2020 Vault Law Firm Rankings Released Forum

[Anonymous User]

Vault is all about perception and reputation among lawyers. If a firm treats its associates like shit, that gets leaked out to friends and friends of friends and the firm's reputation falls. Perception is what affects vault rankings, not some marketing bullshit that the firm puts on their website.

What does it mean to be treated like shit? I heard that Cadwalader once had a screamer partner. I heard that a partner at Skadden liked throwing staplers at people. But these are bad apples from years if not decades ago. Are there really firms with toxic cultures?

I hear Paul Hastings thrown around here a lot, but does a toxic work environment even entail?

Haphazard compensation is the shittiest way to treat people. Giving full market bonuses to some of the lowest billers while giving partial (or none) to some of the highest billers. That's absolutely the worst. That way of treating people may well explain Shearman's constant decline in Vault. There is no principle at all to the firm's compensation system.

People care the most about compensation. That can explain Milbank's rise in the rankings.

[Anonymous User]

Not to derail the Davis Polk freakout, but as an associate at Cadwalader, I wouldn’t recommend it. We still have screamer partners, and at least a few who throw things. They essentially told the entire DC summer class to find new jobs/move to capital markets in the NY office, and in 2008 they were known for laying people off.

Capital markets and corporate is particularly bad here. Real estate and litigation are the easiest/nicest, but also seem like the easiest to get fired from. We increased the hours requirement, and I’d say many groups have a toxic culture.

I’d suggest that people don’t come here and that summers do 3L OCI.I wish I had. The long bull market hasn’t translated to as much success at CWT as it has for other firms, and we depend on capital markets to keep the lights on. If there’s another recession or even a downturn, I think the firm will aggressively cut costs, which means fired associates.


The firm also pays bonuses at the end of February.

[Anonymous User]

I would add that the firm does not give any credit to their juniors' work in press releases on many occasions. When your deal is signed and featured in a legal news article, it's quite a disappointment when you find out that your firm listed only the partners, seniors and mid levels that worked on the deal when the opposing firm listed every single individual that worked on the deal including their juniors.

There is overall no real connection between hard work and reward at Shearman in terms of compensation and other aspects.

Shearman literally listed a first year on their $74bn Raytheon deal... I think you're just projecting your experiences.

[Anonymous User]

I would add that the firm does not give any credit to their juniors' work in press releases on many occasions. When your deal is signed and featured in a legal news article, it's quite a disappointment when you find out that your firm listed only the partners, seniors and mid levels that worked on the deal when the opposing firm listed every single individual that worked on the deal including their juniors.

There is overall no real connection between hard work and reward at Shearman in terms of compensation and other aspects.

Shearman literally listed a first year on their $74bn Raytheon deal... I think you're just projecting your experiences.

I saw that and I know from my own experiences they sometimes do give credit. Hence "on many occasions" Good luck at Shearman. I hope it stops getting worse there.

By the way, being inconsistent without any good reason is even worse. About including people in press releases, it really depends on the deal and the partners. What makes the juniors in one big deal less worthy of credit than the juniors in another deal? Even worse, what makes a first year in one deal more worthy of credit than other first years that worked on the same deal? You tell me. Whenever you try to find out the reason for what happened, you never manage to hear a coherent answer and that leaves you with a feeling that there is no connection between hard work and reward.

[cheaptilts]

The Vault rankings have always been of dubious import, but they've truly outlived their usefulness with the publication of this list. Latham a top-5 firm?! Kirkland at 6?! The idea that either of those firms is "more prestigious" than Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher or Cleary Gottlieb is preposterous, unless prestige is somehow an analog for lower hiring standards, lower billable rates and lower desirability among recruits.

It's truly asinine that the critical mass of idiots voting in this poll have come to view having 1 billion offices, 2 billion lawyers and $10 billion in revenue as some measure of prestige, when by most any rational person's standards such levels of ubiquity and accessibility would indicate the opposite. I guess Latham, Kirkland and Skadden can continue their inexorable marches to the top of these farcical rankings. CSM, S&C, DPW, STB and CGSH will continue to fight over law school students, and I suppose LW, K&E and Skadden will continue fighting over their leftovers, regardless of what Vault says.

