2020 Vault Law Firm Rankings Released Forum

[oblig.lawl.ref]

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.

Hell yeah, baby. I agree with this completely.

[2013]

Kirkland is obviously doing something right. A lowly associate is on here in his or her free time writing an anthology on why the criticism of K&E is unfounded and ferociously defending the firm like his or her life depends on it.

[SLS_AMG]

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.

I disagree. I think most people attuned to the NYC market (again realizing this is nationwide) at least are aware that the idea of Skadden being more “prestigious” than S&C (and DPW/STB) is downright ludicrous. I think it’s just an anomaly people had grown used to. I actually think K&E is arguably more prestigious—and I’d argue has higher quality associates, in my experiences.

[purpletiger]

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.

I think Kirkland’s competitive culture is seen as significantly worse than other firms. I also don’t think “you’re just jealous” is the reason why people dislike the firm. The NY firms are also pretty successful!

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I remember in the early days of my lurking on these forums in 2011-2013 or so people often hated on Skadden's rankings in vault on the basis that "it's not a real white shoe firm" or something, idk. I think people just got used to skadden being up there eventually. I think it also had fierce defenders on this board. That's probably the key. Attack anyone thinking it's not prestigious until no one does it anymore and everyone forgets it was once even an argument. Takes armies of lawyers to do that though. Takes a Skadden or a K&E, if you will.

I also agree that most people who are attuned to the NYC legal market know Skadden for what it is. K&E is rising. Skadden has just been up there. I think this is more reactions to the rising part.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

I remember in the early days of my lurking on these forums in 2011-2013 or so people often hated on Skadden's rankings in vault on the basis that "it's not a real white shoe firm" or something, idk. I think people just got used to skadden being up there eventually. I think it also had fierce defenders on this board. That's probably the key. Attack anyone thinking it's not prestigious until no one does it anymore and everyone forgets it was once even an argument. Takes armies of lawyers to do that though. Takes a Skadden or a K&E, if you will.

I also agree that most people who are attuned to the NYC legal market know Skadden for what it is. K&E is rising. Skadden has just been up there. I think this is more reactions to the rising part.

Time is a flat circle.

[SNightHighlights]

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.

Hell yeah, baby. I agree with this completely.

Agree with all of this, but want to make one thing clear - Kirkland's home market is still Chicago, not NY. There are not a lot of firms that are undisputed #1 in their home market and top 10 in NY. I'm summering in Chicago now, interviewed at many of the Chi Biglaw firms, and got a clear vibe that K&E is the undisputed top firm in the city, even by local Biglaw firms (they tend to play the "work life balance" card instead).

[StayAnonymous]

Second-year NY Biglaw associate here (which admittedly means my knowledge is limited). To give a very broad generalization, I think the following represents a more accurate measure of biglaw prestige (as it is seen in NY, and taking into account factors such as selectivity among T6 students and reputation):

Tier 1: Wachtell
Tier 2: Cravath & S&C
Tier 3 (or 2.5): DPW, STB, Cleary, (Skadden)
Tier 4: PW, Weil, Kirkland, (Latham)

Skadden and Latham could possibly be a tier below depending on how you look at it.

Of course, this only accounts for New York-wide general corporate practices - any other list, such as litigation, would look vastly different.

[cookiejar1]

I remember in the early days of my lurking on these forums in 2011-2013 or so people often hated on Skadden's rankings in vault on the basis that "it's not a real white shoe firm" or something, idk. I think people just got used to skadden being up there eventually. I think it also had fierce defenders on this board. That's probably the key. Attack anyone thinking it's not prestigious until no one does it anymore and everyone forgets it was once even an argument. Takes armies of lawyers to do that though. Takes a Skadden or a K&E, if you will.

I also agree that most people who are attuned to the NYC legal market know Skadden for what it is. K&E is rising. Skadden has just been up there. I think this is more reactions to the rising part.

Time is a flat circle.

It truly is. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=187325

[Anonymous User]

Curious as to what TLS thinks regarding prestige in the DC market. Do the Vault rankings for DC align with people's' views?

[Elston Gunn]

Curious as to what TLS thinks regarding prestige in the DC market. Do the Vault rankings for DC align with people's' views?

