Help me choose a firm in NorCal Forum

[Anonymous User]

Am 2L who just wrapped up OCI season. I've narrowed it down to Kirkland SF and WSGR Palo Alto, but am having trouble picking one. I'm interested in corporate, but no specific corporate practice. I know Kirkland rocks PE M&A and WSGR does a ton of things including public company and start-up work. I have no idea whether I want to practice in a firm long term or go in-house after a few years, so I want to keep the options of lateraling to another firm as well as going in-house available. Kirkland has a better national and international reputation, but WSGR dominates in the bay area. Seems like Kirkland could open more doors if I need to leave the bay area, so I'm curious as to WSGR's national reputation.

[PvblivsScipio]

I personally wouldn't work at KE. At my CB the partners came off as huge a-holes (one went through my resume line by line and marked corrections in red. Another bragged about his car.) Not to mention I've heard too many laterals at other firms talk a lot of shit.

[Anonymous User]

I personally wouldn't work at KE. At my CB the partners came off as huge a-holes (one went through my resume line by line and marked corrections in red. Another bragged about his car.) Not to mention I've heard too many laterals at other firms talk a lot of shit.

Laterals = former KE associates who lateraled?

[Anonymous User]

Depending on your personality, I would avoid KE. I faced a similar decision as you and talked to numerous former KE associates who lateraled to other firms. Every one of them said the same exact, very ominous things. The people at KE apparently are "intense." Further descriptive words I heard were aggressive, combative, competitive, sociopaths, gunners, etc. My CB experience was pretty consistent with this. If this sounds like your cup of tea, go for it I guess. But if you'd rather work with down-to-earth, laid back, normal people... stay away.

In addition, everyone I talked to mentioned the fact that there is extraordinary pressure to (1) ALWAYS be working, or (2) if for some reason you aren't working, you better be hanging out with KE people. Basically, no one has lives outside of work (it's frowned upon). I think this is generally sold as "work hard play hard." I've heard numerous individualized horror stories that would out me, but they were very scary.

As an objective measure, the attrition rate at KE is absolutely horrifying - they can't seem to retain people for longer than a year or two. The place chews people up and spits them out. I've heard figures like 80%+ of the corporate associates turn over every year (leave and are replaced).

Even on top of these considerations, I vote WSGR for you because it will give you: (1) MUCH broader exposure to different corporate practices; (2) will give you FAR better exit options to in-house; and (3) will give you equivalent lateral (firm) options, at least in CA. Also, working for tech clients sounds a lot more pleasant than working for PE funds. You need like 7 years of experience to lateral in-house to a PE fund, as opposed to 3-5 years (or less) to a tech client.

In my opinion, only reason to go to KE here would be if you are 100% PE focused (which they dominate). You aren't, so I would go WSGR. By all means though, try to talk to alumni from your school yourself and get more opinions.

[Anonymous User]

Also, I'd advise you to disregard the results of this "poll." People, especially those not in CA, will come in here and think "DUH you go to the higher V-ranked firm bro = KE." The higher V-ranked firm almost always wins these things. What these clueless folks may not realize is that WSGR is the best known corporate shop in NorCal. Period.

The only thing KE MIGHT have going for it is that it is a bigger name nationally. However, even East coast firms know that WSGR is the top dog in the NorCal market. If KE has any sort of lateral edge outside of CA, it's not big enough to outweigh the numerous and incredibly important considerations listed above.

I will say that SF > Palo Alto in general. Nonetheless, I still don't think this is enough to tilt the balance.

edit: This is same anon from above

[PvblivsScipio]

I personally wouldn't work at KE. At my CB the partners came off as huge a-holes (one went through my resume line by line and marked corrections in red. Another bragged about his car.) Not to mention I've heard too many laterals at other firms talk a lot of shit.

Laterals = former KE associates who lateraled?

Yes. I've literally never heard a good thing about KE from someone who didn't work at KE.

[Anonymous User]

Also, I'd advise you to disregard the results of this "poll." People, especially those not in CA, will come in here and think "DUH you go to the higher V-ranked firm bro = KE." The higher V-ranked firm almost always wins these things. What these clueless folks may not realize is that WSGR is the best known corporate shop in NorCal. Period.

The only thing KE MIGHT have going for it is that it is a bigger name nationally. However, even East coast firms know that WSGR is the top dog in the NorCal market. If KE has any sort of lateral edge outside of CA, it's not big enough to outweigh the numerous and incredibly important considerations listed above.

I will say that SF > Palo Alto in general. Nonetheless, I still don't think this is enough to tilt the balance.

edit: This is same anon from above

I'm definitely trying to disregard vault rankings, but what about the selectivity of the firms w/r/t the signal that gives off? Sounds like, at least on TLS, WSGR is not particularly selective. And IRL, I know many people who got offers from WSGR but no other comparable firms.

[Old Gregg]

but what about the selectivity of the firms w/r/t the signal that gives off?

No one gives a fuck in about 99% of the circumstances that would apply to you as between these two firms.

[Anonymous User]

I similarly got a terrible vibe from my CB at KE SF. People there seemed pretty awful.