2020 Vault Law Firm Rankings Released Forum

[Samark45]

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.

I'm not a wise, seasoned, no-b.s. cutting-edge practicing attorney like you must be, but I'm guessing you don't understand what "fair" means, or have basic critical thinking skills. Comparing KH to SG is relevant to assessing whether comments about one of them are fair because you compare something to its peers within an overall grouping. Would you say Steve Kerr is a terrible basketball player because he doesn't have as many dunks as Lebron James? If you can't make more fine-grained distinctions than that, it makes sense why you're one of those lazy-thinking, living-by-slogans-and-stereotypes mediocre people whose standards reflexively reduce to what's good/bad for a "normal person." But you go ahead and do whatever mental gymnastics you need to convince yourself that there's some objective basis for criticizing firms and that you made the right life choices no matter what. Good luck with that sort of attitude.

[Anonymous User]

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.

It varies some based on the substantive area, but the 30,000 foot idea is that instead of being an expert in a particular legal process (as you are in lit and corporate), you’re an expert in a particular legal subject matter. So the actual tasks may vary a bit more, while the subject matter more or less stays the same.

A little more specifically, regulatory work can be divided up into a few categories:
(1) Pure advisory. This is the most classic form of regulatory work, where a client comes and essentially asks you whether the thing they want to do is legal/how to structure it to be legal. Work product can be anything from very long formal memos, to a semi-formal email, to a quick phone call. Research is generally of the relevant regs and regulatory guidance/commentary. Not a lot of case research.
(2) Enforcement. The regulator is investigating your client. This is basically like mini-white collar work, typically with only one or two associates and one or two senior lawyers. Work includes doing interviews, document productions, drafting submission to regulators, negotiating consent orders, etc. I think at a lot of firms, they just have lit/white collar associates handle these matters. At Covington it’s a mix of the regulatory people and the white collar people depending on staffing/availability. Reg people usually get first crack but there are fewer of us.
(3) Deal support/other semi-corporate work. I think people understand deal support pretty well. The deal is in a regulated industry, so you need substantive expertise in evaluating discrete parts aspects. Regulatory diligence is common (eg, review the target’s relevant policies to comply with the regulatory obligations). Then there’s also helping clients prepare and submit applications to regulators for certain permissions/designations.
(4) Policy work. This includes writing comment letters to regulators, helping clients prepare for congressional testimony, drafting white papers for clients, some lobbying-adjacent work, etc.

Happy to answer any other questions.

[Pulsar]

I'm not a wise, seasoned, no-b.s. cutting-edge practicing attorney like you must be

Lol law student=confirmed. Thank you for the attitude comments, and for your view that I am a mediocre thinker who lives by slogans. You clearly know lots about my life.

Your argument is dumb because you appear to believe that, within a purportedly elite, Lebron James tier, hours are a forgivable problem so long as other peer firms are just as bad. I'm telling you that that is not true. It can be a bad-"I would avoid" idea to go to Kellogg AND Susman AND any other firm whose unstated expectation is some insane number of hours per year, no matter the prestige or marginal pay scale. Plenty of star young lawyers, in fact, do avoid these places. Why do you think so many SCOTUS clerks choose Jones Day, or Gibson, or any other still-great-and-only-regular-insane-biglaw firm?.

The point is that even 2000 hours is a lot of work that will require compromises with other parts of your life. These compromises grow rapidly less manageable as you scale over that (I begin to hate my life as hours eclipse 200/month for example), and I promise you that avoiding any and all firms whose averages are way beyond normal is a plenty reasonable and rational way to look at life.

Have fun in 3L year. Maybe check and see if your school offers a course in humility.

[Elston Gunn]

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.

I'm not a wise, seasoned, no-b.s. cutting-edge practicing attorney like you must be, but I'm guessing you don't understand what "fair" means, or have basic critical thinking skills. Comparing KH to SG is relevant to assessing whether comments about one of them are fair because you compare something to its peers within an overall grouping. Would you say Steve Kerr is a terrible basketball player because he doesn't have as many dunks as Lebron James? If you can't make more fine-grained distinctions than that, it makes sense why you're one of those lazy-thinking, living-by-slogans-and-stereotypes mediocre people whose standards reflexively reduce to what's good/bad for a "normal person." But you go ahead and do whatever mental gymnastics you need to convince yourself that there's some objective basis for criticizing firms and that you made the right life choices no matter what. Good luck with that sort of attitude.

