Thoughts on Kramer Levin

(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: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:16 pm

Seems like a place whose Vault ranking doesn't quite align with Chambers. It's Band 3 Elite for lit in NY, the rest of which is V50 and higher firms including Latham, Quinn, Gibson. It's also highly ranked in a bunch of other big practice areas. What's the reason the firm doesn't quite have the prestige factor? Mainly a function of being relatively new and having just one office?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:44 am

Anonymous User wrote:Seems like a place whose Vault ranking doesn't quite align with Chambers. It's Band 3 Elite for lit in NY, the rest of which is V50 and higher firms including Latham, Quinn, Gibson. It's also highly ranked in a bunch of other big practice areas. What's the reason the firm doesn't quite have the prestige factor? Mainly a function of being relatively new and having just one office?


Also curious...

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Renzo » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:20 pm

In the law firm my-penis-is-bigger contest, Kramer Levin a relatively up-and-coming, "mid-tier" NY firm. However, several of the best commercial litigators alive are partners in the firm. If you're interested in commercial litigation, it's easily one of best offices in the country you could hope to work in.

Kramer Levin is a perfect example of why the Vault rankings just aren't very important.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:32 pm

Renzo wrote:In the law firm my-penis-is-bigger contest, Kramer Levin a relatively up-and-coming, "mid-tier" NY firm. However, several of the best commercial litigators alive are partners in the firm. If you're interested in commercial litigation, it's easily one of best offices in the country you could hope to work in.

Kramer Levin is a perfect example of why the Vault rankings just aren't very important.


OP here, fortunate enough to have an offer. Leaning towards litigation, thinking about turning down V20/30 firms for Kramer, wondering if this is misguided. I loved the feel of the place and the people I met. Commercial lit and the white collar group seem absolutely stellar. Life/work balance seems to be above average for NYC. My only concern is exit options -- would I be limited? I think the firm is well known and well regarded in NYC, but it doesn't quite have that name brand/widespread prestige to back it up.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Renzo wrote:In the law firm my-penis-is-bigger contest, Kramer Levin a relatively up-and-coming, "mid-tier" NY firm. However, several of the best commercial litigators alive are partners in the firm. If you're interested in commercial litigation, it's easily one of best offices in the country you could hope to work in.

Kramer Levin is a perfect example of why the Vault rankings just aren't very important.


OP here, fortunate enough to have an offer. Leaning towards litigation, thinking about turning down V20/30 firms for Kramer, wondering if this is misguided. I loved the feel of the place and the people I met. Commercial lit and the white collar group seem absolutely stellar. Life/work balance seems to be above average for NYC. My only concern is exit options -- would I be limited? I think the firm is well known and well regarded in NYC, but it doesn't quite have that name brand/widespread prestige to back it up.


Exit options in litigation tend to be terrible in general. As to whether you should turn down V20/V30 firms, it depends on the firms.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Renzo » Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:16 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Exit options in litigation tend to be terrible in general. As to whether you should turn down V20/V30 firms, it depends on the firms.


This is stupid. Your exit options are only "terrible" in litigation if you are trying to exit the legal practice entirely (which corporate work may allow you to do). Your "exit options" in litigation are to "exit" your biglaw gig for some other job as a litigator.

OP: you are right that Kramer Levin doesn't quite have the brand recognition that other firms do, but that won't really matter if you are really looking to litigate. Other litigators will know who they are, and the kind of work they do. No one (who matters) is going to be more impressed that you worked as a litigator at a firm known internationally for its M&A practice, then if you worked as a litigator for a shop known for having some of the best litigators alive.

Don't pay any attention to the Vault rankings. If you know there's a practice area you are interested in, try to go to the best firm in that practice area. If the other firms you are considering are WilmerHale and Quinn (as examples of other lit firms), then you have tough decisions to make. But don't pick a "brand name" corporate firm because of the name.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:25 pm

This is stupid. Your exit options are only "terrible" in litigation if you are trying to exit the legal practice entirely (which corporate work may allow you to do). Your "exit options" in litigation are to "exit" your biglaw gig for some other job as a litigator.


