Quinn Emanuel or Kirkland & Ellis? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Found the Quinn associate. And cringe all you want but you have a pretty stupid take.

I turned down my Quinn offer and did not bother with K&E because I had no interest in it. I have no investment here besides people providing useful advice.

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.

Prove it. I have no interest in dubious proxy metrics when the raw data are available as well.

For a litigator--the only person who would be making this decision anyway--what supports any of your claims?

The fact that you are peddling this dross under anonymity just makes your vague averments all the more useless and unreliable.

[aegor]

accidental anon

[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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

[Anonymous User]

Found the Quinn associate. And cringe all you want but you have a pretty stupid take.

I turned down my Quinn offer and did not bother with K&E because I had no interest in it. I have no investment here besides people providing useful advice.

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.

Prove it. I have no interest in dubious proxy metrics when the raw data are available as well.

For a litigator--the only person who would be making this decision anyway--what supports any of your claims?

The fact that you are peddling this dross under anonymity just makes your vague averments all the more useless and unreliable.

I like how you use worlds like "dross" and "averments" it lets me know you're super smart.

[aegor]

I like how you use worlds like "dross" and "averments" it lets me know you're super smart.

I use big words to mask my stupidity. It does not work. But I am not so stupid as not to notice rather pathetic attempts at deflection when asked basic questions.

[Anonymous User]

I like how you use worlds like "dross" and "averments" it lets me know you're super smart.

I use big words to mask my stupidity. It does not work. But I am not so stupid as not to notice rather pathetic attempts at deflection when asked basic questions.

Good move to insincere self-deprecation. It's not deflection. It's being done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind.

[aegor]

It's being done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind.

The only ax I have to grind is against vague and imperious comments that are also unsubstantiated. The most recent anon post (yours?) basically just repeated "K&E is better than QE at everything. I know from personal experience." That is as useless as your preceding statements.

[Anonymous User]

This embarrassing exchange just confirmed it's in my best interest not to interview with either firm. So good job I guess

[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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

NY litigation.

[aegor]

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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

NY litigation.

This is all vague, anecdotal, and unhelpful. Surely if K&E has better cases, better exit opps, better financial stability, those should all be able to be spoken to directly.

[RaceJudicata]

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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

Trans side? Since when does QE have any transactional practices?

[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.

Alright, whatever. I'm finding it increasingly hard to take this conversation seriously. My whole point is that the Vault rankings aren't really an accurate representation of firm prestige — if they were, they wouldn't need to release new rankings every year. If you do think Cravath > Skadden = WLRK, then you really don't have a good handle on New York big law prestige.

Vault is just a business just like the US News "rankings" of top colleges and universities are. Do you think Columbia/MIT are a more prestigious undergraduate school than Stanford or Yale, because it is ranked higher on US News?

My entire initial point is that Kirkland's ranking is inflated relative to where its actual prestige is. Maybe you're a Kirkland associate/partner and you took umbrage with what I'm saying, or maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying. Vault is one ranking that purports to list law firms by prestige, just as US News purports to rank the best colleges and universities. But does anyone take US News seriously in thinking that Columbia is better than Yale/Stanford for undergrad (or that UChicago is tied with Stanford)? Likewise, just because Vault decided that through its own methodology that Kirkland is the sixth-most prestigious law firm in the United States, does not make it so. If you are making Vault the end-all be-all, then sure, Skadden is comparable prestige-wise to WLRK...

It's telling that you don't bother to engage with the entire issue I laid out with Vault's rankings — the rankings account for the opinion of whatever associates in the U.S. decide to fill out their survey, and are skewed to the larger firms.

But sure, go and report back on more Vault rankings. I'm glad you could confirm that Quinn is 13th and Kirkland is 6th, though it's not really relevant for the discussion. Columbia is 3rd, MIT and Yale 4th, and Stanford and UChicago are 6th in the US News rankings. Guess MIT and Yale are "vying back and forth for the position of 4th best undergrad university" based on the rankings this year. So we shouldn't tell any prospective students that Yale is considered heads above in prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Perhaps the only thing dumber than using Vault rankings to pick a firm - and that's incredibly dumb - is using nebulous "prestige" conventional wisdom to do so. Topics that devolve into biglaw "prestige" arguments, among posters acting like Potter Stewart discussing porn ("I know it when I see it"), are the absolute worst. Who cares? And based on this thread alone, who would ever want to be a coworker with any QE or KE associate? I say this as an associate at one of them myself.

[lawlo]

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.

Alright, whatever. I'm finding it increasingly hard to take this conversation seriously. My whole point is that the Vault rankings aren't really an accurate representation of firm prestige — if they were, they wouldn't need to release new rankings every year. If you do think Cravath > Skadden = WLRK, then you really don't have a good handle on New York big law prestige.

