S&C (NYC) v. Skadden (NYC) v. Kirkland (NYC) for litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

Would you still pick S&C (NY) over K&E (DC)? Assume that I'm comfortable living in both areas.

If you're somehow truly indifferent between living in NYC and DC (which is rather astounding to me), then DC wins on cost of living. Or if you have a practice-specialty preference, that could break the tie.

I'm with this person - DC is significantly cheaper than NYC. But if you are somehow truly ambivalent between DC and NYC, why not just send it to Chicago or Texas and really maximize income earning potential lol

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

I don’t even think this is true for litigation. Some of the best real trial lawyers in the country are in Texas and California. DC generally has high end litigators and a lot of the elite boutiques are located around there. The NYC lit market is objectively weak. There are like 50 real trial lawyers in all of NYC biglaw. I’m not impressed by discovery cogs and people who think “substantive litigation experience” means taking a deposition as a 4th year associate.

Litigation partner in CA. A few reactions:

1. I think DC is definitely the center of gravity for appellate litigation but not litigation generally. That said, it does have some really good trial lawyers, both at big firms and boutiques.

2. NYC litigation is very focused on large cases (particularly securities and antitrust cases) that don't go to trial very often. You will work more and get less substantive experience than you will in other cities.

3. For high end, trial-focused business litigation, I tend to think the three strongest cities are LA, Houston, and Chicago. The Bay Area is a very strong market for IP litigation and transactional work, but for litigation generally I think LA is a better choice. (It's also much cheaper, though by no means cheap.)

Out of curiosity, if you're pretty committed to NY or SF, where would the good trial litigation be? I can't justify moving to the three cities you mentioned rip.

Earlier poster. I’d take SF if you want to try patent cases or be a plaintiff’s lawyer and NY for anything else.

[Anonymous User]

At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality.

I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

What's the support for either of these 2 claims?

You could waste an hour scrolling through the Kirkland website. Chi and DC lit associates have markedly better credentials than NY lit associates. Which makes sense, since K&E is the top biglaw firm in Chi and DC is DC.

And most of the major lit partners are in Chi or DC. It's going to be very, very difficult for a homegrown NY associate to get the facetime and opportunities they need to be competitive for shares when their time comes. Of course, someone poached from Wachtell to build out the relatively anemic NY lit practice or something might be in a different situation.

[Anonymous User]

At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality.

I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

What's the support for either of these 2 claims?

You could waste an hour scrolling through the Kirkland website. Chi and DC lit associates have markedly better credentials than NY lit associates. Which makes sense, since K&E is the top biglaw firm in Chi and DC is DC.

And most of the major lit partners are in Chi or DC. It's going to be very, very difficult for a homegrown NY associate to get the facetime and opportunities they need to be competitive for shares when their time comes. Of course, someone poached from Wachtell to build out the relatively anemic NY lit practice or something might be in a different situation.

What do you mean, it's only been ~five years since a homegrown NY litigator has made shares in the NYC office.

[Anonymous User]

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

NY is the default and largest market. A lot of "higher caliber" lawyers are interested in the work pretty much only available in DC. A lot of others get competitive positions at offices in non-NYC, non-DC offices where they would rather live. There are obviously amazingly qualified attorneys in NYC, but the idea that it is some mecca for high-caliber attorneys is odd.

[Anonymous User]

At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality.

I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

What's the support for either of these 2 claims?

You could waste an hour scrolling through the Kirkland website. Chi and DC lit associates have markedly better credentials than NY lit associates. Which makes sense, since K&E is the top biglaw firm in Chi and DC is DC.

And most of the major lit partners are in Chi or DC. It's going to be very, very difficult for a homegrown NY associate to get the facetime and opportunities they need to be competitive for shares when their time comes. Of course, someone poached from Wachtell to build out the relatively anemic NY lit practice or something might be in a different situation.

LOL, pretty sure you lose all credibility when you claim Kirkland's NY litigation group is "anemic"

[Anonymous User]

At K&E, it's an unspoken but unequivocal truth that Chicago and DC associates >>> NY associates in quality.

I'm sorry, but you're not making equity partner at K&E as a homegrown NY litigation associate.

What's the support for either of these 2 claims?

You could waste an hour scrolling through the Kirkland website. Chi and DC lit associates have markedly better credentials than NY lit associates. Which makes sense, since K&E is the top biglaw firm in Chi and DC is DC.

And most of the major lit partners are in Chi or DC. It's going to be very, very difficult for a homegrown NY associate to get the facetime and opportunities they need to be competitive for shares when their time comes. Of course, someone poached from Wachtell to build out the relatively anemic NY lit practice or something might be in a different situation.

LOL, pretty sure you lose all credibility when you claim Kirkland's NY litigation group is "anemic"

It's far from anemic overall, but it sure is relative to Kirkland's Chi and DC litigation practices. Just based on headcount, NY has less than 1/2 of Chicago. And there are a few important share partners in NY, but there are multitudes more in Chi and DC.

Like the other previous poster said, people have made shares out of NY. But it's the third most important litigation office for Kirkland (and perhaps not for long, with LA and especially Texas both growing).

Additionally, the NY share partners seem to be much less pleasant to work for than the Chi share partners.

Anyways, to your point, I only meant to point out the incontrovertible: Kirkland's center of gravity for litigation is Chicago generally, and DC for certain specialities.

[Anonymous User]

are you saying all the firms are the same? I feel like higher caliber lawyers flock to the cities like DC and NYC.

NY is the default and largest market. A lot of "higher caliber" lawyers are interested in the work pretty much only available in DC. A lot of others get competitive positions at offices in non-NYC, non-DC offices where they would rather live. There are obviously amazingly qualified attorneys in NYC, but the idea that it is some mecca for high-caliber attorneys is odd.

It’s very odd because in reality NYC is mostly full of young credentialed lawyers who don’t know how to practice law and have almost no real experience. No one who wants to try cases or handle appeals should be going anywhere near NYC. Clerk and then get to DC or a boutique. Heck, most “secondary” markets are better for substantive litigation experience compared to NYC at this point. There are only a few exceptions in NYC like Susman.