ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

(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: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not this poster, but typically to other large firms, sometimes to funds.

Even for those coming from debtor firms? I'm concerned that Weil and Kirkland's control of debtor BK work will limit where those associates can go. Will a lender side firm hired a person who has mostly/exclusively done debtor work?

Creditor-side midlevel. Kind of depends on seniority and experience. Debtor-side work is more profitable so even most creditor-leaning firms like having a handful of debtor representations going at any time. But if you were one of those associates that failed to graduate to managing workstreams (e.g., associate #5 assigned to reviewing bill, only ever worked on assorted first days, etc..) then I imagine it's harder to pitch yourself to a firm that doesn't staff cases the same way. Not meant as a knock against either Weil/Kirkland. Having so many debtor matters going on at once forces the group to be very machine-like. Lends itself to associates sitting in discrete assignment silos.


Interesting. Any other thoughts on this? I had assumed that even a Kirkland/Weil junior who has worked exclusively on large debtor matters would still generally be considered an attractive candidate for creditor-heavy practices because of the perspective/knowledge or skills one would be expected to gain from working on such complex matters (and because of the high regard for those two practices). Obviously, any one person will need to be able to speak to their particular experiences, but I did not expect that would be an uphill battle. I did not really think the relevant skill sets or experiences in those practices would be different enough (or inferior) so as to make it difficult to switch.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not this poster, but typically to other large firms, sometimes to funds.

Even for those coming from debtor firms? I'm concerned that Weil and Kirkland's control of debtor BK work will limit where those associates can go. Will a lender side firm hired a person who has mostly/exclusively done debtor work?

Creditor-side midlevel. Kind of depends on seniority and experience. Debtor-side work is more profitable so even most creditor-leaning firms like having a handful of debtor representations going at any time. But if you were one of those associates that failed to graduate to managing workstreams (e.g., associate #5 assigned to reviewing bill, only ever worked on assorted first days, etc..) then I imagine it's harder to pitch yourself to a firm that doesn't staff cases the same way. Not meant as a knock against either Weil/Kirkland. Having so many debtor matters going on at once forces the group to be very machine-like. Lends itself to associates sitting in discrete assignment silos.


Interesting. Any other thoughts on this? I had assumed that even a Kirkland/Weil junior who has worked exclusively on large debtor matters would still generally be considered an attractive candidate for creditor-heavy practices because of the perspective/knowledge or skills one would be expected to gain from working on such complex matters (and because of the high regard for those two practices). Obviously, any one person will need to be able to speak to their particular experiences, but I did not expect that would be an uphill battle. I did not really think the relevant skill sets or experiences in those practices would be different enough (or inferior) so as to make it difficult to switch.

It's easier to switch as a junior, regardless of firm/practice. I was speaking towards more midlevel/senior associates given that we were talking about exit options.

My reaction to seeing only large complex debtor matters on a junior's resume would be "this person probably knows very little." I would react more favorably if they were staffed on smaller matters. I think you're confusing the nature of Weil/Kirkland's reputation. They're held in high regard for their ability to attract and churn through a lot of debtor matters (i.e., from a business development perspective), especially Kirkland. Not for their ability to train associates. Sure they have their share of rockstar seniors (like any firm), but they're not some bankruptcy equivalent of WLRK.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not this poster, but typically to other large firms, sometimes to funds.

Even for those coming from debtor firms? I'm concerned that Weil and Kirkland's control of debtor BK work will limit where those associates can go. Will a lender side firm hired a person who has mostly/exclusively done debtor work?

Creditor-side midlevel. Kind of depends on seniority and experience. Debtor-side work is more profitable so even most creditor-leaning firms like having a handful of debtor representations going at any time. But if you were one of those associates that failed to graduate to managing workstreams (e.g., associate #5 assigned to reviewing bill, only ever worked on assorted first days, etc..) then I imagine it's harder to pitch yourself to a firm that doesn't staff cases the same way. Not meant as a knock against either Weil/Kirkland. Having so many debtor matters going on at once forces the group to be very machine-like. Lends itself to associates sitting in discrete assignment silos.


Interesting. Any other thoughts on this? I had assumed that even a Kirkland/Weil junior who has worked exclusively on large debtor matters would still generally be considered an attractive candidate for creditor-heavy practices because of the perspective/knowledge or skills one would be expected to gain from working on such complex matters (and because of the high regard for those two practices). Obviously, any one person will need to be able to speak to their particular experiences, but I did not expect that would be an uphill battle. I did not really think the relevant skill sets or experiences in those practices would be different enough (or inferior) so as to make it difficult to switch.