For the record, the NY rankings—that only look at votes given by associates in NY—looks markedly different than the overall rankings.

But the survey is dumb anyway

[whattayasay]

The Vault rankings have always been of dubious import, but they've truly outlived their usefulness with the publication of this list. Latham a top-5 firm?! Kirkland at 6?! The idea that either of those firms is "more prestigious" than Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher or Cleary Gottlieb is preposterous, unless prestige is somehow an analog for lower hiring standards, lower billable rates and lower desirability among recruits.

It's truly asinine that the critical mass of idiots voting in this poll have come to view having 1 billion offices, 2 billion lawyers and $10 billion in revenue as some measure of prestige, when by most any rational person's standards such levels of ubiquity and accessibility would indicate the opposite. I guess Latham, Kirkland and Skadden can continue their inexorable marches to the top of these farcical rankings. CSM, S&C, DPW, STB and CGSH will continue to fight over law school students, and I suppose LW, K&E and Skadden will continue fighting over their leftovers, regardless of what Vault says.

For the record, the NY rankings—that only look at votes given by associates in NY—looks markedly different than the overall rankings.

But the survey is dumb anyway

For reference, here are the NY rankings:

#1. Wachtell
#2. Cravath
#3. S&C
#4. DPW
#5. Skadden
#6. STB
#7. PW
#8. CGSH
#9. DEBEVOISE
#10. K&E
#11. Weil
#12. LW
#13. QE
#14. GDC
#15. Boies

As a measure of "NY" "Biglaw", I would say that these rankings are pretty consistent with the actual perceived prestige of law firms. The national Vault rankings are too arbitrary to be meaningful in any sense.

[LaChusa2020]

The Vault rankings are hilarious. What is more prestigious: (A) A really brutal job that everybody knows is hard to get? (B) Something a bit less brutal (or possibly more) that those who are in the most "elite" circles know is nearly impossible to get? (C) An actually decent quality of life and good pay?

The Vault rankings will pick A everytime.

Skadden, Latham, and Kirkland are selective and so big (with offices in every market and big offices in big markets) that every associate knows them, so of course they top the Vault rankings. They do hire selectively but have summer classes with dozens of people so there is a mix of credentials from could have gone anywhere to generic biglaw level credentials.

So what are the hardest jobs in biglaw to get from law school -- probably Munger, W&C, Wachtell...nothing in the V10.

But again, is Wachtell the best job in biglaw? No, its notoriously terrible. You might make a lot of money but 9/10 sane people (and I'd guess there are less of those in law school and biglaw than in the general population), if they could see the reality of life there would look at the bonuses and exit options of that job and take any market-paying biglaw job where they could bill 2,200 hours a year.

And by the way, different firms have exceptional strengths in different things. Some V50 or V80 firms are the very best if you want a particular kind of practice and culture. Do you worry that you won't be able to explain to your classmates that you could have gotten a V10 but chose a V50 instead? That's a sign you're in for a miserable ride.

If I could give one piece of advice to law students it would be to ignore crap like this. But I don't listen to my own advice and that's why I'm a senior associate at a V10.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I'm not very knowledgeable about the reputations of these upper-tier firms. I'm familiar with the whole "Lathaming" thing during the recession, but what's the knock against K&E? I was under the impression they were pretty good, despite the reputation of particularly long hours/many hours billed by associates (and the market $$$hatering bonuses).

*Shrug*

K&E does seem to get a lot of hate that doesn't reflect the reality of working there. I truly don't think the hours or conditions are any worse than other V10 firms (and in some cases better), from what I've been able to gather. My theory is that K&E is the "bad guy" for most other elite firms, because they are gobbling up market share and talent left and right.... and those clients and associates/partners have to be stolen from somewhere. K&E is also pretty aggressive externally, whether in negotiation or litigation, so I could see that annoying opposing counsel. But internally it's quite positive, or at least no worse than its peer firms. I dunno, it's just one of those places that people love to hate.