Yeah... not really contradicting what I said earlier. That's like saying Weil is the best firm if you look only at their bankruptcy practice. Anyway, you seem mad. Calm down a little.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Renzo » Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:33 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
This is stupid. Your exit options are only "terrible" in litigation if you are trying to exit the legal practice entirely (which corporate work may allow you to do). Your "exit options" in litigation are to "exit" your biglaw gig for some other job as a litigator.


Yeah... not really contradicting what I said earlier. That's like saying Weil is the best firm if you look only at their bankruptcy practice. Anyway, you seem mad. Calm down a little.


I'm not mad, at least not at you, and I'm sorry if it comes across that way.

My frustration is that people in general, and especially on this board, tend to talk about some abstract concept of "exit options" in a really confused and confusing way. It should always be followed by "if you want to exit into _____, then this firm is (better/worse/same/etc.)."

So if you want to exit into non-legal work, or into a corporate GC's office, then being a litigator is a bad move, no matter where you do it. But if you want to exit into partnership at a smaller litigation firm, or to the USAO, or to a State AGs office, then being a litigator at Kramer Levin would give you fantastic "exit options."

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:44 pm

But if you want to exit into partnership at a smaller litigation firm, or to the USAO, or to a State AGs office, then being a litigator at Kramer Levin would give you fantastic "exit options."


May I ask how you know this?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:15 pm

Renzo wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Exit options in litigation tend to be terrible in general. As to whether you should turn down V20/V30 firms, it depends on the firms.


This is stupid. Your exit options are only "terrible" in litigation if you are trying to exit the legal practice entirely (which corporate work may allow you to do). Your "exit options" in litigation are to "exit" your biglaw gig for some other job as a litigator.

OP: you are right that Kramer Levin doesn't quite have the brand recognition that other firms do, but that won't really matter if you are really looking to litigate. Other litigators will know who they are, and the kind of work they do. No one (who matters) is going to be more impressed that you worked as a litigator at a firm known internationally for its M&A practice, then if you worked as a litigator for a shop known for having some of the best litigators alive.

Don't pay any attention to the Vault rankings. If you know there's a practice area you are interested in, try to go to the best firm in that practice area. If the other firms you are considering are WilmerHale and Quinn (as examples of other lit firms), then you have tough decisions to make. But don't pick a "brand name" corporate firm because of the name.


OP here. This is helpful, I think. The firms I'm considering taking over Kramer are V20s/30s that have a great national reputation and are very solid across the board--but they simply don't have Kramer's lofty litigation Chambers rankings. If I'm sure I want to do litigation, it seems hard to argue against Chambers.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Renzo » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:58 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
But if you want to exit into partnership at a smaller litigation firm, or to the USAO, or to a State AGs office, then being a litigator at Kramer Levin would give you fantastic "exit options."


May I ask how you know this?


How I know that working for and training under some of the best litigators around will help you later in your career as a litigator?

1) common sense
2) experience working for, and networking with, well-renowned litigators, both in public service and biglaw
3) experience working for, and networking with, less renowned litigators in midlaw

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:14 am

known as a mid-tier firm. but has been rising these past few years for sure. used to be known as a lifestyle firm (kramer levin out by seven) but speaking to corporate associates there recently this does not seem to be true anymore. doesn't really have much presence/recognition outside nyc. they fared the recession rather well, much better i would say than other v100 firms. probably because they are a general services firm so are pretty well diversified.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:32 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
Exit options in litigation tend to be terrible in general. As to whether you should turn down V20/V30 firms, it depends on the firms.


Where are you getting this? This theme has been popping up on TLS the last few weeks and no one has substantiated it.

Seeing as you have argued that the opposite is false and demanded substantiation, I think you should do the same.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:41 am

vamedic03 wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
Exit options in litigation tend to be terrible in general. As to whether you should turn down V20/V30 firms, it depends on the firms.


Where are you getting this? This theme has been popping up on TLS the last few weeks and no one has substantiated it.

