Chicago - Kirkland v. Sidley? Forum

[Anonymous User]

For corporate transaction work... no litigation...

There was a thread on this from like 3-4 years ago, but just wanted to revive it and see what everyone else thought. Pros and cons of each firm?

[Anonymous User]

For corporate transaction work... no litigation...

There was a thread on this from like 3-4 years ago, but just wanted to revive it and see what everyone else thought. Pros and cons of each firm?

Full disclosure: I'm at Kirkland and I don't know too much about Sidley (aside from things friends there have told me). My goal with this is to provide as much information as possible, and Sidley people can fill in the rest. They are both excellent firms and you're going to have a great experience no matter what you choose.

Kirkland
-The best at middle market private equity which can lead to high-level (sr positions) exit ops at small/new firms and cases are generally lightly staffed which leads to better experience for younger associates.
-Slightly larger firm (around 100-150 more attys) which tends to lead to bigger M&A deals, larger supplemental departments if you find those of interest (cap markets, tax, etc)
-Better name-recognition nationally
-Two tiered partnership track (means nonshare is easier to get, but share is harder to get)
-Slightly larger bonuses for most
-Freemarket system allows you to move around until you find people that you like to work with.
-Structured corporate training programs for summer associates and associates
-Generous with budget for ordering dinner in the office ($40, which is higher than most firms)
-No face time policy (there are some partners that are known for wanting associates in the office, but if you don't like that, you can use the freemarket system to work with partners who don't care, and then you work from home. Some associates work a few days a week from home, others work until 5 and then go home have dinner with their kids and put them to sleep then work from home)
-Partners are fairly aggressive when it comes to client development so they are often out of the office looking for work, which can lead to junior people getting more responsibility.


Sidley
-People are likely less-competitive.
-Assignment-based system (good for some)
-One-tier partnership track (8-9 years)

Whatever you do, don't make the decision based on hours. I've seen a lot of people choose Sidley because they believe they will work less and they end up lateraling to Kirkland and working fewer hours. They're both big law firms at the top of the Chicago market and you're going to work a lot as a result.

Overall I'd agree with the idea that Kirkland has people that are fairly competitive and the free market system can create kind of a "feast or famine" effect where the good people get all of the best work and the most responsibility. It's a meritocracy, and probably more of one than Sidley. This can be good or bad depending on your aspirations.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Anonymous User]

Awesome info, any thoughts on Latham and Skadden?

[Anonymous User]

What about Baker & McKenzie?

[Anonymous User]

More info about sidley please. Does sidley have face time policy? Are exit ops for corp going to be worse?

[Anonymous User]

Do you know if the info posted above about K&E holds true for its NYC office as well? If not, which things are different and in what ways?

[Anonymous User]

Do you know if the info posted above about K&E holds true for its NYC office as well? If not, which things are different and in what ways?

Everything is the same, though there are a number of quality PE firms in NY too. There are other firms that are arguably just as good (or better, depending on your preferences) in PE--Kirkland still dominates the middle market but doesn't have as many huge PE clients as a firm like STB, for example.

[Old Gregg]

Do you know if the info posted above about K&E holds true for its NYC office as well? If not, which things are different and in what ways?

The corporate group will also have a public company M&A component in addition to the private equity. While poster above is correct that the PE group focuses on middle market, plenty of work is also doled out by the bigs like Blackstone, KKR and Carlyle. Not to mention that K&E still counts on Bain, Apax Partners and 3G as regular clients.

[Anonymous User]

For corporate transaction work... no litigation...

There was a thread on this from like 3-4 years ago, but just wanted to revive it and see what everyone else thought. Pros and cons of each firm?

Full disclosure: I'm at Kirkland and I don't know too much about Sidley (aside from things friends there have told me). My goal with this is to provide as much information as possible, and Sidley people can fill in the rest. They are both excellent firms and you're going to have a great experience no matter what you choose.

