Top Law Schools

Offers at both of these firms, both at the HQs. Interested in future in government, particularly SEC/DOJ/AUSA. I want work in a variety of areas but anticipate "specializing" in white collar/investigations work.

In my mind, the strengths of S&C are: (1) more emphasis on investigations, and (2) better exit opportunities into government (especially AUSA, but I'm particularly interested if anyone else can confirm this to be true). Strengths of Kirkland are: (1) "rising star" in the litigation world (I'm particularly considering the addition of Bancroft in D.C., and the fact that they're the only V10 firm not in NYC), (2) slightly better culture (though obviously both of these are very hard-charging cultures, which I actually appreciate), and (3) they're not in NYC (got a wife & kid, and Chicago seems like a bit more livable of a city). If there are other important differences, I'd love to hear those too.

Thanks!

I'm not weighing in on the firms, but I work at a free maket firm and it's really more of a bet on yourself. You have to be better than your classmates. You can get better experiences if you're great at your job and sociable. If not, you may suffer and get stuck doing shit work or not getting the work you want. You really have to network to get work. But at a non free market firm you are kind of guaranteed to get similar experiences to your classmates, which can be great in your first year, but may hold you back if you were indeed capable of sourcing that better work yourself. Just my two cents.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm not weighing in on the firms, but I work at a free maket firm and it's really more of a bet on yourself. You have to be better than your classmates. You can get better experiences if you're great at your job and sociable. If not, you may suffer and get stuck doing shit work or not getting the work you want. You really have to network to get work. But at a non free market firm you are kind of guaranteed to get similar experiences to your classmates, which can be great in your first year, but may hold you back if you were indeed capable of sourcing that better work yourself. Just my two cents.

Thanks, this is helpful. S&C seems to have a more robust assignment system, but both firms are definitely on the free market side of the spectrum.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm not weighing in on the firms, but I work at a free maket firm and it's really more of a bet on yourself. You have to be better than your classmates. You can get better experiences if you're great at your job and sociable. If not, you may suffer and get stuck doing shit work or not getting the work you want. You really have to network to get work. But at a non free market firm you are kind of guaranteed to get similar experiences to your classmates, which can be great in your first year, but may hold you back if you were indeed capable of sourcing that better work yourself. Just my two cents.

Thanks, this is helpful. S&C seems to have a more robust assignment system, but both firms are definitely on the free market side of the spectrum.

From what I understand, the formal assignment system is more of a backstop at S&C. The most desirable work will still go to the networkers/stars, and the rest will go to others through the general assignment system. S&C would seem marginally better in that if you aren't good/networked enough to get the stuff people are vying over, at least the other work comes to you ratehr than you having to chase it down.

Also something to consider: if (when) Kirkland slams you, they at least pay you more for it.

Nagster5 wrote:Also something to consider: if (when) Kirkland slams you, they at least pay you more for it.

Plus he mentioned he's at the HQ of both, which means he's in Chicago. He'll take a lot more money home between bonuses and COL in Chi.

Graybrow wrote:

Nagster5 wrote:Also something to consider: if (when) Kirkland slams you, they at least pay you more for it.

Plus he mentioned he's at the HQ of both, which means he's in Chicago. He'll take a lot more money home between bonuses and COL in Chi.

How bad are the hours at Kirkland Chi? NYC bad?

Anonymous User wrote:

Graybrow wrote:

Nagster5 wrote:Also something to consider: if (when) Kirkland slams you, they at least pay you more for it.

Plus he mentioned he's at the HQ of both, which means he's in Chicago. He'll take a lot more money home between bonuses and COL in Chi.

How bad are the hours at Kirkland Chi? NYC bad?

+1

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Graybrow wrote:

Nagster5 wrote:Also something to consider: if (when) Kirkland slams you, they at least pay you more for it.

Plus he mentioned he's at the HQ of both, which means he's in Chicago. He'll take a lot more money home between bonuses and COL in Chi.

How bad are the hours at Kirkland Chi? NYC bad?

+1

My mentor worked there as a senior corporate associate at Kirkland Chicago for a couple of years. He said 2000 hours was typical (and what he worked) and maybe 2200 for M&A. My understanding is that New York works a fair bit more.

Of course if you do end up having to work a lot more hours at KE Chicago, at least you get an above market bonus to salve the wound.