2020 Vault Law Firm Rankings Released Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

Maybe the real winners in all this are the (approximately) V20-V50 crew who have an actual 1900/1950/2k hours requirement and who make market and market bonuses—no more, no less.

Definitely. I started out at one of those firms and billed 1100/1920 my first two years. Market pay and market bonus.

For litigation, are the exit options that much worse at a v30 than a v5 or v10? I guess from a litigator’s perspective, I have yet to hear what’s so much better about the top of the vault relative to 20-50 with market pay

[QContinuum]

unlimited vacation, just-bill-your-hours-and-we'll-treat-you-like-an-adult vibe

Okay, one relatively minor quibble, but can we dispense with the "unlimited vacation" as a perk concept? Unlimited vacation is not a perk. Unlimited vacation really just means no paid vacation days. Firms with vacation policies are usually quite generous in the number of vacation days they grant, and I've never heard of associates at "unlimited vacation" firms actually taking more vacation than their colleagues at firms with vacation policies. In fact, quite the contrary - while anecdotal, my impression is that associates at "unlimited vacation" firms typically end up taking less vacation.

Not the person you are responding to, but I'm a K&E associate, and you are absolutely right. Altogether, most people probably don't take more than two weeks a year. Meanwhile, my friends at firms with a set amount of days are encouraged to use those days. "Unlimited" vacation is a huge scam.

The no facetime thing, however, is real. I didn't real consider it as a factor when choosing a firm, but it makes a huge difference in terms of work-life balance (especially when you work at a sweatshop).

Thanks for chiming in and providing a balanced perspective. I agree that facetime/no facetime is a huge deal. There's nothing that makes you feel more like you're back in grade school than a strict facetime policy.

Re the larger debate, I do think its funny how up and arms people are after KE moved up two spots on a largely meaningless scale. So KE was fine as 8th most prestigious, but the whole world is turned upside down when they move to 6.

To be fair, I think the same folks up in arms now were also up in arms when K&E first made it to #8. But I agree the hoopla's absurd, esp. given the TLS consensus - which I don't think any TLSers has meaningfully challenged - regarding the Vault ranking's numerous shortcomings.

As to culture, was K&E the firm best know in '08-'10 for layoffs? No. So why bark up that tree?

Obviously no, and I am not one of the posters claiming that K&E associates are going to be at heightened risk of getting laid off come next recession. That said, I think it's not unreasonable to question the stability of K&E's recent rapid expansion. I think folks would react similarly if any other firm started embarking on a massive expansion.

[Anonymous User]

unlimited vacation, just-bill-your-hours-and-we'll-treat-you-like-an-adult vibe

Okay, one relatively minor quibble, but can we dispense with the "unlimited vacation" as a perk concept? Unlimited vacation is not a perk. Unlimited vacation really just means no paid vacation days. Firms with vacation policies are usually quite generous in the number of vacation days they grant, and I've never heard of associates at "unlimited vacation" firms actually taking more vacation than their colleagues at firms with vacation policies. In fact, quite the contrary - while anecdotal, my impression is that associates at "unlimited vacation" firms typically end up taking less vacation.

Not the person you are responding to, but I'm a K&E associate, and you are absolutely right. Altogether, most people probably don't take more than two weeks a year. Meanwhile, my friends at firms with a set amount of days are encouraged to use those days. "Unlimited" vacation is a huge scam.

The no facetime thing, however, is real. I didn't real consider it as a factor when choosing a firm, but it makes a huge difference in terms of work-life balance (especially when you work at a sweatshop).

Thanks for chiming in and providing a balanced perspective. I agree that facetime/no facetime is a huge deal. There's nothing that makes you feel more like you're back in grade school than a strict facetime policy.

Re the larger debate, I do think its funny how up and arms people are after KE moved up two spots on a largely meaningless scale. So KE was fine as 8th most prestigious, but the whole world is turned upside down when they move to 6.

To be fair, I think the same folks up in arms now were also up in arms when K&E first made it to #8. But I agree the hoopla's absurd, esp. given the TLS consensus - which I don't think any TLSers has meaningfully challenged - regarding the Vault ranking's numerous shortcomings.