Kirkland
-The best at middle market private equity which can lead to high-level (sr positions) exit ops at small/new firms and cases are generally lightly staffed which leads to better experience for younger associates.
-Slightly larger firm (around 100-150 more attys) which tends to lead to bigger M&A deals, larger supplemental departments if you find those of interest (cap markets, tax, etc)
-Better name-recognition nationally
-Two tiered partnership track (means nonshare is easier to get, but share is harder to get)
-Slightly larger bonuses for most
-Freemarket system allows you to move around until you find people that you like to work with.
-Structured corporate training programs for summer associates and associates
-Generous with budget for ordering dinner in the office ($40, which is higher than most firms)
-No face time policy (there are some partners that are known for wanting associates in the office, but if you don't like that, you can use the freemarket system to work with partners who don't care, and then you work from home. Some associates work a few days a week from home, others work until 5 and then go home have dinner with their kids and put them to sleep then work from home)
-Partners are fairly aggressive when it comes to client development so they are often out of the office looking for work, which can lead to junior people getting more responsibility.


Sidley
-People are likely less-competitive.
-Assignment-based system (good for some)
-One-tier partnership track (8-9 years)

Whatever you do, don't make the decision based on hours. I've seen a lot of people choose Sidley because they believe they will work less and they end up lateraling to Kirkland and working fewer hours. They're both big law firms at the top of the Chicago market and you're going to work a lot as a result.

Overall I'd agree with the idea that Kirkland has people that are fairly competitive and the free market system can create kind of a "feast or famine" effect where the good people get all of the best work and the most responsibility. It's a meritocracy, and probably more of one than Sidley. This can be good or bad depending on your aspirations.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, this is actually the most insightful post I have read in a long time. Of course you are biased, but seems like you would choose Kirkland with certainty.

You perhaps have a better insight about this as an insider - what do you think about the financial stability of Kirkland? Just in terms of hiring and office expansion it seems like the firm is growing like crazy, and like all other things in life, these types of rapid expansions have a downturn.

The particular alarming instance of this for me was when I found that (1) they opened a Houston office in 2014 and got on the Texas/oil bandwagon pretty late, and (2) they offered summer associates going to the Houston office a $20k bonus on top of everything else (i.e. that low/eager on talent?). On the other hand, Sidley prides themselves in having no debt and a conservative law firm practice model (e.g. low dinner budget, no happy hours etc.). Of course these are anecdotal hearsay. I don't have the 10Ks of each law firm in front of me to make a sound judgement but am curious to hear about your views.

[Anonymous User]

You perhaps have a better insight about this as an insider - what do you think about the financial stability of Kirkland? Just in terms of hiring and office expansion it seems like the firm is growing like crazy, and like all other things in life, these types of rapid expansions have a downturn.

The particular alarming instance of this for me was when I found that (1) they opened a Houston office in 2014 and got on the Texas/oil bandwagon pretty late, and (2) they offered summer associates going to the Houston office a $20k bonus on top of everything else (i.e. that low/eager on talent?). On the other hand, Sidley prides themselves in having no debt and a conservative law firm practice model (e.g. low dinner budget, no happy hours etc.). Of course these are anecdotal hearsay. I don't have the 10Ks of each law firm in front of me to make a sound judgement but am curious to hear about your views.

Kirkland is very proud of the fact that it only expands to meet a client demand/need, and when it does, it does so slowly. In fact, way back when there was a big argument over whether to open an NY office at all. The Houston office was created to respond to oil/gas clients wanting an office there. The bonus to those working in Houston is because the firm committee knows that if they want top talent, they have to pay for it, especially when opening something new.

As for the "prides itself in being conservative" thing, Kirkland has the highest PPP of any firm in Chicago and the highest profits per attorney of any firm in Chicago (I could go on, but I think you get the point). One reason for this is that the practice areas work together very well--PE/Corp makes tons in the boom times, and a world class bankruptcy practice keeps the firm strong during the bad times. Furthermore, PE clients feed into restructuring, restructuring clients often stick around and use us for corp/lit, etc. Partners are also very hungry to bring in new clients (one benefit of merit-based partnership pay). Another benefit of merit-based partnership pay is that we're able to poach a lot of rainmaker partners from other firms because there's a higher pay ceiling here (see Houston & STB).

Kirkland competes for talent with all of the top firms nationwide (I know many people who choose Kirkland over WLRK, Susman, Irell, Munger, W&C, etc.), and to do that, it needs to provide the same benefits that the other top firms do.

