Kirkland or Gibson for Houston? Forum

[Anonymous User]

At GDC Houston so obviously biased.

Some information in this thread is wrong, e.g. size of office. Amount of work being purely local driven, also wrong. You'll work with LA, NY, Denver, Palo Alto, and Europe offices a lot of the time. This is encouraged. You'll get exposed to many practice groups.

Also, OP you're looking at 2 offices with two vastly different hiring and growth models. Yes, you can hire 50 juniors a year if you're prepared to cast your net wide and then course correct. It's a given, in a group of 50, that you'll have folks not cut out for big law, and they're frozen out in the first 2-3 years. If you think: that won't be me, think again. It's eat or be eaten. If you like competition and proving yourself, the sky is the limit. If you are happy to be an also-ran, KE could work however, if you're a reliable grunt.

GDC only hires folks they believe in and expect to keep. Not that much sorting people post-hire because up-front scrutiny is so intense. E.g., summer class is typically 5-7 people. Lateral hiring is just as selective. The most recent laterals we took on, including a great person from KE, were Order of the Coif and had incredibly impressive work experience. So yes, KE laterals are welcome, but understand that the screening is more intense.

The joke at GDC corporate (Houston or West Coast, less so in NY) is this: if you work here, you technically could have done an Art. III clerkship if you wanted to and decided not to (or actually did, like a few of us) and then went corporate route instead. A weird mix but owed to the firm's huge emphasis on great academic credentials. Like most people in this thread, I believe academic pedigree and clerkships are a poor predictor of success in corporate law, but hey. It does help when you have to draft a specialized memo in the middle of a transaction, and this sort of intellectual athleticism is expected. You're not here to push sig pages or do the same diligence work over and over. But also, you're not in a class of 50, because frankly there's not 50 people per annum who could go Article III and say let me do M&A/Corporate instead. That's why you see two different class sizes on paper, understand. Not because every firm is here to emulate KE's eat or be eaten culture, but fail at it.

The idea that GDC won't be around in 5 years is not credible. You have small teams generate pretty insane billables. E.g., a 3 person O&G team brought in 1.2 million in one month, and that wasn't even that big of a deal; ditto for NY restructuring partners (a lot more, e.g. 4 million in one month). You should look up what a 2-3 person CapMarkets team at GDC is pulling off. Once you're at or across KE, you'll see that they'll staff the same deal GDC or LW is on (lightly staffed) with 10-20 people instead, many of whom will phase in and out of deals because they're there to handle a certain segment of the deal. That translates to the training you get. KE builds generalists, but don't kid yourself that that's what their plan is re all those 50 juniors they hire. A lot of those 50 are there to be the phase-in-/phase-out guy who never sees or runs a deal substantially (or get frozen out before they hit even that stage, see above). A lot of those 50 folks are there to assist the star associates who run deals (and do it quite well, really), or to assist quite a few of the non-equity partners as well (who are also, generally, good attorneys).

This is not even selling GDC. The pressure on juniors I'd say is actually higher here because you can't disappear in a crowd, and you can't just do the same things over and over and collect a pay check. Understand that there are star associates at KE too but it's a different bag. Even at hiring level, partners talk about different classes of KE associates. You wanna be a star associate at KE, you'll have to prove it. At GDC, it's expected, and the pressure and attention and mentorship is a lot more intense. That is not for everyone.

So yes, when KE associates hit the lateral market, it depends a lot on whether you were hired to fill out the numbers for the large deals, or whether you were brought on because partners genuinely believed in you and see a non-equity partner in the making. Just having KE on your resume doesn't tell us that. And again, you'll see highly successful people lateral out of KE, but you must understand the larger picture. That's why I said, you have to understand the hiring and growth models and cultures that drives offices, otherwise numbers are a bit misleading on their own.

[Anonymous User]

At GDC Houston so obviously biased.

Some information in this thread is wrong, e.g. size of office. Amount of work being purely local driven, also wrong. You'll work with LA, NY, Denver, Palo Alto, and Europe offices a lot of the time. This is encouraged. You'll get exposed to many practice groups.

Also, OP you're looking at 2 offices with two vastly different hiring and growth models. Yes, you can hire 50 juniors a year if you're prepared to cast your net wide and then course correct. It's a given, in a group of 50, that you'll have folks not cut out for big law, and they're frozen out in the first 2-3 years. If you think: that won't be me, think again. It's eat or be eaten. If you like competition and proving yourself, the sky is the limit. If you are happy to be an also-ran, KE could work however, if you're a reliable grunt.

