(Plaintiff Side) Lit Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
(Plaintiff Side) Lit
2L T14 strikeout here.
Got a summer offer at a plaintiff-side firm that pays significantly below market (they claim to offer a significant bonus but I'm calling that as bs), at this point I don't know whether to accept or keep pushing for a firm (big, mid or small) that does defense-side work. I want to practice lit, but I suspect doing a small-scale (I don't wanna call it shitlaw though I'm sure some gunners would) plaintiff firm for 2L summer will make me conflicted for the bulk of the AMLAW 200 firms come 3L recruiting.
So 1) To what extent will I be conflicted at AmLaw 200 firms if I summer at a small P firm that does appear on the left side of the v against some Fortune 100 companies
2) Any possibility I can use this summer experience to demonstrate my passion for plaintiff work and aim for Quin, Boies, Susman and the like come 3L.?
FWIW one of my mentors who's a 4th year in BigLaw told me its better I spend the summer as a research assistant due to the conflicts this may generate and the low likelihood of levering it to one of the market paying plaintiff shops.
Got a summer offer at a plaintiff-side firm that pays significantly below market (they claim to offer a significant bonus but I'm calling that as bs), at this point I don't know whether to accept or keep pushing for a firm (big, mid or small) that does defense-side work. I want to practice lit, but I suspect doing a small-scale (I don't wanna call it shitlaw though I'm sure some gunners would) plaintiff firm for 2L summer will make me conflicted for the bulk of the AMLAW 200 firms come 3L recruiting.
So 1) To what extent will I be conflicted at AmLaw 200 firms if I summer at a small P firm that does appear on the left side of the v against some Fortune 100 companies
2) Any possibility I can use this summer experience to demonstrate my passion for plaintiff work and aim for Quin, Boies, Susman and the like come 3L.?
FWIW one of my mentors who's a 4th year in BigLaw told me its better I spend the summer as a research assistant due to the conflicts this may generate and the low likelihood of levering it to one of the market paying plaintiff shops.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.
Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.
Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.
Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
Why do people mention Quinn and Susman like they're peers or something.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
the preftige gestapo is in town!Anonymous User wrote:Why do people mention Quinn and Susman like they're peers or something.
there may be no two large firms with more in common than quinn & susman. yes, susman is a bit harder to get, but come on.
- cron1834
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
Right. What a ridiculous and pointless comment. And anon, too!Anonymous User wrote:the preftige gestapo is in town!Anonymous User wrote:Why do people mention Quinn and Susman like they're peers or something.
there may be no two large firms with more in common than quinn & susman. yes, susman is a bit harder to get, but come on.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
What about this?Anonymous User wrote:A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.
Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
Boies Schiller, MoloLamken, Kobre & Kim. Lots more in D.C.: Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, Hogan Lovell (DC specifically), Jenner & Block (DC specifically), Covington (DC specifically).Anonymous User wrote:What about this?Anonymous User wrote:A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.
Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.
There are a bunch in LA too.
Tbh, if we're including Quinn, I see no reason to exclude Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, and Gibson Dunn, all of which are top notch in lit generally, although each firm has diff specialities.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?Anonymous User wrote:Boies Schiller, MoloLamken, Kobre & Kim. Lots more in D.C.: Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, Hogan Lovell (DC specifically), Jenner & Block (DC specifically), Covington (DC specifically).Anonymous User wrote:What about this?Anonymous User wrote:A tangential question--What other firms would you include in that "etc." (in NYC) aside from Quinn and Susman?Anonymous User wrote:As someone who almost lateraled from a plaintiff firm to big law, I do not think the conflicts issue should concern you. I know a couple people who jumped from a plaintiff firm to big law. If the end goal is big law - or even Quinn, Susman, etc. - my opinion is the firm's practices areas should be most important. For example, if you are going to be doing personal injury, comp., etc., your work experience is not valuable to such firms. But if your practice involves antitrust, securities, class actions, government representation, etc., your experience should be marketable.