Bottom line--if Sidley wants to claim that it's more financially safe because it provides less pay/benefits to its attorneys, it needs to show the numbers to prove it. Kirkland has them.

[Anonymous User]

Make of this what you will, but at my firm (which is "better" than K&E, I guess) K&E is widely viewed as a joke. Less profitable than most firms, once you adjust for the guarantees and the non-equity partners. May be very corrupt - the perception at other firms, rightly or wrongly, is that it gets work because it's willing to issue opinions that no other firm will issue. Has shit tons of what out partners call "fake partners"; some of the "fake partners" are the butt of jokes at other firms. And their rep for training is so bad that I've heard that K&E resumes go straight to the trash at my firm and, not joking, there is an informal ban on using K&E precedent.

I would work at firms way down the chain before I worked at K&E. Hell, even my LS friends who ended up there (who had been no and cold offered and didn't have a choice) were gone in 1.5 and 2.5 years respectively, to embarrassing landing spots.

Since I've been working for a while, I am often dragged into giving friends and friends of friends advice as to where to work. I'm fairly agnostic; I think most firms of a "tier" give a similar opportunity, as long as you make sure to work with a group that is a good fit. But I steer people away from K&E - and advise them to sink offers at firms way down the prestige list rather than work at an exploitative place that doesn't properly train its associates and has the longest partner track in NY.

[Anonymous User]

Make of this what you will, but at my firm (which is "better" than K&E, I guess) K&E is widely viewed as a joke. Less profitable than most firms, once you adjust for the guarantees and the non-equity partners. May be very corrupt - the perception at other firms, rightly or wrongly, is that it gets work because it's willing to issue opinions that no other firm will issue. Has shit tons of what out partners call "fake partners"; some of the "fake partners" are the butt of jokes at other firms. And their rep for training is so bad that I've heard that K&E resumes go straight to the trash at my firm and, not joking, there is an informal ban on using K&E precedent.

I would work at firms way down the chain before I worked at K&E. Hell, even my LS friends who ended up there (who had been no and cold offered and didn't have a choice) were gone in 1.5 and 2.5 years respectively, to embarrassing landing spots.

Since I've been working for a while, I am often dragged into giving friends and friends of friends advice as to where to work. I'm fairly agnostic; I think most firms of a "tier" give a similar opportunity, as long as you make sure to work with a group that is a good fit. But I steer people away from K&E - and advise them to sink offers at firms way down the prestige list rather than work at an exploitative place that doesn't properly train its associates and has the longest partner track in NY.

So ridiculous and lacking in specifics that this isn't worth responding to. I know a lot of people working at both offices and I've never heard of anything even close to this.

[Anonymous User]

Make of this what you will, but at my firm (which is "better" than K&E, I guess) K&E is widely viewed as a joke. Less profitable than most firms, once you adjust for the guarantees and the non-equity partners. May be very corrupt - the perception at other firms, rightly or wrongly, is that it gets work because it's willing to issue opinions that no other firm will issue. Has shit tons of what out partners call "fake partners"; some of the "fake partners" are the butt of jokes at other firms. And their rep for training is so bad that I've heard that K&E resumes go straight to the trash at my firm and, not joking, there is an informal ban on using K&E precedent.

I would work at firms way down the chain before I worked at K&E. Hell, even my LS friends who ended up there (who had been no and cold offered and didn't have a choice) were gone in 1.5 and 2.5 years respectively, to embarrassing landing spots.

Since I've been working for a while, I am often dragged into giving friends and friends of friends advice as to where to work. I'm fairly agnostic; I think most firms of a "tier" give a similar opportunity, as long as you make sure to work with a group that is a good fit. But I steer people away from K&E - and advise them to sink offers at firms way down the prestige list rather than work at an exploitative place that doesn't properly train its associates and has the longest partner track in NY.

So ridiculous and lacking in specifics that this isn't worth responding to. I know a lot of people working at both offices and I've never heard of anything even close to this.

If "K&E has the longest partner track in NY" isn't specific enough for you, I'm curious what would be.

