Page 1 of 1
Kirkland SF v. Latham SV v. Cooley SV v. Skadden SV
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:36 pm
by Anonymous User
Interests: general corporate, M&A, MAYBE some emerging companies work
Potential Latham $10k Diversity, Potential Kirkland $25K Diversity (Should these be considerations?)
Re: Kirkland SF v. Latham SV v. Cooley SV v. Skadden SV
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:41 pm
by Anonymous User
You have some good options here. I think it really boils down to fit. For me it would be between Kirkland SF and Cooley SV. I would likely lean more towards Cooley SV, because I liked the vibe of the people from that office and also because they do have some interesting emerging companies work, which it seems that you might be interested in.
Re: Kirkland SF v. Latham SV v. Cooley SV v. Skadden SV
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:17 pm
by Anonymous User
Probably not Skadden-I don't think their SV office is especially well-regarded. Also, consider whether you'd rather live in SF or SV (because the commute is brutal between the two, so you should live in the area you end up working).
Can I ask when your Kirkland callback was?
Re: Kirkland SF v. Latham SV v. Cooley SV v. Skadden SV
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:55 pm
by Anonymous User
Really? Skadden's office gets pretty good marks from Chambers & Partners in Norcal M&A.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/1205 ... torial/5/1
Re: Kirkland SF v. Latham SV v. Cooley SV v. Skadden SV
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:37 am
by Anonymous User
I was a corporate paralegal in SV for many years before law school.
Cooley is your best bet if you want to do M&A and emerging companies work. Latham does all that too, but it's a really toxic office and I wouldn't encourage anyone to work there...ever. Seriously. Do not go to Latham SV.
Skadden SV is small but does a lot of good M&A, general corporate (usually public company work) and some capital markets work. Kirkland SF does a lot of PE M&A and investment management...it's not really what you're looking for. Their office is bomb though...I love that building.
If I were you, I would be seriously considering Cooley and Skadden. Kirkland really churns up associates (my group at WSGR had three ex-Kirklanders) and, personally, having experienced how latham acted during the downturn, I would NEVER advise anyone to join that snake pit.
You will have excellent exit opps from any of these, but best at Cooley, Skadden, Latham and Kirkland, in that order.
Re: Kirkland SF v. Latham SV v. Cooley SV v. Skadden SV
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:56 am
by Anonymous User
To the above anon: what types of exit options from Skadden SV? Big-tech or more traditional blue-chip? Do the exit-options have more to do with Skadden SV's actual work or the name prestige?
Re: Kirkland SF v. Latham SV v. Cooley SV v. Skadden SV
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:23 pm
by solucky
Anonymous User wrote:I was a corporate paralegal in SV for many years before law school.
Cooley is your best bet if you want to do M&A and emerging companies work. Latham does all that too, but it's a really toxic office and I wouldn't encourage anyone to work there...ever. Seriously. Do not go to Latham SV.
Skadden SV is small but does a lot of good M&A, general corporate (usually public company work) and some capital markets work. Kirkland SF does a lot of PE M&A and investment management...it's not really what you're looking for. Their office is bomb though...I love that building.
If I were you, I would be seriously considering Cooley and Skadden. Kirkland really churns up associates (my group at WSGR had three ex-Kirklanders) and, personally, having experienced how latham acted during the downturn, I would NEVER advise anyone to join that snake pit.
You will have excellent exit opps from any of these, but best at Cooley, Skadden, Latham and Kirkland, in that order.
Why is Latham SV considered toxic?
Why is Cooley > Skadden for exit options?