Yes. We hate you because you're beautiful. And we could never work there. (JK we probably could.)

[2013]

I'm not very knowledgeable about the reputations of these upper-tier firms. I'm familiar with the whole "Lathaming" thing during the recession, but what's the knock against K&E? I was under the impression they were pretty good, despite the reputation of particularly long hours/many hours billed by associates (and the market $$$hatering bonuses).

*Shrug*

K&E does seem to get a lot of hate that doesn't reflect the reality of working there. I truly don't think the hours or conditions are any worse than other V10 firms (and in some cases better), from what I've been able to gather. My theory is that K&E is the "bad guy" for most other elite firms, because they are gobbling up market share and talent left and right.... and those clients and associates/partners have to be stolen from somewhere. K&E is also pretty aggressive externally, whether in negotiation or litigation, so I could see that annoying opposing counsel. But internally it's quite positive, or at least no worse than its peer firms. I dunno, it's just one of those places that people love to hate.

I don’t think most laterals to K&E come from V10, but the other things are probably true.

[TheProsecutor]

There's nothing wrong with Kirkland. In fact, it should probably be higher given its reputation among clients, results delivered, profitability, generous associate compensation, early partnership opportunity, and exit options for former employees. The problem on this board is that some folks decided not to go to Kirkland because they wanted to be in a firm that had slightly more selective associate qualifications. But people really are only impressed by selectivity if it is Wachtell or boutique level selective. And if you're good enough to go to Wachtell or a boutique, you don't really care about the prestige of the firm because your credentials speak for themselves separate from the firm.

That being said, I find vault silly. If you're fortunate enough to work at a top tier law firm (regardless of where it ranks on Vault), you're doing very well for yourself and should not really let rankings take away from your accomplishment of having earned your position at the firm.

Edit: not sure why i posted anon. This is theprosecutor.

[icansortofmath]

Absolute truth.

I have always found it silly to worry about V10 or V50. By that point pay is more or less the same. Instead of worrying about getting an extra 10k I think you should worry about:

Do you like the work? (substance, people, culture, hours)
Do you see a path for growth?

You’re much more likely to improve and do good work if you like the place. You’re also much more likely to be happier.
And if you’re good, you want opportunities to grow. In a lot of cases that means a big firm, with much more flexibility on staffing, may be better.

On the latter point, I have pushed a lot of people toward big firms because they obviously weren’t the type to be rainmakers (or even have desire to do so.) If you just want to buckle down and make partner by clocking consistent 2100 hours, then big firms are for you.

If you want to make partner by being a super star that makes things happen, then a smaller firm (or at least smaller groups) may be right for you.

[2013]

Absolute truth.

I have always found it silly to worry about V10 or V50. By that point pay is more or less the same. Instead of worrying about getting an extra 10k I think you should worry about:

Do you like the work? (substance, people, culture, hours)
Do you see a path for growth?

You’re much more likely to improve and do good work if you like the place. You’re also much more likely to be happier.
And if you’re good, you want opportunities to grow. In a lot of cases that means a big firm, with much more flexibility on staffing, may be better.

On the latter point, I have pushed a lot of people toward big firms because they obviously weren’t the type to be rainmakers (or even have desire to do so.) If you just want to buckle down and make partner by clocking consistent 2100 hours, then big firms are for you.

If you want to make partner by being a super star that makes things happen, then a smaller firm (or at least smaller groups) may be right for you.

You will not make partner billing 2100 anywhere.

[icansortofmath]

Meant 2400. See numpad.

[sidesalad]

So what are the hardest jobs in biglaw to get from law school -- probably Munger, W&C, Wachtell...nothing in the V10.