[Anonymous User]

Make of this what you will, but at my firm (which is "better" than K&E, I guess) K&E is widely viewed as a joke. Less profitable than most firms, once you adjust for the guarantees and the non-equity partners. May be very corrupt - the perception at other firms, rightly or wrongly, is that it gets work because it's willing to issue opinions that no other firm will issue. Has shit tons of what out partners call "fake partners"; some of the "fake partners" are the butt of jokes at other firms. And their rep for training is so bad that I've heard that K&E resumes go straight to the trash at my firm and, not joking, there is an informal ban on using K&E precedent.

I would work at firms way down the chain before I worked at K&E. Hell, even my LS friends who ended up there (who had been no and cold offered and didn't have a choice) were gone in 1.5 and 2.5 years respectively, to embarrassing landing spots.

Since I've been working for a while, I am often dragged into giving friends and friends of friends advice as to where to work. I'm fairly agnostic; I think most firms of a "tier" give a similar opportunity, as long as you make sure to work with a group that is a good fit. But I steer people away from K&E - and advise them to sink offers at firms way down the prestige list rather than work at an exploitative place that doesn't properly train its associates and has the longest partner track in NY.

So ridiculous and lacking in specifics that this isn't worth responding to. I know a lot of people working at both offices and I've never heard of anything even close to this.

If "K&E has the longest partner track in NY" isn't specific enough for you, I'm curious what would be.

This is one of your worst points.

Non share partner is at 6 years and pays just as much (more, if you include bonus) as first year partners at lockstep firms. You're also called a partner to the outside world (KE doesn't distinguish on its website) and you're expected to develop clients. Many would consider this much better than being a senior associate.

Sharepartner pay is also significantly higher than most NYC firms, so there's a pay off for the extra year or two to share partner.

Finally, people who would have been pushed out for not making share partner at most firms are often kept around as non share partners and given a chance to prove themselves. For most everyone (you can't plan on becoming a share partner at any biglaw firm), this means more years of biglaw pay (~500k+), and a better title when it comes to being pushed out.


Feel free to give actual examples of anything else you mentioned.

[Anonymous User]

Make of this what you will, but at my firm (which is "better" than K&E, I guess) K&E is widely viewed as a joke. Less profitable than most firms, once you adjust for the guarantees and the non-equity partners. May be very corrupt - the perception at other firms, rightly or wrongly, is that it gets work because it's willing to issue opinions that no other firm will issue. Has shit tons of what out partners call "fake partners"; some of the "fake partners" are the butt of jokes at other firms. And their rep for training is so bad that I've heard that K&E resumes go straight to the trash at my firm and, not joking, there is an informal ban on using K&E precedent.

I would work at firms way down the chain before I worked at K&E. Hell, even my LS friends who ended up there (who had been no and cold offered and didn't have a choice) were gone in 1.5 and 2.5 years respectively, to embarrassing landing spots.

Since I've been working for a while, I am often dragged into giving friends and friends of friends advice as to where to work. I'm fairly agnostic; I think most firms of a "tier" give a similar opportunity, as long as you make sure to work with a group that is a good fit. But I steer people away from K&E - and advise them to sink offers at firms way down the prestige list rather than work at an exploitative place that doesn't properly train its associates and has the longest partner track in NY.

So ridiculous and lacking in specifics that this isn't worth responding to. I know a lot of people working at both offices and I've never heard of anything even close to this.

If "K&E has the longest partner track in NY" isn't specific enough for you, I'm curious what would be.

This is one of your worst points.

Non share partner is at 6 years and pays just as much (more, if you include bonus) as first year partners at lockstep firms. You're also called a partner to the outside world (KE doesn't distinguish on its website) and you're expected to develop clients. Many would consider this much better than being a senior associate.

Sharepartner pay is also significantly higher than most NYC firms, so there's a pay off for the extra year or two to share partner.

Finally, people who would have been pushed out for not making share partner at most firms are often kept around as non share partners and given a chance to prove themselves. For most everyone (you can't plan on becoming a share partner at any biglaw firm), this means more years of biglaw pay (~500k+), and a better title when it comes to being pushed out.


Feel free to give actual examples of anything else you mentioned.

Non share partner is associate with a better business card. It's a joke and everyone else in the city recognizes it as a joke. All that matters is equity partnership - anywhere, not just as K&E - and don't you forget it, no matter what the recruiting folks tell you their talking points are to cover up the longest partner track in NY.

