.

(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.
User avatar
cron1834

Gold
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: Kirkland Chicago overstaffed summer associates?

Postby cron1834 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
cron1834 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
cron1834 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:We have not cold offered anyone in at least the last 6 years since I have had the info. We hired more people because we need corporate folks as an abnormally large percentage of 2 and 3 years have left or specialized. Firm is busier than ever and we need bodies. Definitely did not over-hire, were still conservative, to be honest. And we routinely have 100% offer rate here - with very few exceptions (namely one summer getting drunk and saying he/she would rather be at McKinsey and one other summer having an inappropriate relationship at the firm).

This is obviously false, as the subsequent posts have made clear. Why do people think like this?


Because I am on the summer associate committee and I know for certain w/r/t Chicago office. I cannot control what people may say to friends to save ego.

LOL. Sure. People tell their closest friends they were cold-offered to brag. And ruthlessly for-profit firms never let people go quietly, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Fuck off, sincerely. Propaganda like this is part of what makes getting cold-offered such a shameful and debilitating thing.

Edit - this doesn't mean OP has to be worried. I'm not saying that.


I hate to get into a pissing match with someone who doesn't know anything definitely about the situation but since I do know for a fact that K&E Chicago has not cold offered anyone for the past 6 years, I have to correct the inaccurate record in this thread. I do not know about other offices of the firm. I think people who get no-offered here may spin it however they want but this firm simply does not over-hire then no offer people. If people do not get offers from K&E it is because they earned the no-offer. (Anonymous because I have posted too much personal information in other threads and do not want to out myself as being on the summer associate committee here).

Bullshit. People don't lie about receiving cold offers, which are embarrassing. Being on the ~~associates committee~~ doesn't change anything here. Of course, this assumes you aren't talking out of your ass, anonymously, to defend the honor of your firm (lmao). Which you may be.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316629
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Kirkland Chicago overstaffed summer associates?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:34 pm

cron1834 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
cron1834 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
cron1834 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:We have not cold offered anyone in at least the last 6 years since I have had the info. We hired more people because we need corporate folks as an abnormally large percentage of 2 and 3 years have left or specialized. Firm is busier than ever and we need bodies. Definitely did not over-hire, were still conservative, to be honest. And we routinely have 100% offer rate here - with very few exceptions (namely one summer getting drunk and saying he/she would rather be at McKinsey and one other summer having an inappropriate relationship at the firm).

This is obviously false, as the subsequent posts have made clear. Why do people think like this?


Because I am on the summer associate committee and I know for certain w/r/t Chicago office. I cannot control what people may say to friends to save ego.

LOL. Sure. People tell their closest friends they were cold-offered to brag. And ruthlessly for-profit firms never let people go quietly, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Fuck off, sincerely. Propaganda like this is part of what makes getting cold-offered such a shameful and debilitating thing.

Edit - this doesn't mean OP has to be worried. I'm not saying that.


I hate to get into a pissing match with someone who doesn't know anything definitely about the situation but since I do know for a fact that K&E Chicago has not cold offered anyone for the past 6 years, I have to correct the inaccurate record in this thread. I do not know about other offices of the firm. I think people who get no-offered here may spin it however they want but this firm simply does not over-hire then no offer people. If people do not get offers from K&E it is because they earned the no-offer. (Anonymous because I have posted too much personal information in other threads and do not want to out myself as being on the summer associate committee here).

Bullshit. People don't lie about receiving cold offers, which are embarrassing. Being on the ~~associates committee~~ doesn't change anything here. Of course, this assumes you aren't talking out of your ass, anonymously, to defend the honor of your firm (lmao). Which you may be.


I know specifically of a cold offer in the past two years at Kirkland Chi because that person is someone I am extremely close with IE a direct family member/significant other. This person has no reason to lie to me about it given how embarrassing and how it hurt both of us dealing with this person's time having to job search again after feeling like a complete failure.

User avatar
cron1834

Gold
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: .

Postby cron1834 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:09 pm

^ that seems more credible than someone anonymously claiming that their firm has (gasp) never done such a thing. I have no reason to think K&E is better or worse than peer firms - I'm sure it happens once in a while, but infrequently.

~~associates committee~~ anon, I don't want to get into a pissing match, either. Several of us don't believe your assertions, and you don't believe ours. It is what it is.

I agree that OP is no more or less safe than she would be at a peer firm, and doesn't have any particular reason to worry.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316629
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: .

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:52 am

cron1834 wrote:^ that seems more credible than someone anonymously claiming that their firm has (gasp) never done such a thing. I have no reason to think K&E is better or worse than peer firms - I'm sure it happens once in a while, but infrequently.

~~associates committee~~ anon, I don't want to get into a pissing match, either. Several of us don't believe your assertions, and you don't believe ours. It is what it is.

I agree that OP is no more or less safe than she would be at a peer firm, and doesn't have any particular reason to worry.


Summer Associate committee - the one that makes offers to people and runs the summer associate program. I'm not claiming that we are the best firm ever and never do wrong by employees - we certainly do - I have been on the other side of it recently. Hell, share partners are even "removed" from time to time. I just know for a fact a cold offer has not happened since I have been involved with the program. We have flat out no-offered people and I can give you the reasons why for each of those people. It obviously sucks but each summer that has been no-offered has done something incredibly outside the lines to receive a no offer and were told precisely why it was happening. That is what I am defending here. Take it for what it's worth coming from a person who is on the way out of this firm.

User avatar
Mr. Blackacre

Bronze
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: .

