Quack. They should still get the needle. Like Mohammad.

David, your comment was typical of the law profession: venerate competency without considering larger ethical issues at stake.

Weak case by the feds, and the right result.

Chicago mayor blames Fort Hood shooting on "guns." Obama blames it on "stress." Of course, all the white Christian boys and girls on base have guns and stress, and they're not killing their peers.

Liberalism is a mental disorder embodied by the illogical and insane.

@3. I bet you will do very well on the MPRE and then fail the bar. Have fun with that.

False.

Timothy McVeigh - Roman Catholic murderer.

Scott Roeder - Evangelical Christian murderer.

That was directed at 6. And just fyi Roeder shot the "abortion doctor".

Not to mention "pro-life" nutjobs who murder doctors and nurses who devote their lives to providing a needed service that pays crap and draws hateful bigots like flies.

Assara girl, I love you!

W&C defended Cioffi, not Tannin. Get your facts straight, "journalist."

Check out the select number of law schools from which members of that litigation boutique call themselves alums.

http://www.bruneandrichard.com/lawyers.htm

Count me as impressed.

Sounds like a weak case, which might explain why these fund managers rolled the dice on a trial.

12,

The dipshit prosecution likely went to the same law schools. Count me as unimpressed.

And that feature of the website is likely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

12--Yep, Mr. Campbell went to the University of Chicago.

This just in....Obama says Bush administration at fault for Bear acquittal. More to come.

14,

I disagree. I find that feature of the website hilarious and elitist, like myself.

Keep fighting the good fight and displaying in a nice tabular format where your attorneys went to law school, Brune & Richard. You have at least one fan.

- 12

17,

Don't get me wrong, I can be elitist also. I mean, I went to the satellite campus of an pretty prestigious state university.

Instead of attorney bios, they should just have a detailed profile of each really prestigious law school represented in the firm. No need for anything else.

Someone here really does need to work on their journalism and get who represented whom correct in this article.

HHR for the win!

WRONG. w&c and HHR represented cioffi.

Abortionists = murdererous hacks who couldn't cut it as real doctors and therefore kill for money

Dear law students,

If you get an offer from Williams & Connolly, TAKE IT. Notice how, in these recessionary times, they make news for winning high-stakes litigation, not for shafting in-coming first-years and cutting associate salaries. That's because the best always have work in even the most brutal economic winter.

ASSARA - for all you hairy associates!!!

Scott Roeder - freedom fighter

Dear law students,

Read 23's post. Then add HHR's name to the post.. Thank you.

I've looked back on previous threads, and both W&C and HHR have had:

-No deferrals for first years
-No salary cuts/freezes
-Near to or 100% offers for 2009 summers (with no deferrals in sight)

It's nice work if you can get it...

Yep,

23, 26 & 27 have it exactly right. This recession is telling us more than any Vault survey what firms are the kind of quality shops young attorneys can feel confident committing to.

@6:
Here's a lesson in logic:
These are propositions:
David venerates competency and appears not to care about wider ethical concerns.
I care about wider ethical concerns.

It does not follow from either of the two propositions that:
I am not competent.

I hope that helps.
:), from 3.

Don't know about W&C, but a friend who summered at Hughes Hubbard said the summers and associates had tons of work all summer, to the point where summers turned down lunches/skipped some events to finish work. Sucks re: skipping events, but awesome re: lots of work. My V30-summering ass did not have a similar experience.

26 - Please. No one thinks that HHR is in the same league as W&C.

@28 It's not a marriage, it's a job. Speaking of commitment to an employer is about as intelligent as saying you want to practice international law. I don't care which law firm you're talking about; it will throw you under the bus if and when doing so meets its needs, if not today then seven years down the road when your book isn't quire large enough to justify equity. W&C is a fine firm and you can do well for yourself by going there and getting some good experience. Just don't mistake the fucking for making love.

32 = Katten partner

Sorry you exposed yourself as a shit firm today, guy. Maybe if you were a better lawyer you could generate some billables for your associates.

27-
HHR also had above-market bonuses last year.

31-

Really? Because I'm pretty sure Ralph Cioffi just did.

Go see Ed Little's page on the HHR web site and then get back to me.

35 -- you obviously don't understand the concept of "lead firm" when it comes retaining law firms in a complex litigation. Do you think HHR answered to w&c or the other way around?

