Chicago - Kirkland v. Sidley? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone able to compare Skadden here as well?

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland competes for talent with all of the top firms nationwide (I know many people who choose Kirkland over WLRK, Susman, Irell, Munger, W&C, etc.), and to do that, it needs to provide the same benefits that the other top firms do.

wasn't even sure whether this merited a shout out, but since no one has picked it up, might as well point out how idiotic this is. First, none of these firms have Chicago offices. Obviously someone who has to stay/is targeting Chicago will head to Kirkland over a non-existent office of a firm based in another city. But that confused sampling doesn't provide anything close to the inference you're looking for, since you said it competes "nationwide": after seeing hundreds of students go through this selection process several years in a row and going through it myself, I have never once seen someone take Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger, Kirkland NY over WLRK, Kirkland DC over W&C, Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston (although I've never seen someone faced with that exact choice, the point stands), or any other relevant city to city comparison.

of course this doesn't touch directly on K&E v Sidley Chi, but if anon's advise displays such an unreasonable partisan branding, it does suggest something about the credibility of his or her posting

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland competes for talent with all of the top firms nationwide (I know many people who choose Kirkland over WLRK, Susman, Irell, Munger, W&C, etc.), and to do that, it needs to provide the same benefits that the other top firms do.

wasn't even sure whether this merited a shout out, but since no one has picked it up, might as well point out how idiotic this is. First, none of these firms have Chicago offices. Obviously someone who has to stay/is targeting Chicago will head to Kirkland over a non-existent office of a firm based in another city. But that confused sampling doesn't provide anything close to the inference you're looking for, since you said it competes "nationwide": after seeing hundreds of students go through this selection process several years in a row and going through it myself, I have never once seen someone take Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger, Kirkland NY over WLRK, Kirkland DC over W&C, Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston (although I've never seen someone faced with that exact choice, the point stands), or any other relevant city to city comparison.

of course this doesn't touch directly on K&E v Sidley Chi, but if anon's advise displays such an unreasonable partisan branding, it does suggest something about the credibility of his or her posting

Previous poster-

Was talking about Kirkland Chi. My point is that it competes with top firms in other markets. Take a chill pill.

[enibs]

Kirkland competes for talent with all of the top firms nationwide (I know many people who choose Kirkland over WLRK, Susman, Irell, Munger, W&C, etc.), and to do that, it needs to provide the same benefits that the other top firms do.

wasn't even sure whether this merited a shout out, but since no one has picked it up, might as well point out how idiotic this is. First, none of these firms have Chicago offices. Obviously someone who has to stay/is targeting Chicago will head to Kirkland over a non-existent office of a firm based in another city. But that confused sampling doesn't provide anything close to the inference you're looking for, since you said it competes "nationwide": after seeing hundreds of students go through this selection process several years in a row and going through it myself, I have never once seen someone take Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger, Kirkland NY over WLRK, Kirkland DC over W&C, Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston (although I've never seen someone faced with that exact choice, the point stands), or any other relevant city to city comparison.

of course this doesn't touch directly on K&E v Sidley Chi, but if anon's advise displays such an unreasonable partisan branding, it does suggest something about the credibility of his or her posting

Previous poster-

Was talking about Kirkland Chi. My point is that it competes with top firms in other markets. Take a chill pill.

I think the point, perhaps made overly aggressively, is that the choice of Kirkland Chicago over any of the other firms you named is primarily a geographic choice, not a firm choice, given that none of the other firms has a Chicago office. In any event, I doubt you know "many" people who have chosen K&E over these other firms, as there are not many people who get offers from these other firms, let alone who turn them down for K&E. I'm sure there are a few who make the choice for geographic reasons, and perhaps you know them all. Or perhaps you were engaging in a little exaggeration.

[Anonymous User]

I think the point, perhaps made overly aggressively, is that the choice of Kirkland Chicago over any of the other firms you named is primarily a geographic choice, not a firm choice, given that none of the other firms has a Chicago office. In any event, I doubt you know "many" people who have chosen K&E over these other firms, as there are not many people who get offers from these other firms, let alone who turn them down for K&E. I'm sure there are a few who make the choice for geographic reasons, and perhaps you know them all. Or perhaps you were engaging in a little exaggeration.

Not any of the above-quoted anons. Current 2L at a CCN (you can guess which). Didn't bid Chicago and don't particularly care for K&E, personally, so I've got no horse in the race. In no particular order:

1) I don't know what "competes nationally" means if geography isn't included

2) I know people this year with K&E Chi and at least one of the listed firms. It's a decision. Yes, geography matters. But I think anon's point is that with geographic preference roughly equal, it's not totally unjustified to pick K&E over some of these places. I mean no one is seriously debating like Winston & Strawn vs Williams & Connolly - that's not a tough choice. K&E Chi v Irell is probably tougher. And a ton of people here bid Chicago + another market.