It's easier to switch as a junior, regardless of firm/practice. I was speaking towards more midlevel/senior associates given that we were talking about exit options.

My reaction to seeing only large complex debtor matters on a junior's resume would be "this person probably knows very little." I would react more favorably if they were staffed on smaller matters. I think you're confusing the nature of Weil/Kirkland's reputation. They're held in high regard for their ability to attract and churn through a lot of debtor matters (i.e., from a business development perspective), especially Kirkland. Not for their ability to train associates. Sure they have their share of rockstar seniors (like any firm), but they're not some bankruptcy equivalent of WLRK.


Signed,
Milbank restructuring mid level

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not this poster, but typically to other large firms, sometimes to funds.

Even for those coming from debtor firms? I'm concerned that Weil and Kirkland's control of debtor BK work will limit where those associates can go. Will a lender side firm hired a person who has mostly/exclusively done debtor work?

Creditor-side midlevel. Kind of depends on seniority and experience. Debtor-side work is more profitable so even most creditor-leaning firms like having a handful of debtor representations going at any time. But if you were one of those associates that failed to graduate to managing workstreams (e.g., associate #5 assigned to reviewing bill, only ever worked on assorted first days, etc..) then I imagine it's harder to pitch yourself to a firm that doesn't staff cases the same way. Not meant as a knock against either Weil/Kirkland. Having so many debtor matters going on at once forces the group to be very machine-like. Lends itself to associates sitting in discrete assignment silos.


Interesting. Any other thoughts on this? I had assumed that even a Kirkland/Weil junior who has worked exclusively on large debtor matters would still generally be considered an attractive candidate for creditor-heavy practices because of the perspective/knowledge or skills one would be expected to gain from working on such complex matters (and because of the high regard for those two practices). Obviously, any one person will need to be able to speak to their particular experiences, but I did not expect that would be an uphill battle. I did not really think the relevant skill sets or experiences in those practices would be different enough (or inferior) so as to make it difficult to switch.

It's easier to switch as a junior, regardless of firm/practice. I was speaking towards more midlevel/senior associates given that we were talking about exit options.

My reaction to seeing only large complex debtor matters on a junior's resume would be "this person probably knows very little." I would react more favorably if they were staffed on smaller matters. I think you're confusing the nature of Weil/Kirkland's reputation. They're held in high regard for their ability to attract and churn through a lot of debtor matters (i.e., from a business development perspective), especially Kirkland. Not for their ability to train associates. Sure they have their share of rockstar seniors (like any firm), but they're not some bankruptcy equivalent of WLRK.


Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. This all depends: you can be a junior on a number of large cases with really interesting/important workstreams, but you could also be a junior on a bunch of smaller cases doing claims objections and admin/procedural first days. I'd rather have the junior doing the DIP on a $Xbn case than the junior on two small cases who really knows how to draft a wages/insurance motion--the former is getting the relatively better experience and, if he/she does well, will be in line to get a good role on the next case.

The reality is, however, that most juniors are fairly interchangeable and don't get the broad experience they need to be able to move around into different roles, either at other firms or funds/IBs: you don't become truly valuable until 4-6 years when you've been in a number of different workstreams on a number of cases. It's all about reps, and you can't get enough of those as a junior to really be able to differentiate yourself, even at Weil/Kirkland. A junior from one of those two firms would certainly be an attractive lateral candidate for a similar role at another firm, but I don't really think that gets to the heart of the question.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:28 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not this poster, but typically to other large firms, sometimes to funds.

Even for those coming from debtor firms? I'm concerned that Weil and Kirkland's control of debtor BK work will limit where those associates can go. Will a lender side firm hired a person who has mostly/exclusively done debtor work?

Creditor-side midlevel. Kind of depends on seniority and experience. Debtor-side work is more profitable so even most creditor-leaning firms like having a handful of debtor representations going at any time. But if you were one of those associates that failed to graduate to managing workstreams (e.g., associate #5 assigned to reviewing bill, only ever worked on assorted first days, etc..) then I imagine it's harder to pitch yourself to a firm that doesn't staff cases the same way. Not meant as a knock against either Weil/Kirkland. Having so many debtor matters going on at once forces the group to be very machine-like. Lends itself to associates sitting in discrete assignment silos.


Interesting. Any other thoughts on this? I had assumed that even a Kirkland/Weil junior who has worked exclusively on large debtor matters would still generally be considered an attractive candidate for creditor-heavy practices because of the perspective/knowledge or skills one would be expected to gain from working on such complex matters (and because of the high regard for those two practices). Obviously, any one person will need to be able to speak to their particular experiences, but I did not expect that would be an uphill battle. I did not really think the relevant skill sets or experiences in those practices would be different enough (or inferior) so as to make it difficult to switch.