How many law students do you know who chose HHR over w&c?

35 - I have no doubt that Ed Little is a great lawyer. But Cioffi hired W&C to do the heavy lifting when it came time for trial. If you read the articles about the case, HHR is barely mentioned. The same thing happened a few years ago with another big client (and W&C).

The point isn't that law students should choose HHR over W&C - it's that they choose firms with demonstrated continuing work, no deferrals, etc. such as W&C and HHR.

If you don't already know that W&C is the best and baddest trial firm around there is no hope for you.

@33 If I sold time for a living, do you really think I'd have time to do this? Any lawyer with any brains should figure out it makes sense to find a better business model than that practiced by most large law firms.

Definitely spend a few years getting some legal experience at the best firm that will take you. Pay down your debts. Build your network. But if you want real equity, the kind you can sell when you don't want to work anymore, you need to leave the law firm behind.

Dewey & LeBoeuf lays off attorneys..................

39: except WILDMAN HARROLD.

Does anyone know how these individuals were able to afford these firms? It must have been tremendously expensive. Lat, what do you estimate this cost to defend?

"Does anyone know how these individuals were able to afford these firms? It must have been tremendously expensive."

No idea of the specific cost, but they were ex-hedge fund managers, so they had a pretty decent bankroll.

Yes, how does the legal fee situation work here? Does JP Morgan pick up the tab because they were former Bear employees? Is this a circumstance where D&O insurance under a former Bear policy kicks in? Do hedge fund managers self-insure? I wouldn't be surprised if fees for the litigation were $3 million apiece.

it was pro bono -- i think summer associates handled most of the heavy lifting, then full-timers picked it up after the summer was over.

35 et al., none of you understand anything about criminal law or trail work, where a defendant hires a lawyer, not a firm. That lawyer might be at W&C, Hughes Hubbard, or wherever.

47 -- so it's just a coincidence that many of the best trial lawyers ended up at w&c -- kinda like they might all accidentally be on the same metro one morning? there's nothing special about w&c as a whole?

i agree that clients hire the lawyer, but much of what makes that lawyer good is the firm he works for -- his colleagues, the quality of associates, etc. If that weren't the case, that lawyer would have his own solo shop.

let me know when all the w&c stars lateral to HHR -- which, by your logic, is a real possibility. after all, why not? according to you, clients only hire the lawyer, so what difference does it make which office they're in? or does w&c just have nicer desks?

48- no, its not a coincidence that many of the best trial lawyers end up at W&C- its a firm of great trial lawyers. And there are great trial lawyers many places.

As for one a firm making a trial lawyer, not just any lawyer, but a trial lawyer better, its marginal. The quality of the associates and all that other shit don't matter. As for having their own solo shop, yes, many of the best trial lawyers do have solo shops or practice in boutiques.

You misunderstand my logic (most likely because you're a naive douchebag law student) but if a w&c star lateral'd to HHR, he'd still be a star.

When David Boies left Cravath to start his own shop, he didn't lose any residual quality from Cravath- he's where the quality came from.

29: You are bringing up an irrelevant issue, unless you are talking about state ethical rules, in which case they zealously represented their client and did a great job. W&C is a business, not a PAC or a charity. Stick to the secretarial work, and try not to talk about things above your pay grade. Maybe the CNN message boards are more your speed.

48- if a great trial lawyer left W & C and went to another firm, he'd still be a great trial lawyer. If you think that the quality of the associates makes him a great trial lawyer, you have a delusional view of your own value.

The attorneys at Brune & Richard are pretty darn good looking....except for the two heebers.

49 -- then why the hell don't they leave w&c then, genius? inertia? don't feel like moving their books? why do the best lawyers tend to coalesce in handful of top firms? coincidence? no -- it's because even superstars rely on other people -- their colleagues, their associates, and even their secretaries, their paralegals, and the culture of the organization they belong to. -- and the QUALITY of all of the above.

i'm not saying the associates MAKE them great lawyers, but you better believe that life is much more pleasant and productive when you have the cream of the crop working under you rather than some idiot from a t-3 law school. But i wouldn't expect you to know that b/c you likely have never been in a supervisory position or had any real responsibility before in your life. now go study for Property.

53- clearly you have never done trial work. Not litigation- trials.