Latham NYC Bankruptcy/Restructuring Practice Forum

[911 crisis actor]

Have never understood why so many people on TLS want to do bankruptcy

[thesealocust]

I'd be shocked if Latham and Kirkland had materially different work for junior associates.

I'd actually be shocked if any major law firms had materially different work for juniors, holding practice area constant.

Then you don't know the major differences between debtor and creditor work.

Oh, I'm actually just awful at paying attention to the thread, didn't realize that was a difference.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard that Kirkland is a sweatshop

...and Latham isn't?

Plus, at Kirkland all you do as a junior is first day motions, fee apps, and handle claims objections, which gets old fast.

As a first-year at K&E, this is absolutely not true.

[Anonymous User]

Have never understood why so many people on TLS want to do bankruptcy

I was at a V10 as a summer associate and tried essentially every corporate practice group the firm had--M&A, financial institutions, capital markets, debt financing, etc--and thought debtor-side bankruptcy work was by far the most fun and interesting. It's a practice group in which I felt like the legal team was really the quarterback of the deal, instead of papering a deal or being a BB bank's bitch. When I graduated law school a few years ago, I went to Weil/Kirkland to practice bankruptcy and still think it was a fantastic decision.

And as for Weil/Kirkland being a sweatshop:

(1) I think the work is really interesting so while I put in a lot of hours, it goes by quickly.
(2) I would have no problem pointing to a number of former colleagues at my former V10 (one of the "lifestyle" V10s) that are putting in substantially more hours than me.

[Old Gregg]

All this talk of "sweatshop" is bullshit. If you want to work at one of the best practices in pretty much any legal area, you're going to have to work hard. You just can't have it both ways.

The only reason you'd work less at Latham is that they have less work in that area. But if you're banking on having a life because work is slow, that's not really a career enhancing move. And if Latham has the work for you to bill 3,000 hours a year, then you will bill 3,000 hours a year (and associates at Latham definitely do that). There's nothing intrinsic to Latham that makes it less of a place to work hard than Kirkland. They're both top law firms trying to be the most profitable law firms. If there is any avenue through which you can generate more revenue as an associate, they will eke it from you or you can choose to work somewhere else.

[Anonymous User]

All this talk of "sweatshop" is bullshit. If you want to work at one of the best practices in pretty much any legal area, you're going to have to work hard. You just can't have it both ways.

The only reason you'd work less at Latham is that they have less work in that area. But if you're banking on having a life because work is slow, that's not really a career enhancing move. And if Latham has the work for you to bill 3,000 hours a year, then you will bill 3,000 hours a year (and associates at Latham definitely do that). There's nothing intrinsic to Latham that makes it less of a place to work hard than Kirkland. They're both top law firms trying to be the most profitable law firms. If there is any avenue through which you can generate more revenue as an associate, they will eke it from you or you can choose to work somewhere else.

OP here.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this because there are firms that are known for working associates harder than others, but your point is well taken.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard that Kirkland is a sweatshop

...and Latham isn't?

Plus, at Kirkland all you do as a junior is first day motions, fee apps, and handle claims objections, which gets old fast.

As a first-year at K&E, this is absolutely not true.

OP here.

What are you doing besides these tasks?

[Anonymous User]

Have never understood why so many people on TLS want to do bankruptcy

I was at a V10 as a summer associate and tried essentially every corporate practice group the firm had--M&A, financial institutions, capital markets, debt financing, etc--and thought debtor-side bankruptcy work was by far the most fun and interesting. It's a practice group in which I felt like the legal team was really the quarterback of the deal, instead of papering a deal or being a BB bank's bitch. When I graduated law school a few years ago, I went to Weil/Kirkland to practice bankruptcy and still think it was a fantastic decision.

And as for Weil/Kirkland being a sweatshop:

(1) I think the work is really interesting so while I put in a lot of hours, it goes by quickly.
(2) I would have no problem pointing to a number of former colleagues at my former V10 (one of the "lifestyle" V10s) that are putting in substantially more hours than me.

OP.

Interesting comment. I've also enjoyed bankruptcy more than other corporate practice areas.

[Old Gregg]

All this talk of "sweatshop" is bullshit. If you want to work at one of the best practices in pretty much any legal area, you're going to have to work hard. You just can't have it both ways.

