Simpson vs. Kirkland - NYC Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can we finishing beating this thread to death? Is there anything I should know about these two firms that isn't super obvious or specific questions I should be asking during second looks?

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak to exit ops? Which of these forms would make it easier to work at an elite hedge fund or PE firm? Does the non-share partner title significantly improve your odds at one of these jobs or does STB's brand in New York outweigh the benefits of that title?

[Anonymous User]

And work is different - middle market PE with some large funds in vs mostly large funds (and this can lead to different exit ops).

Echo points on difference in exit ops, as client composition is pretty distinct.

Can someone speak more specifically about the client composition and what kinds of exit ops are typical at each firm?

[Anonymous User]

STB dominates the largest (elite, I suppose) PE fund sponsors. If you want to work at Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, TPG, Apollo, etc. long term, no question you should go to STB over K&E. K&E does much more work with smaller sponsors, either new sponsors or older sponsors that have never grown their fund sizes. There are still opportunities to do small funds at STB, or large funds at K&E, but there is a significant distinction there.

Neither has much of a hedge funds practice. If you want to work at a hedge fund, you should probably go to Schulte or some other firm with a large hedge funds practice.

Doubt the partner title makes any real difference, but that's impossible to quantify.

[Anonymous User]

STB dominates the largest (elite, I suppose) PE fund sponsors. If you want to work at Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, TPG, Apollo, etc. long term, no question you should go to STB over K&E. K&E does much more work with smaller sponsors, either new sponsors or older sponsors that have never grown their fund sizes. There are still opportunities to do small funds at STB, or large funds at K&E, but there is a significant distinction there.

Neither has much of a hedge funds practice. If you want to work at a hedge fund, you should probably go to Schulte or some other firm with a large hedge funds practice.

Doubt the partner title makes any real difference, but that's impossible to quantify.

Thank you, this is super helpful!

[Old Gregg]

Ehhh... I disagree. Funnily enough, a lot of the examples given of large PE sponsors... are largely represented by other law firms. Carlyle uses Latham most of the time. TPG uses Cleary. Apollo uses Paul Weiss (that's 90% of the reason they bought the PE team from OMM).

K&E basically dominates the middle market, but also has its fare share of super large PE sponsors: Bain Capital, Apax Partners, 3G Capital, Vista Equity Partners, Golden Gate Capital Partners, Madison Dearborn, etc.

Also, not sure whether actually "going inhouse" at the larger places make sense. Places like Blackstone and KKR have large legal departments, so it's pretty hierarchical and limited in what you can do once you're there. If you go inhouse at a smaller fund, bettre chance of getting a higher role, better chance of getting carry, and better chance of fulfilling the law students wet dream of switching over to business side.

[Anonymous User]

STB dominates the largest (elite, I suppose) PE fund sponsors. If you want to work at Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, TPG, Apollo, etc. long term, no question you should go to STB over K&E. K&E does much more work with smaller sponsors, either new sponsors or older sponsors that have never grown their fund sizes. There are still opportunities to do small funds at STB, or large funds at K&E, but there is a significant distinction there.

Neither has much of a hedge funds practice. If you want to work at a hedge fund, you should probably go to Schulte or some other firm with a large hedge funds practice.

Doubt the partner title makes any real difference, but that's impossible to quantify.

Thank you, this is super helpful!

Either of the firms will not open any doors to PE's business-side jobs (refer to another thread in this forum about PE exit op). There is no reason why elite PE firms would take a lawyer over IB star-performers for their coveted spot. With only legal-side jobs being a realistic option, you have to seriously consider why you would want to work in-house at PE firms given that your salary would be nowhere near that of business operators. And for legal side jobs, you really don't even need to be from STB or KE

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the posts.

What are some of the best exits one can make out of these firms if not into PE? Are there any other advantages of going to a firm that is known for its PE work other than exiting in-house to a PE firm?

[Old Gregg]

Thanks for the posts.

