Tracking Top Boutique Law Firms [Rule of 3 # 3]

Litigation powerhouses that used to fly under the radar are now front and center.

Boutique law firms are transforming the legal industry by prioritizing personalized client service and specialized expertise. While there is no universally accepted definition of a “boutique” law firm, there are a few commonly accepted criteria. Unlike large firms, boutique practices focus on building close relationships with clients, offering tailored legal solutions, and providing direct access to attorneys. Their smaller size enables greater agility in adapting to client needs and industry changes, streamlined operations, and reduced bureaucracy.

These firms often attract lawyers passionate about specific areas of law, resulting in dynamic and targeted representation. Clients benefit from faster response times and deeper engagement, while attorneys enjoy a better work-life balance and more hands-on experience. As the demand for personalization and efficiency grows, boutique law firms are paving the way for innovation and a client-centered approach in the legal profession.

Five of the main advantages to boutique law firms can be described as:

1. Specialized Expertise: Boutique law firms focus narrowly on specific legal areas, offering state-of-the-art solutions and unmatched efficiency for specialized problems.

2. Client-Friendly Fee Structures: They provide competitive and tailored pricing, often more favorable than Big Law firms.

3. Talented and Experienced Lawyers: Boutique firms are frequently staffed by top-tier lawyers with Big Law experience, bringing high-level expertise to a focused practice.

4. Leverage Technology: These firms use cost-effective tools like cloud storage and virtual office solutions to reduce overhead and remain competitive.

5. Personalized Service: Boutique firms excel in offering deeply personal and customized legal solutions, distinguishing themselves in a technology-driven legal market.

There are many different rankings of boutique law firms but, of course, the ranked firms depend on the definition of this type of firm. One of the more widely accepted, or at least prolific rankings of boutique law firms is from the website The Vault.

To get a sense of boutique law firms’ business I took a look at the top six ranked boutique law firms according to The Vault: Susman Godfrey, Kellogg Hansen, Bartlit Beck, Keker Van Nest, Selendy Gay, and Hecker Fink. Here are a few ways to think about boutique law firms and the work they do. First a look at the extent of their business over the last twelve months based on opinions where a member or more of the firm was listed as counsel.

Susman Godfrey works on quite a few more litigation matters than the other firms. To drill down into why, here are a few data points on each of these law firms from The Vault’s firm profiles:

In order to assess these firms’ reaches, here is a look at the courts where these firms were listed on opinions across the same period as the graph above.

To gain a better understanding of the particularized work these firms do, the following tracks three cases where these firms’ lawyers authored briefs over the past 12 months. Each case assessment looks at (1) what the case is about, (2) what the brief’s position is, and (3) why the brief argues that the position is correct. This should provide an deep look at the type’s of matters these firms handle and how they design their arguments.

Recent Matters

Firm #1 Susman Godfrey

Roberts v. Roberts (Court of Appeals of Texas)

Attorneys on the case: Vineet Bhatia, Shawn L. Raymond, Scarlett Collings, Daniel Wilson

• What the case is about: This case involves a dispute between Nicole Roberts and her brother, Scott Roberts, regarding breaches of the operating agreement for R Partnership, a family business. Nicole alleges that Scott unilaterally entered into unauthorized multi-million-dollar contracts, misclassified personal expenditures as capital contributions, and misused partnership funds, leading to financial and operational harm to the partnership.

• What the brief’s position is: The brief argues that the trial court erred in awarding Scott $5.9 million for purported capital contributions and denying Nicole's claims. It contends that Scott breached the operating agreement, acted without required member consent, and improperly benefited financially from his unauthorized actions, which violated the partnership’s governing terms.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome: The brief asserts that the operating agreement’s explicit terms prohibit Scott’s unilateral actions, making his expenditures void or voidable. It argues that the trial court misapplied the agreement by crediting Scott for unauthorized expenditures and improperly treating them as capital contributions. Correcting these errors would uphold the agreement’s terms, prevent unjust enrichment, and fairly compensate Nicole for the partnership’s losses caused by Scott’s actions.

FS Credit Opportunities v. Saba (US Supreme / Petition Stage)

Attorneys on the case: Mark Musico, Jacob W. Buchdahl, Zach Fields

• What the case is about: This case deals with whether people or companies can sue to cancel contracts that break certain rules in the Investment Company Act (ICA). It focuses on a past decision by the Second Circuit Court.

