Top Law Schools

I am asking for the wisdom of the forum: which firm offers better perspectives for those seeking corporate work and who hopelessly hope for a potential partnership, emphasize job security, and seek to avoid depression/desperation? No geographic preference between the two cities. No specific type of corporate work in mind. I just want to do interesting work and not want to kill myself. Any (constructive) input is appreciated. Thanks!

LA Attorney here, though I'm in lit I know people around the city who've been at or are at all of these firms. Can't really speak to MoFo SF. I would probably pick Latham, then Skadden, then Kirkland, but all three have areas where they're strong and weak.

Equity partnership prospects at all 3 should be considered zero. Kirkland will give you nonequity partnership relatively early on, which may help with exit ops although I think pretty much everyone knows at this point that many Kirkland "partners" are really just senior associates. I wouldn't factor that into the decision unless you're a lateral (which I'm guessing not) and you're at least somewhat closer to the decision point.

All three firms are known to work their associates hard. Anecdotally, I've heard somewhat more negative things about Skadden LA than the other two, in addition to the stuff that was on Above the Law.

In terms of breadth of practice, I think (and Chambers thinks) Latham and Skadden edge out Kirkland. Latham LA is also the home office (or maybe co-home with NY now) versus being branch offices for the others, albeit strong and well-known branches. Latham also picked up a bunch of entertainment transactions people from O'Melveny not too long ago, but I don't know how that CC outpost interacts with the DTLA office.

Job security is the biggest ding for Latham in my book. People shouldn't forget 2009 and it's been an awfully long time since we had a recession.

You could probably make a case for any of the three depending on what is really important to you, though like I said I'd probably go Latham over the other two, all things considered.

SF corporate associate. I've heard negative things about Kirkland SF's stability since turnover in its top brass. It's a satellite office, and from what I hear, the typeof work reflects that. I've also heard negative things about Skadden LA in terms of QOL. That leaves MoFo SF and Latham LA, which are each HQ offices. I'd assume partnership chances at each place are so close to zero that they can be discounted. Obviously Latham laid people off during the Great Recession, but I think MoFo did too. Having said that, if you want a particular niche, I'd pick whichever seems stronger in that niche. Failing that, pick whichever locale you like better. SF and LA offer very different living situations, culture, and politics.

I would agree with most of the things said here. I've heard first hand that SF Kirkland is a lot more rough in terms of personalities and hours than other Bay Area options. I know one of their top partners went in house to one of their biggest PE clients and when I interviewed there a couple years ago that partner was actually visiting the office. So at least with regard to that churned senior partner I don't know that it is a knock on them. They do mostly PE work though and again I would split hairs that they're a true satellite office because much of their work is actually turned by west coast PE firms it seems. Their recruiting line is that they're actually the most profitable office by headcount, or at least it was a couple years ago.

I've also heard Skadden LA is a bit of a tough place. But I think they do pretty decent work, especially for M&A if you want to do that in LA. Their practice may be more marketable in that regard. From what I've heard it can be more difficult to transition in house from a lot of the big PE practices (like Kirkland SF) than it is from a shop that reps companies (especially public companies) in M&A like Skadden LA does.

MoFo SF and Latham LA both seem to have diverse practices and from what I've gleaned seem to have slightly better reputations for personalities and hours than the other choices. Both do a lot of M&A and finance I think for clients in their respective markets, and I think MoFo SF also has a large tech trans practice. Both probably do some cap markets work but I don't think they do a ton of IPOs compared to other firms (Davis Polk, Latham SV, WSGR, Fenwick, Cooley, Goodwin in the Bay probably all do more).

Finally I would add that this seems like west coast vault whoring, which is probably not a good perspective. Idk why we would limit to these four firms. There are some other great practices in California. It's probably easier to look at based on market also. LA and the Bay are kind of different. Lots of firms, e.g. SV firms, seem to have better lifestyles than these and possibly better exit ops too.

Anonymous User wrote:I would agree with most of the things said here. I've heard first hand that SF Kirkland is a lot more rough in terms of personalities and hours than other Bay Area options. I know one of their top partners went in house to one of their biggest PE clients and when I interviewed there a couple years ago that partner was actually visiting the office. So at least with regard to that churned senior partner I don't know that it is a knock on them. They do mostly PE work though and again I would split hairs that they're a true satellite office because much of their work is actually turned by west coast PE firms it seems. Their recruiting line is that they're actually the most profitable office by headcount, or at least it was a couple years ago.

I've also heard Skadden LA is a bit of a tough place. But I think they do pretty decent work, especially for M&A if you want to do that in LA. Their practice may be more marketable in that regard. From what I've heard it can be more difficult to transition in house from a lot of the big PE practices (like Kirkland SF) than it is from a shop that reps companies (especially public companies) in M&A like Skadden LA does.

MoFo SF and Latham LA both seem to have diverse practices and from what I've gleaned seem to have slightly better reputations for personalities and hours than the other choices. Both do a lot of M&A and finance I think for clients in their respective markets, and I think MoFo SF also has a large tech trans practice. Both probably do some cap markets work but I don't think they do a ton of IPOs compared to other firms (Davis Polk, Latham SV, WSGR, Fenwick, Cooley, Goodwin in the Bay probably all do more).

Finally I would add that this seems like west coast vault whoring, which is probably not a good perspective. Idk why we would limit to these four firms. There are some other great practices in California. It's probably easier to look at based on market also. LA and the Bay are kind of different. Lots of firms, e.g. SV firms, seem to have better lifestyles than these and possibly better exit ops too.