It's easier to switch as a junior, regardless of firm/practice. I was speaking towards more midlevel/senior associates given that we were talking about exit options.

My reaction to seeing only large complex debtor matters on a junior's resume would be "this person probably knows very little." I would react more favorably if they were staffed on smaller matters. I think you're confusing the nature of Weil/Kirkland's reputation. They're held in high regard for their ability to attract and churn through a lot of debtor matters (i.e., from a business development perspective), especially Kirkland. Not for their ability to train associates. Sure they have their share of rockstar seniors (like any firm), but they're not some bankruptcy equivalent of WLRK.


Signed,
Milbank restructuring mid level


Yeah this is a pretty odd take which makes me think this person doesn’t have any real experience with these types of shops. I’m a rising midlevel at one of Weil/Kirkland and, say what you want about the hours, the exit options, or whatever else, but the one think you will get is great training in this sphere. The midlevels/seniors in our group that have risen through the ranks are extremely capable and well ahead of the curve vis a vis other places. I have worked on a number of debtor (and creditor) side matters in court and out of court, and the idea that you’re just going to be churning admin type motions non stop for years is just nuts.

MaxMcMann

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:58 pm

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby MaxMcMann » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not this poster, but typically to other large firms, sometimes to funds.

Even for those coming from debtor firms? I'm concerned that Weil and Kirkland's control of debtor BK work will limit where those associates can go. Will a lender side firm hired a person who has mostly/exclusively done debtor work?

Creditor-side midlevel. Kind of depends on seniority and experience. Debtor-side work is more profitable so even most creditor-leaning firms like having a handful of debtor representations going at any time. But if you were one of those associates that failed to graduate to managing workstreams (e.g., associate #5 assigned to reviewing bill, only ever worked on assorted first days, etc..) then I imagine it's harder to pitch yourself to a firm that doesn't staff cases the same way. Not meant as a knock against either Weil/Kirkland. Having so many debtor matters going on at once forces the group to be very machine-like. Lends itself to associates sitting in discrete assignment silos.


Interesting. Any other thoughts on this? I had assumed that even a Kirkland/Weil junior who has worked exclusively on large debtor matters would still generally be considered an attractive candidate for creditor-heavy practices because of the perspective/knowledge or skills one would be expected to gain from working on such complex matters (and because of the high regard for those two practices). Obviously, any one person will need to be able to speak to their particular experiences, but I did not expect that would be an uphill battle. I did not really think the relevant skill sets or experiences in those practices would be different enough (or inferior) so as to make it difficult to switch.

It's easier to switch as a junior, regardless of firm/practice. I was speaking towards more midlevel/senior associates given that we were talking about exit options.

My reaction to seeing only large complex debtor matters on a junior's resume would be "this person probably knows very little." I would react more favorably if they were staffed on smaller matters. I think you're confusing the nature of Weil/Kirkland's reputation. They're held in high regard for their ability to attract and churn through a lot of debtor matters (i.e., from a business development perspective), especially Kirkland. Not for their ability to train associates. Sure they have their share of rockstar seniors (like any firm), but they're not some bankruptcy equivalent of WLRK.


Signed,
Milbank restructuring mid level


Yeah this is a pretty odd take which makes me think this person doesn’t have any real experience with these types of shops. I’m a rising midlevel at one of Weil/Kirkland and, say what you want about the hours, the exit options, or whatever else, but the one think you will get is great training in this sphere. The midlevels/seniors in our group that have risen through the ranks are extremely capable and well ahead of the curve vis a vis other places. I have worked on a number of debtor (and creditor) side matters in court and out of court, and the idea that you’re just going to be churning admin type motions non stop for years is just nuts.


What are the exit options like?

Searching through TLS doesn't yield much. I'm interested in the area. The hours are offputting but since the two major firms in it let you work on different projects throughout the summer maybe I'll get a better sense of it, but I doubt I'll know anything about exit options.

RedPurpleBlue

Silver
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby RedPurpleBlue » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:11 am

MaxMcMann wrote:What are the exit options like?

Searching through TLS doesn't yield much. I'm interested in the area. The hours are offputting but since the two major firms in it let you work on different projects throughout the summer maybe I'll get a better sense of it, but I doubt I'll know anything about exit options.


From another thread:

Anonymous User wrote:restructuring mid-level, now at my 2nd V10.