Postby Mr. Blackacre » Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:22 am

Lol this thread is exhibit A for why you shouldn't go to Kirkland. Trolling TLS to ensure the steady stream of prestige-obsessed applicants doesn't dry up? That's V10 material right there.

OneTwoThreeFour

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am

Re: Kirkland Chicago overstaffed summer associates?

Postby OneTwoThreeFour » Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:28 am

cron1834 wrote:Bullshit. People don't lie about receiving cold offers, which are embarrassing. Being on the ~~associates committee~~ doesn't change anything here. Of course, this assumes you aren't talking out of your ass, anonymously, to defend the honor of your firm (lmao). Which you may be.


lol @ you.

Law students lie. About literally everything. Not sure about the cold offer situation, but the anon poster is probably just as credible as these second-hand stories about "I've heard about cold offers from a friend, or a friend of a friend."

You credibility assessment is bad, and you should feel bad.

User avatar
Mr. Blackacre

Bronze
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:48 pm

Re: Kirkland Chicago overstaffed summer associates?

Postby Mr. Blackacre » Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:34 am

OneTwoThreeFour wrote:
cron1834 wrote:Bullshit. People don't lie about receiving cold offers, which are embarrassing. Being on the ~~associates committee~~ doesn't change anything here. Of course, this assumes you aren't talking out of your ass, anonymously, to defend the honor of your firm (lmao). Which you may be.


lol @ you.

Law students lie. About literally everything. Not sure about the cold offer situation, but the anon poster is probably just as credible as these second-hand stories about "I've heard about cold offers from a friend, or a friend of a friend."

You credibility assessment is bad, and you should feel bad.


One anon poster from a firm known as a sweatshop vs. multiple other anonymous stories that are consistent with each other? I know where my credibility assessment falls.

User avatar
cron1834

Gold
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: Kirkland Chicago overstaffed summer associates?

Postby cron1834 » Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:48 am

Mr. Blackacre wrote:
OneTwoThreeFour wrote:
cron1834 wrote:Bullshit. People don't lie about receiving cold offers, which are embarrassing. Being on the ~~associates committee~~ doesn't change anything here. Of course, this assumes you aren't talking out of your ass, anonymously, to defend the honor of your firm (lmao). Which you may be.


lol @ you.

Law students lie. About literally everything. Not sure about the cold offer situation, but the anon poster is probably just as credible as these second-hand stories about "I've heard about cold offers from a friend, or a friend of a friend."

You credibility assessment is bad, and you should feel bad.


One anon poster from a firm known as a sweatshop vs. multiple other anonymous stories that are consistent with each other? I know where my credibility assessment falls.

Exactly. The claims here are NOT about grape vine gossip, but about a SO-level relationship (for example). If 1234 actually thinks it’s plausible that a ruthless sweatshop doesn’t do something, rarely, that all of its peers do, rarely, then it is he/she that cannot assess credibility.

Just fucking lol at people white knighting for their firm, or billion dollar for-profit entities generally. Seriously.

Edit — I work for a billion dollar peer firm as well. I like them, but I have no doubt this has happened once or twice over the years.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316629
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: .

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:29 pm

Mr. Blackacre wrote:Lol this thread is exhibit A for why you shouldn't go to Kirkland. Trolling TLS to ensure the steady stream of prestige-obsessed applicants doesn't dry up? That's V10 material right there.


Not my goal at all - just my goal to correct false information that I know for a fact is false. Kirkland is not for everyone and not everyone should want to work here. And the firm does not need me out here trying to convince anyone to work here - I just get tired of seeing people put BS on these forums.

cron1834 wrote:
Mr. Blackacre wrote:
OneTwoThreeFour wrote:
cron1834 wrote:Bullshit. People don't lie about receiving cold offers, which are embarrassing. Being on the ~~associates committee~~ doesn't change anything here. Of course, this assumes you aren't talking out of your ass, anonymously, to defend the honor of your firm (lmao). Which you may be.


lol @ you.

Law students lie. About literally everything. Not sure about the cold offer situation, but the anon poster is probably just as credible as these second-hand stories about "I've heard about cold offers from a friend, or a friend of a friend."

You credibility assessment is bad, and you should feel bad.


One anon poster from a firm known as a sweatshop vs. multiple other anonymous stories that are consistent with each other? I know where my credibility assessment falls.

Exactly. The claims here are NOT about grape vine gossip, but about a SO-level relationship (for example). If 1234 actually thinks it’s plausible that a ruthless sweatshop doesn’t do something, rarely, that all of its peers do, rarely, then it is he/she that cannot assess credibility.

Just fucking lol at people white knighting for their firm, or billion dollar for-profit entities generally. Seriously.

Edit — I work for a billion dollar peer firm as well. I like them, but I have no doubt this has happened once or twice over the years.


I won't even be at Kirkland in a few months so I am not "white knighting" for the firm - just correcting false information. I typically do not get involved with this in my years of being a member of this community but when you are literally sitting on the committee that makes offers to SAs and know for a fact that people on the forum are out here spreading false info - it makes you want to say something. To be honest with all of you in this thread - I regret even getting involved in this because it seems petty - but here we are.

Sorry to anyone who has had to deal with a no-offer. I personally went through it and was at a point where I graduated LS without a job. I honestly feel bad for anyone who went through it.

User avatar
cron1834

Gold
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: .

Postby cron1834 » Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:38 pm

Look man, lots of folks here just don't seem to accept the notion that there's literally nothing the firm's management and owners would do without running it by you first. It just doesn't seem credible, especially in the face of knowing someone who has made an obviously-embarrassing confession of a cold offer.

But, I agree, this seems played out. I credit you for being more reasonable than that 1234 dummy. Good luck in your new job.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.