Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
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 User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:02 pm

Does anyone have any more specific thoughts on Baker or Schiff?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:07 pm

PiersonVee wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Where does Kirkland rank in all of this? The partnership prospects aren't as good at K&E as they are at Sidley, at least based on the partner:associate numbers, and K&E has the sweatshop reputation for a reason...


You're not going to make partner at either firm. You should be more worried about getting no-offered or laid off, and Kirkland is overall far more healthy than Sidley.

+1


I'm the poster who asked b/w Sidley, Skadden, and Jenner...

Kirkland is not an option for me, although much "healthier" NYC firms are (several V10 offers). I want to stay in Chicago, but I'm not completely opposed to spending a few years in NYC. Since you seem to think that Sidley is not in such a great shape financially, would you suggest sucking it up and staying in NYC? Or do you think the worst is over and it's better to start your career in the city where you want your career to be?

Also, why does Vault rank Skadden as the #2 firm in Chicago if it doesn't have such a big presence there?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby rayiner » Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
PiersonVee wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Where does Kirkland rank in all of this? The partnership prospects aren't as good at K&E as they are at Sidley, at least based on the partner:associate numbers, and K&E has the sweatshop reputation for a reason...


You're not going to make partner at either firm. You should be more worried about getting no-offered or laid off, and Kirkland is overall far more healthy than Sidley.

+1


I'm the poster who asked b/w Sidley, Skadden, and Jenner...

Kirkland is not an option for me, although much "healthier" NYC firms are (several V10 offers). I want to stay in Chicago, but I'm not completely opposed to spending a few years in NYC. Since you seem to think that Sidley is not in such a great shape financially, would you suggest sucking it up and staying in NYC? Or do you think the worst is over and it's better to start your career in the city where you want your career to be?

Also, why does Vault rank Skadden as the #2 firm in Chicago if it doesn't have such a big presence there?


Re: Skadden, it's because the Vault rankings are fucktarded.

As for where to go... it's a matter of how risk averse you are. Double-dip is a real possibility now, and last time it happened, Sidley no-offered a quarter of their SAs.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:01 pm

Kirkland is not an option for me, although much "healthier" NYC firms are (several V10 offers)


Uhhh... unless you're referring to WLRK, none of the V10 is really healthier.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:22 pm

Yeah I agree about Vault, stupid question by me.

What does "double-dip" mean? Like, overhiring?

And to the poster above, I'm pretty certain the NYC market has recovered better than Chicago, and none of the firms that I'm choosing between in NYC have laid off OR deferred associates, even in 2009. I guess I meant to say, healthier than Sidley. (I don't really see the pt in comparing my offers w/ Kirkland as I don't have an offer there.)

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby rayiner » Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Kirkland is not an option for me, although much "healthier" NYC firms are (several V10 offers)


Uhhh... unless you're referring to WLRK, none of the V10 is really healthier.


He's almost certainly referring to firms being healthier than Sidley, not Kirkland. AFAIKT, Kirkland and a small group of firms in the V25 (Paul Weiss, Debevoise, Gibson Dunn) are as healthy as any V10 firm that isn't Wachtell.

Mal
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Mal » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Yeah I agree about Vault, stupid question by me.

What does "double-dip" mean? Like, overhiring?

And to the poster above, I'm pretty certain the NYC market has recovered better than Chicago, and none of the firms that I'm choosing between in NYC have laid off OR deferred associates, even in 2009. I guess I meant to say, healthier than Sidley. (I don't really see the pt in comparing my offers w/ Kirkland as I don't have an offer there.)


Double dip means the economy will falter again.

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby chadwick218 » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Winston with McDermott a distant second. I wouldn't even consider Schiff or Katten.


May I ask why? Katten, like Winston, pays market, and based on other comments on this thread seems to have a good reputation for work/life balance. Why would you discount it?


Because when you are laid off or forced to leave because you can't stand the ppl or the hours, Winston will give much better exit options. The majority of new hires do not make it to midlevel associate.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:47 pm

iPhone fail.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:52 pm

rayiner wrote:Re: Skadden, it's because the Vault rankings are fucktarded.

As for where to go... it's a matter of how risk averse you are. Double-dip is a real possibility now, and last time it happened, Sidley no-offered a quarter of their SAs.


You would have to be SUPER risk adverse. SA classes are so small right now it is hard to imagine that they are going to no-offer many even if there is a double-dip and the SAs are terrible.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:04 pm

When was your cb with Schiff and when did you hear back on the offer? I had a cb there 2 weeks ago, but have not heard back yet.
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Winston, McDermott, Schiff Hardin, Baker McKenzie, Katten Muchin. Which one and why? Which would you rule out?


OP, do you have offers from all those firms? Because that looks exactly like my callback season to a tee and the fact that I've heard zip from all of them frightens me - especially if you have offers on the table.


i have offers from 3 of them at this point.


Would you mind sharing which ones? I'm guessing that you've got Katten, Winston and Schiff - it seems like they've mobilized their offer mills.


correct[/quote]

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
rayiner wrote:Re: Skadden, it's because the Vault rankings are fucktarded.

As for where to go... it's a matter of how risk averse you are. Double-dip is a real possibility now, and last time it happened, Sidley no-offered a quarter of their SAs.


You would have to be SUPER risk adverse. SA classes are so small right now it is hard to imagine that they are going to no-offer many even if there is a double-dip and the SAs are terrible.


