Top Law Schools

I'm considering both for NYC. Not too concerned with prestige, but looking for a positive experience while in Biglaw and hopefully stay at my firm for a long time. Any input would be appreciated.

Visited both. HH has a MUCH warmer and more welcoming environment. Probably the friedliest i've seen at the big firms I visited. If that is the most important factor to you, then id say go HH. At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment, since that just isn't their style. I appreiated their honesty, but it scared me off a bit.

But Kirkland would give you insanely good litigation experience so that certainly weighs into the equation. Not that HH wouldn't, but Kirkland is really known for it. It just seems like the lifestyle at Kirkland wouldn't be as sustainable as it would be at HH.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm considering both for NYC. Not too concerned with prestige, but looking for a positive experience while in Biglaw and hopefully stay at my firm for a long time. Any input would be appreciated.

Based on your criteria, HH is the correct choice. All the happy firms are in One Battery Park.

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm considering both for NYC. Not too concerned with prestige, but looking for a positive experience while in Biglaw and hopefully stay at my firm for a long time. Any input would be appreciated.

Based on your criteria, HH is the correct choice. All the happy firms are in One Battery Park.

Yeah, HH did extremely well on the recent midlevel associate satisfaction survey.

Anonymous User wrote:Visited both. HH has a MUCH warmer and more welcoming environment. Probably the friedliest i've seen at the big firms I visited. If that is the most important factor to you, then id say go HH. At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment, since that just isn't their style. I appreiated their honesty, but it scared me off a bit.

But Kirkland would give you insanely good litigation experience so that certainly weighs into the equation. Not that HH wouldn't, but Kirkland is really known for it. It just seems like the lifestyle at Kirkland wouldn't be as sustainable as it would be at HH.

Don't know why there's so much anti-Kirkland trolling going on in this forum, particularly based on vague, second-hand information. I worked as an SA at Kirkland NY this summer and everyone was extremely friendly and collegial. I went out for meals and drinks with associates and partners almost every day of the week, and our summer class became incredibly tight (we still do events, even though the program is over). The free-market system inevitably attracts very outgoing, personable people. If someone isn't friendly, people won't want to work with them.

My advice is not to buy into the "someone told me" stories -- go visit the place yourself or contact alumni from your school. If you decide to go un-anonymous, I'll happily PM you with you own experience.

I was only reporting what the Kirkland attorneys themselves told me during my visit. Its not secondhand, and im in no way disparaging them. If anythig, I like that they were willing to be honest and candid about their experiences.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Visited both. HH has a MUCH warmer and more welcoming environment. Probably the friedliest i've seen at the big firms I visited. If that is the most important factor to you, then id say go HH. At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment, since that just isn't their style. I appreiated their honesty, but it scared me off a bit.

But Kirkland would give you insanely good litigation experience so that certainly weighs into the equation. Not that HH wouldn't, but Kirkland is really known for it. It just seems like the lifestyle at Kirkland wouldn't be as sustainable as it would be at HH.

Don't know why there's so much anti-Kirkland trolling going on in this forum, particularly based on vague, second-hand information. I worked as an SA at Kirkland NY this summer and everyone was extremely friendly and collegial. I went out for meals and drinks with associates and partners almost every day of the week, and our summer class became incredibly tight (we still do events, even though the program is over). The free-market system inevitably attracts very outgoing, personable people. If someone isn't friendly, people won't want to work with them.

My advice is not to buy into the "someone told me" stories -- go visit the place yourself or contact alumni from your school. If you decide to go un-anonymous, I'll happily PM you with you own experience.

You're in for quite a surprise next fall.

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Visited both. HH has a MUCH warmer and more welcoming environment. Probably the friedliest i've seen at the big firms I visited. If that is the most important factor to you, then id say go HH. At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment, since that just isn't their style. I appreiated their honesty, but it scared me off a bit.

But Kirkland would give you insanely good litigation experience so that certainly weighs into the equation. Not that HH wouldn't, but Kirkland is really known for it. It just seems like the lifestyle at Kirkland wouldn't be as sustainable as it would be at HH.