This is spot on. The fact that firms like W&C, Munger, Susman, etc. are dozens of spots behind Latham and Skadden and Kirkland says it all when it comes to the Vault rankings.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

There's nothing wrong with Kirkland. In fact, it should probably be higher given its reputation among clients, results delivered, profitability, generous associate compensation, early partnership opportunity, and exit options for former employees. The problem on this board is that some folks decided not to go to Kirkland because they wanted to be in a firm that had slightly more selective associate qualifications. But people really are only impressed by selectivity if it is Wachtell or boutique level selective. And if you're good enough to go to Wachtell or a boutique, you don't really care about the prestige of the firm because your credentials speak for themselves separate from the firm.

That being said, I find vault silly. If you're fortunate enough to work at a top tier law firm (regardless of where it ranks on Vault), you're doing very well for yourself and should not really let rankings take away from your accomplishment of having earned your position at the firm.

Edit: not sure why i posted anon. This is theprosecutor.

This post makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about why people do not choose K&E. None of the reasons here are why I did not want to go to K&E. Early partnership opportunities? Calling associates partners is not "partnership opportunities." It has an aggressive and sweatshop reputation. K&E talks up exit opportunities but I do not see them at all. In NYC, NYC firms have better exit ops. K&E does not effectively compete in NorCal with in-house exit opportunities at all. Those are probably two of the biggest markets for good in-house gigs. Even the generous compensation has been called into question here lately.

This is this kind of pap K&E associates tell themselves. It's a walmart style firm with higher standards. Clients love it so they have work and money to go around. That doesn't actually translate to good associate experience. And I believe the relevant metric is prestige. Not the things listed anyways.

ETA: I chose a V50 over V10 for exit ops, so my K&E bashing is purely pro bono trying to steer law students away from K&E, cross-border work and private equity, which I regard as the worst corporate work.

[Anonymous User]

I just don’t get who is taking the time to fill this out and what they’re basing it on. I can’t speak to other cities, but in NYC Latham and Kirkland are two of my least favorite firms to work across from. Latham because they don’t answer emails and Kirkland because they’re borderline hostile. I have to assume their other offices are doing some heavy lifting here.

[MillllerTime]

I just don’t get who is taking the time to fill this out and what they’re basing it on. I can’t speak to other cities, but in NYC Latham and Kirkland are two of my least favorite firms to work across from. Latham because they don’t answer emails and Kirkland because they’re borderline hostile. I have to assume their other offices are doing some heavy lifting here.

I take the time to give credit where credit is due. Milbank got a 10 and I think I gave 8s or 9s to Cravath and STB. Wachtell always gets a 10 because $$$$, but that doesn't mean I would have any interest in working there.

Gunderson will get a 10 from me this year and Milbank has purchased the right to a 10 for the remainder of my associate career. Any biglaw associates filling this out based on criteria other than the above is doing it wrong.

[Anonymous User]

There's nothing wrong with Kirkland. In fact, it should probably be higher given its reputation among clients, results delivered, profitability, generous associate compensation, early partnership opportunity, and exit options for former employees. The problem on this board is that some folks decided not to go to Kirkland because they wanted to be in a firm that had slightly more selective associate qualifications. But people really are only impressed by selectivity if it is Wachtell or boutique level selective. And if you're good enough to go to Wachtell or a boutique, you don't really care about the prestige of the firm because your credentials speak for themselves separate from the firm.

That being said, I find vault silly. If you're fortunate enough to work at a top tier law firm (regardless of where it ranks on Vault), you're doing very well for yourself and should not really let rankings take away from your accomplishment of having earned your position at the firm.

Edit: not sure why i posted anon. This is theprosecutor.

This post makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about why people do not choose K&E. None of the reasons here are why I did not want to go to K&E. Early partnership opportunities? Calling associates partners is not "partnership opportunities." It has an aggressive and sweatshop reputation. K&E talks up exit opportunities but I do not see them at all. In NYC, NYC firms have better exit ops. K&E does not effectively compete in NorCal with in-house exit opportunities at all. Those are probably two of the biggest markets for good in-house gigs. Even the generous compensation has been called into question here lately.

This is this kind of pap K&E associates tell themselves. It's a walmart style firm with higher standards. Clients love it so they have work and money to go around. That doesn't actually translate to good associate experience. And I believe the relevant metric is prestige. Not the things listed anyways.

