am liquidity constrained.

3. I'm assuming you switched firms between your SA and after your clerkship; if you did switch, did you apply to your current employer while clerking through networking and contacts or through a more formal procedure?

Networking and contacts. But if you're interested in boutiques, don't be discouraged from just applying. Many boutiques don't have a summer program, so they are more hungry for associates than it might look from the outside.

Why did you pick a choosy boutique over a choosy big firm?

One other thing occurs to me about the 10:19 am post. It seems to assume that sophisticated litigation work is "corporate defense." That is not true at my firm or, I think, in general. Yes, the classic big civil case looks like Lieff Cabraser v. Skadden, and you'd rather be on the Skadden side. (Or, say, Grant & Eisenhofer v. Latham. I'm not trying to pick on particular firms.) The Skadden side of such a case is immensely profitable for senior partners. But, for lower-down attorneys, there are drawbacks. Chief among them are that (i) the work is boring, and more importantly (ii) such cases are almost by definition staffed as pyramids, which limits your room for advancement.

There are many big cases that do not fit the Lieff Cabraser v. Skadden mold. Often, it is one set of rich people suing another set of rich people. (E.g., hedge fund v. hedge fund.) But the largest firms often are conflicted out of representing the rich-people plaintiffs. So there is a great opportunity for smaller litigation firms there. Historically, Kasowitz and Quinn Emanuel have done a decent amount of such work, and I believe Boies Schiller, too. Those firms have outgrown the "boutique" label. But hopefully it conveys that representing plaintiffs can be worthwhile. My firm does some of that kind of plaintiff work (almost all billed hourly), in addition to your classic defense work for big corporate clients.

hlsperson123 wrote:Why did you pick a choosy boutique over a choosy big firm?

I didn't have that choice. Recruiting in fall 2009 (my 2L) was brutal. Given the choice between choosy boutique and good-but-not-great bigger firm, my personal opinion is that choosy boutique gives you better exposure to better clients.

Most of my boutique colleagues did have that choice. Their reasons for their choices include better odds of making partner (in terms of sheer numbers); more interesting work; no face time for the sake of it; better work-life balance overall (though some small lit shops are notorious for being as bad as, or worse than, Cravath/Wachtell); less pointless bureaucracy/office politics; desire to do appellate work and/or actually go to trial now and then.

WokSuperstar wrote:

hlsperson123 wrote:Why did you pick a choosy boutique over a choosy big firm?

I didn't have that choice. Recruiting in fall 2009 (my 2L) was brutal. Given the choice between choosy boutique and good-but-not-great bigger firm, my personal opinion is that choosy boutique gives you better exposure to better clients.

Most of my boutique colleagues did have that choice. Their reasons for their choices include better odds of making partner (in terms of sheer numbers); more interesting work; no face time for the sake of it; better work-life balance overall (though some small lit shops are notorious for being as bad as, or worse than, Cravath/Wachtell); less pointless bureaucracy/office politics; desire to do appellate work and/or actually go to trial now and then.

This is interesting to me: was 2009 hiring so bad that someone with your credentials (at that point, let's just say H/Y + top 1/3 + LR) couldn't get multiple V5 offers (or the DC equivalent)?

lawlorbust wrote: This is interesting to me: was 2009 hiring so bad that someone with your credentials (at that point, let's just say H/Y + top 1/3 + LR) couldn't get multiple V5 offers (or the DC equivalent)?

Yes, and I imagine that is still the case. There aren't that many litigation spots in the combined V5. Plus, the average person in the top 1/3 of H & Y has a character closer to that of your average professor than to that of your average biglaw partner. Hiring only people like that would be bad for the firm. Beyond that, firms have good reasons to diversify by law school and pre-law-school experience, to say nothing of demographic factors.

Thanks for doing this OP.

Did you consider doing a district clerkship too? Do you wish you had now that you're in practice? How useful is your COA clerkship to your actual practice?

To the extent that you can compare your experience at a lit boutique to the experiences of your biglaw friends, do you think you've gotten better/more interesting work? Do you think your chances of partnership are better? Can you elaborate on some of the downsides to going to a lit boutique immediate post COA clerkship?

Akroman wrote:Did you consider doing a district clerkship too? Do you wish you had now that you're in practice? How useful is your COA clerkship to your actual practice?

