Chicago Transactional-Kirkland v. Skadden/Mayer/Jones Forum

[Anonymous User]

Considering offers between these firms right now, leaning Kirkland right now since I really liked the people and the practice area I interviewed with (it's more specific than just general corporate). Luckily the practice group is pretty solid between the firms so there doesn't seem to be a huge drop off in work quality between the firms.

Was wondering if anyone might be able to give me some insight into what the relative trade offs are between Kirkland and the slightly lower tier firms listed above (even though I think it's weird to call them that since they're all awesome firms). From what I can gather the hours will be the same, if not worse at, Kirkland. But other than that I'm wondering if choosing another firm has more tangible benefits in terms of early experience or firm culture benefits.

If anyone has actually made the decision to go to one of the non-Kirkland firms I would love to hear why you made that choice and what you think about your decision now. Open to anyone telling me about the right way to go about the decision making process so I can decide then release the rest of my offers to the ether.

[DoveBodyWash]

also a 2L, but do you have a practice area preference?

[Anonymous User]

also a 2L, but do you have a practice area preference?

Yes. Like I said in the OP it's pretty consistently good throughout the firms.

[Anonymous User]

Considering offers between these firms right now, leaning Kirkland right now since I really liked the people and the practice area I interviewed with (it's more specific than just general corporate). Luckily the practice group is pretty solid between the firms so there doesn't seem to be a huge drop off in work quality between the firms.

Was wondering if anyone might be able to give me some insight into what the relative trade offs are between Kirkland and the slightly lower tier firms listed above (even though I think it's weird to call them that since they're all awesome firms). From what I can gather the hours will be the same, if not worse at, Kirkland. But other than that I'm wondering if choosing another firm has more tangible benefits in terms of early experience or firm culture benefits.

If anyone has actually made the decision to go to one of the non-Kirkland firms I would love to hear why you made that choice and what you think about your decision now. Open to anyone telling me about the right way to go about the decision making process so I can decide then release the rest of my offers to the ether.

Hours are the same and Kirkland is better than the listed firms for corporate in chicago (especially better in PE).

Seems like an easy choice. Any specific questions? Or are you just looking for confirmation?

[Anonymous User]

Considering offers between these firms right now, leaning Kirkland right now since I really liked the people and the practice area I interviewed with (it's more specific than just general corporate). Luckily the practice group is pretty solid between the firms so there doesn't seem to be a huge drop off in work quality between the firms.

Was wondering if anyone might be able to give me some insight into what the relative trade offs are between Kirkland and the slightly lower tier firms listed above (even though I think it's weird to call them that since they're all awesome firms). From what I can gather the hours will be the same, if not worse at, Kirkland. But other than that I'm wondering if choosing another firm has more tangible benefits in terms of early experience or firm culture benefits.

If anyone has actually made the decision to go to one of the non-Kirkland firms I would love to hear why you made that choice and what you think about your decision now. Open to anyone telling me about the right way to go about the decision making process so I can decide then release the rest of my offers to the ether.

Hours are the same and Kirkland is better than the listed firms for corporate in chicago (especially better in PE).

Seems like an easy choice. Any specific questions? Or are you just looking for confirmation?

Confirmation basically. Nothing really specific in mind. Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

You'll get better experience at Kirkland. The reason hours can be rough is because very young associates run assignments. I don't think there's a better choice if that's what you're looking for.

If you're looking for other things (such as to bill low hours and fly under the radar for awhile), then other firms become a legitimate option.

[Anonymous User]

The hours are awful at Kirkland. But they're only slightly less awful at the other firms. And the actual hours that you work depend on so many different factors - practice groups, partners, etc - that I'm not sure it makes sense to pick one firm over another on that basis. If you see yourself as willing to work extreme hours for an extreme bonus, maybe that counts in Kirkland's favor.

I find it hard to believe that all four firms are equally good at whatever your niche practice area is. But assuming practice area strength is off the table, the next obvious criterion is fit. Kirkland attracts a particular kind of person. Are you that kind of person, and do you want to be around that sort of person for the next x number of years? If you only plan to be at a firm for a couple of years, maybe that doesn't matter so much. But if you do want to stick around, the decision has to be more difficult.

Also, the firms vary a lot in size. My impression has been that smaller = better office culture and environment, but fewer opportunities and more sporadic workflow.

[Anonymous User]

The hours are awful at Kirkland. But they're only slightly less awful at the other firms. And the actual hours that you work depend on so many different factors - practice groups, partners, etc - that I'm not sure it makes sense to pick one firm over another on that basis. If you see yourself as willing to work extreme hours for an extreme bonus, maybe that counts in Kirkland's favor.

I find it hard to believe that all four firms are equally good at whatever your niche practice area is. But assuming practice area strength is off the table, the next obvious criterion is fit. Kirkland attracts a particular kind of person. Are you that kind of person, and do you want to be around that sort of person for the next x number of years? If you only plan to be at a firm for a couple of years, maybe that doesn't matter so much. But if you do want to stick around, the decision has to be more difficult.

Also, the firms vary a lot in size. My impression has been that smaller = better office culture and environment, but fewer opportunities and more sporadic workflow.

The hours are universally awful at biglaw firms -- at least the successful ones. Weigh it against exit options, compensation, and whether all those hours have to be done at your desk.