ETA: I chose a V50 over V10 for exit ops, so my K&E bashing is purely pro bono trying to steer law students away from K&E, cross-border work and private equity, which I regard as the worst corporate work.

K&E associate here. Not going to get into some big pissing match here, but lol at "compensation has been called into question" comment. Everyone at K&E gets at least market and most people get significantly more. Every year I've gotten ~1.5x. The person calling it in question was arguing that the compensation is really not above market because K&E associates work more. Which is an absurd point and not even true if you are talking about peer firms. We truly live in a post-factual era. Something as objective as K&E paying higher on average bonuses has become a debate.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Yeah I find it funny people doubt that the average Kirkland associate makes more than market. The FLOOR is market and they probably aren’t working much more than any other sweatshop. I’ve known people that were very reluctant to lateral to Kirkland but ultimately chose money - it’s no secret they throw money around, whether it’s a signing bonus or annual bonus.

[TheProsecutor]

There's nothing wrong with Kirkland. In fact, it should probably be higher given its reputation among clients, results delivered, profitability, generous associate compensation, early partnership opportunity, and exit options for former employees. The problem on this board is that some folks decided not to go to Kirkland because they wanted to be in a firm that had slightly more selective associate qualifications. But people really are only impressed by selectivity if it is Wachtell or boutique level selective. And if you're good enough to go to Wachtell or a boutique, you don't really care about the prestige of the firm because your credentials speak for themselves separate from the firm.

That being said, I find vault silly. If you're fortunate enough to work at a top tier law firm (regardless of where it ranks on Vault), you're doing very well for yourself and should not really let rankings take away from your accomplishment of having earned your position at the firm.

Edit: not sure why i posted anon. This is theprosecutor.

This post makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about why people do not choose K&E. None of the reasons here are why I did not want to go to K&E. Early partnership opportunities? Calling associates partners is not "partnership opportunities." It has an aggressive and sweatshop reputation. K&E talks up exit opportunities but I do not see them at all. In NYC, NYC firms have better exit ops. K&E does not effectively compete in NorCal with in-house exit opportunities at all. Those are probably two of the biggest markets for good in-house gigs. Even the generous compensation has been called into question here lately.

This is this kind of pap K&E associates tell themselves. It's a walmart style firm with higher standards. Clients love it so they have work and money to go around. That doesn't actually translate to good associate experience. And I believe the relevant metric is prestige. Not the things listed anyways.

ETA: I chose a V50 over V10 for exit ops, so my K&E bashing is purely pro bono trying to steer law students away from K&E, cross-border work and private equity, which I regard as the worst corporate work.

Obviously, I'm sure that there's folks who chose it unrelated to it selectivity, but here, on this thread we're talking about the "prestige" and many of the prior posters have commented on its selectivity vis-a-vis other similar firms. Additionally, these "associates" you identify who make partner early in their careers get called partner. There's many more professional benefits to being called partner than associate. If you disagree with this, then you're too emotionally invested to have a serious conversation with about this topic. Next, you say "In NYC, NYC firms have better exit ops," but provide no support for the conclusion. Then you argue that "K&E does not effectively compete in NorCal with in-house exit opportunities at all," which is just demonstrably false given that Kirkland maintains a strong connection in Silicon Valley and a quick linkedin search reveals numerous former associates in companies ranging from unicorn tech companies to established public tech companies. Another poster already responded to your ridiculous compensation point.

Your penultimate paragraph is nonsense. You argue that "clients love it so they have work and money to go around." Um, yeah, sounds like Kirkalnd is doing what it is supposed to do then, right? After all, a firm exists to provide good client service and make money. You then argue that doesn't translate to "good associate experience" but you already admit you're not a KE associate so how exactly are you the authority on what the associate experience at Kirkland is? And, let me not point out the obvious, but - - its very hard to have a good associate experience in a firm that is not getting much work and doesn't have money to pay top of the market. Then you argue the relevant metric is prestige, but give no indication of how prestige is measured. Ok, I guess.