As to culture, was K&E the firm best know in '08-'10 for layoffs? No. So why bark up that tree?

Obviously no, and I am not one of the posters claiming that K&E associates are going to be at heightened risk of getting laid off come next recession. That said, I think it's not unreasonable to question the stability of K&E's recent rapid expansion. I think folks would react similarly if any other firm started embarking on a massive expansion.

Anon KE associate again. I think the expansion point is valid. I know we associates talk about it. I do think the firm's expansions have largely made sense (following the PE firms), but obviously rapid growth adds risk. So some additional risk there, and some reduced risk from bk and PE groups (PE is far less exposed to a downturn the public M&A and capital markets). Who knows how it all shakes out? Given the average life expectancy at any biglaw firm, not sure it should be much of a factor for people figuring out where to go.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

My view is that people aren't nearly so mad that K&E is at 6 or whatever as K&E associates are mad that complete strangers don't feel that is a right assessment of their prestige relative to other firms. Obviously prestige is a nebulous concept but being this mad and defensive is just weird guys.

It's really uninteresting to discuss when 5 madlads are just going into long winded, entirely too long to read defenses that largely have nothing to do with prestige and are based on dubious points of distinction. I have known many K&E associates, including several laterals who lateraled to my former firm bc it was a better path in-house than K&E, and have worked across from them. The only thing I've found remarkably different about K&E as an institution is the aggressiveness of the lawyers, which is on full display ITT. Notice we also said the same about L&W but only one firm is being yelled about so breathlessly.

You can just not stan your firm. It is a viable option. You don't need to wrap up your self worth in K&E. You won't be there for very long more likely than not. That's the type of thing most lawyers realize around their third or fourth year. That's also why it's uninteresting to discuss this with a lot of these posters. They are clearly second year associates, if that.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

You can just not stan your firm. It is a viable option. You don't need to wrap up your self worth in K&E.

Well said. I’ll never understand it. We exchange the prime years of our lives for lots of $$$. No need to stan your firm it’s bizarre. It’s just your workplace.

[Anonymous User]

My view is that people aren't nearly so mad that K&E is at 6 or whatever as K&E associates are mad that complete strangers don't feel that is a right assessment of their prestige relative to other firms. Obviously prestige is a nebulous concept but being this mad and defensive is just weird guys.

It's really uninteresting to discuss when 5 madlads are just going into long winded, entirely too long to read defenses that largely have nothing to do with prestige and are based on dubious points of distinction. I have known many K&E associates, including several laterals who lateraled to my former firm bc it was a better path in-house than K&E, and have worked across from them. The only thing I've found remarkably different about K&E as an institution is the aggressiveness of the lawyers, which is on full display ITT. Notice we also said the same about L&W but only one firm is being yelled about so breathlessly.

You can just not stan your firm. It is a viable option. You don't need to wrap up your self worth in K&E. You won't be there for very long more likely than not. That's the type of thing most lawyers realize around their third or fourth year. That's also why it's uninteresting to discuss this with a lot of these posters. They are clearly second year associates, if that.

As I said earlier, "And yea, it kind of sucks KE associates have to come on here and defend the firm. I'm happy with my choice of firm, but at the end of the day I'm only still here because of the pay. It's a sweatshop similar to other top firms. At no point am I going to go around saying "OMG KIRKLAND IS GREAT."

Biglaw kind of sucks, Kirkland is no exception. Not in NY corporate, but I've heard people hate working across from them. I have no doubt that criticism is valid. I really started getting involved in this thread because of the weird troll that kirkland doesn't pay above market bonuses. It's just objectively untrue. It's also weird that KE is being described as a walmart firm when DPW/Simpson each have 10 offices, Sullivan has 13, and Skadden, Latham, and Weil all have more offices than K&E. But no, we can't compare KE to other v10 firms?

Absolutely agree self-worth should not be wrapped into the firm. The firm doesn't really care about me, and its "prestige" has nothing to do with my skill as an attorney. It is more likely than not I will leave within a year. But, let's stick to the facts?

[10b5-1]

My view is that people aren't nearly so mad that K&E is at 6 or whatever as K&E associates are mad that complete strangers don't feel that is a right assessment of their prestige relative to other firms. Obviously prestige is a nebulous concept but being this mad and defensive is just weird guys.