The only reason you'd work less at Latham is that they have less work in that area. But if you're banking on having a life because work is slow, that's not really a career enhancing move. And if Latham has the work for you to bill 3,000 hours a year, then you will bill 3,000 hours a year (and associates at Latham definitely do that). There's nothing intrinsic to Latham that makes it less of a place to work hard than Kirkland. They're both top law firms trying to be the most profitable law firms. If there is any avenue through which you can generate more revenue as an associate, they will eke it from you or you can choose to work somewhere else.

OP here.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this because there are firms that are known for working associates harder than others, but your point is well taken.

...so wait, you're going to take what you've "heard" over the statement of someone who's been practicing in the field for a few years? Really? I mean if thesealocust came back and said this, I'd take that opinion more seriously because he/she knows what it's like. But you? Really?

[Anonymous User]

All this talk of "sweatshop" is bullshit. If you want to work at one of the best practices in pretty much any legal area, you're going to have to work hard. You just can't have it both ways.

The only reason you'd work less at Latham is that they have less work in that area. But if you're banking on having a life because work is slow, that's not really a career enhancing move. And if Latham has the work for you to bill 3,000 hours a year, then you will bill 3,000 hours a year (and associates at Latham definitely do that). There's nothing intrinsic to Latham that makes it less of a place to work hard than Kirkland. They're both top law firms trying to be the most profitable law firms. If there is any avenue through which you can generate more revenue as an associate, they will eke it from you or you can choose to work somewhere else.

OP here.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this because there are firms that are known for working associates harder than others, but your point is well taken.

...so wait, you're going to take what you've "heard" over the statement of someone who's been practicing in the field for a few years? Really? I mean if thesealocust came back and said this, I'd take that opinion more seriously because he/she knows what it's like. But you? Really?

Wow. I said your point was well-taken. I'd hate to see how you would have responded if I had completely disagreed with you.

[Old Gregg]

All this talk of "sweatshop" is bullshit. If you want to work at one of the best practices in pretty much any legal area, you're going to have to work hard. You just can't have it both ways.

The only reason you'd work less at Latham is that they have less work in that area. But if you're banking on having a life because work is slow, that's not really a career enhancing move. And if Latham has the work for you to bill 3,000 hours a year, then you will bill 3,000 hours a year (and associates at Latham definitely do that). There's nothing intrinsic to Latham that makes it less of a place to work hard than Kirkland. They're both top law firms trying to be the most profitable law firms. If there is any avenue through which you can generate more revenue as an associate, they will eke it from you or you can choose to work somewhere else.

OP here.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this because there are firms that are known for working associates harder than others, but your point is well taken.

...so wait, you're going to take what you've "heard" over the statement of someone who's been practicing in the field for a few years? Really? I mean if thesealocust came back and said this, I'd take that opinion more seriously because he/she knows what it's like. But you? Really?

Wow. I said your point was well-taken. I'd hate to see how you would have responded if I had completely disagreed with you.

Yeah, I'd be laughing even harder than I was in that post.

[Anonymous User]

Latham NYC is virtually a nobody on the restructuring scene. If you can't get into a top-notch bankruptcy firm like Kirkland or Weil, it would even be better to head to a "less-prestigious" NYC office like MoFo or Milbank that does more restructuring work (although nowhere to the level of Kirkland or Weil). The drawback is that you would get to a MoFo NYC and decide you don't want to do restructuring work, and you would be more screwed in that scenario than if you got to Latham NYC and decided you don't want to do restructuring work (i.e. Latham NYC is generally a stronger office overall than MoFo NYC).

Chambers, Legal 500, and Law 360 disagree with you that Latham is a restructuring nobody.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1 (Band 2)
http://www.legal500.com/c/united-states ... bankruptcy (Band 2)
http://www.law360.com/articles/495353/l ... f-the-year (One of five bankruptcy groups)

[Anonymous User]

Latham NYC is virtually a nobody on the restructuring scene. If you can't get into a top-notch bankruptcy firm like Kirkland or Weil, it would even be better to head to a "less-prestigious" NYC office like MoFo or Milbank that does more restructuring work (although nowhere to the level of Kirkland or Weil). The drawback is that you would get to a MoFo NYC and decide you don't want to do restructuring work, and you would be more screwed in that scenario than if you got to Latham NYC and decided you don't want to do restructuring work (i.e. Latham NYC is generally a stronger office overall than MoFo NYC).

