Quinn Emanuel or Kirkland & Ellis? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is the richest firm in the world, is making money hand over fist, is expanding everywhere, and is considered one of the most elite and successful law firms in the country. They're drowning in money. They also, by the way, don't have an hours cut-of for their bonus (which beats the market) and are generous with their people.

Quinn has the reputation of being a shop full of assholes who engage in ethically questionable and unnecessarily aggressive practice. They also have a reputation for being cheapskates (the 2100 hour bonus cutoff is the perfect real-world example). And the internal politics of the firm are still heavily beholden to a single individual (John Quinn).

How is this even a question? I'd go with K&E 10/10. Tie yourself to the ship that's rocketing upward, especially if you get the added bonus of more money, a better reputation, and better treatment.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is the richest firm in the world, is making money hand over fist, is expanding everywhere, and is considered one of the most elite and successful law firms in the country. They're drowning in money. They also, by the way, don't have an hours cut-of for their bonus (which beats the market) and are generous with their people.

Quinn has the reputation of being a shop full of assholes who engage in ethically questionable and unnecessarily aggressive practice. They also have a reputation for being cheapskates (the 2100 hour bonus cutoff is the perfect real-world example). And the internal politics of the firm are still heavily beholden to a single individual (John Quinn).

How is this even a question? I'd go with K&E 10/10. Tie yourself to the ship that's rocketing upward, especially if you get the added bonus of more money, a better reputation, and better treatment.

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

[Anonymous User]

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

Do you even read what you wrote?

> "less prestigious"

> same prestige ranking of another firm

> ????

[Anonymous User]

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

Do you even read what you wrote?

> "less prestigious"

> same prestige ranking of another firm

> ????

what he/she wrote isn't confusing or controversial? I.e., rankings aren't accurate indications of prestige, and Kirkland, though perhaps ranked highly, is not necessarily as "prestigious" as similarly ranked firms.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is the richest firm in the world, is making money hand over fist, is expanding everywhere, and is considered one of the most elite and successful law firms in the country. They're drowning in money. They also, by the way, don't have an hours cut-of for their bonus (which beats the market) and are generous with their people.

Quinn has the reputation of being a shop full of assholes who engage in ethically questionable and unnecessarily aggressive practice. They also have a reputation for being cheapskates (the 2100 hour bonus cutoff is the perfect real-world example). And the internal politics of the firm are still heavily beholden to a single individual (John Quinn).

How is this even a question? I'd go with K&E 10/10. Tie yourself to the ship that's rocketing upward, especially if you get the added bonus of more money, a better reputation, and better treatment.

Look, agree that I'd personally go with KE over Quinn, but yea, the Kool-Aid drinking is a little unhelpful here to folks in OP's shoes. It honestly sounds like either you're (i) trolling or (ii) a 2L/first year who's stoked about their KE gig (which, objectively, props to you) but who hasn't really spent meaningful time at the firm or as an attorney.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is the richest firm in the world, is making money hand over fist, is expanding everywhere, and is considered one of the most elite and successful law firms in the country. They're drowning in money. They also, by the way, don't have an hours cut-of for their bonus (which beats the market) and are generous with their people.

Quinn has the reputation of being a shop full of assholes who engage in ethically questionable and unnecessarily aggressive practice. They also have a reputation for being cheapskates (the 2100 hour bonus cutoff is the perfect real-world example). And the internal politics of the firm are still heavily beholden to a single individual (John Quinn).

How is this even a question? I'd go with K&E 10/10. Tie yourself to the ship that's rocketing upward, especially if you get the added bonus of more money, a better reputation, and better treatment.

Look, agree that I'd personally go with KE over Quinn, but yea, the Kool-Aid drinking is a little unhelpful here to folks in OP's shoes. It honestly sounds like either you're (i) trolling or (ii) a 2L/first year who's stoked about their KE gig (which, objectively, props to you) but who hasn't really spent meaningful time at the firm or as an attorney.