Eyeballing the list, it seems okay-ish. W&C should probably be 1. Latham seems egregiously overrated at 4—can’t imagine anyone thinking Latham DC is more “prestigious” than Wilmer. Jenner is egregiously underrated—Jenner DC is very prestigious, unless something has changed recently. It’s just very small. Kellogg, Hansen obviously is way too low. The big NY powerhouses (other than Skadden) are all also too high; they aren’t really players in DC and are presumably living off name recognition. That said, they are all on true NY scale I believe, which is not true of every respected DC HQ.

[Wild Card]

Curious as to what TLS thinks regarding prestige in the DC market. Do the Vault rankings for DC align with people's' views?

Eyeballing the list, it seems okay-ish. W&C should probably be 1. Latham seems egregiously overrated at 4—can’t imagine anyone thinking Latham DC is more “prestigious” than Wilmer. Jenner is egregiously underrated—Jenner DC is very prestigious, unless something has changed recently. It’s just very small. Kellogg, Hansen obviously is way too low. The big NY powerhouses (other than Skadden) are all also too high; they aren’t really players in DC and are presumably living off name recognition. That said, they are all on true NY scale I believe, which is not true of every respected DC HQ.

What kind of bumpkins are filling these out? The same that are responsible for Ropes and Paul Hastings being V25?

[QContinuum]

What kind of bumpkins are filling these out? The same that are responsible for Ropes and Paul Hastings being V25?

Hey, what's with the Ropes hate? Ropes at least pays market, which *cough* isn't true of every firm ranked above it.

[Anonymous User]

I'm in DC. I won't mention my firm. As for other firms, I've always seen Gibson and Wilmer as strong. Probably same with W&C, although I don't know much there. I hear good things about Covington, although I am skeptical that they really know how to litigate, as opposed to just do government-focused things (and maybe I just bear a grudge because their HR gave me a callback way late into post-clerkship hiring, after I'd already narrowed offers, and they tried to screw with salary raises that one time).

I would avoid Kellogg Hansen. I hear they are not fun to work for, way too many hours (even compared to other purportedly intense firms), very very undiverse (even for a law firm), and you also get to work on cases that would make even biglaw-hardened me die inside (defending Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families, for instance). I did not apply there for this reason.

It's probably also worth remembering that the firms in DC do fairly different work. Some focus heavily on government-focused and white collar practices. Others (including the larger offices of national firms) may do more traditional large-scale commercial litigation, class actions, etc. Some are a mix of these two. Many firms will claim to do lots of appellate work (because law students perceive it as desirable), but probably won't actually do as much as the firms with groups headed by former solicitors general. When I worked across from one native DC firm (none of the above), they outsourced their appellate filings to Munger Tolles' new tiny DC office headed by Don Verrilli, for example. (Client apparently did not want the original firm arguing in the DC Circuit). Some small satellite offices of national firms (the ones with only a few dozen lawyers) might be great to work for (I have no idea), but could have less opportunity for advancement if the partners there are only serving other clients (rather than having clients of their own).

Not sure if this is helpful. Ask lots of questions about what cases people actually work on and try to get a sense of what makes the work at firm A different from firm B. I get the impression that there really is a lot of variation in firms in this town.

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid Kellogg Hansen. I hear they are not fun to work for, way too many hours (even compared to other purportedly intense firms), very very undiverse (even for a law firm), and you also get to work on cases that would make even biglaw-hardened me die inside (defending Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families, for instance). I did not apply there for this reason.

I applied to Kellogg Hansen and received a callback, interviewed in offices for a full day, and didn't get an offer. So I'm not disposed to being biased towards them. I have to say, the above characterization is grossly unfair. The hours are no longer than elite (I mean *truly* elite) litigation firms in NY (e.g., Susman), and the pay for junior associates is even better on the front end. You work hard but are paid much, much, much more than peers at almost every other firm. You also get to do real work. Finally, I was told about the long-running Saudia Arabia case, and I don't think it's as simple as the above poster makes it out to seem. The only thing I will admit is that yes, it's un-diverse, even for a law firm.

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid Kellogg Hansen. I hear they are not fun to work for, way too many hours (even compared to other purportedly intense firms), very very undiverse (even for a law firm), and you also get to work on cases that would make even biglaw-hardened me die inside (defending Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families, for instance). I did not apply there for this reason.