Now, that advice is more focused on long-term job prospects, as 3L interviews are a crap shoot. Personally, I would not take a research assistant position over a firm job, assuming the firm job will likely turn into an offer. As another data point, many very good plaintiff firms pay substantially (~50%) lower than big law. While there is a possibility for the salary to jump somewhat quickly, guaranteed comp will almost always be substantially lower on the plaintiff's side.
There are a bunch in LA too.
Tbh, if we're including Quinn, I see no reason to exclude Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, and Gibson Dunn, all of which are top notch in lit generally, although each firm has diff specialities.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
Boies Schiller does.Anonymous User wrote: Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?
- unicorntamer666
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:11 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.gaddockteeg wrote:Boies Schiller does.Anonymous User wrote: Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?
If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.
FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
What are people's thoughts on the ethics of these P firms, particularly the class-action firms that proactively look to find class representatives to instigate trials? On the one hand, I'll concede they may be representing true victims, whereas the BL firms often represent 'bad guys' (Big Oil and the like) but the methods these P firms use seems to me to be super aggressive and pseudo-telemarketing like. I guess it depends on the firm, but is the very notion of looking for a class representative by itself unethical?unicorntamer666 wrote:In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.gaddockteeg wrote:Boies Schiller does.Anonymous User wrote: Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?
If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.
FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
Anonymous User wrote:What are people's thoughts on the ethics of these P firms, particularly the class-action firms that proactively look to find class representatives to instigate trials? On the one hand, I'll concede they may be representing true victims, whereas the BL firms often represent 'bad guys' (Big Oil and the like) but the methods these P firms use seems to me to be super aggressive and pseudo-telemarketing like. I guess it depends on the firm, but is the very notion of looking for a class representative by itself unethical?unicorntamer666 wrote:In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.gaddockteeg wrote:Boies Schiller does.Anonymous User wrote: Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?
If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.
FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.
No.
-
- Posts: 1710
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
It's worth noting that the "starting salary" at these kinds of places is often misleading, for reasons I've posted about several times: bonuses are often substantial, raises can be substantial, etc. I came in as a third-year, and I started way above 120K.unicorntamer666 wrote:FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.
To elaborate slightly: in general, the rule in American courts is that you can't just file a suit over corporate wrongdoing. You have to have a plaintiff who's actually been wronged by that corporate wrongdoing before you can sue. So if you find out about corporate wrongdoing and want to sue to 1) make it stop, 2) make the bad guys pay back whatever profits they've made off the bad things they've done, and 3) get some recovery for the people who've been hurt, then you need to have a client. Sometimes you might get a client via a tip; qui tam suits often start that way. But otherwise, you need to look for a class rep.jd20132013 wrote:No.Anonymous User wrote: What are people's thoughts on the ethics of these P firms, particularly the class-action firms that proactively look to find class representatives to instigate trials? On the one hand, I'll concede they may be representing true victims, whereas the BL firms often represent 'bad guys' (Big Oil and the like) but the methods these P firms use seems to me to be super aggressive and pseudo-telemarketing like. I guess it depends on the firm, but is the very notion of looking for a class representative by itself unethical?
In a typical process, you might put a page on your website or advertise somewhere to say that you're looking for people who were harmed by some specific corporate wrongdoing. You provide a form or a phone number, and people get in touch if they're interested in being involved. You screen them in various ways to find good class reps, and then with the good ones, you offer to represent them, usually on a contingency fee basis. If they say yes, you file.
There are ways of looking for a class rep that are unethical, to be sure. Bill Lerach got in a lot of trouble for the way that he did it. But if you do it the normal way, it's perfectly ethical. You're trying to stop corporate wrongdoing using the legal system. As long as you're complying with all the formal rules, you're on the side of good.
-
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
I assume the issue is more like, are plaintiff class actions pure rent seeking that neither materially benefit the class nor have any kind of meaningful deterrent or punitive effect on defendants. IMO there's a spectrum, with shareholder strike suits on one end and, I don't know, certain toxic tort cases on the other.