Finally, you sorta get to the meat of your nonsensical post by admitting that you chose a V50 over v10 for exit options. Um, congrats? You then argue that you want to steer folks away from K&E, cross-border work, and private equity. All I can say is I hope your arguments against cross-border work and private equity are better than your arguments against Kirkland.

This is not to say Kirkland doesn't have issues (perhaps the sweat shop reputation you identify is an area for improvement), but the arguments advanced in this thread about prestige haven't really been compelling.

[2013]

I think it comes down to who people see as “peer” firms to K&E. Are the rest of the V10 peers? Probably not, aside from Latham and maybe Skadden. You can’t compare a firm with 2000+ attorneys throughout the world to one with 700 in one office.

I’d say the associates at Latham and Skadden work just as many hours for worse bonuses. So no one should question the pay leader for peer firms.

However, for people who ignore vault and impose their prestige metrics on K&E, they see K&E as a peer firm to firms that are still paying market but aren’t as “prestigious” (Winston, Ropes, etc.). These firms generally do have better hours than K&E but still pay market bonuses to most associates. So, by hour, they pay more.

It just depends on the vantage point, I guess.

But, at the end of the day, if you’re comparing K&E to other huge sweatshops, it’s probably the best one to be at.

As an aside, the nonequity partners make more than 7th-8th year associates at peer firms (I think the average is like $560k), so there are perks to being a glorified associate with that title.

[Anonymous User]

KE associate again. Every top firm is a sweatshop. Of course, you can go down the rankings for less hours. That isn’t unique to Kirkland. If you are saying Kirkland is not a top firm, lol ok. Could argue with you but seems like waste of time.

[TheProsecutor]

I think it comes down to who people see as “peer” firms to K&E. Are the rest of the V10 peers? Probably not, aside from Latham and maybe Skadden. You can’t compare a firm with 2000+ attorneys throughout the world to one with 700 in one office.

I’d say the associates at Latham and Skadden work just as many hours for worse bonuses. So no one should question the pay leader for peer firms.

However, for people who ignore vault and impose their prestige metrics on K&E, they see K&E as a peer firm to firms that are still paying market but aren’t as “prestigious” (Winston, Ropes, etc.). These firms generally do have better hours than K&E but still pay market bonuses to most associates. So, by hour, they pay more.

It just depends on the vantage point, I guess.

But, at the end of the day, if you’re comparing K&E to other huge sweatshops, it’s probably the best one to be at.

As an aside, the nonequity partners make more than 7th-8th year associates at peer firms (I think the average is like $560k), so there are perks to being a glorified associate with that title.

I mean, Kirkland is an actual biglaw firm. I think what's interesting is that a lot of the other firms that you mention with one office or just a few offices aren't really "biglaw." A firm that has 700 lawyers in one office is a boutique really and I don't think any of these firms in the V10 (with the exception of WLRK) are anywhere near the selectivity or prestige of say Susman.

So I concede your point. But if we're comparing really large firms - - Kirkland is probably the best. And if we're comparing "smaller" firms, the other traditional prestigious firms on the Vault 10 list (with the notable exception of WLRK) would not be considered on the same tier as the really prestigious boutiques. By classifying large but not super large firms with the likes of Kirkland (but not Susman, etc) these other V10 firms appear much more selective and prestigious than they actually are compared to firms that are not behemoth in size like the boutiques.

I think what you're seeing is a realignment of the perception of firms. The traditional wall street firms aren't really seen as prestigious as they once were. The boutiques are more selective and do just as good work. And the really big firms like Kirkland are paying superstars from those wall street firms top-dollar to build world class practices and it shows.

Agree on the partnership compensation point.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Ah yes, noted boutique firm Cravath

[TheProsecutor]

Ah yes, noted boutique firm Cravath

lol. it manages to have one location, be relatively small, provide sweatshop hours, and pay far below its nearest competitor in the market. But oh the "rotation system!" lol. Super prestigious.