Kirkland vs. Cravath (Corporate) Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was almost decided on Cravath, but just got an offer at Kirkland, which I really liked. I'm interested in corporate, maybe M&A, but not really sure. Obviously Cravath's rotation system is a huge factor; Kirkland pays more; Cravath is old-fashioned and local.

1) How come Cravath is almost absent from the M&A tables whereas Kirkland places so high? (See: Mergermarket and Thompson Reuters)

2) Is it better to start a career at Cravath?

3) Do you work more hours at Kirkland?

Thanks for the help, TLS.

[johndhi]

I know nothing about corporate, but I voted based on the fact that I hate Kirkland. HTH.

Today's ATL article about Cravath's lockstep partnership pay is cool, I think, too; Kirkland, of course, is the complete opposite.

[aces]

This should be a relatively straightforward decision for you-- do you prefer Cravath's formal rotation system and superior reputation or Kirkland's free-market system and superior pay?

[avb87]

May as well go for the money, though who knows what bonuses will be next year?

[bk1]

May as well go for the money, though who knows what bonuses will be next year?

OP won't be up for bonus until late 2015.

[avb87]

May as well go for the money, though who knows what bonuses will be next year?

OP won't be up for bonus until late 2015.

Only further proves my point.

[Anonymous User]

The only similarity these two firms have is that they both involve very, very long hours. Of all the "firm X or firm Y" questions I've ever seen on TLS, this one has the clearest "it *really* depends on your personality" answer. I think it probably comes down to the difference in how assignments are done: a lot of people like the general idea of Kirkland's system, but it can chew you up and spit you out in practice, if you're not careful. Office politics come into play a lot more. On the other hand, in the Cravath system, if you get assigned to a shitty partner, your entire career could be fucked, because you won't be able to get away.

Cravath probably gives better exit options down the road, but that's pretty hard to quantify when you're talking about two very strong firms.

Final thing to consider: If you might want to move in the future, you might be able to transfer within the firm at Kirkland, while you would have to go outside the firm if you go with Cravath. To be frank, I don't think it's a major point, but eh.

ETA: If you're talking Cravath vs non-NYC KE, the difference in (effective) compensation probably becomes overwhelming.

[Anonymous User]

I sort of view the public m&a group at k&e as a boutique. It's a small component of corporate that the firm is aggressively growing. Because their so short staffed on a lot of deals, juniors get a lot of responsibility (but also a lot of work). It's also a massive growth group for the firm as a whole, so it's a great opportunity.


K&E tops league tables because they do a lot of midmarket deals. Tends to rank them high for deal volume as opposed to aggregate deal value. Firm is focusing on also doing higher value deals, so that's definitely changing. But the smaller deals keep the firm busy in down times, and keep your job safe. Also great opportunities to build experience.


Overall, two very different environments. Cravath is sink or swim too.

[Anonymous User]

May as well go for the money, though who knows what bonuses will be next year?

OP won't be up for bonus until late 2015.

Yeah, but the pay differences start early. Iirc, cravath gives an advance and k&e gives a stipend. Dunno about you, but 10k is a lot of money.

[tripu11]

.

[Anonymous User]

You'll make more money at Kirkland, you'll have more prestige points at Cravath. You'll work long hours at both, but likely slightly longer hours at Cravath depending on your group. Cravath is more of an up-or-out model, slightly more attrition than is typical in BigLaw. Kirkland gives you more geographical flexibility, but as your exit options will be excellent from both this shouldn't be a primary concern.

[Anonymous User]

The only similarity these two firms have is that they both involve very, very long hours. I think it probably comes down to the difference in how assignments are done: a lot of people like the general idea of Kirkland's system, but it can chew you up and spit you out in practice, if you're not careful. Office politics come into play a lot more.

Could you talk a little more about this? I'm considering Kirkland in Chicago and your comments about office politics and "chewing up and spitting out" has me a little concerned.