Which is funny because in fact I've been at Kirkland for a long time and have worked with and against Quinn attorneys on several matters during that run. So far from being a dewy-eyed first year I'm someone with actual experience. Look, people praise Kirkland because they're doing everything right right now and the results (and compensation) show it; there's no space where Quinn is doing better than Kirkland or producing better results. And being in that environment means you're part of a growth and success story. It's as simple as that. I've seen the firm's revenue grow from about $1b to $5b over a relatively short period of time. It's insane here right now. It feels like being somewhere that is firing on all cylinders in all its practice groups.

The only way I'd recommend Quinn over KE is if someone is dead set on getting real litigation experience as quickly as possible while still being in biglaw, other considerations be damned. For that sort of person, Quinn probably is a better place to be because from what I've seen they place an extreme emphasis on all of their attorneys being able to be on their feet (take deps, attend hearings, work with experts, etc.) from a young age. You'll get that experience at KE too, but it will take longer and so if someone is impatient or super eager then I'd point them to Quinn on that ground. But we're talking a 10% outlier who almost wants to be a PI attorney but went to biglaw instead sort of personality.

[Anonymous User]

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

Do you even read what you wrote?

> "less prestigious"

> same prestige ranking of another firm

> ????

what he/she wrote isn't confusing or controversial? I.e., rankings aren't accurate indications of prestige, and Kirkland, though perhaps ranked highly, is not necessarily as "prestigious" as similarly ranked firms.

Chambers generally reflects actual prowess in a given practice area and Vault generally reflects perceived prestige, so the notion of a firm being less prestigious than its prestige ranking is a tortured and nonsensical concept that only law students could come up with. Vault's prestige failings are that they're heavily weighted towards NY-transactional, so prestigious lit shops (and certain SV shops) don't necessarily receive the ranking they should. Outside those limited exceptions it's a pretty accurate summary.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is the richest firm in the world, is making money hand over fist, is expanding everywhere, and is considered one of the most elite and successful law firms in the country. They're drowning in money. They also, by the way, don't have an hours cut-of for their bonus (which beats the market) and are generous with their people.

Quinn has the reputation of being a shop full of assholes who engage in ethically questionable and unnecessarily aggressive practice. They also have a reputation for being cheapskates (the 2100 hour bonus cutoff is the perfect real-world example). And the internal politics of the firm are still heavily beholden to a single individual (John Quinn).

How is this even a question? I'd go with K&E 10/10. Tie yourself to the ship that's rocketing upward, especially if you get the added bonus of more money, a better reputation, and better treatment.

Look, agree that I'd personally go with KE over Quinn, but yea, the Kool-Aid drinking is a little unhelpful here to folks in OP's shoes. It honestly sounds like either you're (i) trolling or (ii) a 2L/first year who's stoked about their KE gig (which, objectively, props to you) but who hasn't really spent meaningful time at the firm or as an attorney.

Which is funny because in fact I've been at Kirkland for a long time and have worked with and against Quinn attorneys on several matters during that run. So far from being a dewy-eyed first year I'm someone with actual experience. Look, people praise Kirkland because they're doing everything right right now and the results (and compensation) show it; there's no space where Quinn is doing better than Kirkland or producing better results. And being in that environment means you're part of a growth and success story. It's as simple as that. I've seen the firm's revenue grow from about $1b to $5b over a relatively short period of time. It's insane here right now. It feels like being somewhere that is firing on all cylinders in all its practice groups.

The only way I'd recommend Quinn over KE is if someone is dead set on getting real litigation experience as quickly as possible while still being in biglaw, other considerations be damned. For that sort of person, Quinn probably is a better place to be because from what I've seen they place an extreme emphasis on all of their attorneys being able to be on their feet (take deps, attend hearings, work with experts, etc.) from a young age. You'll get that experience at KE too, but it will take longer and so if someone is impatient or super eager then I'd point them to Quinn on that ground. But we're talking a 10% outlier who almost wants to be a PI attorney but went to biglaw instead sort of personality.