-
- Posts: 1710
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
There are a bunch of procedural protections in Rule 23 that are supposed to prevent that kind of thing. At class certification, the judge is supposed to verify that the class rep and lead counsel will, among other things, adequately protect the interests of the class. If the case settles, the judge is supposed to verify that the settlement is appropriate in light of the merits and risks of the case. Even when the settlement is approved, the judge ordinarily has to approve attorney fees for class counsel separately from approving the settlement itself. If the attorney fees are too high in the circumstances (e.g., compared to the recovery for the class), or if the settlement doesn't sufficiently benefit the class, or if the settlement seems improper in some other way, the judge isn't supposed to approve it.dixiecupdrinking wrote:I assume the issue is more like, are plaintiff class actions pure rent seeking that neither materially benefit the class nor have any kind of meaningful deterrent or punitive effect on defendants. IMO there's a spectrum, with shareholder strike suits on one end and, I don't know, certain toxic tort cases on the other.
So if judges do their jobs correctly, everything should be fine. Obviously, that's a big "if."
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- unicorntamer666
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:11 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
I have no problem at all with firms actively soliciting plaintiffs.
My concerns are primarily about the prevailing settlement paradigm. Basically, almost every case settles, which is problematic for a few reasons. First, the settlements often include various NDA-type deals designed to hide critical info from the public (plaintiffs firms agree to these because they get paid more in the settlement in exchange for secrecy). Second, because all defendants want a "global settlement" that resolves the type of claim at issue once and for all, settlements are often structured in sketchy ways to rope in individuals not really properly before the court. So effectively, plaintiffs firms end up having the power to produce settlements that are binding on pretty much everyone who will ever have a claim based on a particular occurrence - a power they arguably abuse/misuse when their profit imperative conflicts with the interests of the class. The simplest way this conflict can arise is in the firm wanting to settle early; plaintiffs firms don't get paid until they win, so obviously the incentive is to "win" as quickly as possible (not to maximize claim value). The big concern is that even if each individual class member is undercompensated, so long as you have a big class and big fees, and can resolve it relatively quickly (IE not take it to trial), firms still have an incentive to do it.
That as I understand it is the biggest problem. Plus you can make arguments that the cost of tort liability is just treated as an operating expense passed on to consumers (though there may be limits to how much companies can really raise prices). You could argue that tort settlements are often not so different from the bullshit white collar settlements (deferred and non-prosecution agreements) that DOJ has been entering with banks etc. post financial crisis. The wrongdoing is real and the dollar figures of the settlements sound good, but because they're assessed against the corporate entity, not its officers/employees, they're paid by shareholders (and/or consumers via cost-shifting), not the actual wrongdoers, so there is little to no actual deterrent effect.
Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.
But if I'm mistaken, and there are plaintiffs firms that don't fit this description, I'm all ears. I have just found it surprisingly hard to find any law firm that, at the end of the day, makes decisions based on anything other than profit. This is not to say law firms are "evil"; just perhaps that philanthropy/fulfillment might have to happen outside the workplace.
My concerns are primarily about the prevailing settlement paradigm. Basically, almost every case settles, which is problematic for a few reasons. First, the settlements often include various NDA-type deals designed to hide critical info from the public (plaintiffs firms agree to these because they get paid more in the settlement in exchange for secrecy). Second, because all defendants want a "global settlement" that resolves the type of claim at issue once and for all, settlements are often structured in sketchy ways to rope in individuals not really properly before the court. So effectively, plaintiffs firms end up having the power to produce settlements that are binding on pretty much everyone who will ever have a claim based on a particular occurrence - a power they arguably abuse/misuse when their profit imperative conflicts with the interests of the class. The simplest way this conflict can arise is in the firm wanting to settle early; plaintiffs firms don't get paid until they win, so obviously the incentive is to "win" as quickly as possible (not to maximize claim value). The big concern is that even if each individual class member is undercompensated, so long as you have a big class and big fees, and can resolve it relatively quickly (IE not take it to trial), firms still have an incentive to do it.