Based on what i've seen (in order of frequency):
1. stick around current firm until counsel or super senior (we have 11th-12th year associates...)
2. continue doing bk at smaller firm/different city
3. pivot to general corporate work at smaller firm
4. use secondment with fund/bank client to land some type of hybrid position

exit options suck

RedPurpleBlue

Silver
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby RedPurpleBlue » Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:37 am

So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:25 am

RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad

AdequateProtection

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:42 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby AdequateProtection » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:13 am

RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


I'm a junior restructuring associate (class of 2017) in the NYC office of a non-NYC firm (V75-100). I definitely don't regret my practice choice. Granted, my hours are significantly better than other poster's. If I were an associate at Weil, I might be singing a different tune. But unless you're dead set on working at a Chambers Band 1 firm, I think it can be an enjoyable practice.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:23 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.


Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:24 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.


Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.


Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. Agree mostly with this, though I'll say, there are times (esp leading up to a filing) where the hours are intense and I question my sanity. There's also a fair amount of traveling that can take a toll.

Someone listed a bunch of points earlier that I think are off:
-At least where I am, partners are no better/worse than other groups (I've heard one partner yell literally once, and it wasn't directed at anyone in the firm); its rather typical for any other group.
-Of course fire drills happen, but they aren't constant--I can think of a handful of times where I've had to drop everything and pull late nights/work over the weekend to get something done where I didn't reasonably know about it ahead of time. Everything else is just normal time pressure, and you learn how/when to push back so you can have a life. I've worked very few weekends (other than responding to emails or hopping on a 30 min call every now and then) over the past few months and have been on a number of active cases in various stages. This is also a function of moving on up in the chain because I just pass stuff off to juniors that I don't want to worry about until Monday or whenever I'm back in the office.
-Dealing with creditor groups can be contentious and frustrating, but I think it's way less adversarial that what our lit colleagues experience (unless, of course, we're litigating an ad/pro). Most of the time, we're all trying to get to the same place.
-Time entry sucks, though I don't think anyone has ever been reamed out for it, unless it was blatantly egregious or embellished.

Aside from the normal biglaw shit, I enjoy what I do.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:31 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.


Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.


Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. Agree mostly with this, though I'll say, there are times (esp leading up to a filing) where the hours are intense and I question my sanity. There's also a fair amount of traveling that can take a toll.

Someone listed a bunch of points earlier that I think are off:
-At least where I am, partners are no better/worse than other groups (I've heard one partner yell literally once, and it wasn't directed at anyone in the firm); its rather typical for any other group.
-Of course fire drills happen, but they aren't constant--I can think of a handful of times where I've had to drop everything and pull late nights/work over the weekend to get something done where I didn't reasonably know about it ahead of time. Everything else is just normal time pressure, and you learn how/when to push back so you can have a life. I've worked very few weekends (other than responding to emails or hopping on a 30 min call every now and then) over the past few months and have been on a number of active cases in various stages. This is also a function of moving on up in the chain because I just pass stuff off to juniors that I don't want to worry about until Monday or whenever I'm back in the office.
-Dealing with creditor groups can be contentious and frustrating, but I think it's way less adversarial that what our lit colleagues experience (unless, of course, we're litigating an ad/pro). Most of the time, we're all trying to get to the same place.
-Time entry sucks, though I don't think anyone has ever been reamed out for it, unless it was blatantly egregious or embellished.

Aside from the normal biglaw shit, I enjoy what I do.


Sure there is a handful of people in the group who have drank the look-aid (and are now coming to the defense of the group in this thread), but overall people are very unhappy

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:55 am

Midlevel at creditor-leaning V10.

I really enjoy the work, much more than the other practices I tried. But i'm becoming increasingly concerned. Issue isn't the work, it's strategic and can be fun (largely because people in the group are great). Problem is that it's starting to look like an all or nothing situation. Either gun for partner at a BigLaw practice or just leave the practice altogether. There don't appear to be any middle of the road (in terms of hours and comp) exit opportunities that are available to my friends and peers in the other corporate groups. Yes most of them hate what they do in BigLaw, but i'm starting to think they made the wiser move by grinding through something they hate for a few years in exchange for broad in-house opportunities. There's a huge step down in the restructuring world once you leave the upper echelon of BigLaw shops (often times they're so much smaller that they're not hiring). Also there are real geographic restrictions. There are major companies and startups all over the country that need in-house lawyers. Not the same for us. Most of the activity is based in New York and Kirkland/Skadden's Chicago office. Sure you have firms in other cities that serve as local counsel or represent peripheral parties but nothing comparable. People fawn over those hybrid roles or desk lawyer positions at hedge funds, but those aren't appealing to me at all. For one, the hours aren't necessarily better and can sometimes be worse. Those positions (especially the hybrid ones) measure performance in a way that law firms don't. I have no idea whether I can perform well (or would even like) playing a completely different sport. And hedge funds as institutions (especially some of these specialized distressed shops) are inherently unstable, often experiencing sudden up and downswings.

