Page 1 of 1
kirkland (DC) vs. ropes and gray (DC)
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:16 pm
by Anonymous User
looking to do white collar litigation. I like Ropes because of the lifestyle bonus, but I'm also wondering whether Kirkland is better to the extent that I would be settling by going to Ropes' DC office. Does anybody have a sense of the gap between these two firms? What would people do in my shoes? Any advice greatly appreciated!
Re: kirkland (DC) vs. ropes and gray (DC)
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:55 am
by lawprofdc
Very familiar with both firms, and this is not even close. Kirkland is an incredible sweatshop. Essentially to make partner there you have to bill over 3000 hours each year, and then when you make partner you are a non-equity partner anyway. Some people may like the eat-what-you-kill mentality at Kirkland - it's sort of a wanna-be NY thing. Both firms have good work, but Ropes is supposed to be a really nice place and Kirkland is supposed to be one of the worst lifestyles of any firm. So why would you do that to yourself?
Re: kirkland (DC) vs. ropes and gray (DC)
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:25 pm
by Anonymous User
lawprofdc wrote:Very familiar with both firms, and this is not even close. Kirkland is an incredible sweatshop. Essentially to make partner there you have to bill over 3000 hours each year, and then when you make partner you are a non-equity partner anyway. Some people may like the eat-what-you-kill mentality at Kirkland - it's sort of a wanna-be NY thing. Both firms have good work, but Ropes is supposed to be a really nice place and Kirkland is supposed to be one of the worst lifestyles of any firm. So why would you do that to yourself?
any real evidence for this or just a flame?