What are some of the best exits one can make out of these firms if not into PE? Are there any other advantages of going to a firm that is known for its PE work other than exiting in-house to a PE firm?

no. if your goal is to go inhouse to a corporation, PE experience isn't that great because you get experience doing deals and only doing deals (and not general corporate). general corporate experience is highly desired by companies. for public companies, general corporate + securities experience is useful.

that said, firms like K&E and Simpson enjoy great exit options, so i wouldn't fixate too much on it. but exits really are fluid when considering non-biglaw options. just really comes down to who you know, what exp u have, and what is available when u start looking around.

[mvp99]

Thanks for the posts.

What are some of the best exits one can make out of these firms if not into PE? Are there any other advantages of going to a firm that is known for its PE work other than exiting in-house to a PE firm?

no. if your goal is to go inhouse to a corporation, PE experience isn't that great because you get experience doing deals and only doing deals (and not general corporate). general corporate experience is highly desired by companies. for public companies, general corporate + securities experience is useful.

that said, firms like K&E and Simpson enjoy great exit options, so i wouldn't fixate too much on it. but exits really are fluid when considering non-biglaw options. just really comes down to who you know, what exp u have, and what is available when u start looking around.

I think you get nice exit ops at either because your skills won't be much different from any associate at a peer firms. It's not like juniors to early mid have completely different experiences...

[Vastrow1]

Does anyone have an updated view on Simpson vs. K&E for general corporate/M&A as well as Investment Funds?

Not sure if the observations from 2015-2016 still hold up.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have an updated view on Simpson vs. K&E for general corporate/M&A as well as Investment Funds?

Not sure if the observations from 2015-2016 still hold up.

I think the observations generally hold up. Not much has changed between the two firms in the interim; they're still in fierce competition, of course, but not much has changed. From a funds perspective, STB is still dominant among jumbo fund sponsors while K&E has a lot more middle market clients. From a PE M&A perspective, they are relatively evenly matched, although STB's jumbo funds clients give them a slight edge on the M&A megadeals and again K&E is a bit nimbler at the mid-size deals. As far as in-house opportunities go, if you want to go to Blackstone in-house, go to STB; if you want to be the only lawyer/only M&A lawyer/only funds lawyer at a $3 billion AUM shop, go to K&E.

The main thing that has changed in the funds space is that it used to be a clear top three (STB/K&E/Debevoise) but Debevoise has fallen behind in recent years and is now a clear half-step below STB and K&E. The main changes in PE M&A are also outside of the STB-K&E dynamic - more competition from other firms like Latham.

Also culturally practically literally everyone at K&E above fourth year or so is a lateral hire. STB has a lot of laterals, too, but not quite so many.

[Anonymous User]

double post

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have an updated view on Simpson vs. K&E for general corporate/M&A as well as Investment Funds?

Not sure if the observations from 2015-2016 still hold up.

I think the observations generally hold up. Not much has changed between the two firms in the interim; they're still in fierce competition, of course, but not much has changed. From a funds perspective, STB is still dominant among jumbo fund sponsors while K&E has a lot more middle market clients. From a PE M&A perspective, they are relatively evenly matched, although STB's jumbo funds clients give them a slight edge on the M&A megadeals and again K&E is a bit nimbler at the mid-size deals. As far as in-house opportunities go, if you want to go to Blackstone in-house, go to STB; if you want to be the only lawyer/only M&A lawyer/only funds lawyer at a $3 billion AUM shop, go to K&E.

The main thing that has changed in the funds space is that it used to be a clear top three (STB/K&E/Debevoise) but Debevoise has fallen behind in recent years and is now a clear half-step below STB and K&E. The main changes in PE M&A are also outside of the STB-K&E dynamic - more competition from other firms like Latham.

Also culturally practically literally everyone at K&E above fourth year or so is a lateral hire. STB has a lot of laterals, too, but not quite so many.

what sort of exit ops do people have from debevoise funds? I have an offer there but k&e sounds great to me.

and why did debevoise take a step back? are they falling?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have an updated view on Simpson vs. K&E for general corporate/M&A as well as Investment Funds?