Seeing as you have argued that the opposite is false and demanded substantiation, I think you should do the same.


Since renzo thought "common sense" was good enough "substantiation," I'll just go ahead and use the same excuse. When he decides to use some respect, maybe then I'll offer some more.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:45 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
Exit options in litigation tend to be terrible in general. As to whether you should turn down V20/V30 firms, it depends on the firms.


Where are you getting this? This theme has been popping up on TLS the last few weeks and no one has substantiated it.

Seeing as you have argued that the opposite is false and demanded substantiation, I think you should do the same.


Since renzo thought "common sense" was good enough "substantiation," I'll just go ahead and use the same excuse. When he decides to use some respect, maybe then I'll offer some more.


Right. That's fine for the argument with Renzo.

I'm really curious as to how you're reaching the conclusion that exit options are worse. As far as I can tell, transactional attorneys are far more likely to move in house. But, the flipside of the coin is that litigators are far more likely to go to the government or go to a boutique or smaller firm. I'm honestly curious as to how one set of exit options is worse than the other.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:02 pm

I'm really curious as to how you're reaching the conclusion that exit options are worse. As far as I can tell, transactional attorneys are far more likely to move in house. But, the flipside of the coin is that litigators are far more likely to go to the government or go to a boutique or smaller firm. I'm honestly curious as to how one set of exit options is worse than the other.


I'm looking more at quantity and quality. Corporate associates typically simply just have more options, even just by being run-of-the-mill corporate associates. Like you said, there's in-house positions that are available. But also, there are more lateral positions for corporate associates than there are for litigation associates (don't ask me why, it's just something my research has turned up over the past few months). Also, if the associate has strong foreign language skills, they can take their practice internationally. I think corporate associates just have more options.

The problem with litigation associates is that it depends less on what firm you work for (though that still matters), and less that "you worked with"Mr. Naftalis," and more on what you do as a litigation associate. Did you argue dispositive motions? Did you handle key witnesses? Key depositions? What's your case list like? The problem I see in this thread and in many others is that people think "working under" Davis Boies, John Quinn, or Naftalis, or Ted Wells or whatever is the equivalent to having them as your mentor or personal tutor. It isn't. What it really comes down to is how the firm staffs cases and distributes responsibility, whether the cases they handle are "good" cases," whether the types of cases they handle are conducive to providing a junior associate with a broad experience of litigation. If, at the end of your two-year stint at S&C, your only experience is doing document review in shareholder derivative suits arising from an M&A, you're less marketable than the Gibson Dunn associate who stayed with a products liability case through completion, doing depositions, arguing some motions (probably not dispositive ones, though), and directing/cross-examining certain witnesses. Now I'm not saying that an associate at S&C will necessarily do only shareholder derivative suits or that the Gibson Dunn associate will necessarily do products liability cases (or that those cases necessarily go to trial, though the odds are higher that they will). I'm just giving an example.

Given that caveat, the sheer quantity of exit options is lower. In-house options are not nearly as plentiful (though, make no mistake, they are there). You really can't do litigation in other countries without being licensed to practice there. Yes, I know about international arbitration, but I'm unsure what it's like to transition from being a commercial litigator to an international arbitrator, or whether that transition is plausible as a junior-to-midlevel associate. Boutiques are great, but there aren't really that many great litigation boutiques. Yes, you can strike your luck at less prestigious firms or "smaller" firms, but you're usually taking a pay hit, a stability hit, or a responsibility hit (higher proportion of menial tasks for a Baker & McKenzie litigator than for an S&C litigator), or all three. And what's worse is that you don't always get the trade-off of better hours. Government is great, but given the economy and how competitive it is to get government positions, it's just tougher to get those kinds of jobs these days.

It's something I've been thinking about a lot. I love litigation, but from what I've seen in practice, my comrades in corporate just have many more options, and those options tend to be lucrative. I still have time to switch over, but then again corporate has its own issues that make it difficult for me to switch. But yes, I've been thinking about this a lot and it ain't easy. But what I am saying isn't controversial at all. Talk to any associate at a big firm, and they'll agree.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:04 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
Exit options in litigation tend to be terrible in general. As to whether you should turn down V20/V30 firms, it depends on the firms.