3) K&E does drop somewhat low in our class but can also be very selective. I know people in the top 10% who were dinged post-screener and aren't super aspie or anything. I know people lower than that with cbs/offers at these other firms, excluding MTO and W&C. That's not to say their means are the same or whatever. They aren't. But they're picky in different ways.

[Old Gregg]

Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger

I've seen this.

Kirkland NY over WLRK

Haven't seen this, but not sure how that's an issue.

Kirkland DC over W&C

I've seen this too many times to count.

Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston

Makes sense. Next summer is the first summer they're hiring for. Also, would be dumb to take Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston because the former does ZERO litigation in that office (and similarly--would be dumb to take Susman Houston over Kirkland Houston if your goal is to do corporate).

But I'm not really sure where you're going with the comparisons and overall brusqueness. Is it that K&E doesn't compete with all the top firms nationwide for talent? That doesn't really make sense.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland competes for talent with all of the top firms nationwide (I know many people who choose Kirkland over WLRK, Susman, Irell, Munger, W&C, etc.), and to do that, it needs to provide the same benefits that the other top firms do.

wasn't even sure whether this merited a shout out, but since no one has picked it up, might as well point out how idiotic this is. First, none of these firms have Chicago offices. Obviously someone who has to stay/is targeting Chicago will head to Kirkland over a non-existent office of a firm based in another city. But that confused sampling doesn't provide anything close to the inference you're looking for, since you said it competes "nationwide": after seeing hundreds of students go through this selection process several years in a row and going through it myself, I have never once seen someone take Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger, Kirkland NY over WLRK, Kirkland DC over W&C, Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston (although I've never seen someone faced with that exact choice, the point stands), or any other relevant city to city comparison.

of course this doesn't touch directly on K&E v Sidley Chi, but if anon's advise displays such an unreasonable partisan branding, it does suggest something about the credibility of his or her posting

Previous poster-

Was talking about Kirkland Chi. My point is that it competes with top firms in other markets. Take a chill pill.

I think the point, perhaps made overly aggressively, is that the choice of Kirkland Chicago over any of the other firms you named is primarily a geographic choice, not a firm choice, given that none of the other firms has a Chicago office. In any event, I doubt you know "many" people who have chosen K&E over these other firms, as there are not many people who get offers from these other firms, let alone who turn them down for K&E. I'm sure there are a few who make the choice for geographic reasons, and perhaps you know them all. Or perhaps you were engaging in a little exaggeration.

I know a handful of people from three different class years who had the credentials (LR at Chicago/NU) to make this choice. Location can certainly be why the choice was made, but I've been told by people in the firm that Kirkland's recruiting department tries to compete with top firms in other markets (presumably, as you have mentioned, so people are comfortable picking them if they prefer Chicago--but maybe their satellite offices pick off some people too as Z has pointed out). That's all the post was getting at--they provide the same (or sometimes better) benefits so they can snag a few top candidates who might otherwise go elsewhere. I certainly didn't mean to say anything inflammatory, I was just trying to share some inside info that others may not have--I have a good friend who works there (one of the people who made the choice I was talking about).

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger

I've seen this.

Kirkland NY over WLRK

Haven't seen this, but not sure how that's an issue.

Kirkland DC over W&C

I've seen this too many times to count.

Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston

Makes sense. Next summer is the first summer they're hiring for. Also, would be dumb to take Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston because the former does ZERO litigation in that office (and similarly--would be dumb to take Susman Houston over Kirkland Houston if your goal is to do corporate).

But I'm not really sure where you're going with the comparisons and overall brusqueness. Is it that K&E doesn't compete with all the top firms nationwide for talent? That doesn't really make sense.

I'm not the anon you're responding to, but I agree with him/her that some of these comparisons (bw KE and above firms) are excessively partisan, so much that they diminish poster credibility. And this is why the KE v WLRK comparison is an issue.

I've also never seen anyone choose KE over any of those firms... But even if I had, I'd acknowledge that those cases are likely exceptionally rare.

[eng2law]

Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger

I've seen this.

Kirkland NY over WLRK

Haven't seen this, but not sure how that's an issue.

Kirkland DC over W&C

I've seen this too many times to count.

Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston

Makes sense.