Ok ok, you graduated top of your class in the navy seals and are trained in gorilla warfare. I get it. My point is, you shouldn't gloss over all the downsides of KE, else OP isn't getting the full picture. The ridiculous growth of the firm comes at a price. And Quinn is also an elite/rich firm. The fact that you fein incredulity at OP even asking the question of KE vs. Quinn makes your posturing a little suspect.

[Anonymous User]

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

Do you even read what you wrote?

> "less prestigious"

> same prestige ranking of another firm

> ????

I'm the quoted OP, and yes I read what I wrote. I apologize to everyone else if I am derailing this topic further, but Vault ranking is certainly not a great reflection of firm prestige. Kirkland & Ellis is not as prestigious as Cravath or Sullivan and Cromwell, and I'm sorry if that shatters your notions of how Vault rankings work.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is the richest firm in the world, is making money hand over fist, is expanding everywhere, and is considered one of the most elite and successful law firms in the country. They're drowning in money. They also, by the way, don't have an hours cut-of for their bonus (which beats the market) and are generous with their people.

Quinn has the reputation of being a shop full of assholes who engage in ethically questionable and unnecessarily aggressive practice. They also have a reputation for being cheapskates (the 2100 hour bonus cutoff is the perfect real-world example). And the internal politics of the firm are still heavily beholden to a single individual (John Quinn).

How is this even a question? I'd go with K&E 10/10. Tie yourself to the ship that's rocketing upward, especially if you get the added bonus of more money, a better reputation, and better treatment.

Look, agree that I'd personally go with KE over Quinn, but yea, the Kool-Aid drinking is a little unhelpful here to folks in OP's shoes. It honestly sounds like either you're (i) trolling or (ii) a 2L/first year who's stoked about their KE gig (which, objectively, props to you) but who hasn't really spent meaningful time at the firm or as an attorney.

Which is funny because in fact I've been at Kirkland for a long time and have worked with and against Quinn attorneys on several matters during that run. So far from being a dewy-eyed first year I'm someone with actual experience. Look, people praise Kirkland because they're doing everything right right now and the results (and compensation) show it; there's no space where Quinn is doing better than Kirkland or producing better results. And being in that environment means you're part of a growth and success story. It's as simple as that. I've seen the firm's revenue grow from about $1b to $5b over a relatively short period of time. It's insane here right now. It feels like being somewhere that is firing on all cylinders in all its practice groups.

The only way I'd recommend Quinn over KE is if someone is dead set on getting real litigation experience as quickly as possible while still being in biglaw, other considerations be damned. For that sort of person, Quinn probably is a better place to be because from what I've seen they place an extreme emphasis on all of their attorneys being able to be on their feet (take deps, attend hearings, work with experts, etc.) from a young age. You'll get that experience at KE too, but it will take longer and so if someone is impatient or super eager then I'd point them to Quinn on that ground. But we're talking a 10% outlier who almost wants to be a PI attorney but went to biglaw instead sort of personality.

Ok ok, you graduated top of your class in the navy seals and are trained in gorilla warfare. I get it. My point is, you shouldn't gloss over all the downsides of KE, else OP isn't getting the full picture. The ridiculous growth of the firm comes at a price. And Quinn is also an elite/rich firm. The fact that you fein incredulity at OP even asking the question of KE vs. Quinn makes your posturing a little suspect.

I didn't claim to be in the Navy Seals or the top of my class or any other nonsense. I've claimed, accurately, I've been at KE for years and have practiced with and against Quinn attorneys. Like I said above, I just don't see any area where Quinn materially beats KE, so I do meet the question with some incredulity. Yes KE has downsides but I can't think of one where its downsides are significantly *worse* than Quinn's, while I can think of many Quinn downsides that are significantly worse than KE's. I've specifically enumerated a few of them, including the hard bonus cut-off, the stinginess toward attorneys as far as soft perks / comp, the reputation for questionably ethical practice, and the dominance of John Quinn in the firm's leadership and decision-making structure. Again, unless you'd like to be doing hearings by year two, I'd be hard-pressed to ever recommend going there vs. Kirkland. This isn't some bias I have against Quinn it's just reflecting on years of observing them while being at one of their competitors. There are plenty of other firms that I think would make a KE vs. X comparison more difficult; Quinn isn't one of them.