GDC only hires folks they believe in and expect to keep. Not that much sorting people post-hire because up-front scrutiny is so intense. E.g., summer class is typically 5-7 people. Lateral hiring is just as selective. The most recent laterals we took on, including a great person from KE, were Order of the Coif and had incredibly impressive work experience. So yes, KE laterals are welcome, but understand that the screening is more intense.

The joke at GDC corporate (Houston or West Coast, less so in NY) is this: if you work here, you technically could have done an Art. III clerkship if you wanted to and decided not to (or actually did, like a few of us) and then went corporate route instead. A weird mix but owed to the firm's huge emphasis on great academic credentials. Like most people in this thread, I believe academic pedigree and clerkships are a poor predictor of success in corporate law, but hey. It does help when you have to draft a specialized memo in the middle of a transaction, and this sort of intellectual athleticism is expected. You're not here to push sig pages or do the same diligence work over and over. But also, you're not in a class of 50, because frankly there's not 50 people per annum who could go Article III and say let me do M&A/Corporate instead. That's why you see two different class sizes on paper, understand. Not because every firm is here to emulate KE's eat or be eaten culture, but fail at it.

The idea that GDC won't be around in 5 years is not credible. You have small teams generate pretty insane billables. E.g., a 3 person O&G team brought in 1.2 million in one month, and that wasn't even that big of a deal; ditto for NY restructuring partners (a lot more, e.g. 4 million in one month). You should look up what a 2-3 person CapMarkets team at GDC is pulling off. Once you're at or across KE, you'll see that they'll staff the same deal GDC or LW is on (lightly staffed) with 10-20 people instead, many of whom will phase in and out of deals because they're there to handle a certain segment of the deal. That translates to the training you get. KE builds generalists, but don't kid yourself that that's what their plan is re all those 50 juniors they hire. A lot of those 50 are there to be the phase-in-/phase-out guy who never sees or runs a deal substantially (or get frozen out before they hit even that stage, see above). A lot of those 50 folks are there to assist the star associates who run deals (and do it quite well, really), or to assist quite a few of the non-equity partners as well (who are also, generally, good attorneys).

This is not even selling GDC. The pressure on juniors I'd say is actually higher here because you can't disappear in a crowd, and you can't just do the same things over and over and collect a pay check. Understand that there are star associates at KE too but it's a different bag. Even at hiring level, partners talk about different classes of KE associates. You wanna be a star associate at KE, you'll have to prove it. At GDC, it's expected, and the pressure and attention and mentorship is a lot more intense. That is not for everyone.

So yes, when KE associates hit the lateral market, it depends a lot on whether you were hired to fill out the numbers for the large deals, or whether you were brought on because partners genuinely believed in you and see a non-equity partner in the making. Just having KE on your resume doesn't tell us that. And again, you'll see highly successful people lateral out of KE, but you must understand the larger picture. That's why I said, you have to understand the hiring and growth models and cultures that drives offices, otherwise numbers are a bit misleading on their own.

Out of curiosity, did you start at GDC Houston as a summer or come from another firm? Your information is interesting, but it's hard not to look at it through a lens of significant bias (especially your opinions about how K&E operates, as someone from the outside). There's a lot of chest-puffing and smack-talking in your response that I'd appreciate some context on - of course people at GDC will think everyone recruited by GDC is the best, and a competitor like Kirkland sucks. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

delete

[Anonymous User]

Not to derail to a tangential topic, but what is the honest sentiment about BB around town? Interested to hear how they are faring in Dallas as well.

[Anonymous User]

At GDC Houston so obviously biased.

Some information in this thread is wrong, e.g. size of office. Amount of work being purely local driven, also wrong. You'll work with LA, NY, Denver, Palo Alto, and Europe offices a lot of the time. This is encouraged. You'll get exposed to many practice groups.

Also, OP you're looking at 2 offices with two vastly different hiring and growth models. Yes, you can hire 50 juniors a year if you're prepared to cast your net wide and then course correct. It's a given, in a group of 50, that you'll have folks not cut out for big law, and they're frozen out in the first 2-3 years. If you think: that won't be me, think again. It's eat or be eaten. If you like competition and proving yourself, the sky is the limit. If you are happy to be an also-ran, KE could work however, if you're a reliable grunt.