Where are you getting this? This theme has been popping up on TLS the last few weeks and no one has substantiated it.

Seeing as you have argued that the opposite is false and demanded substantiation, I think you should do the same.


Since renzo thought "common sense" was good enough "substantiation," I'll just go ahead and use the same excuse. When he decides to use some respect, maybe then I'll offer some more.


Right. That's fine for the argument with Renzo.

I'm really curious as to how you're reaching the conclusion that exit options are worse. As far as I can tell, transactional attorneys are far more likely to move in house. But, the flipside of the coin is that litigators are far more likely to go to the government or go to a boutique or smaller firm. I'm honestly curious as to how one set of exit options is worse than the other.


I think it's fair to say that a lawyer's much more likely to go AUSA/AG route as a litigator and in-house as a transactional lawyer. I don't think one path can be deemed "better" or "worse"; it's a matter of preference. I'm curious as to why litigators are more likely to go to boutique firms.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I think it's fair to say that a lawyer's much more likely to go AUSA/AG route as a litigator and in-house as a transactional lawyer. I don't think one path can be deemed "better" or "worse"; it's a matter of preference. I'm curious as to why litigators are more likely to go to boutique firms.


The problem is that there are many more in-house positions than there are AUSA/AG positions. And no one is going to care that you worked alongside Naftalis when you apply for those jobs.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:11 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
I'm really curious as to how you're reaching the conclusion that exit options are worse. As far as I can tell, transactional attorneys are far more likely to move in house. But, the flipside of the coin is that litigators are far more likely to go to the government or go to a boutique or smaller firm. I'm honestly curious as to how one set of exit options is worse than the other.


I'm looking more at quantity and quality. Corporate associates typically simply just have more options, even just by being run-of-the-mill corporate associates. Like you said, there's in-house positions that are available. But also, there are more lateral positions for corporate associates than there are for litigation associates (don't ask me why, it's just something my research has turned up over the past few months). Also, if the associate has strong foreign language skills, they can take their practice internationally. I think corporate associates just have more options.

The problem with litigation associates is that it depends less on what firm you work for (though that still matters), and less that "you worked with"Mr. Naftalis," and more on what you do as a litigation associate. Did you argue dispositive motions? Did you handle key witnesses? Key depositions? What's your case list like? The problem I see in this thread and in many others is that people think "working under" Davis Boies, John Quinn, or Naftalis, or Ted Wells or whatever is the equivalent to having them as your mentor or personal tutor. It isn't. What it really comes down to is how the firm staffs cases and distributes responsibility, whether the cases they handle are "good" cases," whether the types of cases they handle are conducive to providing a junior associate with a broad experience of litigation. If, at the end of your two-year stint at S&C, your only experience is doing document review in shareholder derivative suits arising from an M&A, you're less marketable than the Gibson Dunn associate who stayed with a products liability case through completion, doing depositions, arguing some motions (probably not dispositive ones, though), and directing/cross-examining certain witnesses. Now I'm not saying that an associate at S&C will necessarily do only shareholder derivative suits or that the Gibson Dunn associate will necessarily do products liability cases (or that those cases necessarily go to trial, though the odds are higher that they will). I'm just giving an example.

Given that caveat, the sheer quantity of exit options is lower. In-house options are not nearly as plentiful (though, make no mistake, they are there). You really can't do litigation in other countries without being licensed to practice there. Yes, I know about international arbitration, but I'm unsure what it's like to transition from being a commercial litigator to an international arbitrator, or whether that transition is plausible as a junior-to-midlevel associate. Boutiques are great, but there aren't really that many great litigation boutiques. Yes, you can strike your luck at less prestigious firms or "smaller" firms, but you're usually taking a pay hit, a stability hit, or a responsibility hit (higher proportion of menial tasks for a Baker & McKenzie litigator than for an S&C litigator), or all three. And what's worse is that you don't always get the trade-off of better hours. Government is great, but given the economy and how competitive it is to get government positions, it's just tougher to get those kinds of jobs these days.