Not sure if the observations from 2015-2016 still hold up.

I think the observations generally hold up. Not much has changed between the two firms in the interim; they're still in fierce competition, of course, but not much has changed. From a funds perspective, STB is still dominant among jumbo fund sponsors while K&E has a lot more middle market clients. From a PE M&A perspective, they are relatively evenly matched, although STB's jumbo funds clients give them a slight edge on the M&A megadeals and again K&E is a bit nimbler at the mid-size deals. As far as in-house opportunities go, if you want to go to Blackstone in-house, go to STB; if you want to be the only lawyer/only M&A lawyer/only funds lawyer at a $3 billion AUM shop, go to K&E.

The main thing that has changed in the funds space is that it used to be a clear top three (STB/K&E/Debevoise) but Debevoise has fallen behind in recent years and is now a clear half-step below STB and K&E. The main changes in PE M&A are also outside of the STB-K&E dynamic - more competition from other firms like Latham.

Also culturally practically literally everyone at K&E above fourth year or so is a lateral hire. STB has a lot of laterals, too, but not quite so many.

what sort of exit ops do people have from debevoise funds? I have an offer there but k&e sounds great to me.

and why did debevoise take a step back? are they falling?

Considering they raised 2 out of the top 3 largest funds in the first half of 2021, wouldn't quite say they're falling. https://www.law360.com/articles/1399534 ... obal-reach

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have an updated view on Simpson vs. K&E for general corporate/M&A as well as Investment Funds?

Not sure if the observations from 2015-2016 still hold up.

I think the observations generally hold up. Not much has changed between the two firms in the interim; they're still in fierce competition, of course, but not much has changed. From a funds perspective, STB is still dominant among jumbo fund sponsors while K&E has a lot more middle market clients. From a PE M&A perspective, they are relatively evenly matched, although STB's jumbo funds clients give them a slight edge on the M&A megadeals and again K&E is a bit nimbler at the mid-size deals. As far as in-house opportunities go, if you want to go to Blackstone in-house, go to STB; if you want to be the only lawyer/only M&A lawyer/only funds lawyer at a $3 billion AUM shop, go to K&E.

The main thing that has changed in the funds space is that it used to be a clear top three (STB/K&E/Debevoise) but Debevoise has fallen behind in recent years and is now a clear half-step below STB and K&E. The main changes in PE M&A are also outside of the STB-K&E dynamic - more competition from other firms like Latham.

Also culturally practically literally everyone at K&E above fourth year or so is a lateral hire. STB has a lot of laterals, too, but not quite so many.

what sort of exit ops do people have from debevoise funds? I have an offer there but k&e sounds great to me.

and why did debevoise take a step back? are they falling?

Considering they raised 2 out of the top 3 largest funds in the first half of 2021, wouldn't quite say they're falling. https://www.law360.com/articles/1399534 ... obal-reach

so does OP of that quote just have no clue or what lol

[Anonymous User]

Am a STB associate; would tell you to pick KE.

At end of day both are super grindy and will kick you to the curb if they don't think you deliver value. Both are brutal.

Would say to pick KE because during your years in big law, at KE, you will at least get a higher bonus.

If you are worried about missing bonus at KE, and think that STB would be nice because everyone gets bonus, understand that if your hours are low enough that you would have missed bonus at KE, both STB and KE are giving you notice.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have an updated view on Simpson vs. K&E for general corporate/M&A as well as Investment Funds?

Not sure if the observations from 2015-2016 still hold up.

I think the observations generally hold up. Not much has changed between the two firms in the interim; they're still in fierce competition, of course, but not much has changed. From a funds perspective, STB is still dominant among jumbo fund sponsors while K&E has a lot more middle market clients. From a PE M&A perspective, they are relatively evenly matched, although STB's jumbo funds clients give them a slight edge on the M&A megadeals and again K&E is a bit nimbler at the mid-size deals. As far as in-house opportunities go, if you want to go to Blackstone in-house, go to STB; if you want to be the only lawyer/only M&A lawyer/only funds lawyer at a $3 billion AUM shop, go to K&E.

