Jones Day, Latham, or Kirkland in a Recession Forum

[Anonymous User]

As economists have been talking about an impending recession for quite some time, which firm do you think is the safer choice between Jones Day, Latham, and Kirkland (I have offers from all 3)? Jones Day loves to tell applicants about how they didn't fire anyone during the last recession. Is that actually true? Also, do you think Latham and Kirkland would have massive layoffs again?

[Flarmanarnar]

I honestly don’t know if there’s really going to be an impending recession and I haven’t really heard anything from economists about it. I wouldn’t pick Jones Day just because they’ve had a lot of issues recently. FWIW: I’d personally pick Latham over Kirkland.

[Shinra Holdings, LP]

Kirkland 100%. If not just for data points on how Latham acted in prior recessionary periods (2x). PE shops to some extent still try to do deals during more turbulent economic periods and maybe try to refi their acquisitions when debt markets improve. Nothing would be guaranteed but I would trust Kirkland over the other 2.

[Mullens]

Considering the verb “Lathaming” was invented in the last recession, I’d be careful with Latham.

[BansheeScream]

This completely depends on the market and what practice group you want. Kirkland has the best comp. JD has the worst comp. JD would probably only make sense if you're in the midwest somewhere outside of Chicago or DC.

[JusticeChuckleNutz]

This is a really weird basis for you to choose a firm on. There are infinitely better reasons to choose one firm over another than this

[OneTwoThreeFour]

This is a really weird basis for you to choose a firm on. There are infinitely better reasons to choose one firm over another than this

Agree, this is a terrible, horrible reason to choose one firm over another. K&E and Latham are both likely to trim ranks in the event of a major economic downturn (as will most AmLaw 100 firms). Make your pick based on the strength of the practice group and how you like interacting with the members of that group (both senior partners and associates). If you are judging based off pure compensation, avoid JD.

[spyke123]

Dont think this is a terrible idea.. at all. Getting laid off as a junior may have a catastrophic impact on your career, from which you may never recover. This should def be part of consideration. Do you have any other options? Id just be wary of latham and ke (ina recession) and jd is meh.

[rahulg91]

Dont think this is a terrible idea.. at all. Getting laid off as a junior may have a catastrophic impact on your career, from which you may never recover. This should def be part of consideration. Do you have any other options? Id just be wary of latham and ke (ina recession) and jd is meh.

It’s a bad idea because of how wildly it varies. If OP is down for restructuring, then KE is clearly the superior choice, probably the same goes for litigation. Will M&A survive a recession or will corporate juniors be culled first? If that’s the case there’s no meaningful distinction between KE and Latham.

KE has a slight edge here probably because PE firms are better able to weather economic downturns, but that’s pure speculation on my part. So I guess if you want to do restructuring work, go KE. Otherwise, with these three firms as your options, there’s no appreciable difference between KE and Latham. Obviously JD should be disqualified for anyone with real options, given the below-market compensation and lack of transparency wrt pay and associate performance.

[Npret]

If there is a recession as bad as the last one, I’m not sure where you will be safe. Maybe Cravath? It’s a bad reason to be choosing a firm, as others have said.

[Elston Gunn]

Based both on their actions during the recession and what I’ve heard anecdotally about how soon and aggressively they push out associates, there seems a clear pattern that Latham cares less about the careers of its associates than the average big firm. I don’t know why people don’t avoid Latham more aggressively.

I do kind of doubt KE is going to be all that protective of young associates given their aggressiveness in chasing profits, but at least you’ll probably get above market bonuses. JD you want to avoid for other reasons.

Not sure how you ended up with these three options but I guess KE if you have to pick.

[Anonymous User]

Considering that Skadden and Paul Weiss have no offered several summers in NY this year, I think this is a fair concern. In my opinion, these are all pretty horrible choices if you're concerned about a recession. I say just go with your gut. Kirkland and Latham are large and have been very aggressive recently, and I think are more likely to shed associates in the next downturn compared to their peer firms. I immediately write off JD in most situations so would just pick among Latham or Kirkland. You can't really hedge for this. Firms may have already adjusted their offers this cycle in anticipation of a downturn anyway, so just go with what you would choose in normal circumstances.

[Anonymous User]

Dont think this is a terrible idea.. at all. Getting laid off as a junior may have a catastrophic impact on your career, from which you may never recover. This should def be part of consideration. Do you have any other options? Id just be wary of latham and ke (ina recession) and jd is meh.

It’s a bad idea because of how wildly it varies. If OP is down for restructuring, then KE is clearly the superior choice, probably the same goes for litigation. Will M&A survive a recession or will corporate juniors be culled first? If that’s the case there’s no meaningful distinction between KE and Latham.

KE has a slight edge here probably because PE firms are better able to weather economic downturns, but that’s pure speculation on my part. So I guess if you want to do restructuring work, go KE. Otherwise, with these three firms as your options, there’s no appreciable difference between KE and Latham. Obviously JD should be disqualified for anyone with real options, given the below-market compensation and lack of transparency wrt pay and associate performance.