It's really uninteresting to discuss when 5 madlads are just going into long winded, entirely too long to read defenses that largely have nothing to do with prestige and are based on dubious points of distinction. I have known many K&E associates, including several laterals who lateraled to my former firm bc it was a better path in-house than K&E, and have worked across from them. The only thing I've found remarkably different about K&E as an institution is the aggressiveness of the lawyers, which is on full display ITT. Notice we also said the same about L&W but only one firm is being yelled about so breathlessly.

You can just not stan your firm. It is a viable option. You don't need to wrap up your self worth in K&E. You won't be there for very long more likely than not. That's the type of thing most lawyers realize around their third or fourth year. That's also why it's uninteresting to discuss this with a lot of these posters. They are clearly second year associates, if that.

Yeah, but what has your contribution been here? "Lol Kirkland", essentially - and then you find it weird that people who actually work there try and give an accurate assessment of life there, and dismiss it as "stanning". Shoot, excuse me for enjoying my work, liking the people I work with, and wanting to balance out some of the random negativity... Do you have no self-awareness at all as to how what you say provokes the exact responses you claim to hate? It's bizarre.

You can claim some kind of weird high ground and smear anything you dislike as "stanning" or coming from "second years", but your comments are the least informed and least mature in the thread. "Madlads" - yes, I'm sure you're a partner with a great perspective on the market.

[SLS_AMG]

I do think at least part of the intrigue surrounding K&E vis-a-vis a recession is that they’ve purportedly been shelling out HUGE sums of money in signing bonuses to sign both lateral partners and lateral associates. Do those not presumably have a vesting period that could cause problems in a downturn?

And while I do think Kirkland’s ranking is undeserved (and certainly not reflective of NYC attitudes on firms), I also think the Latham ranking is far more preposterous than the Kirkland ranking, FWIW. Latham is literally a generic big law firm in my view, while Kirkland does have some world-class practices (and is generally different, as discussed above).

[Anonymous User]

KE associate. KE is a great firm, with lots of smart people, that provides fantastic customer service, and has a bit of a cutthroat culture problem.

Not sure why ppl are getting so emotional in their defense — I don’t think the point is to s h I t on Kirkland, but to encourage transparency.

We should be talking about how Kirkland is over leveraged and if I were a summer associate I would seriously consider shopping my offer around. We should be addressing false arguments about how Kirkland will flourish in bankruptcy because all of those m&a attorneys will just start doing bankruptcy work (I’m guessing the person who said that is an SA). We should be addressing false information that PE firms will be more active in a downturn (tightening credit markets will bring PE activity to a halt). We should call out ppl who say KE hiring so many associates is some altruistic “don’t wanna burn out associates” and be clear it is partly because they want to have sufficient capacity to say yes to every deal while times are good and partly pure hubris.

Free discussion helps associates. I sincerely want KE to be the most successful of all firms because I’ve hitched my wagon to them. Don’t think putting my head in the sand about the valid criticisms of KE is helpful to me personally or Kirkland as a whole.

[Anonymous User]

The only thing I've found remarkably different about K&E as an institution is the aggressiveness of the lawyers, which is on full display ITT. Notice we also said the same about L&W but only one firm is being yelled about so breathlessly.

Well said. I work at L&W and I don't think we are a V5 firm (closer to V20/30 based on our perception in the marketplace and prior TTT shit they pulled). Meanwhile K&E bros are spending their free time being up in arms about ppl questioning whether they should be "more prestigious" than simpson and DPW.

[cookiejar1]

I do think at least part of the intrigue surrounding K&E vis-a-vis a recession is that they’ve purportedly been shelling out HUGE sums of money in signing bonuses to sign both lateral partners and lateral associates. Do those not presumably have a vesting period that could cause problems in a downturn?

And while I do think Kirkland’s ranking is undeserved (and certainly not reflective of NYC attitudes on firms), I also think the Latham ranking is far more preposterous than the Kirkland ranking, FWIW. Latham is literally a generic big law firm in my view, while Kirkland does have some world-class practices (and is generally different, as discussed above).