It's something I've been thinking about a lot. I love litigation, but from what I've seen in practice, my comrades in corporate just have many more options, and those options tend to be lucrative. I still have time to switch over, but then again corporate has its own issues that make it difficult for me to switch. But yes, I've been thinking about this a lot and it ain't easy. But what I am saying isn't controversial at all. Talk to any associate at a big firm, and they'll agree.


I think you make some fair points. But, I think that this might be a bit too much planning.

First, if you like litigation, then it's quite likely that you won't like corporate work. They are very, very different beasts and, for the sake of both your career and sanity, you should focus on doing the one you actually like.

Second, I think it will be difficult to game what will be in demand 5 years from now. Litigation may certainly pick up or it might not. Perhaps other areas will pick up. Maybe the government will start hiring up trial lawyers again. It's very difficult to determine what is actually going to happen.

Third, I think people will be happier if they focus on what they are doing now rather than what they'll be doing in 5 or 10 years. I'm not arguing for being short-sighted, but rather on focusing on one's current career and overall goals. I think it's perfectly fine for someone to say - I want to do litigation at a large NY firm for 5 years and then figure out where to go. That person will be open to the random opportunity that arises. I think it's too difficult to say - I want to work at X for 3 years, then go to Y for 2 years, and then end up in Z.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:20 pm

Third, I think people will be happier if they focus on what they are doing now rather than what they'll be doing in 5 or 10 years. I'm not arguing for being short-sighted, but rather on focusing on one's current career and overall goals. I think it's perfectly fine for someone to say - I want to do litigation at a large NY firm for 5 years and then figure out where to go. That person will be open to the random opportunity that arises. I think it's too difficult to say - I want to work at X for 3 years, then go to Y for 2 years, and then end up in Z.


Well look. My initial post in this thread wasn't about corporate vs. litigation in terms of exit-options. It was just that exit-options for litigators aren't great and that shouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor in which firm you should choose to start your litigation career at.


Second, I think it will be difficult to game what will be in demand 5 years from now. Litigation may certainly pick up or it might not. Perhaps other areas will pick up. Maybe the government will start hiring up trial lawyers again. It's very difficult to determine what is actually going to happen.


I'm really not sure about this. The demand for junior and mid-level litigation associates is shaped not just by the amount of work, but also by technology. A lot of firms are now outsourcing their lower level work, and this is definitely harming the demand for litigators.

Anyway, the gist of my post above was that there are other factors at play. I'm sorry to question Renzo's 3L wisdom, but I'm here on the ground I see what's going on. Choosing a firm to start your litigation career at isn't always about whether it's Band 1 instead of Band 2 on chambers or whether you've got a Band 1 litigator on your team. It comes down to a lot more than that, and it saddens me that in espousing the virtues of Kramer Levin, no one has even touched those other issues. Instead, my comments have been called "stupid," and I've been condescended to.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:22 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:

The problem with litigation associates is that it depends less on what firm you work for (though that still matters), and less that "you worked with"Mr. Naftalis," and more on what you do as a litigation associate. Did you argue dispositive motions? Did you handle key witnesses? Key depositions? What's your case list like? The problem I see in this thread and in many others is that people think "working under" Davis Boies, John Quinn, or Naftalis, or Ted Wells or whatever is the equivalent to having them as your mentor or personal tutor. It isn't. What it really comes down to is how the firm staffs cases and distributes responsibility, whether the cases they handle are "good" cases," whether the types of cases they handle are conducive to providing a junior associate with a broad experience of litigation. If, at the end of your two-year stint at S&C, your only experience is doing document review in shareholder derivative suits arising from an M&A, you're less marketable than the Gibson Dunn associate who stayed with a products liability case through completion, doing depositions, arguing some motions (probably not dispositive ones, though), and directing/cross-examining certain witnesses. Now I'm not saying that an associate at S&C will necessarily do only shareholder derivative suits or that the Gibson Dunn associate will necessarily do products liability cases (or that those cases necessarily go to trial, though the odds are higher that they will). I'm just giving an example.