I applied for both district and circuit. I happened to get circuit first. Then I got a firm opportunity I liked, so I did not apply for another clerkship.

I believe that a district clerkship could have been quite useful. A circuit clerkship is, in some ways, a fourth year of law school. A district clerkship could expose you to things that you don't learn much in law school, but that can make a big difference to litigants -- e.g., evidentiary and discovery rulings. That, and you experience firsthand the sheer pace of trial practice. That said, the dockets of the district courts vary more from court to court than the dockets of the circuit courts. Clerking on SDNY (or Delaware Chancery, which one should not overlook) would, I think, teach you more about sophisticated civil litigation than clerking even on other major district courts like DDC or CD Cal. Take all of that with a grain of salt; I'm answering a question about something that I did *not* do.

My clerkship did not teach me many concrete skills that law school did not. But rubbing elbows with a circuit judge every day hones your judgment. The networking (within and across chambers) was worthwhile. And it's a material credential, even to clients.

Akroman wrote:To the extent that you can compare your experience at a lit boutique to the experiences of your biglaw friends, do you think you've gotten better/more interesting work? Do you think your chances of partnership are better? Can you elaborate on some of the downsides to going to a lit boutique immediate post COA clerkship?

The quality of the work might be slightly higher than a comparable large firm. Most of the reasons why are firm-specific. Some reasons that apply to boutiques generally are that (i) you spend more time working directly with partners, and (ii) you're less likely to do enormous document productions, because boutiques just don't have the bodies for that.

I do think that my chances of partnership are better. I met a DPW veteran once who said that, to make partner there, one had to "do everything perfectly plus win the lottery." I'm all for doing things perfectly, but winning the lottery is tough. Numbers are on your side in a boutique. Note, though, that you can't just work for eight years at a big firm, then plan to make partner right away at a boutique. I know of zero people who have done this. You have to earn your stripes at the boutique.

I will construe your last question to be, what are the downsides of going to a boutique immediately post-clerkship as opposed to going as a lateral associate. There is only one I can think of: name recognition. Most people who have heard of my firm think highly of it. But many people have not heard of it. That could be important if your life leads you off the beaten path. I know a boutique associate who had stellar credentials but, for family reasons, ended up moving to a legal market that most would not call competitive. In that market, few people had heard of the boutique. If a move like that might be in the cards, it is easier if you spent 2-3 years at a firm with widespread name recognition.

This might be an impossibly broad question, but what would you suggest doing during law school (specifically in a school like HLS/YLS) to prepare for a career in litigation?

hlsperson123 wrote:This might be an impossibly broad question, but what would you suggest doing during law school (specifically in a school like HLS/YLS) to prepare for a career in litigation?

Start with checking the usual boxes to get your foot in the door. Law review, good grades in standard substantive classes. Clerkship is a good credential for litigation, and, at schools like HLS and YLS that no longer have real grades, knowing a professor with connections to judges is handy.

As for learning litigation skills, persuasive writing and speaking are best absorbed through practice. If you can get them through clinics, or through moot court or mock trial, or through advocacy classes, or through legal writing classes, or some combination, do it. You don't want to become some kind of outspoken boor, but you do need confidence. Lawyers at my firm socialize by debating (informally) each other. If that sounds awful to you, consider something other than litigation.

As for longer-term career prospects, make friends. A place like HLS or YLS is a gold mine. You will not have this kind of opportunity again. Connections with people your age probably will not matter in the short term, but they seem to matter greatly in the long term. And I wouldn't try to target people based on how successful you think they'll be. There are too many imponderables.

Finally, do not be afraid to specialize a bit. HLS/YLS types like to keep options open, which is not a bad instinct. But you can get further faster, and have more job security, if you focus a bit on a particular kind of litigation. Interested in Wall Street litigation? Learn how to speak with confidence about Leo Strine's impact. (And get fluent in M&A jargon.) Want to be an AUSA? Join a clinic that involves criminal law. Interested in a lucrative area of litigation that top students sometimes overlook (thus creating opportunity)? Bankruptcy! As for appellate, yes, it is possible to specialize in appellate. But very few people can build a whole practice on it. (Those who do may make less than other lawyers of their ability, so make sure you love it.) For that track, it is especially helpful to clerk on SCOTUS; I don't think there is any dearth of discussion about that on these forums.

Thanks! That's very helpful.