Houston - LW v V&E v KE Forum

[Anonymous User]

Having read your whole post, I am not swayed. I don’t believe for a second that K&E only gave the boot to horrible associates. Biglaw firms don’t operate that competently. But even if you are right, and that many horrible associates actually did exist at K&E Houston, that’s still absurd and embarrassing (but just for different reasons).

One doesn’t need to be an expert on the Houston market to know that K&E is the wrong choice for an OP who has two far superior options. K&E treats associates like trash and shouldn’t even be a part of this conversation.

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

OP here

Oddly enough, I'm leaning towards LW. VE is great and the feedback on the firm has been great but it worries me to know that they are still losing people to the national firms. It's definitely held onto its piece of the pie, but I'm not sure what the firm will look like a few years down the line. As for KE, the softs are great (cafeteria, etc), but I've heard things about the firm as a whole that make me a bit hesitant. LW is obviously going to work me to the bone too but I haven't gotten the impression that it would be as bad as KE in terms off treating me like a body to throw at a matter (I know it's still BL and money talks at the end of the day, but I'd rather get a nice email asking me to work 12 hours on a weekend as opposed to some random partner just shouting instructions). That said, LW has gotten the least amount of votes and that also worries me a bit.

Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle?

Latham simply isn’t as entrenched and doesn’t have as strong of a foothold in that market, versus the other two firms. But it’s the best firm overall out of the three, if you take the firms as a whole.

LW isn't as entrenched? I feel like it's usually in the discussion for the highest tier for transactional work in Houston and has had a pretty solid amount of deal flow (at least in terms of $). Or do you mean entrenched in another sense?

If LW had 2 or so partners leave and the clients didn't stay, it would drastically change the office.

Unrelated to entrenchment (or maybe not): talking to folks at all three of these firms, my understanding is that VE and KE aggressively (in a good way) help place associates in house -- as a part of the system. LW does not do any of that, or at least not in a meaningful way.

Can’t speak to what LW/VE are like on this topic, but can confirm that KE aggressively helps place associates in other roles, even when laid off. They have a whole thing called “Kirkland Alumni” with career counselors, networking database, “reunion” style events, and more. Current associates can take any Kirkland alum out for a meal up to $100/person once per month and expense it (even if they left for a competing firm). Lots of effort to grow a network, which of course is ultimately in the firm’s selfish interest since a good chunk of those morph into clients over time.

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

OP here

Oddly enough, I'm leaning towards LW. VE is great and the feedback on the firm has been great but it worries me to know that they are still losing people to the national firms. It's definitely held onto its piece of the pie, but I'm not sure what the firm will look like a few years down the line. As for KE, the softs are great (cafeteria, etc), but I've heard things about the firm as a whole that make me a bit hesitant. LW is obviously going to work me to the bone too but I haven't gotten the impression that it would be as bad as KE in terms off treating me like a body to throw at a matter (I know it's still BL and money talks at the end of the day, but I'd rather get a nice email asking me to work 12 hours on a weekend as opposed to some random partner just shouting instructions). That said, LW has gotten the least amount of votes and that also worries me a bit.

Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle?

I’d take anything you hear about “the firm as a whole” with a massive grain of salt, for any firm. Different offices can often have very different cultures, and even differ between practice groups within each office.

For what it’s worth, I’m at one of LW/KE and have many friends at the other one, and upon comparing notes over the years I’ve concluded it’s literally the exact same thing at both (and across most of BigLaw for that matter). Cultural differences are vastly exaggerated. Also, in many firms but particularly these three firms, there have been an enormous amount of lateral moves over the past few years - most of the people your work with were all from other firms anyway. Notably, K&E and LW are both full of people stolen from V&E, Baker Botts, and each other so I think claiming there’s some huge cultural difference when it’s literally a bunch of people from those other firms that are supposedly different is just silly.

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring all the posts to say: V&E is the clear winner based on votes...

Where are you leaning, OP?

OP here

Oddly enough, I'm leaning towards LW. VE is great and the feedback on the firm has been great but it worries me to know that they are still losing people to the national firms. It's definitely held onto its piece of the pie, but I'm not sure what the firm will look like a few years down the line. As for KE, the softs are great (cafeteria, etc), but I've heard things about the firm as a whole that make me a bit hesitant. LW is obviously going to work me to the bone too but I haven't gotten the impression that it would be as bad as KE in terms off treating me like a body to throw at a matter (I know it's still BL and money talks at the end of the day, but I'd rather get a nice email asking me to work 12 hours on a weekend as opposed to some random partner just shouting instructions). That said, LW has gotten the least amount of votes and that also worries me a bit.

Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle?

I’d take anything you hear about “the firm as a whole” with a massive grain of salt, for any firm. Different offices can often have very different cultures, and even differ between practice groups within each office.

For what it’s worth, I’m at one of LW/KE and have many friends at the other one, and upon comparing notes over the years I’ve concluded it’s literally the exact same thing at both (and across most of BigLaw for that matter). Cultural differences are vastly exaggerated. Also, in many firms but particularly these three firms, there have been an enormous amount of lateral moves over the past few years - most of the people your work with were all from other firms anyway. Notably, K&E and LW are both full of people stolen from V&E, Baker Botts, and each other so I think claiming there’s some huge cultural difference when it’s literally a bunch of people from those other firms that are supposedly different is just silly.

I agree with all of this as an associate at one of the three firms. And even if there was some cohesive culture (there's not), it can change very quickly with a few keep departures (or arrivals).

[Anonymous User]

It was less than 10 associates across all Texas offices (I think as low as 5? not sure) - not even just in Houston. It is very easy to see a 12 month hours count of 1400 when things have been busy and know someone has checked out.

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

They make money firing the 2000+ when other associates are slow. Let’s say John is billing 2000, but Partner kinda doesn’t like John. It’s not that John did anything egregious, but he never sucked up to Partner. Meanwhile, that generates meaningful work opportunities for the other associates that Partner does like. If Sam, Sarah and Kate were each billing 1000, now they will bill just shy of 1700.

[Anonymous User]

I personally know two stealthed K&E associates who claim to have been pacing over 2000 hours. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s gotta be Latham or V&E here.

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

They make money firing the 2000+ when other associates are slow. Let’s say John is billing 2000, but Partner kinda doesn’t like John. It’s not that John did anything egregious, but he never sucked up to Partner. Meanwhile, that generates meaningful work opportunities for the other associates that Partner does like. If Sam, Sarah and Kate were each billing 1000, now they will bill just shy of 1700.

Amen. Juniors don't create work. They merely divide up the pie that's given to them. When times are slow and cutting increases profitability, don't cut the people you like, even if they have less hours.

[Anonymous User]

oh wait, so they didn't say "yeah, I was really bad at the job and honestly didn't try very hard. Oh also, my hours were really low because I was trying to hide"? I am shocked, usually when someone who is bad gets fired because they were bad, they love to talk about how bad they are!

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

They make money firing the 2000+ when other associates are slow. Let’s say John is billing 2000, but Partner kinda doesn’t like John. It’s not that John did anything egregious, but he never sucked up to Partner. Meanwhile, that generates meaningful work opportunities for the other associates that Partner does like. If Sam, Sarah and Kate were each billing 1000, now they will bill just shy of 1700.

Amen. Juniors don't create work. They merely divide up the pie that's given to them. When times are slow and cutting increases profitability, don't cut the people you like, even if they have less hours.

Sure but the best associates and personal favorites tend to be the ones with plenty of hours anyway. It’s super unlikely to have some awesome associate the partner really wants to give more hours, but that damn Julie keeps hogging them all despite not being good/liked. It’s just not how things function in real life.

If someone has strong hours but is hated or bad, that’s exactly what I was talking about in my response, where there’s an actual reason to cut them.

Among the bulk of associates that partners have no strong feelings about, they are distinguished basically just by hours, aka cut the slowest ones. Nobody cuts the 2000 hour associates to save the 1000 hour associates.

[Anonymous User]

By your logic, a firm could fire literally anybody and give any explanation for doing so — no matter how far fetched — and you’d continue to claim the victims are simply ashamed to admit how bad they are. K&E is toxic, and OP should choose job security over whatever bullshit amenities K&E is offering.

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

They make money firing the 2000+ when other associates are slow. Let’s say John is billing 2000, but Partner kinda doesn’t like John. It’s not that John did anything egregious, but he never sucked up to Partner. Meanwhile, that generates meaningful work opportunities for the other associates that Partner does like. If Sam, Sarah and Kate were each billing 1000, now they will bill just shy of 1700.

Amen. Juniors don't create work. They merely divide up the pie that's given to them. When times are slow and cutting increases profitability, don't cut the people you like, even if they have less hours.

Sure but the best associates and personal favorites tend to be the ones with plenty of hours anyway. It’s super unlikely to have some awesome associate the partner really wants to give more hours, but that damn Julie keeps hogging them all despite not being good/liked. It’s just not how things function in real life.

If someone has strong hours but is hated or bad, that’s exactly what I was talking about in my response, where there’s an actual reason to cut them.