Don't know why there's so much anti-Kirkland trolling going on in this forum, particularly based on vague, second-hand information. I worked as an SA at Kirkland NY this summer and everyone was extremely friendly and collegial. I went out for meals and drinks with associates and partners almost every day of the week, and our summer class became incredibly tight (we still do events, even though the program is over). The free-market system inevitably attracts very outgoing, personable people. If someone isn't friendly, people won't want to work with them.

My advice is not to buy into the "someone told me" stories -- go visit the place yourself or contact alumni from your school. If you decide to go un-anonymous, I'll happily PM you with you own experience.

You're in for quite a surprise next fall.

No, he isn't.

At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment

Just because it isn't "feel-good fuzzy," doesn't mean it's hostile. Still a very collegial, friendly place to work. Yes, no one is there to hold your hand, but presumably that's a reason why many choose K&E in the first place.

quakeroats wrote:You're in for quite a surprise next fall.

No.

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Visited both. HH has a MUCH warmer and more welcoming environment. Probably the friedliest i've seen at the big firms I visited. If that is the most important factor to you, then id say go HH. At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment, since that just isn't their style. I appreiated their honesty, but it scared me off a bit.

But Kirkland would give you insanely good litigation experience so that certainly weighs into the equation. Not that HH wouldn't, but Kirkland is really known for it. It just seems like the lifestyle at Kirkland wouldn't be as sustainable as it would be at HH.

Don't know why there's so much anti-Kirkland trolling going on in this forum, particularly based on vague, second-hand information. I worked as an SA at Kirkland NY this summer and everyone was extremely friendly and collegial. I went out for meals and drinks with associates and partners almost every day of the week, and our summer class became incredibly tight (we still do events, even though the program is over). The free-market system inevitably attracts very outgoing, personable people. If someone isn't friendly, people won't want to work with them.

My advice is not to buy into the "someone told me" stories -- go visit the place yourself or contact alumni from your school. If you decide to go un-anonymous, I'll happily PM you with you own experience.

You're in for quite a surprise next fall.

Man, it's amazing how you know that considering you haven't worked anywhere as an associate yet.

Anonymous User wrote:

At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment

Just because it isn't "feel-good fuzzy," doesn't mean it's hostile. Still a very collegial, friendly place to work. Yes, no one is there to hold your hand, but presumably that's a reason why many choose K&E in the first place.

People choose K&E because it has a high Vault ranking. In general, there's no reason to pick K&E in New York. If you make it in, you'll make it into firms that don't have such a toxic environment for associates.

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment

Just because it isn't "feel-good fuzzy," doesn't mean it's hostile. Still a very collegial, friendly place to work. Yes, no one is there to hold your hand, but presumably that's a reason why many choose K&E in the first place.

People choose K&E because it has a high Vault ranking. In general, there's no reason to pick K&E in New York. If you make it in, you'll make it into firms that don't have such a toxic environment for associates.

It isn't toxic at all. You're being a little dramatic.

rayiner wrote:

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Visited both. HH has a MUCH warmer and more welcoming environment. Probably the friedliest i've seen at the big firms I visited. If that is the most important factor to you, then id say go HH. At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment, since that just isn't their style. I appreiated their honesty, but it scared me off a bit.

But Kirkland would give you insanely good litigation experience so that certainly weighs into the equation. Not that HH wouldn't, but Kirkland is really known for it. It just seems like the lifestyle at Kirkland wouldn't be as sustainable as it would be at HH.

Don't know why there's so much anti-Kirkland trolling going on in this forum, particularly based on vague, second-hand information. I worked as an SA at Kirkland NY this summer and everyone was extremely friendly and collegial. I went out for meals and drinks with associates and partners almost every day of the week, and our summer class became incredibly tight (we still do events, even though the program is over). The free-market system inevitably attracts very outgoing, personable people. If someone isn't friendly, people won't want to work with them.

My advice is not to buy into the "someone told me" stories -- go visit the place yourself or contact alumni from your school. If you decide to go un-anonymous, I'll happily PM you with you own experience.

You're in for quite a surprise next fall.

Man, it's amazing how you know that considering you haven't worked anywhere as an associate yet.

Empiricism died a long time ago. I suspect you can figure out how I know what I've mentioned (even though you aren't me).