[Anonymous User]

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

Do you even read what you wrote?

> "less prestigious"

> same prestige ranking of another firm

> ????

I'm the quoted OP, and yes I read what I wrote. I apologize to everyone else if I am derailing this topic further, but Vault ranking is certainly not a great reflection of firm prestige. Kirkland & Ellis is not as prestigious as Cravath or Sullivan and Cromwell, and I'm sorry if that shatters your notions of how Vault rankings work.

Vault is literally a ranking of firm prestige. You don't know what you're talking about. "Vault's national ranking of the most prestigious law firms based on the assessments of lawyers at peer firms."

[Anonymous User]

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

Do you even read what you wrote?

> "less prestigious"

> same prestige ranking of another firm

> ????

I'm the quoted OP, and yes I read what I wrote. I apologize to everyone else if I am derailing this topic further, but Vault ranking is certainly not a great reflection of firm prestige. Kirkland & Ellis is not as prestigious as Cravath or Sullivan and Cromwell, and I'm sorry if that shatters your notions of how Vault rankings work.

Vault is literally a ranking of firm prestige. You don't know what you're talking about. "Vault's national ranking of the most prestigious law firms based on the assessments of lawyers at peer firms."

Yea, and it'll point you in the right direction generally, but it is a business and has to stay relevant by tweaking its rankings every year. Do you think Vault is a charity? It's accurate in the sense that it lists prestigious firms, but if you think Wachtell is less prestigious than Skadden, you're off your rocker. It's the same issue as with US News rankings for undergrad. Does anyone really think Columbia/MIT are better, on the whole, than Stanford and Yale for undergrad students?

Part of the issue is the selection bias in who will respond to the survey, and the problem that it is likely to conflate prestige with name recognition. Firms like Kirkland and Skadden are huge, and will do better on the latter.

[Anonymous User]

I'd agree with K&E over QE in most cases, but what is with this gratuitous fawning over K&E some people have? Is this all K&E associates justifying their life choices? Don't get me wrong, it's a good firm that's growing aggressively, but it also has downsides that other comparable firms might not have (ex. more "corporate-minded" rather than being law-firm traditional in its culture, less prestigious than firms of a similar ranking, etc.)

Do you even read what you wrote?

> "less prestigious"

> same prestige ranking of another firm

> ????

I'm the quoted OP, and yes I read what I wrote. I apologize to everyone else if I am derailing this topic further, but Vault ranking is certainly not a great reflection of firm prestige. Kirkland & Ellis is not as prestigious as Cravath or Sullivan and Cromwell, and I'm sorry if that shatters your notions of how Vault rankings work.

Vault is literally a ranking of firm prestige. You don't know what you're talking about. "Vault's national ranking of the most prestigious law firms based on the assessments of lawyers at peer firms."

Yea, and it'll point you in the right direction generally, but it is a business and has to stay relevant by tweaking its rankings every year. Do you think Vault is a charity? It's accurate in the sense that it lists prestigious firms, but if you think Wachtell is less prestigious than Skadden, you're off your rocker. It's the same issue as with US News rankings for undergrad. Does anyone really think Columbia/MIT are better, on the whole, than Stanford and Yale for undergrad students?

Part of the issue is the selection bias in who will respond to the survey, and the problem that it is likely to conflate prestige with name recognition. Firms like Kirkland and Skadden are huge, and will do better on the latter.

I mean, Vault depicts WLRK and Skadden as vying back and forth for the position of "second most prestigious firm in the world," just behind Cravath and with a meaningful separation between them and the next most prestigious firm, Sullivan. Seems pretty accurate to me. And anyway, even if there is some discrepancy at the margin, there isn't enough to ever cover the gap between where K&E is at 6 and where Quinn is at 13 -- that's not "splitting hairs" it's "in a different tier." Which really doesn't surprise me--Quinn's reputation has never been that great relative to the V10.

