Doritos wrote: Anonymous User wrote: Doritos wrote: Anonymous User wrote:
Katten (#79 on Vault) isn't some tiny secondary market firm where everyone makes partner. It's a typical lower-V100 firm in that it's almost as leveraged as Sullivan & Cromwell (4.2 versus 4.5). It's got over 500 attorneys, and according to NALP the average annual attrition rate at firms of over 500 attorneys was 19% in 2006. To give a point of reference (http://books.google.com/books?id=zdcBuo ... ed&f=false
) Sullivan & Cromwell's famous 30%+ attrition rate dropped to 22% after the firm implemented reforms.
So statistically speaking you're going to be out of the firm in 3-4 years anyhow. Maybe 3 if you had gone to K&E and 4 if you go to Katten. What happens then?
I didn't mean to say that they should take Katten over Kirkland if they wanted to be a firm long term, I just suggested that they should put a premium on culture and fit. Maybe BOTH firms have terrible culture and the individual does not fit in at either firm. From there, I'd look to things like how soon you get responsibility and which practice areas you are interested in. Also, keep in mind that there a lot of people who go into biglaw KNOWING they are going to leave in a few years so these stats may not have a lot to say about the individual who comes in wanting to stay longer term.
Are you looking for me to break down and say take Kirkland 100% of the time because they have a higher Vault rank?
I'm not saying that culture and fit isn't important. I'm saying that if you're a typical law grad going into big law, you shouldn't have any illusions about the QoL at lower-ranked firms, as some people ITT seem to have. Attrition throughout the V100 is very high.
I'm simply asking for acknowledgement that students should realize that they'll be out of big law in 3-4 years regardless of which big firm they go to, and balance considerations of culture and fit (keeping in mind that they're deriving their assessment of culture from a 4-hour callback), against the question of: when I'm looking for another job a few years from now, which firm would I rather have on my resume?
I'll grant you that. Attrition is high and many will be leaving the firm a few years after joining it. What I am pushing back on is the notion that Kirkland on the resume is clearly so much better than Katten and you are somehow going to be hamstrung in your career by going Katten even if you think its a better fit for you (however you determine that which is another issue). My impression after talking to people who do the hiring at some of these desirable exit options that people keep talking about is that by and large biglaw is biglaw. I'll grant you that you may get an impressed eyebrow raise if you have Cravath on your resume as opposed to DLA Piper but it's not NEARLY the same as having Columbia law on your resume as opposed to George Mason law.
I think that if OP wants Corp, in Chicago going to K&E will give him a slight advantage over a firm like McGuirewoods or KMR.
I think that the attitude in response to OP ITT went from, "If that's where you fit, then that's what you should take." to "The firm is a hellhole do not go there." A lot of people keep mentioning the hours - for Chicago they're high, but they're standard for NY (on the low side for several members of the V10). If this was Weil, Skadden, STB, or SullCrom would there be the same virulent reaction, at least with regard to A) culture and B) hours?
If OP is looking for fit - and he connected at KMR (or wherever) - that's where he should go. FWIW, I had CBs at KMR, K&E, SA, McGuire, and Winston - I asked first and second years at lunch for their billable targets. No one was below 2000 and the most (strangely) was Winston, where one guy reported 2400-something.