Anonymous User wrote:

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

At Kirkland, multiple people went out of their way to tell me that they most certainly do not have a feel-good fuzzy environment

Just because it isn't "feel-good fuzzy," doesn't mean it's hostile. Still a very collegial, friendly place to work. Yes, no one is there to hold your hand, but presumably that's a reason why many choose K&E in the first place.

People choose K&E because it has a high Vault ranking. In general, there's no reason to pick K&E in New York. If you make it in, you'll make it into firms that don't have such a toxic environment for associates.

It isn't toxic at all. You're being a little dramatic.

It has that reputation.

quakeroats wrote: It has that reputation.

All comes down to fit. One's "toxic" environment, is another's "great" environment. Probably best not to try to sound objective about these things. I won't pretend that K&E is the place for everyone, but there are many who seek its environment for reasons aside from Vault ranking, and it's those people who tend to thrive at the firm.

quakeroats wrote:People choose K&E because it has a high Vault ranking. In general, there's no reason to pick K&E in New York. If you make it in, you'll make it into firms that don't have such a toxic environment for associates.

quakeroats wrote:It has that reputation.

No.

the fuck is your problem oats?

i chose k&e in chi because i had an excellent time during my cb and pointedly asked every associate about their w/l balance and their interactions with others.

everyone was extremely enthusiastic about the firm and i had a great time. the partners were friendly as well.

in fact, i don't think i had a single meeting during my cb that wasn't simply a very natural conversation between two people. the k&e trolling on atl is over the top but people here keep screeching about how awful it is to work there.

i had cbs with most of the v10 and a portion of the v25, as well as boutique firms, and i can tell you that my feel of k&e was extremely positive, especially in comparison to touted "nice" firms like cleary and dpw.

Anonymous User wrote:the fuck is your problem oats?

i chose k&e in chi because i had an excellent time during my cb and pointedly asked every associate about their w/l balance and their interactions with others.

everyone was extremely enthusiastic about the firm and i had a great time. the partners were friendly as well.

in fact, i don't think i had a single meeting during my cb that wasn't simply a very natural conversation between two people. the k&e trolling on atl is over the top but people here keep screeching about how awful it is to work there.

i had cbs with most of the v10 and a portion of the v25, as well as boutique firms, and i can tell you that my feel of k&e was extremely positive, especially in comparison to touted "nice" firms like cleary and dpw.

Agreed. Also going to k&e chi for the same reasons. My sense is that the hours distribution at kirkland is especially right skewed (long tail to the right). The average is a bit higher (2200ish) as a result, but the median (2100ish) is totally doable. Sure, it's a bit more than peer firms in chi, but only by 50-100.

Anonymous User wrote:the fuck is your problem oats?

i chose k&e in chi because i had an excellent time during my cb and pointedly asked every associate about their w/l balance and their interactions with others.

everyone was extremely enthusiastic about the firm and i had a great time. the partners were friendly as well.

in fact, i don't think i had a single meeting during my cb that wasn't simply a very natural conversation between two people. the k&e trolling on atl is over the top but people here keep screeching about how awful it is to work there.

i had cbs with most of the v10 and a portion of the v25, as well as boutique firms, and i can tell you that my feel of k&e was extremely positive, especially in comparison to touted "nice" firms like cleary and dpw.

1. I limited my comments to K&E NY.
2. Callbacks are scripted affairs. I wouldn't put much, if any, stock in what is said or how the 5 most outgoing people they could find acted.
3. The OP has a very specific situation that K&E simply doesn't fit.

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:the fuck is your problem oats?

i chose k&e in chi because i had an excellent time during my cb and pointedly asked every associate about their w/l balance and their interactions with others.

everyone was extremely enthusiastic about the firm and i had a great time. the partners were friendly as well.

in fact, i don't think i had a single meeting during my cb that wasn't simply a very natural conversation between two people. the k&e trolling on atl is over the top but people here keep screeching about how awful it is to work there.

i had cbs with most of the v10 and a portion of the v25, as well as boutique firms, and i can tell you that my feel of k&e was extremely positive, especially in comparison to touted "nice" firms like cleary and dpw.

1. I limited my comments to K&E NY.
2. Callbacks are scripted affairs. I wouldn't put much, if any, stock in what is said or how the 5 most outgoing people they could find acted.

re: #2 I spoke with other attorneys (non CB) and people from my school who summered there; their attitude was "You will work very hard, get along with everyone, and play very hard with your coworkers later"

edit: it's just difficult to say it's "toxic" - CWT/White&Case are "toxic" - I can't imagine that K&E NY is any more toxic than Skadden/Weil.