[beepboopbeep]

If "K&E has the longest partner track in NY" isn't specific enough for you, I'm curious what would be.

This is one of your worst points.

Non share partner is at 6 years and pays just as much (more, if you include bonus) as first year partners at lockstep firms. You're also called a partner to the outside world (KE doesn't distinguish on its website) and you're expected to develop clients. Many would consider this much better than being a senior associate.

Sharepartner pay is also significantly higher than most NYC firms, so there's a pay off for the extra year or two to share partner.

Finally, people who would have been pushed out for not making share partner at most firms are often kept around as non share partners and given a chance to prove themselves. For most everyone (you can't plan on becoming a share partner at any biglaw firm), this means more years of biglaw pay (~500k+), and a better title when it comes to being pushed out.


Feel free to give actual examples of anything else you mentioned.

Non share partner is associate with a better business card. It's a joke and everyone else in the city recognizes it as a joke. All that matters is equity partnership - anywhere, not just as K&E - and don't you forget it, no matter what the recruiting folks tell you their talking points are to cover up the longest partner track in NY.

[Anonymous User]

For corporate transaction work... no litigation...

There was a thread on this from like 3-4 years ago, but just wanted to revive it and see what everyone else thought. Pros and cons of each firm?

Full disclosure: I'm at Kirkland and I don't know too much about Sidley (aside from things friends there have told me). My goal with this is to provide as much information as possible, and Sidley people can fill in the rest. They are both excellent firms and you're going to have a great experience no matter what you choose.

Kirkland
-The best at middle market private equity which can lead to high-level (sr positions) exit ops at small/new firms and cases are generally lightly staffed which leads to better experience for younger associates.
-Slightly larger firm (around 100-150 more attys) which tends to lead to bigger M&A deals, larger supplemental departments if you find those of interest (cap markets, tax, etc)
-Better name-recognition nationally
-Two tiered partnership track (means nonshare is easier to get, but share is harder to get)
-Slightly larger bonuses for most
-Freemarket system allows you to move around until you find people that you like to work with.
-Structured corporate training programs for summer associates and associates
-Generous with budget for ordering dinner in the office ($40, which is higher than most firms)
-No face time policy (there are some partners that are known for wanting associates in the office, but if you don't like that, you can use the freemarket system to work with partners who don't care, and then you work from home. Some associates work a few days a week from home, others work until 5 and then go home have dinner with their kids and put them to sleep then work from home)
-Partners are fairly aggressive when it comes to client development so they are often out of the office looking for work, which can lead to junior people getting more responsibility.


Sidley
-People are likely less-competitive.
-Assignment-based system (good for some)
-One-tier partnership track (8-9 years)

Whatever you do, don't make the decision based on hours. I've seen a lot of people choose Sidley because they believe they will work less and they end up lateraling to Kirkland and working fewer hours. They're both big law firms at the top of the Chicago market and you're going to work a lot as a result.

Overall I'd agree with the idea that Kirkland has people that are fairly competitive and the free market system can create kind of a "feast or famine" effect where the good people get all of the best work and the most responsibility. It's a meritocracy, and probably more of one than Sidley. This can be good or bad depending on your aspirations.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

I'm also at Kirkland, and I think these are all well made and accurate points.

[cookiejar1]

Make of this what you will, but at my firm (which is "better" than K&E, I guess) K&E is widely viewed as a joke. Less profitable than most firms, once you adjust for the guarantees and the non-equity partners. May be very corrupt - the perception at other firms, rightly or wrongly, is that it gets work because it's willing to issue opinions that no other firm will issue. Has shit tons of what out partners call "fake partners"; some of the "fake partners" are the butt of jokes at other firms. And their rep for training is so bad that I've heard that K&E resumes go straight to the trash at my firm and, not joking, there is an informal ban on using K&E precedent.

I would work at firms way down the chain before I worked at K&E. Hell, even my LS friends who ended up there (who had been no and cold offered and didn't have a choice) were gone in 1.5 and 2.5 years respectively, to embarrassing landing spots.