GDC only hires folks they believe in and expect to keep. Not that much sorting people post-hire because up-front scrutiny is so intense. E.g., summer class is typically 5-7 people. Lateral hiring is just as selective. The most recent laterals we took on, including a great person from KE, were Order of the Coif and had incredibly impressive work experience. So yes, KE laterals are welcome, but understand that the screening is more intense.

The joke at GDC corporate (Houston or West Coast, less so in NY) is this: if you work here, you technically could have done an Art. III clerkship if you wanted to and decided not to (or actually did, like a few of us) and then went corporate route instead. .....

Once you're at or across KE, you'll see that they'll staff the same deal GDC or LW is on (lightly staffed) with 10-20 people instead, many of whom will phase in and out of deals because they're there to handle a certain segment of the deal. That translates to the training you get. KE builds generalists,

....

I'm the Anon K&E associate who said that K&E is a ruff place to work and cross staffing is not so easy as others claim. I assume that the 1st year K&E cultists in this thread have reported my to IT to track my IP address and are eagerly awaiting my ouster and subsequent sacrifice to the PPP gods.

Purpose of the preface is to say I am pretty even keel on these things, and this GDC post is among the worst I've seen. A few points (with qualifier that I am a GDC outsider):

1. Agree that cross staffing is easy and a great aspect of GDC that you won't get as much at K&E

2. Agree that GDC is a kinder place for associates and probably fine to start at GDC and you will probably have optionality to lateral into K&E later if you want to (the reverse is also true). I would bet money it is better to be a first year at GDC than K&E, but K&E gets better as you get senior.

3. Agree harder to "stand out" at K&E, but the flip side of that is that, to the extent biglaw is a marathon, it is also easier to quietly do your job without getting too abused on terrible first year work and then 4-5 years later you are suddenly one of a few midlevels left and you get really great substantial work. There are more than a few who have been enormously successful following this model - they still might not know when to add a materiality scrape, but they are running deals.

7. If you all really tell this "joke", you should be embarrassed, seriously. Everyone is selective. And without going into it at all or saying anything else, your lateral from KE kind of blows up your whole point.

(ix). very bizarre point on staffing. K&E will have lots of ppl staffed on a deal, most of whom are specialists who can efficiently deal with the aspect of the deal in which they specialize. I feel truly sorry if a GDC junior corporate associate is spinning wheels trying to figure out 280G issues. The wide bench of specialists is actually a great feature of K&E. I truly have no idea what you are trying to say when you say Kirkland builds generalist and I think you might not know what you are saying either.

(d). With that said, there really are only 3-4 ppl comprising the core group on a deal. Also, if some devastating diligence gets dumped on us, or if a whole new aspect of deal is added last minute (e.g., rollover equity), K&E can bring more bodies on to help with the issue so the core team doesn't get wrecked - another great feature of K&E.

Cliffs: Agree w/ some of your points, but some are absurd.

[Anonymous User]

delete

[Anonymous User]

Not to derail to a tangential topic, but what is the honest sentiment about BB around town? Interested to hear how they are faring in Dallas as well.

BB used to be at the top along with V&E, but they've slipped into second tier for transactions in Houston and are on the downswing. Dallas is a very different market. Here's a good thread summarizing Dallas firms--viewtopic.php?f=23&t=296826

[Anonymous User]

Not to derail to a tangential topic, but what is the honest sentiment about BB around town? Interested to hear how they are faring in Dallas as well.

BB used to be at the top along with V&E, but they've slipped into second tier for transactions in Houston and are on the downswing. Dallas is a very different market. Here's a good thread summarizing Dallas firms--viewtopic.php?f=23&t=296826

Yeah in Houston at least, BB is like a former heavyweight champion who is now old, slowing down, and getting beat out by younger and fiercer competitors. But can still throw a decent punch (especially compared to a non-boxer) and gets residual respect due to their former glory. In contrast, V&E is very much actively competing for the belt, although the odds aren't looking quite as good as they used to. Whether or not they end up as the Champ, they have the stamina to stay a relevant contender for the foreseeable future and keep the outsiders on their toes. KE is like a 300lb beast from a strange land that's probably taking steroids and doesn't get along well with the others, but everyone is rightfully scared after they demolished the faces of some other boxers on their way up. If this were a movie, it would be KE vs. V&E in the championship match, and the audience is probably rooting for V&E as the hometown underdog.