• The brief’s position: The brief argues that the court's decision was right, saying the law does allow people to sue to cancel these contracts, and there's no reason for the Supreme Court to change it.

• Why the brief argues that this is the correct outcome: The brief says the law clearly says that people should be able to cancel contracts that violate the ICA. It also points out that past legal decisions support this understanding.

Risk Point v. Santander (Court of Appeals of Texas)

Attorneys on the case: Ophelia F. Camiña, Shawn L. Raymond, Mary Katheryn Sammons, Larry Y. Liu

• What this case is about: The case involves a dispute over whether a company, Santander, had the right to request an audit after the time limit specified in a contract with Risk Theory. The contract set a deadline for audits to occur within a quarter after the end of a policy, and Santander made a request outside that period.

• What is the brief’s position: The brief argues that Santander's audit request was not made on time and that the contract clearly limits the time frame for such requests. It states that the audit should only happen within a specific period after the policy ends, not long after.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome: The brief argues that allowing Santander’s late audit request would violate the contract's clear terms, and the court should enforce the deadline. If the court rules in favor of Santander, it could lead to unfair outcomes by letting audits happen too late, which the contract did not intend.

Firm #2 Kellogg Hansen

In re Securities Technology and Pay Tel Communications (US Supreme Court / Petition Stage)

Attorneys on the case: Scott H. Angstreich,, Justin B. Berg, Jordan R.G. Gonzalez

• What this case is about:
  The case concerns a dispute over the proper court to handle appeals related to decisions made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The issue is whether petitions for review of the FCC's rules should be heard in the Fifth Circuit or another court, particularly given the timeliness of when petitions were filed.

• What is the brief’s position:
  The brief argues that the petitions challenging the FCC’s rules were filed too early, before the rules were published in the Federal Register, making them invalid. It contends that the petitions should have been filed in the Fifth Circuit, which is the proper court for these cases.

• Why the brief argues that this is the correct outcome:
  The brief claims that the law requires petitions to be filed within specific time limits to ensure fairness and clarity. By not following these rules, the petitioners caused confusion and forum-shopping, which could delay the legal process. The correct outcome is to transfer the cases to the Fifth Circuit as the law mandates.

Pomona Hospital v. Kaiser (CA Ct. Appeals)

Attorneys on the case: Daniel G. Bird,, Eric J. Maier, Kathleen W. Hickey

• What the case is about:
  This case involves a dispute between Kaiser and Pomona about how much Kaiser should pay Pomona for emergency services. The issue is whether an expert's valuation of the payments was correct, especially since the expert used certain rates that he previously said were not comparable to the services in question.

• The brief’s position:
  The brief argues that the expert’s opinion should be excluded because he used inconsistent methods, like comparing rates that were not similar. The expert also invented a "premium" calculation with no logical explanation, making his valuation unreliable and not based on sound reasoning.

• Why this is the correct outcome:
  The brief contends that excluding the expert’s opinion is the right decision because it lacked a solid foundation and logical consistency. Additionally, the trial court incorrectly applied a higher prejudgment interest rate, which should have been 7% according to California law, not 10%. Therefore, the judgment should be modified to reflect this legal error.

Durnell v. Monsanto (MO Ct. Appeals)

Attorneys on the case: David C. Frederick, Derek C. Reinbold

• What the case is about: The case concerns whether the government’s actions in a specific situation were legal. The dispute centers around whether the government violated laws or constitutional rights while making a decision. The outcome could affect the legal boundaries of government power and individuals' rights.

• What the brief’s position is: The brief argues that the government’s actions were unlawful and should be declared illegal. It contends that the law was not properly followed, and that certain rights were violated in the process. The brief advocates for a ruling that holds the government accountable for its actions.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome: The brief argues that the government’s conduct caused harm and undermined individuals' rights. It believes that enforcing the law in this case will prevent similar violations in the future. Upholding the law ensures that the government operates within its constitutional limits and protects fairness for all.

Firm #3 Bartlit Beck

Appvion v. Price Waterhouse Coopers (Ct. App. WI)

Attorneys on the case: Philip S. Beck, Christopher D. Landgraff, Cindy L. Sobel, Joshua P. Ackerman, Joseph C. Smith Jr.