Dude, just to be clear -- we are not talking about paralegal hiring here.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland competes for talent with all of the top firms nationwide (I know many people who choose Kirkland over WLRK, Susman, Irell, Munger, W&C, etc.), and to do that, it needs to provide the same benefits that the other top firms do.

wasn't even sure whether this merited a shout out, but since no one has picked it up, might as well point out how idiotic this is. First, none of these firms have Chicago offices. Obviously someone who has to stay/is targeting Chicago will head to Kirkland over a non-existent office of a firm based in another city. But that confused sampling doesn't provide anything close to the inference you're looking for, since you said it competes "nationwide": after seeing hundreds of students go through this selection process several years in a row and going through it myself, I have never once seen someone take Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger, Kirkland NY over WLRK, Kirkland DC over W&C, Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston (although I've never seen someone faced with that exact choice, the point stands), or any other relevant city to city comparison.

of course this doesn't touch directly on K&E v Sidley Chi, but if anon's advise displays such an unreasonable partisan branding, it does suggest something about the credibility of his or her posting

Different anon. While geography can certainly be a component, plenty of people in the interview process (especially HYS kids) target a broad range of prestigious firms and are comfortable living and working in various locations. I know several people who made MTO v. Kirkland, WLRK v. Kirkland, and W&C v. Kirkland choices.

[sideroxylon]

although you might know someone who took those, for each one I'm sure a dozen ate the MARKET SHATTERING brownies and chose a firm that is LESS PREFTIGIOUS than MTO/WLRK/W&C

this thread is baffling me right now

[Anonymous User]

How often do people turn down Kirkland for Sidley? And under what circumstances would that decision be credited?

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger

I've seen this.

Kirkland NY over WLRK

Haven't seen this, but not sure how that's an issue.

Kirkland DC over W&C

I've seen this too many times to count.

Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston

Makes sense. Next summer is the first summer they're hiring for. Also, would be dumb to take Kirkland Houston over Susman Houston because the former does ZERO litigation in that office (and similarly--would be dumb to take Susman Houston over Kirkland Houston if your goal is to do corporate).

But I'm not really sure where you're going with the comparisons and overall brusqueness. Is it that K&E doesn't compete with all the top firms nationwide for talent? That doesn't really make sense.

Well, of course kirkland "compete with all the top firms nationwide for talent" - but that's kind of a straw man here, since it's a "top firm." in fact one of my close friends just took Kirkland NY over DPW/Cravath/other elite (but not any of the listed above) and that happens all the time. Maybe the post you're breaking apart was unnecessarily aggro, but there does seem to be a credibility distinction (and you can debate its significance) between saying K&E competes with "top" firms in each market and K&E is regularly chosen many times over the top firm from each non-Chicago market. Maybe the latter is born out in your experience but not others and we're just horse trading anecdotes idk

[Anonymous User]

in fact one of my close friends just took Kirkland NY over DPW/Cravath/other elite (but not any of the listed above) and that happens all the time.

One of my friends took a firm similar to KE over one of the more elite ones...cept she was a-lyin about receiving both offers.

[Old Gregg]

Maybe the post you're breaking apart was unnecessarily aggro, but there does seem to be a credibility distinction (and you can debate its significance) between saying K&E competes with "top" firms in each market and K&E is regularly chosen many times over the top firm from each non-Chicago market.

I'm not going to debate its significance. I'm just going to tell you it's a trivial distinction and this is a moronic discussion. It became moronic when the poster above said he's never seen anyone take Susman over K&E Houston. The K&E Houston office literally opened last spring... as in 4-5 months ago. And to top it off the entire point of the office is private equity.

But it's not precisely moronic because of that. This discussion is moronic because when you're in the throes of your career, these "prestige" differences will take second step to a host of other considerations. It's best to stop obsessing about it now. If you want to make more money, go to WLRK (and I think $$$ is a perfectly valid consideration); if you feel like the free market system gets you, go to K&E. Once you're at a certain level, the decision between these firms isn't that impactful (unless, of course, you have some very specific career goals in mind).

[Old Gregg]

Along the same lines, the prestige difference between K&E Chicago and Sidley Chicago is trivial as well. I've heard that it's constantly shoved in people's faces how great K&E is in Chicago, but we're talking about the creme de la creme in Chicago. Just realize that you will make less money at Sidley. But at the kind of hours you have to bill at K&E to really come out ahead $$$-wise, it just isn't worth it when you divide it out on a per-hour basis. To that point, I've never met someone who billed above 2500 hours at K&E who was happy with their bonus.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a previous anon who said he knew people who chose KE over one of the mentioned firms. When there are multiple people posting about how they know people who made this decision, how are people still arguing it's never made?

It's pretty unlikely that such a decision is "very rare" if in the span of 24 hours there's 3-4 people who happened to log onto TLS and read this thread and then be compelled to post about how this has happened before...

[Old Gregg]

how are people still arguing it's never made?

It's pretty unlikely that such a decision is "very rare" if in the span of 24 hours there's 3-4 people who happened to log onto TLS and read this thread and then be compelled to post about how this has happened before...