I applied to Kellogg Hansen and received a callback, interviewed in offices for a full day, and didn't get an offer. So I'm not disposed to being biased towards them. I have to say, the above characterization is grossly unfair. The hours are no worse than hours in any elite (I mean *truly* elite) litigation firms in NY (e.g., Susman), and the pay for junior associates is even better on the front end. You work hard but are paid much, much more than peers at almost every other firm. You also get to do real work. Finally, I was told about the long-running Saudia Arabia case, and I don't think it's as simple as the above poster makes it out to seem. The only thing I will admit is that yes, it's un-diverse, even for a law firm.

[spidey314]

Could someone practicing in the Bay Area speak to this as well? Curious more so about SF than SV

https://www.vault.com/best-companies-to ... california

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid Kellogg Hansen. I hear they are not fun to work for, way too many hours (even compared to other purportedly intense firms), very very undiverse (even for a law firm), and you also get to work on cases that would make even biglaw-hardened me die inside (defending Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families, for instance). I did not apply there for this reason.

I applied to Kellogg Hansen and received a callback, interviewed in offices for a full day, and didn't get an offer. So I'm not disposed to being biased towards them. I have to say, the above characterization is grossly unfair. The hours are no worse than hours in any elite (I mean *truly* elite) litigation firms in NY (e.g., Susman), and the pay for junior associates is even better on the front end. You work hard but are paid much, much more than peers at almost every other firm. You also get to do real work. Finally, I was told about the long-running Saudia Arabia case, and I don't think it's as simple as the above poster makes it out to seem. The only thing I will admit is that yes, it's un-diverse, even for a law firm.

I'm the author of the above "grossly unfair" comment.

They pay well and you're right, you won't work more hours at Kellogg Hansen than you would billing 2,800-3,000 hours/year at Susman NY (do you have any fathoming how much work that actually is?). And sure, 9/11 wasn't "simple."

These are ok things to debate over, but they don't make anything I said "unfair."

[Anonymous User]

I would avoid Kellogg Hansen. I hear they are not fun to work for, way too many hours (even compared to other purportedly intense firms), very very undiverse (even for a law firm), and you also get to work on cases that would make even biglaw-hardened me die inside (defending Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families, for instance). I did not apply there for this reason.

I applied to Kellogg Hansen and received a callback, interviewed in offices for a full day, and didn't get an offer. So I'm not disposed to being biased towards them. I have to say, the above characterization is grossly unfair. The hours are no worse than hours in any elite (I mean *truly* elite) litigation firms in NY (e.g., Susman), and the pay for junior associates is even better on the front end. You work hard but are paid much, much more than peers at almost every other firm. You also get to do real work. Finally, I was told about the long-running Saudia Arabia case, and I don't think it's as simple as the above poster makes it out to seem. The only thing I will admit is that yes, it's un-diverse, even for a law firm.

I'm the author of the above "grossly unfair" comment.

They pay well and you're right, you won't work more hours at Kellogg Hansen than you would billing 2,800-3,000 hours/year at Susman NY (do you have any fathoming how much work that actually is?). And sure, 9/11 wasn't "simple."

These are ok things to debate over, but they don't make anything I said "unfair."

It's unfair to (1) single them out as a firm that requires (in your words) "way too many hours," when in fact their hours are comparable to peer firms' hours; and (2) to say they require you to "defend Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families" when you have only the vaguest idea what the actual issues in the case are, and what KH's involvement is, and what associates there are doing in that case. If posting this sort of stuff about a firm doesn't constitute "unfair" secondhand remarks, you don't understand the meaning of the word.

[Anonymous User]

Curious as to what TLS thinks regarding prestige in the DC market. Do the Vault rankings for DC align with people's' views?

I am in DC and will speak candidly about my firm as anon. I agree with the previous poster who said the Vault DC ratings are mostly right although Latham is too high. I think W&C, Covington, GIbson, and Wilmer are probably viewed as the top of the heap (notwithstanding elite boutiques). Then the next maybe 6-ish or so on the Vault list would be next up in terms of Vault-style pure prestige, which is basically meaningless but hey, all else being equal we might as well be able to feel important when we update LinkedIn.