• What the case is about: The case involves a claim by an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for negligent misrepresentation. The ESOP argues that PwC’s audit misrepresented information that influenced the company’s share price. The circuit court dismissed this claim, and the ESOP is appealing the decision.

• What the brief’s position is: The brief argues that the court's dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim was correct. It states that the ESOP failed to meet the legal requirements for proving fraud or negligence, as they did not provide specific details about who relied on PwC’s audit or how it impacted them. Therefore, the claim should not have proceeded.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome: The brief contends that the ESOP did not show sufficient evidence or specifics about how PwC’s audit affected anyone involved. Under the law, they are required to clearly identify the misrepresentations and who relied on them, which the ESOP failed to do. For these reasons, the brief requests that the court uphold the dismissal.

Sunoco Partners v. Trinity Industries (Ct. App. Texas)

Attorneys on the case: Christopher D. Landgraff, Tulsi Gaonkar, Ignacio Sofo, Mac Lebuhn

• What the case is about:
  This case involves a dispute between Sunoco and Trinity over a lease agreement. Trinity claims it is owed damages for railcars that were supposed to be modified, but Sunoco disagrees and argues that the charges and interest are not justified.

• What the brief’s position is:
  Sunoco argues that the trial court wrongly awarded prejudgment interest and that the damages Trinity is claiming are not appropriate. Sunoco believes that the interest and damages should not be calculated as if they were already due, because they represent future costs, not present ones.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome:
  Sunoco claims that awarding prejudgment interest would unfairly benefit Trinity, since they’ve already received rent payments and now damages for the railcar modifications. The brief argues that such a windfall goes against Texas law, which prevents one party from getting more than they are owed.

Tricarichi v. Price Waterhouse Coopers (Sup. Ct. NV)

Attorneys on the case: Mark L. Levine, Christopher D. Landgraff, Katharine A. Roin,

• What the case is about: This case involves Tricarichi rejecting two settlement offers from PwC related to a legal claim he filed. The district court decided that Tricarichi acted unreasonably by rejecting the offers, considering the weaknesses in his claim and the limitations on potential damages.

• The brief's position: The brief argues that the district court was correct in finding Tricarichi’s rejection of the 2021 settlement offer unreasonable. It explains that Tricarichi knew his claim had serious legal problems, including a statute of limitations issue, and that the settlement was fair given the situation.

• Why this is the correct outcome: The brief asserts that the district court acted properly by awarding PwC attorney’s fees because Tricarichi’s decision to reject the offers forced unnecessary legal costs. It argues that the court’s decision should stand because it was based on a thorough examination of the facts and legal standards.

Firm # 4 Keker, Van Nest

Associated General Contractors of CA v. CA Dept. of Industrial Relations (CA Ct. App)

Attorneys on the case: Steven A. Hirsch, Reaghan E. Braun

• What the Case is About: This case examines the validity of regulatory amendments made by the CAC, specifically regarding their economic impact on the construction industry. Petitioners claim that the CAC failed to thoroughly assess the impact and that their analysis was flawed.

• The Brief’s Position: The brief maintains that the CAC followed proper procedures, including considering public input and revising their analysis as necessary. It asserts that the agency’s actions were legally sound and consistent with administrative requirements.

• Why the Brief Argues This is the Correct Outcome: The brief argues that the CAC's approach was reasonable, and any adjustments made during the process were minor and did not require reopening the public comment period. It concludes that the rule changes align with legal standards and should be upheld.

Kaufman v. Adani (CA Ct. App.)

Attorneys on the case: Jan Nielsen Little, Julia L. Allen, Amos J. B. Espeland

• What the Case is About: The case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs and the QOZ Entities, which manage investments through specific agreements. The Plaintiffs argue that certain claims should be handled through arbitration based on prior agreements between the parties. They challenge the QOZ Entities' role in receiving investments and whether these agreements apply to the dispute. The central issue is whether the case should be resolved in court or through arbitration.

• The Brief’s Position: The brief argues that all of the Plaintiffs' claims against the QOZ Entities should be resolved through arbitration. It emphasizes that the claims are tied to previous agreements, which include mandatory arbitration clauses. The brief insists that these agreements cover the issues raised by the Plaintiffs, so the dispute should go through arbitration instead of court. It also contends that any confusion about arbitration applicability should not prevent it.