I guess it's not as much the fear of being no-offered as it is being at a firm where people are constantly afraid of stealth layoffs. Even if no one ends up being laid off, that sounds like kind of a sh*t environment to work in.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:24 pm

What is the word on the street with Winston & Strawn - I know they don't do lockstep anymore for salaries, but how are they doing financially?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:25 am

chadwick218 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Winston with McDermott a distant second. I wouldn't even consider Schiff or Katten.


May I ask why? Katten, like Winston, pays market, and based on other comments on this thread seems to have a good reputation for work/life balance. Why would you discount it?


Because when you are laid off or forced to leave because you can't stand the ppl or the hours, Winston will give much better exit options. The majority of new hires do not make it to midlevel associate.


I agree, I turned down a Katten offer for Winston.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:35 am

Anonymous User wrote:
chadwick218 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Winston with McDermott a distant second. I wouldn't even consider Schiff or Katten.


May I ask why? Katten, like Winston, pays market, and based on other comments on this thread seems to have a good reputation for work/life balance. Why would you discount it?


Because when you are laid off or forced to leave because you can't stand the ppl or the hours, Winston will give much better exit options. The majority of new hires do not make it to midlevel associate.


I agree, I turned down a Katten offer for Winston.


Why do you guys think Schiff is so bad?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:48 am

Because when you are laid off or forced to leave because you can't stand the ppl or the hours, Winston will give much better exit options. The majority of new hires do not make it to midlevel associate.[/quote]

I agree, I turned down a Katten offer for Winston.[/quote]

Why do you guys think Schiff is so bad?[/quote]

I don't think Schiff is so bad, I hear their in great shape.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:55 am

Anonymous User wrote:Because when you are laid off or forced to leave because you can't stand the ppl or the hours, Winston will give much better exit options. The majority of new hires do not make it to midlevel associate.


I agree, I turned down a Katten offer for Winston.[/quote]

Why do you guys think Schiff is so bad?[/quote]

I don't think Schiff is so bad, I hear their in great shape.[/quote]

It just seems like no one has them at the top of their list and everyone ranks other firms higher - e.g. comments above.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:17 am

Given that Schiff and McDermott pay below market, does anyone have the sense that it might actually translate to a slightly less stressful work load?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:23 am

Anonymous User wrote:Given that Schiff and McDermott pay below market, does anyone have the sense that it might actually translate to a slightly less stressful work load?


Maybe, but I would ask why there is less work. Is it their culture or is it because they just have less work to do because they have less business? Or maybe you have just as much work as big law, these firms get lower fees because their reputations are not as good and so they can't justify higher salaries, but your workload is the same as big law.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:34 am

rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Kirkland is not an option for me, although much "healthier" NYC firms are (several V10 offers)


Uhhh... unless you're referring to WLRK, none of the V10 is really healthier.


He's almost certainly referring to firms being healthier than Sidley, not Kirkland. AFAIKT, Kirkland and a small group of firms in the V25 (Paul Weiss, Debevoise, Gibson Dunn) are as healthy as any V10 firm that isn't Wachtell.


K&E had a lot of no-offers for '09 SA's (pretty sure the NALP number is misleading and there were cold-offers too because I was told by this person that only 25% of that class got real offers). This person picked K&E over other SA offers because she/he thought they were "safe" and got burned.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:37 am

Anonymous User wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Kirkland is not an option for me, although much "healthier" NYC firms are (several V10 offers)


Uhhh... unless you're referring to WLRK, none of the V10 is really healthier.


He's almost certainly referring to firms being healthier than Sidley, not Kirkland. AFAIKT, Kirkland and a small group of firms in the V25 (Paul Weiss, Debevoise, Gibson Dunn) are as healthy as any V10 firm that isn't Wachtell.


K&E had a lot of no-offers for '09 SA's (pretty sure the NALP number is misleading and there were cold-offers too because I was told by this person that only 25% of that class got real offers). This person picked K&E over other SA offers because she/he thought they were "safe" and got burned.


http://abovethelaw.com/2009/09/nationwi ... rick/#more

User avatar
chadwick218
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby chadwick218 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:37 am

With all this rampant speculation that firms are in great shape merely b/c the interviewers and recruiting staff are puffing such fiction, people should be reminded that many analysts believed that Bear Stearns, Lehman, and Wachovia, were all in "great financial shape" in the days leading up to their ultimate demise.

Person
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:36 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Person » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:48 am

chadwick218 wrote:With all this rampant speculation that firms are in great shape merely b/c the interviewers and recruiting staff are puffing such fiction, people should be reminded that many analysts believed that Bear Stearns, Lehman, and Wachovia, were all in "great financial shape" in the days leading up to their ultimate demise.



That's a good point. Think about WaMu too. People thought they were dine because they looked great--it was just a small group of people in San Fran or LA or something that brought them down. Whose to say there is not some sort of law firm equivalent.


On the other hand, what choice do we have other than to take guesses about such things than to try to be as informed as possible even knowing that the information is far from complete.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:53 am

K&E had a lot of no-offers for '09 SA's (pretty sure the NALP number is misleading and there were cold-offers too because I was told by this person that only 25% of that class got real offers). This person picked K&E over other SA offers because she/he thought they were "safe" and got burned.


The Chicago offer rate in 2009 was 90% (100% this summer). Even if there were cold offers, there's no way there were that many.

Also, if the 25% number was true, that would mean that more than half of this year's starting associates accepted a cold offer. Not exactly a plausible result.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Which Chicago firm would you choose and why?

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:47 am

Anyone with new Chicago offers?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.