Since I've been working for a while, I am often dragged into giving friends and friends of friends advice as to where to work. I'm fairly agnostic; I think most firms of a "tier" give a similar opportunity, as long as you make sure to work with a group that is a good fit. But I steer people away from K&E - and advise them to sink offers at firms way down the prestige list rather than work at an exploitative place that doesn't properly train its associates and has the longest partner track in NY.

Tell me where Kirkland touched you inappropriately. Tell me where.

[Cobretti]

Make of this what you will, but at my firm (which is "better" than K&E, I guess) K&E is widely viewed as a joke. Less profitable than most firms, once you adjust for the guarantees and the non-equity partners. May be very corrupt - the perception at other firms, rightly or wrongly, is that it gets work because it's willing to issue opinions that no other firm will issue. Has shit tons of what out partners call "fake partners"; some of the "fake partners" are the butt of jokes at other firms. And their rep for training is so bad that I've heard that K&E resumes go straight to the trash at my firm and, not joking, there is an informal ban on using K&E precedent.

I would work at firms way down the chain before I worked at K&E. Hell, even my LS friends who ended up there (who had been no and cold offered and didn't have a choice) were gone in 1.5 and 2.5 years respectively, to embarrassing landing spots.

Since I've been working for a while, I am often dragged into giving friends and friends of friends advice as to where to work. I'm fairly agnostic; I think most firms of a "tier" give a similar opportunity, as long as you make sure to work with a group that is a good fit. But I steer people away from K&E - and advise them to sink offers at firms way down the prestige list rather than work at an exploitative place that doesn't properly train its associates and has the longest partner track in NY.

Tell me where Kirkland touched you inappropriately. Tell me where.

I especially love how all this hate is about K&E NY, and this thread is specifically about Chicago. Great contributions anon.

[alabamabound]

For corporate transaction work... no litigation...

There was a thread on this from like 3-4 years ago, but just wanted to revive it and see what everyone else thought. Pros and cons of each firm?

Full disclosure: I'm at Kirkland and I don't know too much about Sidley (aside from things friends there have told me). My goal with this is to provide as much information as possible, and Sidley people can fill in the rest. They are both excellent firms and you're going to have a great experience no matter what you choose.

Kirkland
-The best at middle market private equity which can lead to high-level (sr positions) exit ops at small/new firms and cases are generally lightly staffed which leads to better experience for younger associates.
-Slightly larger firm (around 100-150 more attys) which tends to lead to bigger M&A deals, larger supplemental departments if you find those of interest (cap markets, tax, etc)
-Better name-recognition nationally
-Two tiered partnership track (means nonshare is easier to get, but share is harder to get)
-Slightly larger bonuses for most
-Freemarket system allows you to move around until you find people that you like to work with.
-Structured corporate training programs for summer associates and associates
-Generous with budget for ordering dinner in the office ($40, which is higher than most firms)
-No face time policy (there are some partners that are known for wanting associates in the office, but if you don't like that, you can use the freemarket system to work with partners who don't care, and then you work from home. Some associates work a few days a week from home, others work until 5 and then go home have dinner with their kids and put them to sleep then work from home)
-Partners are fairly aggressive when it comes to client development so they are often out of the office looking for work, which can lead to junior people getting more responsibility.


Sidley
-People are likely less-competitive.
-Assignment-based system (good for some)
-One-tier partnership track (8-9 years)

Whatever you do, don't make the decision based on hours. I've seen a lot of people choose Sidley because they believe they will work less and they end up lateraling to Kirkland and working fewer hours. They're both big law firms at the top of the Chicago market and you're going to work a lot as a result.

Overall I'd agree with the idea that Kirkland has people that are fairly competitive and the free market system can create kind of a "feast or famine" effect where the good people get all of the best work and the most responsibility. It's a meritocracy, and probably more of one than Sidley. This can be good or bad depending on your aspirations.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

I'm a transactional associate at Sidley Chi. I'd agree Kirkland lawyers skew slightly more intense, though that's a matter of degrees at this level. I'd also argue Sidley partners skew as slightly more pleasant to work for, but I'm very much a biased observer. I have some friends who are happy at Kirkland Chi and others who left as fast as they could. Speaking generally, the biggest difference from a transactional standpoint is probably the types of the clients. Kirkland has more PE clients and we have more strategics. That said, most of my work comes from PE and hedge funds. I also don't like the 2-tier "fake partner" thing either, but I'm not as gonzo about it as the NYC poster. I honestly have no idea how it plays in the lateral market, though I remember a Kirkland nonshare partner telling me on my callback that "no one remotely sophisticated" is fooled by his business card.