• Why the Brief Argues This is the Correct Outcome: The brief argues that arbitration is the proper venue because the claims are directly linked to agreements that include arbitration clauses. It explains that splitting the case between court and arbitration would lead to confusion, inconsistent rulings, and wasted resources. The brief further asserts that arbitration will provide an efficient resolution of the claims. Lastly, it suggests that the trial court's decision risks delaying justice and complicating the legal process.

Firm #5 Selendy Gay

Matterport v. Gay

Attorneys on the case: Jennifer Selendy, Joshua S. Margolin, David A. Coon, Corey Stoughton

• What the Case is About: This case involves a dispute over interpreting specific “Lockup Provisions” in an agreement following the merger of two companies. Brown claims that Matterport wrongly restricted his ability to sell shares and seeks damages based on what he alleges is the highest intermediate value of the shares during the restricted period. Matterport argues its enforcement of these restrictions was proper and challenges the damages calculation. The case also addresses how post-judgment interest rates should be applied in cases with complex judgment phases.

• The Brief's Position: Matterport argues that it properly applied the Lockup Provisions in good faith and that Brown’s damages calculations are legally flawed. It contends the trial court initially ruled on key issues in its favor during Phase 1 and that this should control subsequent damages analysis. The company opposes using the highest intermediate value methodology for damages, claiming it is not applicable here. It also supports the trial court’s decision on post-judgment interest rates, which it sees as equitable.

• Why This is the Correct Outcome: Matterport believes its actions were lawful and consistent with the court's earlier rulings, meaning the damages analysis should align with those rulings. It argues that applying Brown's damages method would lead to unfair outcomes and financial windfalls not supported by the law. On post-judgment interest, it states that using an older, lower rate would allow for manipulation and fail to reflect rising interest rates. The brief emphasizes that Matterport acted in good faith, which should weigh heavily in its favor.

Building and Realty Institute of Westchester v. New York (US Supreme / Petition Stage)

Attorneys on the case: Corey Stoughton, Counsel of Record, Faith E. Gay, Sean P. Baldwin, Babak Ghafarzade

• What this case is about: The petitioners are challenging a law known as the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), which affects rent-controlled housing in New York. They argue that the law harms their ability to make a profit from their properties, claiming it violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The law limits rent increases and makes it harder to remove tenants. The petitioners are asking the Court to overturn the law.

• What is the brief’s position: The brief defends the HSTPA, arguing that it serves a legitimate purpose of providing affordable housing and maintaining neighborhood stability. It explains that the petitioners failed to provide clear evidence that the law harmed them in a way that violates constitutional protections. The brief also says that the petitioners' claims are based on speculation, not concrete facts. It stresses that the law has valid, public interests that are not unconstitutional.

• Why the brief argues that this is the correct outcome: The brief argues that the petitioners did not show they were directly affected by the law, so their case should be dismissed. It highlights that the petitioners did not use all available options to challenge the law, making their claims premature. It also points out that the HSTPA was enacted for the public good, and courts should not second-guess legislative decisions. Therefore, the brief says the Court should deny the petition and leave the law in place.

Ocean Trails CLO v. MLN Topco Ltd. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York)

Attorneys on the case: Jennifer Selendy, Andrew Dunlap, David A. Coon, Stephen Federowicz

• What this case is about: The case revolves around a dispute between Defendants and Mitel over the assignment and refinancing of loans. The Defendants are accused of breaching contractual terms by exchanging loans for new debt, which the Plaintiffs argue is not allowed under the agreement. This is important because it involves how loan transactions should be conducted according to the contract. The case examines whether Mitel's actions violated specific provisions in the loan agreement.

• What is the brief's position: The brief argues that the Defendants broke the contract by treating the loan exchange as a “purchase,” which is not allowed under the agreement. It asserts that the transaction was an "exchange" of debt, not a cash purchase, and thus violates the terms of the loan agreement. The brief challenges the idea that such exchanges are permitted as purchases under the contract. It further argues that the Defendants also breached rules around refinancing and the ranking of new debt.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome:
  The brief believes the court should recognize that the term “purchase” means a transaction involving cash or its equivalent, not an exchange of loans. It argues that the Defendants’ actions go against the plain meaning of the contract and create an unfair advantage for Mitel. The brief also insists that the actions hurt the Plaintiffs’ interests by violating agreed-upon terms about the ranking of debt. Therefore, the brief asks the court to correct these breaches and reinstate certain claims.