Ding, ding, ding. No V5 firm can have a $40 summer lunch budget. What are we? Farmers?

[Anonymous User]

My view is that people aren't nearly so mad that K&E is at 6 or whatever as K&E associates are mad that complete strangers don't feel that is a right assessment of their prestige relative to other firms. Obviously prestige is a nebulous concept but being this mad and defensive is just weird guys.

KE associate here and I agree with this sentiment, although I don't agree that the "KE stans" are more vocal than those who are criticizing KE. I am in lit and in a non-NY office, so I really DGAF about Vault rankings anyway. I know I will be at this firm for, like, 2 more years anyway.

KE is weirdly singled out by some of the same second-year associate firm-prestige-inquisitors on TLS who can't fathom why it is rated where it is. That's not something I take personally, but as a KE associate it's something I notice here (and always with something of a quizzical look on my face). We really aren't that different than you, no matter where you are, unless shit is just incredibly different in the deal world than in lit.

KE is more aggressive than other firms probably because it attracts aggressive 2Ls in OCI due to its reputation; other than that, it's exactly like every single biglaw firm out there in most respects. If you are in biglaw, regardless of firm, we are in the same boat. Why spend your time raging against (or for) the merits of a firm that really doesn't care about you beyond the hours you can bill to make sure the partners can afford their beach homes? How is your life affected whatsoever as a Debevoise associate if Latham and Kirkland are ahead of your firm in Vault rankings?

Everybody should chill and quite frankly should have focused these energies on pressing for Gunderson summer bonus matches but that ship has seemingly sailed.

[Anonymous User]

I do think at least part of the intrigue surrounding K&E vis-a-vis a recession is that they’ve purportedly been shelling out HUGE sums of money in signing bonuses to sign both lateral partners and lateral associates. Do those not presumably have a vesting period that could cause problems in a downturn?

And while I do think Kirkland’s ranking is undeserved (and certainly not reflective of NYC attitudes on firms), I also think the Latham ranking is far more preposterous than the Kirkland ranking, FWIW. Latham is literally a generic big law firm in my view, while Kirkland does have some world-class practices (and is generally different, as discussed above).

Ding, ding, ding. No V5 firm can have a $40 summer lunch budget. What are we? Farmers?

L&W anon above, and I fully agree. (it's actually even lower outside of NYC.) We also have 1900 hr billable requirements outside of NY and don't even provide a company cell phone.

[Anonymous User]

Same KE associate as above. Agree with post re LW. I think KE at 8 and LW at 10 sounds about right.

[Anonymous User]

Same KE associate as above. Agree with post re LW. I think KE at 8 and LW at 10 sounds about right.

LW anon from above. Yeah, that's more or less right. LW is kind of the pepsi to K&E's coke.

[TheProsecutor]

I don't work at Kirkland. I just thought the Kirkland bashers made poor arguments. As I said in my initial post in this thread, if you're at a firm, you've done very well for yourself and you shouldn't let vault or any other ranking take away from the accomplishment of having earned your position at your firm.

[rahulg91]

My view is that people aren't nearly so mad that K&E is at 6 or whatever as K&E associates are mad that complete strangers don't feel that is a right assessment of their prestige relative to other firms. Obviously prestige is a nebulous concept but being this mad and defensive is just weird guys.

Everybody should chill and quite frankly should have focused these energies on pressing for Gunderson summer bonus matches but that ship has seemingly sailed.

This. You all need to quit being weirdos for a second.

WE WANT SUMMER BONE-US.

Start leaving cover letters to Gunderson in the shared printer trays.

[stephcurry]

There's nothing wrong with Kirkland. In fact, it should probably be higher given its reputation among clients, results delivered, profitability, generous associate compensation, early partnership opportunity, and exit options for former employees. The problem on this board is that some folks decided not to go to Kirkland because they wanted to be in a firm that had slightly more selective associate qualifications. But people really are only impressed by selectivity if it is Wachtell or boutique level selective. And if you're good enough to go to Wachtell or a boutique, you don't really care about the prestige of the firm because your credentials speak for themselves separate from the firm.

That being said, I find vault silly. If you're fortunate enough to work at a top tier law firm (regardless of where it ranks on Vault), you're doing very well for yourself and should not really let rankings take away from your accomplishment of having earned your position at the firm.