Thanks a lot for the detailed response. Would you mind elaborating on the differences between LA and the Bay in terms of corporate work? I don't like SV as a place to live, and that's why I limited the options to SF and LA firms. What would you recommend to someone who is beginning a career in corporate work and wants to be in CA long-term. Also, what other firms would you look at? Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I would agree with most of the things said here. I've heard first hand that SF Kirkland is a lot more rough in terms of personalities and hours than other Bay Area options. I know one of their top partners went in house to one of their biggest PE clients and when I interviewed there a couple years ago that partner was actually visiting the office. So at least with regard to that churned senior partner I don't know that it is a knock on them. They do mostly PE work though and again I would split hairs that they're a true satellite office because much of their work is actually turned by west coast PE firms it seems. Their recruiting line is that they're actually the most profitable office by headcount, or at least it was a couple years ago.

I've also heard Skadden LA is a bit of a tough place. But I think they do pretty decent work, especially for M&A if you want to do that in LA. Their practice may be more marketable in that regard. From what I've heard it can be more difficult to transition in house from a lot of the big PE practices (like Kirkland SF) than it is from a shop that reps companies (especially public companies) in M&A like Skadden LA does.

MoFo SF and Latham LA both seem to have diverse practices and from what I've gleaned seem to have slightly better reputations for personalities and hours than the other choices. Both do a lot of M&A and finance I think for clients in their respective markets, and I think MoFo SF also has a large tech trans practice. Both probably do some cap markets work but I don't think they do a ton of IPOs compared to other firms (Davis Polk, Latham SV, WSGR, Fenwick, Cooley, Goodwin in the Bay probably all do more).

Finally I would add that this seems like west coast vault whoring, which is probably not a good perspective. Idk why we would limit to these four firms. There are some other great practices in California. It's probably easier to look at based on market also. LA and the Bay are kind of different. Lots of firms, e.g. SV firms, seem to have better lifestyles than these and possibly better exit ops too.

Thanks a lot for the detailed response. Would you mind elaborating on the differences between LA and the Bay in terms of corporate work? I don't like SV as a place to live, and that's why I limited the options to SF and LA firms. What would you recommend to someone who is beginning a career in corporate work and wants to be in CA long-term. Also, what other firms would you look at? Thanks!

I do corporate work in SV, so I don't really have an understanding of what it's like to practice in LA. I more meant the two cities are different from a lifestyle/cultural perspective than based on corporate legal work. I would guess in many ways the corporate work is similar. The clients aren't I don't think though. The bay has cool tech clients, that's why I came here although I'm originally from LA. I'm not sure what defines the LA clients...

I get not wanting to be in SV and Kirkland and MoFo SF seem to have a great reputation for corporate work. Fenwick and WSGR both have corporate lawyers working in SF but you can't really bank on that--at them moment both would likely require you do a couple tours of duty in SV. I think that explains your firm selection here but unfortunately IMO the best clients' work is handled mostly in Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Mountain View. That's just the nature of the market unfortunately. You may be better suited looking in LA if you REALLY can't live in SV. Most my colleagues just suck it up and bitch about how much it sucks living here. But they also often exit to great companies, sometimes in SF.

Can anyone speak more specifically to Kirkland SF? How do hours compare to New York v20s?

Anonymous User wrote:I would agree with most of the things said here. I've heard first hand that SF Kirkland is a lot more rough in terms of personalities and hours than other Bay Area options.

Take this with a huge grain of salt but when I was going through OCI, Kirkland SF was pretty much the only firm that rubbed me very wrong during callbacks. Pretty much everyone I met with came off as either a douche or an asshole. One partner was even so gracious as to go line by line and tell me how to fix my resume to make it sound better (fuck you, buddy, I did great at pretty much every other firm). After 20+ screeners and 12+ callbacks, Kirkland SF was the only one I walked (or ran?) away from wanting absolutely nothing to do with it. Which was too bad because their VC work sounded interesting, but the people were godawful, particularly the partners.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I would agree with most of the things said here. I've heard first hand that SF Kirkland is a lot more rough in terms of personalities and hours than other Bay Area options.

Take this with a huge grain of salt but when I was going through OCI, Kirkland SF was pretty much the only firm that rubbed me very wrong during callbacks. Pretty much everyone I met with came off as either a douche or an asshole. One partner was even so gracious as to go line by line and tell me how to fix my resume to make it sound better (fuck you, buddy, I did great at pretty much every other firm). After 20+ screeners and 12+ callbacks, Kirkland SF was the only one I walked (or ran?) away from wanting absolutely nothing to do with it. Which was too bad because their VC work sounded interesting, but the people were godawful, particularly the partners.

I also had an associate at DPW SV do the same thing to me. It is a pretty horrible experience and a pretty shitty move on the interviewers' part. But I would agree that is a thing to take with a grain of salt because you can run into assholes all over this world.

When I was interviewing and I would tell other Bay Area firms I was interviewing at KE it was the only place interviewers would almost uniformly roll their eyes at. One partner told me that they see "aaaalot" of lateral candidates from there.

KE's for a certain type of person in most of its offices. It seems to kind of maintain a culture across Chicago, NYC and SF at least, which is kind of remarkable.

ETA: can't really speak to hours but my guess is that it is probably more or less consistent with the harder NYC v20s. Maybe not quite as bad as the worst of v20 but that's just a guess. They're probably mostly the same. No one can really say for sure. It's a bit of a crap shoot.