Chambers, Legal 500, and Law 360 disagree with you that Latham is a restructuring nobody.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1 (Band 2)
http://www.legal500.com/c/united-states ... bankruptcy (Band 2)
http://www.law360.com/articles/495353/l ... f-the-year (One of five bankruptcy groups)

Does Legal 500 really have Kirkland, Weil, and Paul Weiss as the big three in bankruptcy? Just lol.

And Gibson Dunn is one of the top five bankruptcy law firms according to Law360? what?

[Anonymous User]

Latham NYC is virtually a nobody on the restructuring scene. If you can't get into a top-notch bankruptcy firm like Kirkland or Weil, it would even be better to head to a "less-prestigious" NYC office like MoFo or Milbank that does more restructuring work (although nowhere to the level of Kirkland or Weil). The drawback is that you would get to a MoFo NYC and decide you don't want to do restructuring work, and you would be more screwed in that scenario than if you got to Latham NYC and decided you don't want to do restructuring work (i.e. Latham NYC is generally a stronger office overall than MoFo NYC).

Chambers, Legal 500, and Law 360 disagree with you that Latham is a restructuring nobody.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1 (Band 2)
http://www.legal500.com/c/united-states ... bankruptcy (Band 2)
http://www.law360.com/articles/495353/l ... f-the-year (One of five bankruptcy groups)

Does Legal 500 really have Kirkland, Weil, and Paul Weiss as the big three in bankruptcy? Just lol.

And Gibson Dunn is one of the top five bankruptcy law firms according to Law360? what?

Not sure why you think the Legal 500 ranking is outlandish. Kirkland and Weil are obviously the two biggest firms and Paul Weiss is well respected. It also lists David Polk and Skadden in tier 1. Would you really rank Paul Weiss lower than tier 2?

You also missed the point that there is consensus that Latham has a quality bankruptcy practice, even if you disagree with the exact placement of some of the firms.

[Anonymous User]

Latham NYC is virtually a nobody on the restructuring scene. If you can't get into a top-notch bankruptcy firm like Kirkland or Weil, it would even be better to head to a "less-prestigious" NYC office like MoFo or Milbank that does more restructuring work (although nowhere to the level of Kirkland or Weil). The drawback is that you would get to a MoFo NYC and decide you don't want to do restructuring work, and you would be more screwed in that scenario than if you got to Latham NYC and decided you don't want to do restructuring work (i.e. Latham NYC is generally a stronger office overall than MoFo NYC).

Chambers, Legal 500, and Law 360 disagree with you that Latham is a restructuring nobody.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1 (Band 2)
http://www.legal500.com/c/united-states ... bankruptcy (Band 2)
http://www.law360.com/articles/495353/l ... f-the-year (One of five bankruptcy groups)

Let's look at the top twenty-five bankruptcies of 2012 and 2013 (from biggest to smallest companies according to assets):

Residential Capital - MoFo (Kirkland represented the parent, Ally Financial, and played a pretty big role in the case)
Edison Mission Energy - Kirkland
Eastman Kodak Company - SullCrom
Cengage - Kirkland
Overseas Shipholding - Cleary
Penson - Paul Weiss
Patriot Coal - Davis Polk
ATP Oil & Gas - Mayer Brown
Dex One - Kirkland
Hawker Beechcraft - Kirkland
Excel Maritime Carriers Ltd. - Skadden
Houghton Mifflin - Paul Weiss
United Western Bancorp - Sender Wasserman
First Regional - Landau Gottfried & Berger
Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. - Skadden
Capitol - Honigman Miller
Exide Technologies - Skadden
Central European Distribution Corp. - Skadden
RDA Holding Co. - Weil
Pinnacle Airlines - Davis Polk, Akin Gump
SuperMedia, Inc. - Fulbright, Cleary
Homer City - Richards Layton
Revel AC, Inc. - Kirkland
Mercantile Bancorp, Inc. - DLA Piper
Triad Guaranty Inc. - Young Conaway, Hahn

Does Latham do a ton of creditors work that I'm missing? Because they really don't do anything on the debtor side.

[Anonymous User]

Latham NYC is virtually a nobody on the restructuring scene. If you can't get into a top-notch bankruptcy firm like Kirkland or Weil, it would even be better to head to a "less-prestigious" NYC office like MoFo or Milbank that does more restructuring work (although nowhere to the level of Kirkland or Weil). The drawback is that you would get to a MoFo NYC and decide you don't want to do restructuring work, and you would be more screwed in that scenario than if you got to Latham NYC and decided you don't want to do restructuring work (i.e. Latham NYC is generally a stronger office overall than MoFo NYC).