Hope to be proven wrong but i'm growing more anxious as it looks like the only options are to try and run through the partner wall (i don't want to be a biglaw partner) or start trying to pivot/retool into a different practice as soon as possible before the cement dries.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.


Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.


Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. Agree mostly with this, though I'll say, there are times (esp leading up to a filing) where the hours are intense and I question my sanity. There's also a fair amount of traveling that can take a toll.

Someone listed a bunch of points earlier that I think are off:
-At least where I am, partners are no better/worse than other groups (I've heard one partner yell literally once, and it wasn't directed at anyone in the firm); its rather typical for any other group.
-Of course fire drills happen, but they aren't constant--I can think of a handful of times where I've had to drop everything and pull late nights/work over the weekend to get something done where I didn't reasonably know about it ahead of time. Everything else is just normal time pressure, and you learn how/when to push back so you can have a life. I've worked very few weekends (other than responding to emails or hopping on a 30 min call every now and then) over the past few months and have been on a number of active cases in various stages. This is also a function of moving on up in the chain because I just pass stuff off to juniors that I don't want to worry about until Monday or whenever I'm back in the office.
-Dealing with creditor groups can be contentious and frustrating, but I think it's way less adversarial that what our lit colleagues experience (unless, of course, we're litigating an ad/pro). Most of the time, we're all trying to get to the same place.
-Time entry sucks, though I don't think anyone has ever been reamed out for it, unless it was blatantly egregious or embellished.

Aside from the normal biglaw shit, I enjoy what I do.


Sure there is a handful of people in the group who have drank the look-aid (and are now coming to the defense of the group in this thread), but overall people are very unhappy


Uhh, no. I’m a Weil/KE midlevel who has complained about the practice in this thread but said I would do it again above. More than happy to pile on the hours, the exit options, the firm, whatever, but I like the substance of the work and I know others do too. That’s, at least, more than I could say for e.g., corporate.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Midlevel at creditor-leaning V10.

I really enjoy the work, much more than the other practices I tried. But i'm becoming increasingly concerned. Issue isn't the work, it's strategic and can be fun (largely because people in the group are great). Problem is that it's starting to look like an all or nothing situation. Either gun for partner at a BigLaw practice or just leave the practice altogether. There don't appear to be any middle of the road (in terms of hours and comp) exit opportunities that are available to my friends and peers in the other corporate groups. Yes most of them hate what they do in BigLaw, but i'm starting to think they made the wiser move by grinding through something they hate for a few years in exchange for broad in-house opportunities. There's a huge step down in the restructuring world once you leave the upper echelon of BigLaw shops (often times they're so much smaller that they're not hiring). Also there are real geographic restrictions. There are major companies and startups all over the country that need in-house lawyers. Not the same for us. Most of the activity is based in New York and Kirkland/Skadden's Chicago office. Sure you have firms in other cities that serve as local counsel or represent peripheral parties but nothing comparable. People fawn over those hybrid roles or desk lawyer positions at hedge funds, but those aren't appealing to me at all. For one, the hours aren't necessarily better and can sometimes be worse. Those positions (especially the hybrid ones) measure performance in a way that law firms don't. I have no idea whether I can perform well (or would even like) playing a completely different sport. And hedge funds as institutions (especially some of these specialized distressed shops) are inherently unstable, often experiencing sudden up and downswings.

Hope to be proven wrong but i'm growing more anxious as it looks like the only options are to try and run through the partner wall (i don't want to be a biglaw partner) or start trying to pivot/retool into a different practice as soon as possible before the cement dries.


Debtor mid-level.

This is the real concern that's appearing on the horizon. It *may* be a bit easier to make a transition in-house from the debtor side if you really pitch yourself as a generalist (more experienced mid/seniors work enough with our corp/IP/lit/employee benefits/tax folks to be somewhat knowledgeable, but not sure how this actually plays out), but the exit ops I've seen (another firm, IB (where hours are just as bad/worse), and FA (LOL at all that traveling)) are somewhat limited.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Midlevel at creditor-leaning V10.