OP here. This seems to be an argument for going to Kramer (or another firm like it) over a bigger and more regimented firm. Kramer litigators seem to get involved in substantive work from a fairly early stage. I think this is a function of the firm being decidedly non-hierarchical relative to a place like Skadden. When the chain of command is not ironclad, partner-junior associate interactions are more frequent and meaningful. I think Kramer also prides itself on flexibility--its litigators are supposed to be generalists. From what you say, these factors might make up for what the firm lacks in name brand appeal when it comes to exit options.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:25 pm

Kramer litigators seem to get involved in substantive work from a fairly early stage. I think this is a function of the firm being decidedly non-hierarchical relative to a place like Skadden. When the chain of command is not ironclad, partner-junior associate interactions are more frequent and meaningful. I think Kramer also prides itself on flexibility--its litigators are supposed to be generalists. From what you say, these factors might make up for what the firm lacks in name brand appeal when it comes to exit options.


That's precisely the kind of stuff I want to read. And yes, if that's true, then it's an argument in favor of Kramer Levin. The only foreseeable problem is that, back when I was interviewing, I heard this spiel from every firm I interviewed at, including Skadden. What you have to do is try your best to figure out if this is the way things work in practice at that firm. Now that you have an offer in hand, try talking to some associates about the kind of work they're doing right now. Maybe talk to associates at other firms who've worked across the table from Kramer associates. Maybe post here.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273568
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:34 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
Kramer litigators seem to get involved in substantive work from a fairly early stage. I think this is a function of the firm being decidedly non-hierarchical relative to a place like Skadden. When the chain of command is not ironclad, partner-junior associate interactions are more frequent and meaningful. I think Kramer also prides itself on flexibility--its litigators are supposed to be generalists. From what you say, these factors might make up for what the firm lacks in name brand appeal when it comes to exit options.


That's precisely the kind of stuff I want to read. And yes, if that's true, then it's an argument in favor of Kramer Levin. The only foreseeable problem is that, back when I was interviewing, I heard this spiel from every firm I interviewed at, including Skadden. What you have to do is try your best to figure out if this is the way things work in practice at that firm. Now that you have an offer in hand, try talking to some associates about the kind of work they're doing right now. Maybe talk to associates at other firms who've worked across the table from Kramer associates. Maybe post here.


OP. Yeah, this is the next step. I'll be making calls to alums and 2011 summers. I'd be happy to report back. For what it's worth, I really got the sense that Kramer is different from larger firms' litigation practices. One partner I interviewed with was very detailed in explaining the differences, and the associates echoed a lot of the stuff he had to say.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Kramer Levin

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
Kramer litigators seem to get involved in substantive work from a fairly early stage. I think this is a function of the firm being decidedly non-hierarchical relative to a place like Skadden. When the chain of command is not ironclad, partner-junior associate interactions are more frequent and meaningful. I think Kramer also prides itself on flexibility--its litigators are supposed to be generalists. From what you say, these factors might make up for what the firm lacks in name brand appeal when it comes to exit options.


That's precisely the kind of stuff I want to read. And yes, if that's true, then it's an argument in favor of Kramer Levin. The only foreseeable problem is that, back when I was interviewing, I heard this spiel from every firm I interviewed at, including Skadden. What you have to do is try your best to figure out if this is the way things work in practice at that firm. Now that you have an offer in hand, try talking to some associates about the kind of work they're doing right now. Maybe talk to associates at other firms who've worked across the table from Kramer associates. Maybe post here.


OP. Yeah, this is the next step. I'll be making calls to alums and 2011 summers. I'd be happy to report back. For what it's worth, I really got the sense that Kramer is different from larger firms' litigation practices. One partner I interviewed with was very detailed in explaining the differences, and the associates echoed a lot of the stuff he had to say.


My intuitions are with you on this one. But it's good that you're taking the extra step and investigating. This is your career and it deserves no less.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.