Among the bulk of associates that partners have no strong feelings about, they are distinguished basically just by hours, aka cut the slowest ones. Nobody cuts the 2000 hour associates to save the 1000 hour associates.

Multiple people are telling you that it does happen. I unfortunately have too much work to continue trying to convince you that life isn’t fair. Which is a lesson I learned by age 5.

Anyway, if OP is still following, just don’t work at K&E. That is a partnership that will nuke your career to make $7.1 million instead of $7.0 million.

[Anonymous User]

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

They make money firing the 2000+ when other associates are slow. Let’s say John is billing 2000, but Partner kinda doesn’t like John. It’s not that John did anything egregious, but he never sucked up to Partner. Meanwhile, that generates meaningful work opportunities for the other associates that Partner does like. If Sam, Sarah and Kate were each billing 1000, now they will bill just shy of 1700.

Amen. Juniors don't create work. They merely divide up the pie that's given to them. When times are slow and cutting increases profitability, don't cut the people you like, even if they have less hours.

Sure but the best associates and personal favorites tend to be the ones with plenty of hours anyway. It’s super unlikely to have some awesome associate the partner really wants to give more hours, but that damn Julie keeps hogging them all despite not being good/liked. It’s just not how things function in real life.

If someone has strong hours but is hated or bad, that’s exactly what I was talking about in my response, where there’s an actual reason to cut them.

Among the bulk of associates that partners have no strong feelings about, they are distinguished basically just by hours, aka cut the slowest ones. Nobody cuts the 2000 hour associates to save the 1000 hour associates.

Multiple people are telling you that it does happen. I unfortunately have too much work to continue trying to convince you that life isn’t fair. Which is a lesson I learned by age 5.

Anyway, if OP is still following, just don’t work at K&E. That is a partnership that will nuke your career to make $7.1 million instead of $7.0 million.

So are the profit maximizing or do they play favorites?

[Anonymous User]

No, by my logic, a firm does not fire associates for no reason. If you are billing over 2,000 (and brining in close to $2m a year), you are not getting fired. Why would they fire someone making them money who is doing a good job? Give me a break. When people say "oh yeah layoffs not based on performance", well, there are a lot of associates still there - the decision wasn't made blindly.

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

They make money firing the 2000+ when other associates are slow. Let’s say John is billing 2000, but Partner kinda doesn’t like John. It’s not that John did anything egregious, but he never sucked up to Partner. Meanwhile, that generates meaningful work opportunities for the other associates that Partner does like. If Sam, Sarah and Kate were each billing 1000, now they will bill just shy of 1700.

Amen. Juniors don't create work. They merely divide up the pie that's given to them. When times are slow and cutting increases profitability, don't cut the people you like, even if they have less hours.

Sure but the best associates and personal favorites tend to be the ones with plenty of hours anyway. It’s super unlikely to have some awesome associate the partner really wants to give more hours, but that damn Julie keeps hogging them all despite not being good/liked. It’s just not how things function in real life.

If someone has strong hours but is hated or bad, that’s exactly what I was talking about in my response, where there’s an actual reason to cut them.

Among the bulk of associates that partners have no strong feelings about, they are distinguished basically just by hours, aka cut the slowest ones. Nobody cuts the 2000 hour associates to save the 1000 hour associates.

Multiple people are telling you that it does happen. I unfortunately have too much work to continue trying to convince you that life isn’t fair. Which is a lesson I learned by age 5.

Anyway, if OP is still following, just don’t work at K&E. That is a partnership that will nuke your career to make $7.1 million instead of $7.0 million.

Ok, maybe partners are firing perfectly good 2000-hour associates in order to play favorites with 1000-hour goobers at your wack ass firm, but that’s not how K&E operates. It is very famously a profit-maximizing “run like a business” sort of place and what you describe doesn’t make sense. If it doesn’t make sense, K&E doesn’t do it. They may do things we don’t like, but it’s always for a reason (even if that reason is to bump profits slightly as you describe).

[Anonymous User]

Oh you sweet summer child. Even someone billing 1000 is making the firm money. The reason they fire someone billing 2000+ is so the partners can make even more money… duh. Plus they can reallocate that work to associates they like better / are politically better positioned.

What a stupid take. Yes, it’s of course not a pure “$1 more than cost and we keep them” calculus, but at 2k+ hours you’re insanely profitable even as a first year. Latham and K&E both bill first years out at $700 so that’s $1.4m in revenue - even subtracting write offs and imperfect realization rates, there is no world in which the partners “make even more money” by cutting such a person.