I really enjoy the work, much more than the other practices I tried. But i'm becoming increasingly concerned. Issue isn't the work, it's strategic and can be fun (largely because people in the group are great). Problem is that it's starting to look like an all or nothing situation. Either gun for partner at a BigLaw practice or just leave the practice altogether. There don't appear to be any middle of the road (in terms of hours and comp) exit opportunities that are available to my friends and peers in the other corporate groups. Yes most of them hate what they do in BigLaw, but i'm starting to think they made the wiser move by grinding through something they hate for a few years in exchange for broad in-house opportunities. There's a huge step down in the restructuring world once you leave the upper echelon of BigLaw shops (often times they're so much smaller that they're not hiring). Also there are real geographic restrictions. There are major companies and startups all over the country that need in-house lawyers. Not the same for us. Most of the activity is based in New York and Kirkland/Skadden's Chicago office. Sure you have firms in other cities that serve as local counsel or represent peripheral parties but nothing comparable. People fawn over those hybrid roles or desk lawyer positions at hedge funds, but those aren't appealing to me at all. For one, the hours aren't necessarily better and can sometimes be worse. Those positions (especially the hybrid ones) measure performance in a way that law firms don't. I have no idea whether I can perform well (or would even like) playing a completely different sport. And hedge funds as institutions (especially some of these specialized distressed shops) are inherently unstable, often experiencing sudden up and downswings.

Hope to be proven wrong but i'm growing more anxious as it looks like the only options are to try and run through the partner wall (i don't want to be a biglaw partner) or start trying to pivot/retool into a different practice as soon as possible before the cement dries.


Debtor mid-level.

This is the real concern that's appearing on the horizon. It *may* be a bit easier to make a transition in-house from the debtor side if you really pitch yourself as a generalist (more experienced mid/seniors work enough with our corp/IP/lit/employee benefits/tax folks to be somewhat knowledgeable, but not sure how this actually plays out), but the exit ops I've seen (another firm, IB (where hours are just as bad/worse), and FA (LOL at all that traveling)) are somewhat limited.

Agree it's probably easier to pitch yourself as a generalist from the debtor side. It's hard to tell because I haven't seen enough non-firm departures generally (we have super super senior associates here that clearly aren't making and don't want to be a partner or counsel). Can't tell if people are staying because they love it so much or they have nowhere to go

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.


Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.


Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. Agree mostly with this, though I'll say, there are times (esp leading up to a filing) where the hours are intense and I question my sanity. There's also a fair amount of traveling that can take a toll.

Someone listed a bunch of points earlier that I think are off:
-At least where I am, partners are no better/worse than other groups (I've heard one partner yell literally once, and it wasn't directed at anyone in the firm); its rather typical for any other group.
-Of course fire drills happen, but they aren't constant--I can think of a handful of times where I've had to drop everything and pull late nights/work over the weekend to get something done where I didn't reasonably know about it ahead of time. Everything else is just normal time pressure, and you learn how/when to push back so you can have a life. I've worked very few weekends (other than responding to emails or hopping on a 30 min call every now and then) over the past few months and have been on a number of active cases in various stages. This is also a function of moving on up in the chain because I just pass stuff off to juniors that I don't want to worry about until Monday or whenever I'm back in the office.
-Dealing with creditor groups can be contentious and frustrating, but I think it's way less adversarial that what our lit colleagues experience (unless, of course, we're litigating an ad/pro). Most of the time, we're all trying to get to the same place.
-Time entry sucks, though I don't think anyone has ever been reamed out for it, unless it was blatantly egregious or embellished.

Aside from the normal biglaw shit, I enjoy what I do.


Sure there is a handful of people in the group who have drank the look-aid (and are now coming to the defense of the group in this thread), but overall people are very unhappy


Uhh, no. I’m a Weil/KE midlevel who has complained about the practice in this thread but said I would do it again above. More than happy to pile on the hours, the exit options, the firm, whatever, but I like the substance of the work and I know others do too. That’s, at least, more than I could say for e.g., corporate.


*takes big gulp of kool-aid*

Well I know a fact you’re wrong from the juniors’ perspective on how they feel

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.


Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.


Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. Agree mostly with this, though I'll say, there are times (esp leading up to a filing) where the hours are intense and I question my sanity. There's also a fair amount of traveling that can take a toll.

Someone listed a bunch of points earlier that I think are off:
-At least where I am, partners are no better/worse than other groups (I've heard one partner yell literally once, and it wasn't directed at anyone in the firm); its rather typical for any other group.
-Of course fire drills happen, but they aren't constant--I can think of a handful of times where I've had to drop everything and pull late nights/work over the weekend to get something done where I didn't reasonably know about it ahead of time. Everything else is just normal time pressure, and you learn how/when to push back so you can have a life. I've worked very few weekends (other than responding to emails or hopping on a 30 min call every now and then) over the past few months and have been on a number of active cases in various stages. This is also a function of moving on up in the chain because I just pass stuff off to juniors that I don't want to worry about until Monday or whenever I'm back in the office.
-Dealing with creditor groups can be contentious and frustrating, but I think it's way less adversarial that what our lit colleagues experience (unless, of course, we're litigating an ad/pro). Most of the time, we're all trying to get to the same place.
-Time entry sucks, though I don't think anyone has ever been reamed out for it, unless it was blatantly egregious or embellished.