The poster was recommending that people not go to Kellogg. I don’t think any of their peers as you’re defining them have offices in DC (although I’m not clear who you consider a peer other than Susman) and/or weren’t on the Vault DC list, so it’s perfectly natural that they didn’t mention any of them. The poster probably would also tell people not to go to Susman if they were asked about it.

[Pulsar]

I'm not a wise, seasoned, no-b.s. cutting-edge practicing attorney like you must be

Lol law student=confirmed. Thank you for the attitude comments, and for your view that I am a mediocre thinker who lives by slogans. You clearly know lots about my life.

Your argument is dumb because you appear to believe that, within a purportedly elite, Lebron James tier, hours are a forgivable problem so long as other peer firms are just as bad. I'm telling you that that is not true. It can be a bad-"I would avoid" idea to go to Kellogg AND Susman AND any other firm whose unstated expectation is some insane number of hours per year, no matter the prestige or marginal pay scale. Plenty of star young lawyers, in fact, do avoid these places. Why do you think so many SCOTUS clerks choose Jones Day, or Gibson, or any other still-great-and-only-regular-insane-biglaw firm?.

The point is that even 2000 hours is a lot of work that will require compromises with other parts of your life. These compromises grow rapidly less manageable as you scale over that (I begin to hate my life as hours eclipse 200/month for example), and I promise you that avoiding any and all firms whose averages are way beyond normal is a plenty reasonable and rational way to look at life.

Have fun in 3L year. Maybe check and see if your school offers a course in humility.

Oh this was me; I didn't mean to be anon.

[whosinthehousejc]

What do you all think explains the disparity between PPP rank and Vault rank for firms like Cahill Gordon (PPP: 9; V: 59) and Vinson & Elkins (PPP: 27; V: 63)?

[Anonymous User]

What do you all think explains the disparity between PPP rank and Vault rank for firms like Cahill Gordon (PPP: 9; V: 59) and Vinson & Elkins (PPP: 27; V: 63)?

Can't speak to V&E, but with Cahill, at least, they are a very profitable firm that generates money doing what they do well. They can't be v10 because the practice areas are limited and they essentially do only high yield cap markets and lending work on the corporate side. Compare this to like DPW or something that also has M&A, funds, etc. and you can see why. They also have high PPP because its mostly a NYC-centric office with a small London and DC satellite. Given the firm size, partners make a lot of money (think Cravath).

[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.

A&P associate here. With respect to salary and bonus, this is not true. A&P pays market salary and market bonuses (bonus contingent on making hours). It is true that A&P did not pay summer bonuses last year — they paid slightly higher than market year end bonuses that did not cover the full summer bonus amount.

As far as big law goes, QOL here really isn’t too bad. Also in a regulatory group.

[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.

A&P associate here. With respect to salary and bonus, this is not true. A&P pays market salary and market bonuses (bonus contingent on making hours). It is true that A&P did not pay summer bonuses last year — they paid slightly higher than market year end bonuses that did not cover the full summer bonus amount.

As far as big law goes, QOL here really isn’t too bad. Also in a regulatory group.

Anon from before. Sorry for that then—must have misremembered the summer bonus stories.

[Blessedassurance]

Sad that this list will trick unsuspecting rising 2Ls into going to Latham & Kirkland LOL.

What's wrong with Latham/Kirkland? Serious question.

[Flarmanarnar]

Sad that this list will trick unsuspecting rising 2Ls into going to Latham & Kirkland LOL.

What's wrong with Latham/Kirkland? Serious question.

They fired basically all the first years as soon as the recession hit/was impending - so I guess the concern is that, with a potential recession on the horizon, people think Latham & Kirkland will do the same thing.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Sad that this list will trick unsuspecting rising 2Ls into going to Latham & Kirkland LOL.

What's wrong with Latham/Kirkland? Serious question.

They fired basically all the first years as soon as the recession hit/was impending - so I guess the concern is that, with a potential recession on the horizon, people think Latham & Kirkland will do the same thing.

