Kirkland vs. Mid-Market Forum

[Anonymous User]

Got an offer from Kirkland (restructuring) tonight. Also weighing some offers from mid-market shops (think Foley & Lardner, Drinker Biddle, etc. etc.). Is there really a big difference here for work-life balance? I know I won't make partner at Kirkland but I'll also write my ticket to whatever exit op I want.
Is there a substantially bigger chance to make partner at a mid-market vault firm? What factors should I be considering here? I'm leaning towards Kirkland atm because it seemed like a great culture fit during the callback. I'm very competitive and "Type A" but definitely not cutthroat - I love the free market system they've got going there.

I'm thinking private practice long-term though and do think long-term prospects, although I do wonder if I could just lateral to another firm once I get pushed out at Kirkland? Sorry all just thinking out loud but wanted to get your takes.

[Anonymous User]

Work life balance and Kirkland don’t go together. Kirkland is an amazing firm, but you can’t go into the firm thinking about a balance.

You mention that you’re cut throat and competitive, but you started off asking about balance, so I’m just not sure what you’re looking to do.

Also, do you want to do bankruptcy? If yes, obviously Kirkland, hands down. But don’t think having Kirkland on your resume will allow you to lateral into some other practice later on.

If you do your time at Kirkland and make income partner after 6 years, you have a very good shot at making equity partner at another, lower firm.

Sorry for all of the random info above.

at the end of the day, if you’re thinking about work life balance, the other firm is better.
If you want the “best” work, Kirkland is better.

[Schotes]

You have the offer. Talk to a couple associates in the area to get a realistic idea of the workload and expectations.

You may only have one chance to work at a V10. That may matter to your future career a lot, or not at all.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is the clear winner here if you are interested in restructuring which is a really cool practice area (if I could go back and do it again I’d be a restructuring lawyer). The exit ops are top notch, either to other firms or some of the more interesting restructuring related fund or bank roles. Yes, they will work you hard, but it’s the type of practice group where a couple years of pain could set you up for life.

Starting in restructuring at a lower ranked firm is problematic for a lot of reasons. Restructuring work is heavily siloed - you have firms that do a mix of debtor/secured creditors, firms that do unsecured creditors, firms that rep equity committees or other kinds of claimants. It’s better to do debtor side work and transition into unsecured or claimant work. Restructuring is also highly counter-cyclical but firms like Kirkland and Weil are more insulated from the impact of that.

If you are not interested in restructuring work, then it becomes more about what you do want to do plus managing risk (i.e. the higher risk that you leave Kirkland and lateral to a different firm vs. the not insubstantial risk that you take a lower regarded firm but get pushed out for economic/random reasons and can’t find another firm job).

[Anonymous User]

Got an offer from Kirkland (restructuring) tonight. Also weighing some offers from mid-market shops (think Foley & Lardner, Drinker Biddle, etc. etc.). Is there really a big difference here for work-life balance? I know I won't make partner at Kirkland but I'll also write my ticket to whatever exit op I want.
Is there a substantially bigger chance to make partner at a mid-market vault firm? What factors should I be considering here? I'm leaning towards Kirkland atm because it seemed like a great culture fit during the callback. I'm very competitive and "Type A" but definitely not cutthroat - I love the free market system they've got going there.

I'm thinking private practice long-term though and do think long-term prospects, although I do wonder if I could just lateral to another firm once I get pushed out at Kirkland? Sorry all just thinking out loud but wanted to get your takes.

Kirkland. Take the better option now; worry about making partner later on. It will take 6-7 years minimum to become non-equity partner at any firm and you don't know how your life will change in the future. Some mid-market firms try and sell themselves on "work-life balance" and how you will have value at their firm immediately, and will be a cog at a firm like Kirkland. It's baloney. Those firms also lay off juniors, burn them out, etc. Kirkland will provide you great work and marketability outside of the firm.

[QContinuum]

Kirkland. Take the better option now; worry about making partner later on. It will take 6-7 years minimum to become non-equity partner at any firm and you don't know how your life will change in the future. Some mid-market firms try and sell themselves on "work-life balance" and how you will have value at their firm immediately, and will be a cog at a firm like Kirkland. It's baloney. Those firms also lay off juniors, burn them out, etc. Kirkland will provide you great work and marketability outside of the firm.

Completely agreed. Always much easier to lateral "down" the prestige ladder than up. If you start at Kirkland and hate it, it'd be fairly easy to lateral to a mid-market firm. The reverse (lateraling from a mid-market to Kirkland) would be much harder. Starting at Kirkland preserves your options.

[Anonymous User]

What many people said is true.

But, the main question that you need to answer is whether you want to do restructuring.

If yes, definitely Kirkland.

If no, probably not Kirkland.

If you’re not sure, definitely Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland. You can apply to another firm and most will take you after working for kirkland

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland.

[malibustacy]

Kirkland.

Any perceived work-life balance at a mid-sized firm is not necessarily true.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=277154

For example, Troutman Sanders had the highest billing hour lawyer in all of Biglaw last year, at 3855.

Billing, work, and hours can also be unpredictable at smaller shops.

[ayylmao]

[img]8[/img]

Got an offer from Kirkland (restructuring) tonight. Also weighing some offers from mid-market shops (think Foley & Lardner, Drinker Biddle, etc. etc.). Is there really a big difference here for work-life balance? I know I won't make partner at Kirkland but I'll also write my ticket to whatever exit op I want.
Is there a substantially bigger chance to make partner at a mid-market vault firm? What factors should I be considering here? I'm leaning towards Kirkland atm because it seemed like a great culture fit during the callback. I'm very competitive and "Type A" but definitely not cutthroat - I love the free market system they've got going there.

I'm thinking private practice long-term though and do think long-term prospects, although I do wonder if I could just lateral to another firm once I get pushed out at Kirkland? Sorry all just thinking out loud but wanted to get your takes.

Kirkland. Take the better option now; worry about making partner later on. It will take 6-7 years minimum to become non-equity partner at any firm and you don't know how your life will change in the future. Some mid-market firms try and sell themselves on "work-life balance" and how you will have value at their firm immediately, and will be a cog at a firm like Kirkland. It's baloney. Those firms also lay off juniors, burn them out, etc. Kirkland will provide you great work and marketability outside of the firm.