From the most tl:dr p.o.v. I can muster, I'd say if you consider yourself a bro, go to Kirkland and don't look back. If you consider yourself anything else, Sidley is likely a better fit.

If the above came across as insanely pro-Sidley, I apologize to the Kirkland folks ITT. It is honestly how I feel about the comparison, though they are clearly much better informed about their side of the fence than me.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland person here.

I'd agree that we lean towards a certain type of personality (most of this is from the free market system, because you have to be willing to knock on doors to get work, etc). In fact, we tend to offer this type. However, I don't think we're exclusively "bros." There are a lot of people that are family people, quiet people, or just "I want to be friends with people outside work" people.

If you express a practice group interest, you'll have your callback with people in that group. See what you think of them and make your decision based on how you feel about culture, not what you hear about it.

[Anonymous User]

For corporate transaction work... no litigation...

There was a thread on this from like 3-4 years ago, but just wanted to revive it and see what everyone else thought. Pros and cons of each firm?

Full disclosure: I'm at Kirkland and I don't know too much about Sidley (aside from things friends there have told me). My goal with this is to provide as much information as possible, and Sidley people can fill in the rest. They are both excellent firms and you're going to have a great experience no matter what you choose.

Kirkland
-The best at middle market private equity which can lead to high-level (sr positions) exit ops at small/new firms and cases are generally lightly staffed which leads to better experience for younger associates.
-Slightly larger firm (around 100-150 more attys) which tends to lead to bigger M&A deals, larger supplemental departments if you find those of interest (cap markets, tax, etc)
-Better name-recognition nationally
-Two tiered partnership track (means nonshare is easier to get, but share is harder to get)
-Slightly larger bonuses for most
-Freemarket system allows you to move around until you find people that you like to work with.
-Structured corporate training programs for summer associates and associates
-Generous with budget for ordering dinner in the office ($40, which is higher than most firms)
-No face time policy (there are some partners that are known for wanting associates in the office, but if you don't like that, you can use the freemarket system to work with partners who don't care, and then you work from home. Some associates work a few days a week from home, others work until 5 and then go home have dinner with their kids and put them to sleep then work from home)
-Partners are fairly aggressive when it comes to client development so they are often out of the office looking for work, which can lead to junior people getting more responsibility.


Sidley
-People are likely less-competitive.
-Assignment-based system (good for some)
-One-tier partnership track (8-9 years)

Whatever you do, don't make the decision based on hours. I've seen a lot of people choose Sidley because they believe they will work less and they end up lateraling to Kirkland and working fewer hours. They're both big law firms at the top of the Chicago market and you're going to work a lot as a result.

Overall I'd agree with the idea that Kirkland has people that are fairly competitive and the free market system can create kind of a "feast or famine" effect where the good people get all of the best work and the most responsibility. It's a meritocracy, and probably more of one than Sidley. This can be good or bad depending on your aspirations.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

I'm a transactional associate at Sidley Chi. I'd agree Kirkland lawyers skew slightly more intense, though that's a matter of degrees at this level. I'd also argue Sidley partners skew as slightly more pleasant to work for, but I'm very much a biased observer. I have some friends who are happy at Kirkland Chi and others who left as fast as they could. Speaking generally, the biggest difference from a transactional standpoint is probably the types of the clients. Kirkland has more PE clients and we have more strategics. That said, most of my work comes from PE and hedge funds. I also don't like the 2-tier "fake partner" thing either, but I'm not as gonzo about it as the NYC poster. I honestly have no idea how it plays in the lateral market, though I remember a Kirkland nonshare partner telling me on my callback that "no one remotely sophisticated" is fooled by his business card.

From the most tl:dr p.o.v. I can muster, I'd say if you consider yourself a bro, go to Kirkland and don't look back. If you consider yourself anything else, Sidley is likely a better fit.

If the above came across as insanely pro-Sidley, I apologize to the Kirkland folks ITT. It is honestly how I feel about the comparison, though they are clearly much better informed about their side of the fence than me.