Source: https://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationw ... 250-staff/

Latham cut 190 associates back in 2009, many of these were first or second-years. Winston & Strawn did the same thing. For what its worth, Kirkland did not make such drastic cuts back in 2007-2010, so I have no idea why they are being grouped in with Latham.

[Anonymous User]

Sad that this list will trick unsuspecting rising 2Ls into going to Latham & Kirkland LOL.

What's wrong with Latham/Kirkland? Serious question.

They fired basically all the first years as soon as the recession hit/was impending - so I guess the concern is that, with a potential recession on the horizon, people think Latham & Kirkland will do the same thing.

Source: https://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationw ... 250-staff/

Latham cut 190 associates back in 2009, many of these were first or second-years. Winston & Strawn did the same thing. For what its worth, Kirkland did not make such drastic cuts back in 2007-2010, so I have no idea why they are being grouped in with Latham.

Any chance Latham/Winston would do this again if a recession hit in 2020 or 2021? I imagine their recruiting efforts in the future would be absolutely shot if they did.

[Wild Card]

Any chance Latham/Winston would do this again if a recession hit in 2020 or 2021? I imagine their recruiting efforts in the future would be absolutely shot if they did.

They got zero blowback the last time, and now they're V5. Why wouldn't they do it again?

[QContinuum]

They got zero blowback the last time, and now they're V5. Why wouldn't they do it again?

Ah, I wouldn't say Latham got zero blowback. They were raked over the coals in the legal press, and their Vault ranking went off a cliff for several years. Thing is, though, law schools operate on a 3-year cycle, so institutional knowledge gets lost pretty rapidly once a few 3-year "generations" go by. And those newly-uninformed law students, in turn, go into the BigLaw associate ranks, still with no knowledge of what happened to their predecessor associates a few "generations" ago. It's now been over a decade since the '08 layoffs, so it's not surprising that very few current juniors know what Latham and other firms did in '08, and thus fail to consider that unknown "ancient history" when it comes time to complete their Vault surveys.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

They got zero blowback the last time, and now they're V5. Why wouldn't they do it again?

Ah, I wouldn't say Latham got zero blowback. They were raked over the coals in the legal press, and their Vault ranking went off a cliff for several years. Thing is, though, law schools operate on a 3-year cycle, so institutional knowledge gets lost pretty rapidly once a few 3-year "generations" go by. And those newly-uninformed law students, in turn, go into the BigLaw associate ranks, still with no knowledge of what happened to their predecessor associates a few "generations" ago. It's now been over a decade since the '08 layoffs, so it's not surprising that very few current juniors know what Latham and other firms did in '08, and thus fail to consider that unknown "ancient history" when it comes time to complete their Vault surveys.

Agreed. Also want to add on that firms' prestige is not based off how they treat junior associates.

[notinbiglaw]

It is not even clear to me that the Lathamings hurt Latham long term.

On the margins of recruiting maybe but during economic downturns they still had plenty of very qualified candidates to pick from.

And, as has been pointed out, legal recruiting institutional memory is short. And I think it's justifiably short given how much turnover is at the upper ranks now. Even the most white-shoe firms are now emulating at least some of Kirkland's corporate-like behavior and I think the trend will only continue.

Legal skills are still not as interchangeable as Excel skills due to the sheer number of practice areas in law but I think the legal associates, even partners (especially the non-equity kind that are more like counsels/super seniors), shouldn't count on holding onto their jobs in economic downturns. I will be very surprised if we don't see more Lathamings during the next recession.

[QContinuum]

It is not even clear to me that the Lathamings hurt Latham long term.

On the margins of recruiting maybe but during economic downturns they still had plenty of very qualified candidates to pick from.

Exactly. It's why BigTech, BigBanking, and most other white-collar industries routinely overhire during the good times, then conduct mass layoffs when business goes south. There's always plenty of talent willing to work for good pay.

I think it's obviously bad for workers overall, but it's pretty much a classic collective action problem. Each individual worker has a strong monetary incentive to ignore how badly a company may have treated other workers. I'm not sure there's a good answer to it. Certainly, the public sector model, with pay and job security tied rigidly to seniority, would have a terrible effect on the economy.