Aside from the normal biglaw shit, I enjoy what I do.


Sure there is a handful of people in the group who have drank the look-aid (and are now coming to the defense of the group in this thread), but overall people are very unhappy


Uhh, no. I’m a Weil/KE midlevel who has complained about the practice in this thread but said I would do it again above. More than happy to pile on the hours, the exit options, the firm, whatever, but I like the substance of the work and I know others do too. That’s, at least, more than I could say for e.g., corporate.


*takes big gulp of kool-aid*

Well I know a fact you’re wrong from the juniors’ perspective on how they feel


Buddy, I'm a third year, I know how the juniors feel, but glad to hear you speak for all of them. Hope you find something you enjoy doing more though.

As for exit options, I haven't seen a true in house exit in the time that I've been here, but I don't know how much people really want that (think it's an uphill battle regardless). Firms are the easy exit and funds happen do happen infrequently. Best way to move to a fund in my experience is to get yourself on a creditor side matter and do a good job for the client who then pulls you in.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:27 pm

The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad[/quote]

First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.[/quote]

Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.[/quote]

Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. Agree mostly with this, though I'll say, there are times (esp leading up to a filing) where the hours are intense and I question my sanity. There's also a fair amount of traveling that can take a toll.

Someone listed a bunch of points earlier that I think are off:
-At least where I am, partners are no better/worse than other groups (I've heard one partner yell literally once, and it wasn't directed at anyone in the firm); its rather typical for any other group.
-Of course fire drills happen, but they aren't constant--I can think of a handful of times where I've had to drop everything and pull late nights/work over the weekend to get something done where I didn't reasonably know about it ahead of time. Everything else is just normal time pressure, and you learn how/when to push back so you can have a life. I've worked very few weekends (other than responding to emails or hopping on a 30 min call every now and then) over the past few months and have been on a number of active cases in various stages. This is also a function of moving on up in the chain because I just pass stuff off to juniors that I don't want to worry about until Monday or whenever I'm back in the office.
-Dealing with creditor groups can be contentious and frustrating, but I think it's way less adversarial that what our lit colleagues experience (unless, of course, we're litigating an ad/pro). Most of the time, we're all trying to get to the same place.
-Time entry sucks, though I don't think anyone has ever been reamed out for it, unless it was blatantly egregious or embellished.

Aside from the normal biglaw shit, I enjoy what I do.[/quote]

Sure there is a handful of people in the group who have drank the look-aid (and are now coming to the defense of the group in this thread), but overall people are very unhappy[/quote]

Uhh, no. I’m a Weil/KE midlevel who has complained about the practice in this thread but said I would do it again above. More than happy to pile on the hours, the exit options, the firm, whatever, but I like the substance of the work and I know others do too. That’s, at least, more than I could say for e.g., corporate.[/quote]

*takes big gulp of kool-aid*

Well I know a fact you’re wrong from the juniors’ perspective on how they feel[/quote]

Buddy, I'm a third year, I know how the juniors feel, but glad to hear you speak for all of them. Hope you find something you enjoy doing more though.

As for exit options, I haven't seen a true in house exit in the time that I've been here, but I don't know how much people really want that (think it's an uphill battle regardless). Firms are the easy exit and funds happen do happen infrequently. Best way to move to a fund in my experience is to get yourself on a creditor side matter and do a good job for the client who then pulls you in.[/quote]

Lol ok so you’re not a midlevel as you claimed since 3rd are still classified as juniors, so you’ve just discredited all the garbage you are spewing

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


First, the above seems wrong. I don’t think that is the consensus in this group.

Second, I’m a junior at ke/weil and I honestly can say I like my job at least half of the time, which is better than most.

Bottom line is, if you like corporate work, corporate has more exit ops to do more corporate work. But, if you don’t like Corporate, then the exit ops to do more corporate work still suck. I do way cooler work that my colleagues in Corp or lit. I work with partners in those groups daily who hand out my stupid questions to their juniors. Rx does not have a lot of exit ops, but the exit ops it does have, IMO, are better than in house stuff Corp will get you. Also, there is plenty of creditor side work to go around if you want to do that in these groups. But I like debtor work way more. I deal with only partners at the creditor side firms and their juniors are not even included in our calls. It is not a problem at all to go from a ke Weil to a creditor side firm. It happens regularly.[/quote]

Basically fully agree. I think the consensus in our group is definitely low morale right now, but the fact that more people don’t leave is pretty much a testament to how much people actually like the work. Sure I wish there was less of it at times, but I think I would’ve quit already if I was in corporate working much less but doing much more boring work. The exit options are worse for in house corporate options but that seems like a boring exit after years of doing boring big law corporate work. I would do bankruptcy again if I had the choice.[/quote]

Debtor-side mid-level from earlier. Agree mostly with this, though I'll say, there are times (esp leading up to a filing) where the hours are intense and I question my sanity. There's also a fair amount of traveling that can take a toll.