That as I understand it is the biggest problem. Plus you can make arguments that the cost of tort liability is just treated as an operating expense passed on to consumers (though there may be limits to how much companies can really raise prices). You could argue that tort settlements are often not so different from the bullshit white collar settlements (deferred and non-prosecution agreements) that DOJ has been entering with banks etc. post financial crisis. The wrongdoing is real and the dollar figures of the settlements sound good, but because they're assessed against the corporate entity, not its officers/employees, they're paid by shareholders (and/or consumers via cost-shifting), not the actual wrongdoers, so there is little to no actual deterrent effect.
Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.
But if I'm mistaken, and there are plaintiffs firms that don't fit this description, I'm all ears. I have just found it surprisingly hard to find any law firm that, at the end of the day, makes decisions based on anything other than profit. This is not to say law firms are "evil"; just perhaps that philanthropy/fulfillment might have to happen outside the workplace.
- cdotson2
- Posts: 853
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:06 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
100% this. Lol at thinking that plaintiff's firms are just trying to make the world a better place. Also while corporate clients might sometimes actually do truly reprehensible things, corporations provide immense social value. Protecting those operations furthers that social value, and suing for the largest possible verdicts attacks it and restricts companies ability to provide value. Further, large verdicts can bankrupt companies and cause layoffs of employees that did nothing wrong--causing further harm by naively going after the "bad guy". The world isn't that simple.unicorntamer666 wrote: Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
Speaking as someone who practices biglaw securities lit (defense-side), there are definitely still firms out there that have the "strike-suit" business model - scouring the wire for mergers and signing up some guy from Duluth with 500 shares as lead plaintiff. But those cases settle pretty quickly and without a lot of hassle. Judges in Delaware and New York have come down hard on these types of cases, and as a result those firms are slowly dying out.
Most of the time you're likely to be facing an institutional investor or pension fund represented by either an elite plaintiff's shop (BLBG, RGRD, Lieff) or a biglaw firm like Boies, Quinn, Patterson, Kasowitz. If the suit involves a debt issue you also might be dealing with a bond insurer represented by a biglaw firm. Those firms are highly sophisticated and represented by experienced counsel with significant resources - definitely not interested in just wasting their time or tanking the company in which they have a huge stake.
Most of the time you're likely to be facing an institutional investor or pension fund represented by either an elite plaintiff's shop (BLBG, RGRD, Lieff) or a biglaw firm like Boies, Quinn, Patterson, Kasowitz. If the suit involves a debt issue you also might be dealing with a bond insurer represented by a biglaw firm. Those firms are highly sophisticated and represented by experienced counsel with significant resources - definitely not interested in just wasting their time or tanking the company in which they have a huge stake.
-
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
It's give and take. The threat of suit coerces corporations to behave themselves. In the same vein that plaintiff's firms' main motivation isn't making the world a better place, corporations' main motivation isn't providing value, it's maximizing profits.cdotson2 wrote:100% this. Lol at thinking that plaintiff's firms are just trying to make the world a better place. Also while corporate clients might sometimes actually do truly reprehensible things, corporations provide immense social value. Protecting those operations furthers that social value, and suing for the largest possible verdicts attacks it and restricts companies ability to provide value. Further, large verdicts can bankrupt companies and cause layoffs of employees that did nothing wrong--causing further harm by naively going after the "bad guy". The world isn't that simple.unicorntamer666 wrote: Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
But the profits trickle down, don't you see
-
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
I haven't seen it, but I'll keep an eye out.jd20132013 wrote:But the profits trickle down, don't you see
-
- Posts: 428116
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