[Anonymous User]

Not to derail to a tangential topic, but what is the honest sentiment about BB around town? Interested to hear how they are faring in Dallas as well.

BB used to be at the top along with V&E, but they've slipped into second tier for transactions in Houston and are on the downswing. Dallas is a very different market. Here's a good thread summarizing Dallas firms--viewtopic.php?f=23&t=296826

Yeah in Houston at least, BB is like a former heavyweight champion who is now old, slowing down, and getting beat out by younger and fiercer competitors. But can still throw a decent punch (especially compared to a non-boxer) and gets residual respect due to their former glory. In contrast, V&E is very much actively competing for the belt, although the odds aren't looking quite as good as they used to. Whether or not they end up as the Champ, they have the stamina to stay a relevant contender for the foreseeable future and keep the outsiders on their toes. KE is like a 300lb beast from a strange land that's probably taking steroids and doesn't get along well with the others, but everyone is rightfully scared after they demolished the faces of some other boxers on their way up. If this were a movie, it would be KE vs. V&E in the championship match, and the audience is probably rooting for V&E as the hometown underdog.

So K&E is Drago, V&E is Rocky, and BB is Apollo Creed dead in the ring?

This is a beautiful comparison.

[Anonymous User]

GDC anon from above.

2. Agree that GDC is a kinder place for associates and probably fine to start at GDC and you will probably have optionality to lateral into K&E later if you want to (the reverse is also true). I would bet money it is better to be a first year at GDC than K&E, but K&E gets better as you get senior.

Have you talked to non-equity partners? Experience is all over the place. I'd be happy to trade places with maybe some but certainly not all of them. I've drawn generalizations above but I'd not draw this one.

7. If you all really tell this "joke", you should be embarrassed, seriously. Everyone is selective. And without going into it at all or saying anything else, your lateral from KE kind of blows up your whole point.

It's a joke on the people who accumulate those credentials, not on those who lack them. As I said, Coif and Art. III are hardly predictors of corp. law success. If you think this was chest-puffing / self-congratulatory, I apologize because it's actually the opposite and you misread me.
Also: the fact that KE hires such people among others doesn't "blow up" my "whole point" about relative selectivity but underscores it. At KE, as I said, they "cast a wide net" and you'll be competing against people at both ends of the spectrum. That includes people other firms wouldn't hire, and people other firms may sometimes only dream of hiring. Hope that's clearer.
And again, it's not as if having academic credentials always produces the best associates.

Cliffs: Agree w/ some of your points, but some are absurd.

That's high praise indeed and I appreciate the level-headedness.

[Anonymous User]

GDC anon from above.

2. Agree that GDC is a kinder place for associates and probably fine to start at GDC and you will probably have optionality to lateral into K&E later if you want to (the reverse is also true). I would bet money it is better to be a first year at GDC than K&E, but K&E gets better as you get senior.

Have you talked to non-equity partners? Experience is all over the place. I'd be happy to trade places with maybe some but certainly not all of them. I've drawn generalizations above but I'd not draw this one.

7. If you all really tell this "joke", you should be embarrassed, seriously. Everyone is selective. And without going into it at all or saying anything else, your lateral from KE kind of blows up your whole point.

It's a joke on the people who accumulate those credentials, not on those who lack them. As I said, Coif and Art. III are hardly predictors of corp. law success. If you think this was chest-puffing / self-congratulatory, I apologize because it's actually the opposite and you misread me.
Also: the fact that KE hires such people among others doesn't "blow up" my "whole point" about relative selectivity but underscores it. At KE, as I said, they "cast a wide net" and you'll be competing against people at both ends of the spectrum. That includes people other firms wouldn't hire, and people other firms may sometimes only dream of hiring. Hope that's clearer.
And again, it's not as if having academic credentials always produces the best associates.

Cliffs: Agree w/ some of your points, but some are absurd.

That's high praise indeed and I appreciate the level-headedness.

Wasn't saying KE gets better than GDC as you get senior, just saying KE gets better as you get senior vis a vis KE.

In any case, I think your perspective is interesting and good to have in a room full of KE kool aid drinkers. KE is obviously killing it in both Houston and generally, but GDC is a great firm and I literally don't think OP can go wrong here.

[Anonymous User]

What about STB Houston - is it kinda in b/w GDC/KE in terms of all the above (size, opportunity, deals, culture, etc.)?