Chambers, Legal 500, and Law 360 disagree with you that Latham is a restructuring nobody.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1 (Band 2)
http://www.legal500.com/c/united-states ... bankruptcy (Band 2)
http://www.law360.com/articles/495353/l ... f-the-year (One of five bankruptcy groups)

Let's look at the top twenty-five bankruptcies of 2012 and 2013 (from biggest to smallest companies according to assets):

Residential Capital - MoFo (Kirkland represented the parent, Ally Financial, and played a pretty big role in the case)
Edison Mission Energy - Kirkland
Eastman Kodak Company - SullCrom
Cengage - Kirkland
Overseas Shipholding - Cleary
Penson - Paul Weiss
Patriot Coal - Davis Polk
ATP Oil & Gas - Mayer Brown
Dex One - Kirkland
Hawker Beechcraft - Kirkland
Excel Maritime Carriers Ltd. - Skadden
Houghton Mifflin - Paul Weiss
United Western Bancorp - Sender Wasserman
First Regional - Landau Gottfried & Berger
Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. - Skadden
Capitol - Honigman Miller
Exide Technologies - Skadden
Central European Distribution Corp. - Skadden
RDA Holding Co. - Weil
Pinnacle Airlines - Davis Polk, Akin Gump
SuperMedia, Inc. - Fulbright, Cleary
Homer City - Richards Layton
Revel AC, Inc. - Kirkland
Mercantile Bancorp, Inc. - DLA Piper
Triad Guaranty Inc. - Young Conaway, Hahn

Does Latham do a ton of creditors work that I'm missing? Because they really don't do anything on the debtor side.

You did not include A123 Systems (Latham served as debtor's counsel) in your list even though it was the 25th biggest bankruptcy by asset size according to Lynn LoPucki's database. You also conveniently didn't go back to 2011 so you wouldn't count American Airlines (filed in late 2011), which Latham played a big part in by representing US Airways.

And yes, Latham does more creditor work: http://www.lw.com/people/mitchell-seider. Your list only includes debtor's counsel in all of these cases, so by your logic Kramer Levin isn't a good bankruptcy firm either.

I'm not arguing that Latham is Weil, Kirkland, or Skadden, but it is a solid bankruptcy firm that has taken on some high profile work in the past couple years.

[Anonymous User]

You did not include A123 Systems (Latham served as debtor's counsel) in your list even though it was the 25th biggest bankruptcy by asset size according to Lynn LoPucki's database. You also conveniently didn't go back to 2011 so you wouldn't count American Airlines (filed in late 2011), which Latham played a big part in by representing US Airways.

And yes, Latham does more creditor work: http://www.lw.com/people/mitchell-seider. Your list only includes debtor's counsel in all of these cases, so by your logic Kramer Levin isn't a good bankruptcy firm either.

I'm not arguing that Latham is Weil, Kirkland, or Skadden, but it is a solid bankruptcy firm that has taken on some high profile work in the past couple years.

I guess it depends on how the assets were calculated (and for some reason, the LoPucki database doesn't even list Cengage, which is kind of absurd). If you're correct, though, then they did score bankruptcy case number twenty-five.

I mean, yeah, it might be a "solid" bankruptcy firm, just like Fried Frank is a solid M&A firm. But if a law student was asking for advice on which bankruptcy firms to try for, I wouldn't recommend Latham. They're just not one of the big players, and based on purely anecdotal evidence, don't offer nearly the same level of exit options as a Weil or Kirkland does.

[Anonymous User]

Latham NYC is virtually a nobody on the restructuring scene. If you can't get into a top-notch bankruptcy firm like Kirkland or Weil, it would even be better to head to a "less-prestigious" NYC office like MoFo or Milbank that does more restructuring work (although nowhere to the level of Kirkland or Weil). The drawback is that you would get to a MoFo NYC and decide you don't want to do restructuring work, and you would be more screwed in that scenario than if you got to Latham NYC and decided you don't want to do restructuring work (i.e. Latham NYC is generally a stronger office overall than MoFo NYC).