This is equally naive. Many would argue that the costs imposed by large corporations in certain industries are not properly accounted for, and far from providing "immense social value," they in fact destroy assets held by nonshareholders who have benefitted little/not at all from those firms (see, e.g., BP re Deepwater Horizon and a number of other mishaps in Texas and elsewhere; many of the largest players in the financial industry during the last crisis, and many others; automakers who hide defects; etc.). As for "large verdicts" that "bankrupt companies and cause layoffs," that's pretty infrequent; most settlements (because, let's face it, verdicts are rare) are covered by insurance. (Perhaps you're referring to Arthur Anderson? That of course was a criminal case brought by DOJ.) Far more often, notwithstanding newsmaking class settlements, said wrongdoers get by with a tax for their malfeasance and continue on printing money for shareholders and/or, more to the point, their executives whose incentive structure favors short-term earnings gains over longer-term value creation. If on the other hand you don't believe VW should be penalized for emissions cheating, GM should pay a price for faulty ignition switches or Takata for defective airbags that kill people, Enron should have been driven out of business for perpetrating a massive fraud that DID result in thousands of people losing their jobs and investments, then, well, I'm afraid there's little to talk about.cdotson2 wrote:100% this. Lol at thinking that plaintiff's firms are just trying to make the world a better place. Also while corporate clients might sometimes actually do truly reprehensible things, corporations provide immense social value. Protecting those operations furthers that social value, and suing for the largest possible verdicts attacks it and restricts companies ability to provide value. Further, large verdicts can bankrupt companies and cause layoffs of employees that did nothing wrong--causing further harm by naively going after the "bad guy". The world isn't that simple.unicorntamer666 wrote: Finally: Having hung around some plaintiffs firms, it just appears obvious that - while there may be exceptions - most aren't sitting around thinking "how can we do as much good as possible today?". They are focused on monetizing their case inventory, and will devote 99% of their resources to their most dubious, least socially beneficial cases so long as they're the most lucrative. So yes, plaintiffs firms - even the fancy ones - bring nuisance suits, strike suits, etc. On some level this makes sense, as a firm that only takes groundbreaking, difficult cases would probably go bankrupt. But generally, I have just become skeptical of the idea that a private, profit-driven firm can really have any kind of meaningful "public interest" dimension. At the same time, I do suspect some of these firms might underpay/overwork their associates and get away with it because the associates believe their work is socially valuable.
Sure, unscrupulous attorneys may well file garbage suits, but the law has evolved such that the strike suit as a business model is (rightly) less profitable than it once was. And those claims should be thrown out of court. If you're currently in Biglaw and have been for a few years, and you still believe that what you do is somehow morally superior to what the large and more respectable plaintiff's firms do--or that you "further social value"-- I'd be surprised, but if so, good for you for finding your place. In my view, the plaintiff's bar provides an important check in a quarterly reporting system that inexorably and fairly regularly results in fraud to greater or lesser degrees.
Having worked in Biglaw, a hybrid firm, and as an AUSA, I can confidently say no side's hands are perfectly clean, and all have a role to play in an adversarial system that, hopefully, will result in a more just outcome than other systems provide. Whether plaintiff or defense, private practice is such that all firms make decisions based on the bottom line.
- kings84_wr
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:18 pm
Re: (Plaintiff Side) Lit
This is certainly inaccurate.unicorntamer666 wrote:In my opinion none of these firms does a substantial amount of plaintiff-side work - or, if they do, it's driven by economic opportunism, not a desire to be on the proverbial "right side of the v". At most of these firms you are just as likely to defend big pharma, Bill Cosby, or Harvey Weinstein (all real examples chosen from Boies and Quinn) as you are to litigate a plaintiff-side case. Some of these firms also count work for corporate plaintiffs (in, EG, patent cases) as "plaintiff's work." These firms are jacks-of-all-trades with a mercenary mentality, not plaintiffs firms.gaddockteeg wrote:Boies Schiller does.Anonymous User wrote: Which of these does a susbtantial amount of Plaintiff-side work?
If you're looking for a firm that makes it part of its mission to only represent individuals suing big companies for "doing bad things," you are talking about the likes of Lieff Cabraser. One could debate the social utility of even these firms (still not entirely clear to me personally - complicated economic question) - but Quinn, Susman, Boies, etc. are not among them.
FYI: There is no true plaintiff's firm that pays more than like $120K starting salary as far as I know.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login