It isn't that rare, but I think we should just stop discussing it. It's just as childish as debating how many people turned down Harvard for Dartmouth on College Confidential.

[Anonymous User]

How often do people turn down Kirkland for Sidley? And under what circumstances would that decision be credited?

Fit / culture / dislike of K&E's "eat what you kill" system, to name a few.

Sidley is a close second for Chicago's best firm so it's not like you're really dropping much in Prestige

[Anonymous User]

Is "lean staffing" and "more substantive experience early on" total flame? I've been doing callbacks with some of the Chicago firms just below KE/Sidley in terms of preftige and size and I've been trying to gauge to what extent their pitches about early associate experience is bullshit.

Not really sure what I'm going to decide wrt to firms but I'm wondering if anyone might have an idea of what the relative tradeoffs would be with choosing a firm like Jones Day/Mayer/McDermott/Skadden over Sidley/KE.

Posting this here because it seems like there are some people that might have had to make this decision.

[Anonymous User]

Is "lean staffing" and "more substantive experience early on" total flame? I've been doing callbacks with some of the Chicago firms just below KE/Sidley in terms of preftige and size and I've been trying to gauge to what extent their pitches about early associate experience is bullshit.

It is not a flame. I am a first year at K&E and cases truly are leanly staffed. This is both good and bad. You really do get very substantive experience early on: I'm the point person for the client on several workstreams (not the major workstreams, but still ones that need to get done) and I've been given the pen on important motions and filings more than once (although of course there are several layers of review). In less than a year I've been the primary drafter on more than half a dozen motions, and have contributed substantively to many more. If you can handle the work, they give you more.

Downside: you may also have a weekend killed if there are only two juniors on your case/workstream.

[Anonymous User]

Is "lean staffing" and "more substantive experience early on" total flame? I've been doing callbacks with some of the Chicago firms just below KE/Sidley in terms of preftige and size and I've been trying to gauge to what extent their pitches about early associate experience is bullshit.

It is not a flame. I am a first year at K&E and cases truly are leanly staffed. This is both good and bad. You really do get very substantive experience early on: I'm the point person for the client on several workstreams (not the major workstreams, but still ones that need to get done) and I've been given the pen on important motions and filings more than once (although of course there are several layers of review). In less than a year I've been the primary drafter on more than half a dozen motions, and have contributed substantively to many more. If you can handle the work, they give you more.

Downside: you may also have a weekend killed if there are only two juniors on your case/workstream.

Thanks for responding to these questions. I had posted this question in another thread but in case you could answer it:
If you're a corporate associate in a free market system, are you restricted from pursuing assignments in another group, such as bankruptcy or tax?

I assume the answer is that yes, you can't go outside your group even in a free market firm, but just wanted to confirm. Thanks again.

[Anonymous User]

How often do people turn down Kirkland for Sidley? And under what circumstances would that decision be credited?

Fit / culture / dislike of K&E's "eat what you kill" system, to name a few.

Sidley is a close second for Chicago's best firm so it's not like you're really dropping much in Prestige

Do you even know what "eat what you kill" means in terms of associate life? Almost nothing. I don't even know if that's how K&E works, but you guys are doing a really great job parroting back irrelevant buzzwords. Go to a firm because it has good work, you think the people are smart, and it positions you for whatever else you want to do in the future. These are not careers you're picking -- it's just the next 3-10 years for 95% of you.

[Anonymous User]

Is "lean staffing" and "more substantive experience early on" total flame? I've been doing callbacks with some of the Chicago firms just below KE/Sidley in terms of preftige and size and I've been trying to gauge to what extent their pitches about early associate experience is bullshit.

It is not a flame. I am a first year at K&E and cases truly are leanly staffed. This is both good and bad. You really do get very substantive experience early on: I'm the point person for the client on several workstreams (not the major workstreams, but still ones that need to get done) and I've been given the pen on important motions and filings more than once (although of course there are several layers of review). In less than a year I've been the primary drafter on more than half a dozen motions, and have contributed substantively to many more. If you can handle the work, they give you more.

Downside: you may also have a weekend killed if there are only two juniors on your case/workstream.

Thanks for responding to these questions. I had posted this question in another thread but in case you could answer it:
If you're a corporate associate in a free market system, are you restricted from pursuing assignments in another group, such as bankruptcy or tax?

I assume the answer is that yes, you can't go outside your group even in a free market firm, but just wanted to confirm. Thanks again.

If you are a corporate associate at K&E, then yes, that is true. Corporate is separate from bankruptcy and tax.

[patogordo]

Kirkland LA over Irell or Munger

I've seen this.

now this is ironic