Edit: not sure why i posted anon. This is theprosecutor.

This post makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about why people do not choose K&E. None of the reasons here are why I did not want to go to K&E. Early partnership opportunities? Calling associates partners is not "partnership opportunities." It has an aggressive and sweatshop reputation. K&E talks up exit opportunities but I do not see them at all. In NYC, NYC firms have better exit ops. K&E does not effectively compete in NorCal with in-house exit opportunities at all. Those are probably two of the biggest markets for good in-house gigs. Even the generous compensation has been called into question here lately.

This is this kind of pap K&E associates tell themselves. It's a walmart style firm with higher standards. Clients love it so they have work and money to go around. That doesn't actually translate to good associate experience. And I believe the relevant metric is prestige. Not the things listed anyways.

ETA: I chose a V50 over V10 for exit ops, so my K&E bashing is purely pro bono trying to steer law students away from K&E, cross-border work and private equity, which I regard as the worst corporate work.

I think Kirkland's a fine firm - the recent increase in pubco reps in m&a is really quite impressive - but how did you K&E bros fail to call this out? This person (if they're not just a boring troll) is so blinded by salt that they actually think the bolded legitimizes their claim when in reality it's telling for quite the opposite reason. Really, a true piece of work.

[dabigchina]

I think Kirkland's a fine firm - the recent increase in pubco reps in m&a is really quite impressive - but how did you K&E bros fail to call this out? This person (if they're not just a boring troll) is so blinded by salt that they actually think the bolded legitimizes their claim when in reality it's telling for quite the opposite reason. Really, a true piece of work.

oh my god. who the hell cares.

FWIW, oblig.lawl.ref practices in the bay area, where the local V50s objectively have better exit ops and most well informed law students with the choice take wilson/cooley/fenwick/gunderson. I don't think there's any salt anywhere there.

[purpletiger]

I think it's best to think of Kirkland and Latham in an evolutionary sense. Every generation brings new law firms that have sought to disrupt the legal establishment, often in the search of making more money than is available to the establishment. In the postwar period, law firms that were more open to non-WASPs had access to better talent and thrived as a result. In the 1980s, Skadden, Wachtell and others did the big M&A hostile takeovers that more genteel white-shoe firms wouldn't touch. In the 2000s, Quinn and Boies innovated by doing away with the bells-and-whistles of biglaw practice and focusing solely on big-ticket litigation, including a willingness to go to trial that most V10-type firms didn't have. Now, Kirkland and Latham are nationalizing and globalizing their eat-what-you-kill model (see, e.g., the impact on the Magic Circle in London), which has proven very effective in building substantial local presences (rather than token satellite offices), poaching partners, and increasing partner pay. It's been a successful model!

It is odd to see people on this thread debate the prestige of Kirkland in terms of the pay or the PE deals or the partner title for senior associates or whatever. That's not what really matters in terms of prestige. Williams & Connolly pays less than market but COA clerks will still happily work there. Cadwalader pays above-market bonuses but people are not taking that firm over Cravath. Paul Weiss is more profitable than almost every other firm but still is ranked below STB and friends. Kirkland is a strong firm with good practices, with a, um, er, unique culture. If that's for you, great! But in New York, the Cravath, DPW-type firms are still more highly-regarded and it's hard to dispute that. In other cities, the local giants might be more highly-regarded. Maybe the money is worth it, maybe it's not! For national rankings, Kirkland at 5 is about right because it has a presence beyond New York. But that's not what really matters for the quotidian biglaw associate.

[stephcurry]

I think Kirkland's a fine firm - the recent increase in pubco reps in m&a is really quite impressive - but how did you K&E bros fail to call this out? This person (if they're not just a boring troll) is so blinded by salt that they actually think the bolded legitimizes their claim when in reality it's telling for quite the opposite reason. Really, a true piece of work.

oh my god. who the hell cares.

FWIW, oblig.lawl.ref practices in the bay area, where the local V50s objectively have better exit ops and most well informed law students with the choice take wilson/cooley/fenwick/gunderson. I don't think there's any salt anywhere there.