Someone listed a bunch of points earlier that I think are off:
-At least where I am, partners are no better/worse than other groups (I've heard one partner yell literally once, and it wasn't directed at anyone in the firm); its rather typical for any other group.
-Of course fire drills happen, but they aren't constant--I can think of a handful of times where I've had to drop everything and pull late nights/work over the weekend to get something done where I didn't reasonably know about it ahead of time. Everything else is just normal time pressure, and you learn how/when to push back so you can have a life. I've worked very few weekends (other than responding to emails or hopping on a 30 min call every now and then) over the past few months and have been on a number of active cases in various stages. This is also a function of moving on up in the chain because I just pass stuff off to juniors that I don't want to worry about until Monday or whenever I'm back in the office.
-Dealing with creditor groups can be contentious and frustrating, but I think it's way less adversarial that what our lit colleagues experience (unless, of course, we're litigating an ad/pro). Most of the time, we're all trying to get to the same place.
-Time entry sucks, though I don't think anyone has ever been reamed out for it, unless it was blatantly egregious or embellished.

Aside from the normal biglaw shit, I enjoy what I do.[/quote]

Sure there is a handful of people in the group who have drank the look-aid (and are now coming to the defense of the group in this thread), but overall people are very unhappy[/quote]

Uhh, no. I’m a Weil/KE midlevel who has complained about the practice in this thread but said I would do it again above. More than happy to pile on the hours, the exit options, the firm, whatever, but I like the substance of the work and I know others do too. That’s, at least, more than I could say for e.g., corporate.[/quote]

*takes big gulp of kool-aid*

Well I know a fact you’re wrong from the juniors’ perspective on how they feel[/quote]

Buddy, I'm a third year, I know how the juniors feel, but glad to hear you speak for all of them. Hope you find something you enjoy doing more though.

As for exit options, I haven't seen a true in house exit in the time that I've been here, but I don't know how much people really want that (think it's an uphill battle regardless). Firms are the easy exit and funds happen do happen infrequently. Best way to move to a fund in my experience is to get yourself on a creditor side matter and do a good job for the client who then pulls you in.[/quote]

Lol ok so you’re not a midlevel as you claimed since 3rd are still classified as juniors, so you’ve just discredited all the garbage you are spewing[/quote]

LOL at caring about "classification" as a way to discredit. You keep mentioning "general consensus" when several associates ITT have said to the contrary.

In any event, I gather you're not a serious person: you're either trolling or you're a corp associate who knows a junior in BK who's probably buried on PG&E/Sears/some other shitty case and hates his/her life. Yeah, I'm sure some people are unhappy, but that's a far cry from "general consensus" or whatever you want to call it.

peter2009

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:06 pm

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby peter2009 » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:So, I know this thread is generally about mourning BK as a practice choice, but do any of you not regret it/have a hard time imagining doing any other type of law?


The consensus in the group is that morale is very bad


As a senior restructuring associate, I can't imagine being in corporate or litigation. Bankruptcy is a good mix of litigation, finance, and corporate work without a lot of the drudgery that comes with these practices because the specialists come in to handle it. It is a fast paced practice and can be long hours (especially debtor work), but much more interesting than spending a year litigating discovery issues only to settle the case on the eve of trial or dealing with mind numbing securities issue.

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:08 pm

Say what you will about the hours, but I often find myself missing Kirkland/Weil whenever I'm on a deal with a different debtor counsel. Both so much better at driving process along

Anonymous User
Posts: 333410
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: ITT restructuring associates mourn practice choice

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:59 pm

I'm summering at a V10 and splitting between their real estate and restructuring groups. I have to make a decision by the end of the summer on which group I'm going in. What should I be considering? I'm 50/50 right now.

The economy will likely tank soon but I heard the real estate group is insulated since they do a lot of the bankruptcy real estate work. I'm not really sure about the exit options for either practice group. I'm not married to being a lawyer forever and real estate seems to offer options outside of the legal realm. However I think restructuring is intellectually interesting and I could see myself enjoying the litigation aspect of it.

Is making a decision not a huge deal? Could I switch to something more general like corporate if I find out I don't like either area within the first couple of years?



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.