[ExpOriental]

I mean, Vault depicts WLRK and Skadden as vying back and forth for the position of "second most prestigious firm in the world," just behind Cravath and with a meaningful separation between them and the next most prestigious firm, Sullivan. Seems pretty accurate to me.

This has to be a troll

[Anonymous User]

I mean, Vault depicts WLRK and Skadden as vying back and forth for the position of "second most prestigious firm in the world," just behind Cravath and with a meaningful separation between them and the next most prestigious firm, Sullivan. Seems pretty accurate to me.

This has to be a troll

It's not? WLRK has a stratospheric reputation as the most elite m&a firm on the planet with hiring standards suited for that. But there are plenty of other spaces where it's not a first, second, or even third phone call by the GC (whereas Skadden often will be). Law students fetishize it because of its comp. structure but the world of legal practice is larger than m&a.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, Vault depicts WLRK and Skadden as vying back and forth for the position of "second most prestigious firm in the world," just behind Cravath and with a meaningful separation between them and the next most prestigious firm, Sullivan. Seems pretty accurate to me.

This has to be a troll

It's not? WLRK has a stratospheric reputation as the most elite m&a firm on the planet with hiring standards suited for that. But there are plenty of other spaces where it's not a first, second, or even third phone call by the GC (whereas Skadden often will be). Law students fetishize it because of its comp. structure but the world of legal practice is larger than m&a.

I actually agree with this take. WLRK is top dog in the M&A world, but that's its main calling card and the field has evened out in the past years. I don't think Skadden/DPW/STB/Cravath/S&C are meaningfully "worse" at M&A than Wachtell. I also think Wachtell suffers from having a relatively limited breadth of practice groups for a full-service firm. No prominent Cap Markets/RX/etc.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, Vault depicts WLRK and Skadden as vying back and forth for the position of "second most prestigious firm in the world," just behind Cravath and with a meaningful separation between them and the next most prestigious firm, Sullivan. Seems pretty accurate to me.

This has to be a troll

It's not? WLRK has a stratospheric reputation as the most elite m&a firm on the planet with hiring standards suited for that. But there are plenty of other spaces where it's not a first, second, or even third phone call by the GC (whereas Skadden often will be). Law students fetishize it because of its comp. structure but the world of legal practice is larger than m&a.

Wachtell absolutely is the first call for a GC when there's a complicated transaction going on. Indeed in the Rx space Wachtell has grown out its restructuring practice b/c PE firms need to call them in to get their brand name as their reps.

If GC's need bread and butter vanilla PubCo M&A they call Skadden b/c they know they can and will throw a hundred junior associates at the deal, but if they want sophisticated and complicated legal clauses crafted WLRK is their first call.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, Vault depicts WLRK and Skadden as vying back and forth for the position of "second most prestigious firm in the world," just behind Cravath and with a meaningful separation between them and the next most prestigious firm, Sullivan. Seems pretty accurate to me.

This has to be a troll

It's not? WLRK has a stratospheric reputation as the most elite m&a firm on the planet with hiring standards suited for that. But there are plenty of other spaces where it's not a first, second, or even third phone call by the GC (whereas Skadden often will be). Law students fetishize it because of its comp. structure but the world of legal practice is larger than m&a.

Wachtell absolutely is the first call for a GC when there's a complicated transaction going on. Indeed in the Rx space Wachtell has grown out its restructuring practice b/c PE firms need to call them in to get their brand name as their reps.

If GC's need bread and butter vanilla PubCo M&A they call Skadden b/c they know they can and will throw a hundred junior associates at the deal, but if they want sophisticated and complicated legal clauses crafted WLRK is their first call.

Wait wait any RX attorney worth their mettle knows that you don't call up WLRK for restructuring work. They're not even in like the top 10 firms you'd consider calling. Same for CM work. They're not really in the top 10.