I mean...oblig.lawl.ref obviously cares given their cringe "jk we probably could" comment, but if you mean in the sense that these rankings are dumb and associates should be focused on more important matters like summer bonuses, then yes agreed.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I feel like the biglaw Latrell sprewell Dunno how I’m gonna feed my family with no summer bonus

Should be wachtell v1 Milbank v2 Gunderson v3 all other firms TTT

[Vexed]

My view is that people aren't nearly so mad that K&E is at 6 or whatever as K&E associates are mad that complete strangers don't feel that is a right assessment of their prestige relative to other firms. Obviously prestige is a nebulous concept but being this mad and defensive is just weird guys.

KE is more aggressive than other firms probably because it attracts aggressive 2Ls in OCI due to its reputation; other than that, it's exactly like every single biglaw firm out there in most respects. If you are in biglaw, regardless of firm, we are in the same boat. Why spend your time raging against (or for) the merits of a firm that really doesn't care about you beyond the hours you can bill to make sure the partners can afford their beach homes? How is your life affected whatsoever as a Debevoise associate if Latham and Kirkland are ahead of your firm in Vault rankings?

The bold answers the latter part of this paragraph. People are going to be more willing to attack a firm online for things like perceived prestige if the associates they interact with from that firm are jerks more often than their peers at other firms. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous User]

My view is that people aren't nearly so mad that K&E is at 6 or whatever as K&E associates are mad that complete strangers don't feel that is a right assessment of their prestige relative to other firms. Obviously prestige is a nebulous concept but being this mad and defensive is just weird guys.

KE is more aggressive than other firms probably because it attracts aggressive 2Ls in OCI due to its reputation; other than that, it's exactly like every single biglaw firm out there in most respects. If you are in biglaw, regardless of firm, we are in the same boat. Why spend your time raging against (or for) the merits of a firm that really doesn't care about you beyond the hours you can bill to make sure the partners can afford their beach homes? How is your life affected whatsoever as a Debevoise associate if Latham and Kirkland are ahead of your firm in Vault rankings?

The bold answers the latter part of this paragraph. People are going to be more willing to attack a firm online for things like perceived prestige if the associates they interact with from that firm are jerks more often than their peers at other firms. It's not rocket science.

I'm the KE anon you quoted. It makes perfect sense to me that people would enjoy criticizing the firms they have bad interactions with (I feel this way about a biglaw firm I'm working closely with right now that I won't name) so I'm sure you're right. Obviously though, "Kirkland is overrated because their associates are jerks" doesn't really track unless you think Vault has a big "Associate Likability" component.

IMO, "KE is overrated" is something of a meme that has a life of its own at this point, rather than something that's fueled by actual negative encounters on behalf of associates (relative to encounters with other firms, as I'm sure we have all had a bad time with somebody, somewhere). That's why it strikes me as weird - especially when compared to other memes like CovingTTTon or Lathaming that actually could have a real impact on a biglaw associate's life. The partners who drove Covington's "Stay at 160" campaign and Lathaming layoffs are still in decision-making roles at those firms today and I wouldn't want to be subject to them if there was a tenuous raise going around or a big recession.

I won't go back and quote, but the poster earlier who was passionately arguing against KE (and LW) moving up the rankings ahead of obviously superior firms just totally bewildered me, and that sort of thing - on a tremendously smaller scale - happens somewhat often on these boards. Like I said before, I don't take it personally (that would be lame) but it is noticeable.

[QContinuum]

IMO, "KE is overrated" is something of a meme that has a life of its own at this point, rather than something that's fueled by actual negative encounters on behalf of associates (relative to encounters with other firms, as I'm sure we have all had a bad time with somebody, somewhere). That's why it strikes me as weird

It strikes me as weird too. I've never understood the anti-Kirkland sentiment, really. Yes, Kirkland has a strong culture, but it's not like it's the only firm out there with a competitive culture. Yes, Kirkland's culture isn't for everyone, but the same goes for other firms with strong cultures. It's inexplicable. The only way I can make sense of it is resentment stemming from Kirkland's meteoric rise and expansion. But even there, you don't see the same kind of pushback against other firms that have risen in the rankings, like Skadden.