If one were to leave big law and try to go in-house, what's the conflicts situation like? Say, for example, you've been working a lot with a single client in a particular space (call it, say, Blamazon). Now you want to make a jump in-house to a different company in a similar space (call it, say, Flamazon). Would you be able to at all? How do conflicts work? Are you basically dead in the water working for anyone that's a competitor?
Not looking to make a move, but... I always keep options open.
Subject Expert
I mean, having done a ton of pro bono, big law doesn’t even get close to the level of sleaze you can see from some prosecutors and some civil defense firms. I’ve had to make more than one bar complaint
Mentor
A11 ugh! My experience was from day clinics for settlement negotiations on behalf of evictees, so at least we got that part right… but still had to deal with the sleaze on the other side.
Have a small law firm as counsel representing one of (multiple) opposing defendants - they've threatened to move for sanctions in every single written communication we've had with them, including a meet and confer letter about the response to the complaint (the very first communication we had), a meet and confer letter about discovery responses, and every email in between.
As one of those faceless associates, I wish the opposing counsel would give up the ghost. Seriously, mister, serving objections to every one of your rogs isn't sanctionable, I promise you. 🤦🏻♀️
Subject Expert
I wouldn’t call them sleazy, but I am on a case across from Gibson Dunn right now and some of their filings come across as a bit unhinged
Mentor
M&A, finance and IP are my experiences with them. All bad to worse.
Once acted as local counsel for Skadden on a case and they wanted to move for sanctions on EVERYTHING and tried to get me to burn every bridge I had. They basically wanted me to burn my practice to the ground for their client when I was getting paid like 1/5th what they were and wouldn’t ever get business from them again.
Edit: remembered this was Skadden NOT Cravath. Mea culpa.
Mentor
Sounds familiar. They accused us of doing crazy things that sure sounded like projection.
Mentor
Tbh a solo practitioner on a pro bono deal was one of the worst human beings I’ve ever met.
Dealing with solos is always such a crapshoot. They seem to always fall into one of 4 buckets:
1: super smart and savvy attorney who realized they could make more as a solo.
2: totally incompetent attorney who thinks drafting threatening letters and posturing makes him a “bulldog litigator”. Constantly settles on the courthouse steps because they don’t actually know how to try a case but they think settling as late as possible makes them more money. Which it doesn’t.
3: competent litigator who has some sort of personality defect that means they couldn’t hack it at a firm. They’re either shady AF, rude AF, or lazy AF but they’re talented at the end of the day.
4: people who wanted to be a small business owner first and a lawyer second. Usually decent but not great lawyers, but easy to work with and usually have strong cases.
Mentor
STB
Enthusiast
Interesting,,,definitely not the vibe I’ve gotten. Especially for tax. I think we’re more of a hardworking nerds type lol
Coach
This must be a litigation thing. I’ve worked across from firms that have been rude, stubborn, incompetent or sloppy, but I can’t think of anyone that could be described as sleazy.
Subject Expert
Ditto
Coach
V&E and it's not even close from my experience.
Bump for the beans, please spill them.
Boies
Lately I get the sense that Boies is following the Gloria Allred model - chase the high profile case for the publicity hit, drain the (large) retainer, ghost.
Coach
Bracewell
Enthusiast
Yeah I’ve seen posts from a couple former associates who clearly seemed disgruntled. This post is about experience working across from firms, so I’m curious if this is a bad experience working across from them or what
Sleazing is the job description.
Coach
Ramey LLP, counsel for the trolliest of patent trolls
Mentor
Honestly a lot of the trolly patent plaintiff shops. I’ll take an annoying or slightly sleazy big law firm who occasionally focuses on the merits and knows how to write an argument that’s cogent over a focus on discovery disputes, minutiae, and lying to the court with arguments that are so bizarre they take three times as long to respond to.
Mentor
Saul Goodman
Coach
Howard Hamlin.
Coach
Katten every single time
Sullcrom. The same ones that touted their defense of nazis as Charneygate was underway are still looking for new lows to which they can descend. Truly miserable human beings and though very good attorneys, their tactics are typically straddling the ethical line.
Coach
I’ve had bad experiences too. Awful tactics, arguing everything for the sake of arguing, rather than actually working in their clients interest or moving the case forward.
K&E
Lol I was surprised too
Enthusiast
Idk about sleazy, but some people at Cravath are pretty condescending, noticeably more so to women.
Baker McKenzie (partners) for engaging in unethical behaviour.
Lying to counsel and clients. Deception continues with documentation by presenting a document that purportedly shows all changes when, in fact, it shows only selective changes.
Subject Expert
Quinn.
This is probably specific to the team I'm opposite from, but Hogan Lovells. They take extremely aggressive (sometimes baseless or explicitly disfavored) positions in litigation as part of a death-by-motion-practice approach. It's like a war of attrition with them, where their arguments aren't necessarily difficult to oppose because they're not meritorious, but they're lengthy and numerous so I spend a ton of time dealing with their bullshit.