The main thing that has changed in the funds space is that it used to be a clear top three (STB/K&E/Debevoise) but Debevoise has fallen behind in recent years and is now a clear half-step below STB and K&E. The main changes in PE M&A are also outside of the STB-K&E dynamic - more competition from other firms like Latham.

Also culturally practically literally everyone at K&E above fourth year or so is a lateral hire. STB has a lot of laterals, too, but not quite so many.

what sort of exit ops do people have from debevoise funds? I have an offer there but k&e sounds great to me.

and why did debevoise take a step back? are they falling?

Considering they raised 2 out of the top 3 largest funds in the first half of 2021, wouldn't quite say they're falling. https://www.law360.com/articles/1399534 ... obal-reach

so does OP of that quote just have no clue or what lol

I am at one of STB/K&E in funds. Debevoise is absolutely a peer firm and they are the clear top 3 firms in the space. No clue what the other poster is talking about.

[Anonymous User]

Am a STB associate; would tell you to pick KE.

At end of day both are super grindy and will kick you to the curb if they don't think you deliver value. Both are brutal.

Would say to pick KE because during your years in big law, at KE, you will at least get a higher bonus.

If you are worried about missing bonus at KE, and think that STB would be nice because everyone gets bonus, understand that if your hours are low enough that you would have missed bonus at KE, both STB and KE are giving you notice.

Not sure what the above is talking about re missing bonus at KE. I have literally never heard of someone missing a bonus at KE. I was at KE and I knew someone who got a market bonus with 800 hours and I got a market bonus with 1200 during one strange year. Not trying to steer you one way or another, just wanted to correct a possible misconception.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to start another one of these threads, but I am really torn here.

Interested in: Corporate. M&A, pe/funds, maybe capital markets.

More info: Really liked the people at both. Kirkland felt more outgoing, young, and laid back than what I've been reading here. Everyone at Simpson I've met has come off as really nice and genuine. I'll be doing second looks at both.

Any advice? What should I look for during second looks? Will I make THAT much more money at Kirkland and will I work THAT much less at Simpson? Where am I more likely to make partner? Which one has better exit options? Which one is more prestigious?

Anon b/c I work at Kirkland. Doing Capital Markets this year w/ many others. The experience is so bad I sought therapy to cope with it. Wouldn't touch Kirkland Capital Markets with a 10-ft pole (same for any capital markets group in BL). Lots of departures from mid-levels to the junior level made the group too leanly staffed. Nobody knows anything about SPACs, so that doesn't help. There is maybe one partner who knows what's going on w/ spac deals (his initials are PS).

All similar groups have the same problems across BL - nobody wants to be awake and working 24-7, during the middle of a pandemic, on short-staffed teams. There are a lot of posts about this on TLS if you look. It feels a lot like being staffed in food-service -- clients are constantly bothering you and cannot do a single thing for themselves, including (objectively) their own in-house work, partners/managers do little to help with the work, unreasonable expectations for associates re: their time, almost no jr/midlevel support, absolutely (and I cannot stress this enough) fucking miserable people who hate their jobs at the lowest-mid levels.

If you have any inkling that your mental health is not great already my sincere advice is to stay away.

[majasm89]

STB dominates the largest (elite, I suppose) PE fund sponsors. If you want to work at Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, TPG, Apollo, etc. long term, no question you should go to STB over K&E. K&E does much more work with smaller sponsors, either new sponsors or older sponsors that have never grown their fund sizes. There are still opportunities to do small funds at STB, or large funds at K&E, but there is a significant distinction there.

Neither has much of a hedge funds practice. If you want to work at a hedge fund, you should probably go to Schulte or some other firm with a large hedge funds practice.

Doubt the partner title makes any real difference, but that's impossible to quantify.

With exit opportunities at PE funds you'd be surprised how much the partner title gives an edge.