Vault is just a business just like the US News "rankings" of top colleges and universities are. Do you think Columbia/MIT are a more prestigious undergraduate school than Stanford or Yale, because it is ranked higher on US News?

My entire initial point is that Kirkland's ranking is inflated relative to where its actual prestige is. Maybe you're a Kirkland associate/partner and you took umbrage with what I'm saying, or maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying. Vault is one ranking that purports to list law firms by prestige, just as US News purports to rank the best colleges and universities. But does anyone take US News seriously in thinking that Columbia is better than Yale/Stanford for undergrad (or that UChicago is tied with Stanford)? Likewise, just because Vault decided that through its own methodology that Kirkland is the sixth-most prestigious law firm in the United States, does not make it so. If you are making Vault the end-all be-all, then sure, Skadden is comparable prestige-wise to WLRK...

It's telling that you don't bother to engage with the entire issue I laid out with Vault's rankings — the rankings account for the opinion of whatever associates in the U.S. decide to fill out their survey, and are skewed to the larger firms.

But sure, go and report back on more Vault rankings. I'm glad you could confirm that Quinn is 13th and Kirkland is 6th, though it's not really relevant for the discussion. Columbia is 3rd, MIT and Yale 4th, and Stanford and UChicago are 6th in the US News rankings. Guess MIT and Yale are "vying back and forth for the position of 4th best undergrad university" based on the rankings this year. So we shouldn't tell any prospective students that Yale is considered heads above in prestige.

Please, please, please, get laid.

[Anonymous User]

Perhaps the only thing dumber than using Vault rankings to pick a firm - and that's incredibly dumb - is using nebulous "prestige" conventional wisdom to do so. Topics that devolve into biglaw "prestige" arguments, among posters acting like Potter Stewart discussing porn ("I know it when I see it"), are the absolute worst. Who cares? And based on this thread alone, who would ever want to be a coworker with any QE or KE associate? I say this as an associate at one of them myself.

The thread has definitely been derailed from the original point of comparing QE vs KE, since neither the Vault ranking nor "prestige" are markedly different for the two firms. There are much more important, fundamental differences between the firms.

But I don't think anyone is arguing (or has argued) that OP should choose between the two based on Vault or prestige? That would definitely be silly.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Alright, whatever. I'm finding it increasingly hard to take this conversation seriously. My whole point is that the Vault rankings aren't really an accurate representation of firm prestige — if they were, they wouldn't need to release new rankings every year. If you do think Cravath > Skadden = WLRK, then you really don't have a good handle on New York big law prestige.

Vault is just a business just like the US News "rankings" of top colleges and universities are. Do you think Columbia/MIT are a more prestigious undergraduate school than Stanford or Yale, because it is ranked higher on US News?

My entire initial point is that Kirkland's ranking is inflated relative to where its actual prestige is. Maybe you're a Kirkland associate/partner and you took umbrage with what I'm saying, or maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying. Vault is one ranking that purports to list law firms by prestige, just as US News purports to rank the best colleges and universities. But does anyone take US News seriously in thinking that Columbia is better than Yale/Stanford for undergrad (or that UChicago is tied with Stanford)? Likewise, just because Vault decided that through its own methodology that Kirkland is the sixth-most prestigious law firm in the United States, does not make it so. If you are making Vault the end-all be-all, then sure, Skadden is comparable prestige-wise to WLRK...

It's telling that you don't bother to engage with the entire issue I laid out with Vault's rankings — the rankings account for the opinion of whatever associates in the U.S. decide to fill out their survey, and are skewed to the larger firms.

But sure, go and report back on more Vault rankings. I'm glad you could confirm that Quinn is 13th and Kirkland is 6th, though it's not really relevant for the discussion. Columbia is 3rd, MIT and Yale 4th, and Stanford and UChicago are 6th in the US News rankings. Guess MIT and Yale are "vying back and forth for the position of 4th best undergrad university" based on the rankings this year. So we shouldn't tell any prospective students that Yale is considered heads above in prestige.

Please, please, please, get laid.

HAHAHA I LOLed

[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.

Yes, please do. I work at KE and don't know any ~10th year litigators who beer bong the kool aid nearly this hard.

[Anonymous User]

Former QE associate checking in again. OMG lol this thread has gotten hilarious. Bravo to the "please get laid" guy.

[Anonymous User]

Based on the posts that contain some fundamental misunderstandings about the firms and their practices, I'm fairly convinced that a rejected student is trying to make the firms look bad.

[Anonymous User]

Based on the posts that contain some fundamental misunderstandings about the firms and their practices, I'm fairly convinced that a rejected student is trying to make the firms look bad.

Yeah, I'm glad that this K&E Non-Equity partner beats QE out for transactional pitches. It would be concerning if they were beaten out by a firm that doesn't have a transactional practice.