Can you talk about exit options for transactional associates at Sidley?

[alabamabound]

For corporate transaction work... no litigation...

There was a thread on this from like 3-4 years ago, but just wanted to revive it and see what everyone else thought. Pros and cons of each firm?

Full disclosure: I'm at Kirkland and I don't know too much about Sidley (aside from things friends there have told me). My goal with this is to provide as much information as possible, and Sidley people can fill in the rest. They are both excellent firms and you're going to have a great experience no matter what you choose.

Kirkland
-The best at middle market private equity which can lead to high-level (sr positions) exit ops at small/new firms and cases are generally lightly staffed which leads to better experience for younger associates.
-Slightly larger firm (around 100-150 more attys) which tends to lead to bigger M&A deals, larger supplemental departments if you find those of interest (cap markets, tax, etc)
-Better name-recognition nationally
-Two tiered partnership track (means nonshare is easier to get, but share is harder to get)
-Slightly larger bonuses for most
-Freemarket system allows you to move around until you find people that you like to work with.
-Structured corporate training programs for summer associates and associates
-Generous with budget for ordering dinner in the office ($40, which is higher than most firms)
-No face time policy (there are some partners that are known for wanting associates in the office, but if you don't like that, you can use the freemarket system to work with partners who don't care, and then you work from home. Some associates work a few days a week from home, others work until 5 and then go home have dinner with their kids and put them to sleep then work from home)
-Partners are fairly aggressive when it comes to client development so they are often out of the office looking for work, which can lead to junior people getting more responsibility.


Sidley
-People are likely less-competitive.
-Assignment-based system (good for some)
-One-tier partnership track (8-9 years)

Whatever you do, don't make the decision based on hours. I've seen a lot of people choose Sidley because they believe they will work less and they end up lateraling to Kirkland and working fewer hours. They're both big law firms at the top of the Chicago market and you're going to work a lot as a result.

Overall I'd agree with the idea that Kirkland has people that are fairly competitive and the free market system can create kind of a "feast or famine" effect where the good people get all of the best work and the most responsibility. It's a meritocracy, and probably more of one than Sidley. This can be good or bad depending on your aspirations.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

I'm a transactional associate at Sidley Chi. I'd agree Kirkland lawyers skew slightly more intense, though that's a matter of degrees at this level. I'd also argue Sidley partners skew as slightly more pleasant to work for, but I'm very much a biased observer. I have some friends who are happy at Kirkland Chi and others who left as fast as they could. Speaking generally, the biggest difference from a transactional standpoint is probably the types of the clients. Kirkland has more PE clients and we have more strategics. That said, most of my work comes from PE and hedge funds. I also don't like the 2-tier "fake partner" thing either, but I'm not as gonzo about it as the NYC poster. I honestly have no idea how it plays in the lateral market, though I remember a Kirkland nonshare partner telling me on my callback that "no one remotely sophisticated" is fooled by his business card.

From the most tl:dr p.o.v. I can muster, I'd say if you consider yourself a bro, go to Kirkland and don't look back. If you consider yourself anything else, Sidley is likely a better fit.

If the above came across as insanely pro-Sidley, I apologize to the Kirkland folks ITT. It is honestly how I feel about the comparison, though they are clearly much better informed about their side of the fence than me.

Can you talk about exit options for transactional associates at Sidley?

Sure, though first off, I completely agree with the Kirkland poster above that practice group fit is key. It's obviously true that the quality of the experience at a firm can vary widely from group to group. The people I know at Kirkland who are happy just happen to be bros and those who were unhappy and left are not. I didn't mean to denigrate Kirkland and/or bros by that remark.

Folks in my group who've left typically either go to clients or firms in secondary markets. A few have pursued random start-up opportunities. Exit options are also driven by practice group so it is hard to say anything useful about them generally. The partners in my group are very good at helping associates who aren't destined for partnership land with clients, which is obviously in the firm's interest. From what I've seen, the same is true of our other transactional groups, though I doubt that's a distinction between Sidley and Kirkland or Sidley and any other comparable firm. I'm happy to answer more specific questions on exit options via PM.

[FuturePanhandler]

Retake

[wojo98]

Bumpin'/Taggin'