Kirkland (Chicago) v Kirkland (DC) v Irell (LA) Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have offers from all three, and could use some TLS hive-mind in helping me to make my decision.

Recognize that each is in a different city, and the easiest response would be "go where you want to live." I've spent some time in each of these places, and would be perfectly happy to reside in any of them. I get that LA =/ DC =/ Chicago.

I want to do litigation. Zero interest in corporate or transactional. Within litigation, I'm not exactly sure what I want to do. I'm aware that Irell has an amazing IP group, and while that would be fun to give a try, who knows if I'll enjoy it and/or be good at it. The thought of doing some appellate work also interest me, though I understand the chances of getting to do that are slim anywhere (maybe more in DC?).

Each appears to be very "free market," and I loved all of the CBs. Maybe this is simply a question of picking a city?

Thanks.

[thesealocust]

I have seen a lot of positive buzz about Irell that's probably not worth discounting. The people I know at Kirkland seem to like it, as long as you accept from the first day that it's a place which takes its free market work system and hours-based bonuses seriously.

I think the choice of city should be most important as between the two, but I'm not all that familiar with Irell besides random TLS posts.

[Anonymous User]

I know Kirkland is not usually a fan of splits, but see if they'll allow you to split intra-firm. Otherwise, this is, as you recognized, mostly a city thing. All those offices are fantastic, financially sound, and all do top-notch work, and it really comes down to lifestyle. Kirkland's a great firm; of those cities, LA would probably be my preference, but that's just me.* I think I'd probably go for Kirkland as a firm with a bigger national/global brand; however, if you know you want to go for partner, Irell might be better since Kirkland is well-known for being a tough place to make share [equity] partner (and non-share partners are essentially glorified senior associates with a title that looks good for when they get up-or-out'ed).

* Fortunately, I have an offer from Kirkland LA, so I may not have to make this choice.

[Anonymous User]

I know Kirkland is not usually a fan of splits, but see if they'll allow you to split intra-firm. Otherwise, this is, as you recognized, mostly a city thing. All those offices are fantastic, financially sound, and all do top-notch work, and it really comes down to lifestyle. Kirkland's a great firm; of those cities, LA would probably be my preference, but that's just me.* I think I'd probably go for Kirkland as a firm with a bigger national/global brand; however, if you know you want to go for partner, Irell might be better since Kirkland is well-known for being a tough place to make share [equity] partner (and non-share partners are essentially glorified senior associates with a title that looks good for when they get up-or-out'ed).

* Fortunately, I have an offer from Kirkland LA, so I may not have to make this choice.

Partnership prospects at Irell are non-existent. They average 1-2 a year, unfortunately.

[rad lulz]

Pick a city

[Anonymous User]

I chose Irell over a different Kirkland office.

I think the main thing is that LA/DC/Chi are different places, but with that aside I think there are important differences. If you truly want to do appellate work, you need to ask yourself first whether you want to clerk. If you do want to clerk, do you have a good shot at a CoA clerkship? If you have a good shot at a CoA, do you have a good shot at a feeder clerkship? These are important things that will determine whether you have the chance of going into an appellate group in DC. Considering you have what seems to be only a passing interest in appellate, I would probably discount that as a factor. If you truly want to do appellate and are in a position to make that a reality (i.e. ideally stats for at least a CoA if not feeder clerkship) then that might be a factor in choosing Kirkland DC since there's a lot more appellate work than either Kirkland Chicago or Irell.

As for patent lit, both Irell and Kirkland are known for it. Kirkland will force you to choose at the end of your summer between patent lit and general lit. That can be good and bad. On one hand, it can guarantee you won't have to do any patent lit if you don't like it. On the other, it does force you to choose between the two sooner than you may wish to. Irell does not have formalized lines between lit groups so you can do patent lit and other types both as a summer and as an associate, though the downside is that if a patent case does get extremely busy, you may get pulled onto it as an associate. It is important to note that patent lit is only about 1/2 Irell's work.

What did it for me, and what I think will probably be most helpful to you, is answering the question: what kind of firm do you want to be at? Do you want to be at a traditional biglaw firm that has offices across the country or do you want to be at a smaller more boutique-ish firm? I felt, and I could of course be completely wrong since it was merely my impression, that Irell tends to give more substantive work early whereas Kirkland functions like a large law firm with a more stratified approach to the kind of work that junior litigators get to do. That sold me on Irell since I wanted to have the best experience as early as possible considering the high probability that I would burn out of whatever firm I started at.

Agree with the above that you shouldn't choose either of these firms thinking that you'll make partner there. All that said, I think city is important. Do you have friends or family in any of these places? Seriously evaluate how important or not it is to you to be near those people.