[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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

Not at either of these firms but at a v5 biglaw firm. This person is lying. Quinn does not have a "trans side." From their website: they are "a 800+ attorney business litigation firm with 25 offices around the globe, each devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration."

If you want to do plaintiff side litigation, do QE hands down. If you don't care and only want general litigation experience, I think you can flip a coin, though I personally would choose QE. I turned down offers from both.

[Anonymous User]

Not at either of these firms but at a v5 biglaw firm. This person is lying. Quinn does not have a "trans side." From their website: they are "a 800+ attorney business litigation firm with 25 offices around the globe, each devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration."

If you want to do plaintiff side litigation, do QE hands down. If you don't care and only want general litigation experience, I think you can flip a coin, though I personally would choose QE. I turned down offers from both.

Things like this boldest sentence tacked on for no reason is what keeps bringing me back to TLS.

[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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

Not at either of these firms but at a v5 biglaw firm. This person is lying. Quinn does not have a "trans side." From their website: they are "a 800+ attorney business litigation firm with 25 offices around the globe, each devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration."

If you want to do plaintiff side litigation, do QE hands down. If you don't care and only want general litigation experience, I think you can flip a coin, though I personally would choose QE. I turned down offers from both.

Holy shit you guys the weaponized autism here is off the charts. I was just listing out practice areas off the top of my head you haven't uncovered some great Sherlockian clue that I'm actually a false flag plant from Skadden or whatever. I'm at KE, I've been there for about a decade, in lit, and I think Quinn sucks balls for the reasons I've elaborated. Chill out.

[ExpOriental]

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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

Not at either of these firms but at a v5 biglaw firm. This person is lying. Quinn does not have a "trans side." From their website: they are "a 800+ attorney business litigation firm with 25 offices around the globe, each devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration."

If you want to do plaintiff side litigation, do QE hands down. If you don't care and only want general litigation experience, I think you can flip a coin, though I personally would choose QE. I turned down offers from both.

Holy shit you guys the weaponized autism here is off the charts. I was just listing out practice areas off the top of my head you haven't uncovered some great Sherlockian clue that I'm actually a false flag plant from Skadden or whatever. I'm at KE, I've been there for about a decade, in lit, and I think Quinn sucks balls for the reasons I've elaborated. Chill out.

You said "lit and trans." That is not a list of "practice areas," that's just... everything. That isn't some absent-minded omission; it makes it sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. Then you brought up cap markets, for fucks sake. Just embarrassing.

You got caught slipping. Just take the L and move on, getting defensive is just gonna make it worse.

[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).

We pitch against Quinn all the time both on the lit and trans sides and we win more than we lose but it's hard to go into detail unless you have a specific practice area and even geography you're interested in--my anecdotes will be different if you're talking tax vs. restructuring vs. cap. markets vs. white collar. Also, I don't want to give a misimpression here: I don't think Quinn is a horrible firm or anything. They're an elite biglaw firm with stellar attorneys and a great reputation against a general baseline of law firms. But the OP is asking specifically for a comparison between KE and Quinn and for reasons I've laid out I think KE wins. Sorry if I've derailed this thread into a "Kirkland NSP Taking ?s" wasn't my intent.

Not at either of these firms but at a v5 biglaw firm. This person is lying. Quinn does not have a "trans side." From their website: they are "a 800+ attorney business litigation firm with 25 offices around the globe, each devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration."

If you want to do plaintiff side litigation, do QE hands down. If you don't care and only want general litigation experience, I think you can flip a coin, though I personally would choose QE. I turned down offers from both.

Holy shit you guys the weaponized autism here is off the charts. I was just listing out practice areas off the top of my head you haven't uncovered some great Sherlockian clue that I'm actually a false flag plant from Skadden or whatever. I'm at KE, I've been there for about a decade, in lit, and I think Quinn sucks balls for the reasons I've elaborated. Chill out.

You said "lit and trans." That is not a list of "practice areas," that's just... everything. That isn't some absent-minded omission; it makes it sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. Then you brought up cap markets, for fucks sake. Just embarrassing.

You got caught slipping. Just take the L and move on, getting defensive is just gonna make it worse.

Hey guy, thanks for the protip, always enjoy getting guidance from a second year associate. Here's one back at you: I've hung around this place for 48 hours primarily to catch bonus news and in that time you've already stood out to me as easily the most obnoxious poster here, other than maybe that guy arguing for fifty posts in the suicide thread. Your MO is clearly to just argue with everyone, typically over picayune neebish shit, which you apparently get off on, to no one's benefit. I don't know what's going on for you internally that pushes you to act like this, but it's embarrassing. Also, I'll make sure to properly align our practice groups with Quinn's the next time I write to satisfy your Asperger's. Or not.

Mod note: user “Mr. TooToo” outed for anon abuse