People with 2000 (or even 1800) hours are getting cut when (1) work quality or personality issues detract from the other people on their teams or risk impacting the firm’s image or client relationships; (2) they are not developing fast enough such that either now or soon the firm can’t utilize them in the expected role and/or has trouble justifying their rates to clients; (3) some similar specific issue that either causes collateral problems in the firm, makes them a waste of resources, or makes it hard to actually collect the revenue from their hours.

If partners made money by firing an otherwise totally normal associate billing 2000+, why in the hell would they hire associates in the first place? Come on, use your brain.

They make money firing the 2000+ when other associates are slow. Let’s say John is billing 2000, but Partner kinda doesn’t like John. It’s not that John did anything egregious, but he never sucked up to Partner. Meanwhile, that generates meaningful work opportunities for the other associates that Partner does like. If Sam, Sarah and Kate were each billing 1000, now they will bill just shy of 1700.

Amen. Juniors don't create work. They merely divide up the pie that's given to them. When times are slow and cutting increases profitability, don't cut the people you like, even if they have less hours.

Sure but the best associates and personal favorites tend to be the ones with plenty of hours anyway. It’s super unlikely to have some awesome associate the partner really wants to give more hours, but that damn Julie keeps hogging them all despite not being good/liked. It’s just not how things function in real life.

If someone has strong hours but is hated or bad, that’s exactly what I was talking about in my response, where there’s an actual reason to cut them.

Among the bulk of associates that partners have no strong feelings about, they are distinguished basically just by hours, aka cut the slowest ones. Nobody cuts the 2000 hour associates to save the 1000 hour associates.

Multiple people are telling you that it does happen. I unfortunately have too much work to continue trying to convince you that life isn’t fair. Which is a lesson I learned by age 5.

Anyway, if OP is still following, just don’t work at K&E. That is a partnership that will nuke your career to make $7.1 million instead of $7.0 million.

Ok, maybe partners are firing perfectly good 2000-hour associates in order to play favorites with 1000-hour goobers at your wack ass firm, but that’s not how K&E operates. It is very famously a profit-maximizing “run like a business” sort of place and what you describe doesn’t make sense. If it doesn’t make sense, K&E doesn’t do it. They may do things we don’t like, but it’s always for a reason (even if that reason is to bump profits slightly as you describe).

If there’s such a thing as a “wack ass firm” … K&E is it. And so long as OP doesn’t choose K&E, he/she won’t be making an objectively bad decision

[Anonymous User]

KE is an awful place that has continually shown it's true colors year after year now. I was lured to the firm by these same posts (probably same posters) saying "oh all the firms the same", but back in those days they'd also mention KE would pay you more. Notice no one is saying that now lol. Stay far away from KE. 80 percent of the people I knew there (mostly the cool people) are gone. You're left with people self selecting into that terrible place. I will say again. Don't go to KE. I worked there. You will be quite literally trading those years for a paycheck. Not all firms are the same. Maybe look beyond those three or pick a different market. Houston is a grinder market.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe look beyond those three or pick a different market. Houston is a grinder market.

Oh, ok so you’re saying that the top 3 firms in Houston, which OP is asking about, are all for “grinders” and they should instead look at other firms or other markets? Well if that’s the case, why all the hate toward K&E specifically? Nobody is saying all firms are the same, they’re saying that the top 3 firms are basically the same (which makes sense because that’s why they’re on top).

If you want to aim for more of a “lifestyle” environment at HayBoo or Jackson Walker or whatever, more power to you. But OP is specifically about three firms that you find are all objectionable, yet the whole response is targeting K&E specifically. It’s comments like this that lead people to accept other firms on a mistaken assumption that they’re somehow more relaxed or have a better “culture” only to discover that they don’t and the decision was made on nonsense.

Which is fine, except when a firm like K&E would otherwise be the best fit for someone, but they avoid it because of “culture” which, when the difference is actually hollow, means it’s a net worse decision to go elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

Add one more vote from someone at one of these three shops that says they're all substantially the same. If you want to be a transactional attorney in Texas, any one of them will be an excellent place to begin your career. But you're going to pay for it in much the same way as a transactional attorney in a more traditional market does, at least for the first few years until you figure out what you're doing. These shops tend to get right sized in a hurry whether it's through self-selection or firm-selected attrition. All of these firms let their lowest performers go (some with longer runways than others mind you) and you're not likely to make partner at any of them. I had offers at all three and I'm reasonably happy with where I chose, but there are still many rough days, and I still don't believe my experience would have been markedly different at either of the other two. I'll say that KE's food is probably the best perk, imo, amongst the three.

[LittleRedCorvette]

Well, OP, where did you end up.

[Anonymous User]

Deleted