I think a DC-based shop like Covington or Hogan is probably more likely to resist salary/bonus increases than the major players in New York, like a Latham or a Kirkland.

Anecdotally, W&C gives associates some more responsibility early on and definitely plays up the "most prestigious firm in DC" thing, but their comp is weird and potentially below market. The people I know at Covington are miserable - more than typical biglaw. Gibson, Wilmer, and Hogan seem to have (relatively) good work-life balance. Kirkland has a brand new building that looks shiny (from the outside at least) and pays above market bonuses. Jones Day is kind of a shitshow right now and all of their Trump administration-related work is creating some rifts; their comp is also below market. I don't know a lot about Arnold & Porter. Again, everything in this paragraph is anecdotal and someone very well may respond with a completely different observation.

[Anonymous User]

KE associate here. Have no idea what our DC rep is or should be, and definitely do not want to reignite the KE previous debate.

Just honestly curious--did the acquisition of Banecroft change the perception of the office in town? Fully understand people aren't attuned to fluctuations in prestige as vault would suggest, but would be interesting to hear if their rep in DC has since grown.

[legalpotato]

I would avoid Kellogg Hansen. I hear they are not fun to work for, way too many hours (even compared to other purportedly intense firms), very very undiverse (even for a law firm), and you also get to work on cases that would make even biglaw-hardened me die inside (defending Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families, for instance). I did not apply there for this reason.

I applied to Kellogg Hansen and received a callback, interviewed in offices for a full day, and didn't get an offer. So I'm not disposed to being biased towards them. I have to say, the above characterization is grossly unfair. The hours are no worse than hours in any elite (I mean *truly* elite) litigation firms in NY (e.g., Susman), and the pay for junior associates is even better on the front end. You work hard but are paid much, much more than peers at almost every other firm. You also get to do real work. Finally, I was told about the long-running Saudia Arabia case, and I don't think it's as simple as the above poster makes it out to seem. The only thing I will admit is that yes, it's un-diverse, even for a law firm.

I'm the author of the above "grossly unfair" comment.

They pay well and you're right, you won't work more hours at Kellogg Hansen than you would billing 2,800-3,000 hours/year at Susman NY (do you have any fathoming how much work that actually is?). And sure, 9/11 wasn't "simple."

These are ok things to debate over, but they don't make anything I said "unfair."

It's unfair to (1) single them out as a firm that requires (in your words) "way too many hours," when in fact their hours are comparable to peer firms' hours; and (2) to say they require you to "defend Saudi Arabia against the 9/11 families" when you have only the vaguest idea what the actual issues in the case are, and what KH's involvement is, and what associates there are doing in that case. If posting this sort of stuff about a firm doesn't constitute "unfair" secondhand remarks, you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about this Saudi Arabia lawsuit, so would be better served by not saying anything. But sounds like a frivolous suit to sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11. I’d defend Saudi Arabia.

[Pulsar]

Lol @ all these law students defending Kellogg Hansen because it is prestigious

If your answer to "their hours are too high" is "oh yeah well they are no worse than Susman Godfrey" then I can see how you didn't get an offer.

The hours at either of those firms would grind up and destroy any even close to normal person.

[Anonymous User]

I think a DC-based shop like Covington or Hogan is probably more likely to resist salary/bonus increases than the major players in New York, like a Latham or a Kirkland.

More likely, definitely, but I think it’s pretty unlikely that either of those specific firms or Wilmer would do so in the near future. Covington obviously tried once, but was embarrassed pretty badly and has gone along without a peep since. Wilmer and Hogan haven’t made a fuss of raising. On the other hand, a number of respected DC HQ firms are already below market, A&P most notably.

The people I know at Covington are miserable - more than typical biglaw.

I’m at Covington and don’t have a hard time believing this for lit/white collar. We’ve been extremely busy there for a few years, and some of the particularly huge cases (Takata, McKesson) seem especially miserable. I would definitely have hesitation about going to Covington for lit. But it’s important to remember that Covington, Wilmer and a few of the other full service DC shops do a really wide variety of work. I’m in a regulatory group and very happy.

[Pulsar]

How would you describe regulatory work? I'm in DC, but at a very lit-heavy firm. I know Covington does a lot of this mysterious regulatory stuff, but I'm not actually sure what it is.