You're way overstating Wachtell's RX presence and the gap between Wachtell and the other M&A shops.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, Vault depicts WLRK and Skadden as vying back and forth for the position of "second most prestigious firm in the world," just behind Cravath and with a meaningful separation between them and the next most prestigious firm, Sullivan. Seems pretty accurate to me.

This has to be a troll

It's not? WLRK has a stratospheric reputation as the most elite m&a firm on the planet with hiring standards suited for that. But there are plenty of other spaces where it's not a first, second, or even third phone call by the GC (whereas Skadden often will be). Law students fetishize it because of its comp. structure but the world of legal practice is larger than m&a.

Wachtell absolutely is the first call for a GC when there's a complicated transaction going on. Indeed in the Rx space Wachtell has grown out its restructuring practice b/c PE firms need to call them in to get their brand name as their reps.

If GC's need bread and butter vanilla PubCo M&A they call Skadden b/c they know they can and will throw a hundred junior associates at the deal, but if they want sophisticated and complicated legal clauses crafted WLRK is their first call.

Wait wait any RX attorney worth their mettle knows that you don't call up WLRK for restructuring work. They're not even in like the top 10 firms you'd consider calling. Same for CM work. They're not really in the top 10.

You're way overstating Wachtell's RX presence and the gap between Wachtell and the other M&A shops.

Reminder: 50% of TLS is either junior associates or 1Ls / 2Ls role playing as attorneys.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone really think that there is a litigator who has been at Kirkland for 15 years ("I've seen the firm's revenue grow from about $1b to $5b") in this thread arguing about whether the OP should go to Quinn or KE? Come on.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone really think that there is a litigator who has been at Kirkland for 15 years ("I've seen the firm's revenue grow from about $1b to $5b") in this thread arguing about whether the OP should go to Quinn or KE? Come on.

Don't see why that's so unbelievable. I'm an NSP and you're off by about 5 years. Would you like me to out myself for your satisfaction? P.S. I mostly just come around here when there's bonus news brewing, like I suspect many people.

[aegor]

The only way I'd recommend Quinn over KE is if someone is dead set on getting real litigation experience as quickly as possible while still being in biglaw, other considerations be damned.

You just described pretty much everyone I know who works at or will work at Quinn. Whom do you think the firm appeals to, anyway?

I am so sick of all of this circle-jerking. What random BL litigator gives a shit about recent increased revenue or w/e. Both KE and QE are great firms. QOL differences are relevant. The rest of this post is not:

Look, people praise Kirkland because they're doing everything right right now and the results (and compensation) show it; there's no space where Quinn is doing better than Kirkland or producing better results. And being in that environment means you're part of a growth and success story. It's as simple as that.

^cringe

[Anonymous User]

The only way I'd recommend Quinn over KE is if someone is dead set on getting real litigation experience as quickly as possible while still being in biglaw, other considerations be damned.

You just described pretty much everyone I know who works at or will work at Quinn. Whom do you think the firm appeals to, anyway?

I am so sick of all of this circle-jerking. What random BL litigator gives a shit about recent increased revenue or w/e. Both KE and QE are great firms. QOL differences are relevant. The rest of this post is not:

Look, people praise Kirkland because they're doing everything right right now and the results (and compensation) show it; there's no space where Quinn is doing better than Kirkland or producing better results. And being in that environment means you're part of a growth and success story. It's as simple as that.

^cringe

Found the Quinn associate. And cringe all you want but you have a pretty stupid take. You should absolutely care about the financial trajectory of the firm you're joining in terms of job security, industry reputation for exit options, the matters you'll be gaining access to through successful pitches, the people who will be joining the firm and growing the pie. KE's beating Quinn in all those areas right now.

[Anonymous User]

For the KE person, can you give some examples of the KE matters that you’re talking about that are materially better than the types of engagements that Quinn is getting? I don’t work at Quinn, but I’ve never perceived them as being shut out from the best cases (other than in the sense that their plantiff-side work seems to create more conflicts).