Chambers, Legal 500, and Law 360 disagree with you that Latham is a restructuring nobody.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1278 ... torial/5/1 (Band 2)
http://www.legal500.com/c/united-states ... bankruptcy (Band 2)
http://www.law360.com/articles/495353/l ... f-the-year (One of five bankruptcy groups)

And Gibson Dunn is one of the top five bankruptcy law firms according to Law360? what?

Here is the article explaining the Gibson Dunn choice: http://www.law360.com/bankruptcy/articles/498108. Essentially boils down to the Arcapita case. Even though that was a groundbreaking case, I can't say I agree with the choice.

[Old Gregg]

Looks folks--a lot of killed brain cells in this thread over a disagreement that is not really disagreement.

I don't think there is any dispute that Gibson or Paul Weiss is considered a top bankruptcy practice, insofar as it's in the top 5. Does that mean that it's a Weil or a K&E? Probably not, and no one's really saying that. But the thing is that after Weil and K&E there's a not really a lot separating the other practices in terms of caliber.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard that Kirkland is a sweatshop

...and Latham isn't?

Plus, at Kirkland all you do as a junior is first day motions, fee apps, and handle claims objections, which gets old fast.

As a first-year at K&E, this is absolutely not true.

Absolutely concur with this. As a first year at Kirkland I took and defended depositions, prepared witnesses for trial and sat second chair at trial. Kirkland's a meritocracy -- show that you can do good, smart work and you'll get plenty of opportunities.

I don't know about the sweatshop thing. We're definitely not a "lifestyle" firm, at least compared to places where you don't bill more than 1600. There's just more to do here, I guess. But sweatshop implies countless boring hours of non-stimulating work, and that's just not what it's like here.

Maybe look at it this way: if you're being thrown head first into taking your first deposition three months into your time at the firm and it's an important witness, you'll be voluntarily billing lots of time just to make sure you kick ass at it. It's all just a matter of choice. We like to be prepared and we like to dig up everything we can.

[Anonymous User]

[/quote]Plus, at Kirkland all you do as a junior is first day motions, fee apps, and handle claims objections, which gets old fast.[/quote]

As a first-year at K&E, this is absolutely not true.[/quote]

Absolutely concur with this. As a first year at Kirkland I took and defended depositions, prepared witnesses for trial and sat second chair at trial. Kirkland's a meritocracy -- show that you can do good, smart work and you'll get plenty of opportunities.

I don't know about the sweatshop thing. We're definitely not a "lifestyle" firm, at least compared to places where you don't bill more than 1600. There's just more to do here, I guess. But sweatshop implies countless boring hours of non-stimulating work, and that's just not what it's like here.

Maybe look at it this way: if you're being thrown head first into taking your first deposition three months into your time at the firm and it's an important witness, you'll be voluntarily billing lots of time just to make sure you kick ass at it. It's all just a matter of choice. We like to be prepared and we like to dig up everything we can.[/quote]

Sounds like you got good experience as a first year but you can't be in the restructuring department having "sat second chair at trial." Big debtor cases have grunt work tailor-made for first and second years.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds like you got good experience as a first year but you can't be in the restructuring department having "sat second chair at trial." Big debtor cases have grunt work tailor-made for first and second years.

You do realize that even though Kirkland does huge debtor cases, there are also smaller deals and cases that juniors get on? It works the same way as with M&A.

And don't even get me started on how fucking awful it can be to work as a junior on creditor-side stuff. No thanks.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds like you got good experience as a first year but you can't be in the restructuring department having "sat second chair at trial." Big debtor cases have grunt work tailor-made for first and second years.

You do realize that even though Kirkland does huge debtor cases, there are also smaller deals and cases that juniors get on? It works the same way as with M&A.

And don't even get me started on how fucking awful it can be to work as a junior on creditor-side stuff. No thanks.

Go ahead...start.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds like you got good experience as a first year but you can't be in the restructuring department having "sat second chair at trial." Big debtor cases have grunt work tailor-made for first and second years.

You do realize that even though Kirkland does huge debtor cases, there are also smaller deals and cases that juniors get on? It works the same way as with M&A.

And don't even get me started on how fucking awful it can be to work as a junior on creditor-side stuff. No thanks.

Go ahead...start.

Have you ever done any of it? It's just boring work that involves limited interactions with the client, and a constant feeling that you're on the sideline of the real action. I've done both debtor- and creditor-side stuff, and I would work on debtor-side stuff as a junior any day of the week.