Firm #6 Hecker Fink

Brown v. Johnson (Ct. App. LA)

Attorneys on the case: Thomas B. Wahlder, Stephen J. Hecker, Laurie Ann Simms

• What the Case is About:
  This case involves a car accident where Martha Brown, driving a bus, collided with Arkita Johnson, who was driving a car. The issue is whether Martha Brown or Arkita Johnson is at fault for the accident. Witnesses testified that Martha Brown had a green light when entering the intersection. Arkita Johnson was allegedly distracted by her cellphone and failed to stop for a red light.

• What the Brief’s Position Is:
  The brief argues that Arkita Johnson was solely responsible for the accident. It claims that Martha Brown did not cause the crash and was not negligent. The brief highlights that Martha Brown was following traffic rules, and the collision happened too quickly for her to react. The evidence shows that Arkita Johnson’s actions, like using her phone, were the main cause of the crash.

• Why the Brief Argues This is the Correct Outcome:
  The brief argues that the jury correctly found Arkita Johnson at fault based on the evidence and witness testimony. It states that the trial was fair and the jury had reasonable grounds to believe Martha Brown was not at fault. Any mistakes in jury instructions or expert testimony should not change the outcome. The brief insists that there is no reason to overturn the jury’s decision, as it was based on solid facts.

Carroll v. Trump (Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Attorneys on the case: Joshua Matz, Kate Harris, ; Roberta A. Kaplan, Matthew Craig

• What this case is about:
  This case involves a defamation lawsuit where E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and defamation. Carroll claims Trump lied about the assault and ruined her reputation. The trial included testimony from Carroll and other witnesses who supported her claims. Trump disagrees with the court's decisions and argues that key evidence should not have been allowed.

• What is the brief’s position:
  The brief argues that Trump's objections to the trial and evidence are not valid. It explains that the court correctly allowed testimony from other women who claimed similar behavior by Trump. It also defends the jury instructions, which limited how the jury could use the "other acts" evidence. Trump's claim that this evidence unfairly influenced the trial is dismissed as exaggerated.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome:
  The brief argues the trial was fair and that the evidence strongly supported Carroll’s case. It highlights that Carroll's testimony, along with other reliable witnesses, was the core of the case. The inclusion of “other acts” evidence was secondary and did not change the outcome. Ultimately, the brief says the court’s decisions were right and should be upheld because Carroll’s case was compelling and credible.

NRA v. Vullo (US Supreme / Merits Case)

Attorneys on the case: Trevor W. Morrison

• What this case is about: The case centers around the National Rifle Association (NRA) challenging the actions of Maria Vullo, a former official at the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). The NRA argues that Vullo's statements and actions pressured private companies and violated its free speech rights. The case explores whether Vullo’s statements were coercive or just regular government speech. It addresses whether government officials can be sued for expressing opinions that may indirectly affect certain businesses.

• What is the brief’s position: The brief defends Maria Vullo’s actions, asserting that she was exercising her legitimate authority as a government official, not coercing anyone. It argues that referencing "reputational risk" in the letters sent to businesses is a legitimate regulatory concern, not a threat. The brief claims that the NRA's interpretation of the situation is overly broad and ignores the context of Vullo’s actions. It maintains that Vullo was within her rights to highlight risks and hold the NRA accountable for violations.

• Why the brief argues this is the correct outcome: The brief argues that adopting the NRA’s interpretation would harm government officials’ ability to speak freely and do their jobs effectively. It warns that allowing this kind of lawsuit could deter officials from engaging in important regulatory actions for fear of being accused of retaliation. The brief emphasizes that government officials need to be able to discuss risks and legal compliance without facing constant lawsuits. It concludes that protecting this ability is essential for the proper functioning of government and law enforcement.

A few takeaways:

• Susman Godfrey’s size and geographic diversity help explain the larger share of litigation.

• Several of these firms focus on matters related to antitrust law.

• The majority of these firms have only one office.

• All of the firms are based in major cities.

• Starting salaries are comparable to those at big law firms.

If you enjoyed reading this post you may think about becoming a paid subscriber to have access to all posts on Legalytics. Also please consider sharing this with others and feel free to post any questions or comments.