Anonymous User wrote:

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:the fuck is your problem oats?

i chose k&e in chi because i had an excellent time during my cb and pointedly asked every associate about their w/l balance and their interactions with others.

everyone was extremely enthusiastic about the firm and i had a great time. the partners were friendly as well.

in fact, i don't think i had a single meeting during my cb that wasn't simply a very natural conversation between two people. the k&e trolling on atl is over the top but people here keep screeching about how awful it is to work there.

i had cbs with most of the v10 and a portion of the v25, as well as boutique firms, and i can tell you that my feel of k&e was extremely positive, especially in comparison to touted "nice" firms like cleary and dpw.

1. I limited my comments to K&E NY.
2. Callbacks are scripted affairs. I wouldn't put much, if any, stock in what is said or how the 5 most outgoing people they could find acted.

re: #2 I spoke with other attorneys (non CB) and people from my school who summered there; their attitude was "You will work very hard, get along with everyone, and play very hard with your coworkers later"

edit: it's just difficult to say it's "toxic" - CWT/White&Case are "toxic" - I can't imagine that K&E NY is any more toxic than Skadden/Weil.

Talk to junior associates. Many firms go to great pains to make summer experiences unlike actual work. As for Skadden/Weil, you might be right, but not in the way you think.

Many firms go to great pains to make summer experiences unlike actual work.

I don't think anyone pretends that a junior associate at any big law firm won't do at least some doc review, and anyone who goes into a big firm expecting not to do any needs a reality check. As someone who was a summer associate and is now an associate, I can tell you a couple differences:

1) No more free lunches and dinners.
2) More hours.
3) More doc review.
4) No more summer events, though my firm has a lot of social events.

The atmosphere hasn't changed, however. People are just as friendly as when I was a summer, partners are just as respectful, and associates are just as collegial. While it's certainly possible for firms to paint a rosy picture on the callback, it's almost impossible for them to paint said picture during the summer associate program. You will inevitably encounter the disgruntled associates and find out about the dark side of the firm. Happy to say that I didn't find one aside from the usual universal biglaw complaints, and that my experience hasn't really differed from a cultural perspective.

Anonymous User wrote:

Many firms go to great pains to make summer experiences unlike actual work.

I don't think anyone pretends that a junior associate at any big law firm won't do at least some doc review, and anyone who goes into a big firm expecting not to do any needs a reality check. As someone who was a summer associate and is now an associate, I can tell you a couple differences:

1) No more free lunches and dinners.
2) More hours.
3) More doc review.
4) No more summer events, though my firm has a lot of social events.

The atmosphere hasn't changed, however. People are just as friendly as when I was a summer, partners are just as respectful, and associates are just as collegial. While it's certainly possible for firms to paint a rosy picture on the callback, it's almost impossible for them to paint said picture during the summer associate program. You will inevitably encounter the disgruntled associates and find out about the dark side of the firm. Happy to say that I didn't find one aside from the usual universal biglaw complaints, and that my experience hasn't really differed from a cultural perspective.

Is it safe to assume you're a Kirkland associate?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Many firms go to great pains to make summer experiences unlike actual work.

I don't think anyone pretends that a junior associate at any big law firm won't do at least some doc review, and anyone who goes into a big firm expecting not to do any needs a reality check. As someone who was a summer associate and is now an associate, I can tell you a couple differences:

1) No more free lunches and dinners.
2) More hours.
3) More doc review.
4) No more summer events, though my firm has a lot of social events.

The atmosphere hasn't changed, however. People are just as friendly as when I was a summer, partners are just as respectful, and associates are just as collegial. While it's certainly possible for firms to paint a rosy picture on the callback, it's almost impossible for them to paint said picture during the summer associate program. You will inevitably encounter the disgruntled associates and find out about the dark side of the firm. Happy to say that I didn't find one aside from the usual universal biglaw complaints, and that my experience hasn't really differed from a cultural perspective.

Is it safe to assume you're a Kirkland associate?

No. But I know enough who work in the New York office and have worked with enough of them to know that quakeroats is full of shit.