A lot of factors to consider in choosing a firm and agree that likelihood of layoff is not a particularly compelling factor / consideration, but just wanted to note that, if you’re interested in restructuring, I wouldn’t say that Kirkland is “clearly the superior choice.” Jones Day has an established solid practice and Latham’s group is on fire with the new laterals they’ve brought in.

Would go with Jones Day if you’re interested in some niche office only they have, otherwise Latham. Don’t see how Kirkland’s insane hiring spree is going to work out in a downturn fwiw.

[ghostoftraynor]

If there is a recession as bad as the last one, I’m not sure where you will be safe. Maybe Cravath? It’s a bad reason to be choosing a firm, as others have said.

Think Craveth is TCR here.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

But what will you do when you can't get money out of the bank?

[Anonymous User]

Considering that Skadden and Paul Weiss have no offered several summers in NY this year, I think this is a fair concern. In my opinion, these are all pretty horrible choices if you're concerned about a recession. I say just go with your gut. Kirkland and Latham are large and have been very aggressive recently, and I think are more likely to shed associates in the next downturn compared to their peer firms. I immediately write off JD in most situations so would just pick among Latham or Kirkland. You can't really hedge for this. Firms may have already adjusted their offers this cycle in anticipation of a downturn anyway, so just go with what you would choose in normal circumstances.

Do you have more color on the Skadden/PW thing? Relevant to me.

[miskellyjohnson]

But what will you do when you can't get money out of the bank?

Bank? I got it all in my BTC/ETH wallet.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Dont think this is a terrible idea.. at all. Getting laid off as a junior may have a catastrophic impact on your career, from which you may never recover. This should def be part of consideration. Do you have any other options? Id just be wary of latham and ke (ina recession) and jd is meh.

It’s a bad idea because of how wildly it varies. If OP is down for restructuring, then KE is clearly the superior choice, probably the same goes for litigation. Will M&A survive a recession or will corporate juniors be culled first? If that’s the case there’s no meaningful distinction between KE and Latham.

KE has a slight edge here probably because PE firms are better able to weather economic downturns, but that’s pure speculation on my part. So I guess if you want to do restructuring work, go KE. Otherwise, with these three firms as your options, there’s no appreciable difference between KE and Latham. Obviously JD should be disqualified for anyone with real options, given the below-market compensation and lack of transparency wrt pay and associate performance.

A lot of factors to consider in choosing a firm and agree that likelihood of layoff is not a particularly compelling factor / consideration, but just wanted to note that, if you’re interested in restructuring, I wouldn’t say that Kirkland is “clearly the superior choice.” Jones Day has an established solid practice and Latham’s group is on fire with the new laterals they’ve brought in.

Would go with Jones Day if you’re interested in some niche office only they have, otherwise Latham. Don’t see how Kirkland’s insane hiring spree is going to work out in a downturn fwiw.

Can't agree with you there. Weil/Kirkland are miles ahead of the competition then it comes to debtor-side representation. If you're looking for high-level restructuring work, KE/Weil are clearly the top choices, everything else is pretty far behind.

[64Fl]

I actually think JD might not be a bad idea, because it does mostly litigation, and that seems like a relatively recession-friendly practice.

[Anonymous User]

Dont think this is a terrible idea.. at all. Getting laid off as a junior may have a catastrophic impact on your career, from which you may never recover. This should def be part of consideration. Do you have any other options? Id just be wary of latham and ke (ina recession) and jd is meh.

It’s a bad idea because of how wildly it varies. If OP is down for restructuring, then KE is clearly the superior choice, probably the same goes for litigation. Will M&A survive a recession or will corporate juniors be culled first? If that’s the case there’s no meaningful distinction between KE and Latham.

KE has a slight edge here probably because PE firms are better able to weather economic downturns, but that’s pure speculation on my part. So I guess if you want to do restructuring work, go KE. Otherwise, with these three firms as your options, there’s no appreciable difference between KE and Latham. Obviously JD should be disqualified for anyone with real options, given the below-market compensation and lack of transparency wrt pay and associate performance.

A lot of factors to consider in choosing a firm and agree that likelihood of layoff is not a particularly compelling factor / consideration, but just wanted to note that, if you’re interested in restructuring, I wouldn’t say that Kirkland is “clearly the superior choice.” Jones Day has an established solid practice and Latham’s group is on fire with the new laterals they’ve brought in.

Would go with Jones Day if you’re interested in some niche office only they have, otherwise Latham. Don’t see how Kirkland’s insane hiring spree is going to work out in a downturn fwiw.

Can't agree with you there. Weil/Kirkland are miles ahead of the competition then it comes to debtor-side representation. If you're looking for high-level restructuring work, KE/Weil are clearly the top choices, everything else is pretty far behind.

I don’t disagree that Weil/KE are the best but, as someone working in the area (that has worked at Weil/KE), the others are solid choices too, though I dislike JD’s group.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I also have offers at MoFo and Cooley. However, I have essentially eliminated both firms from consideration since I didn't particularly care for the people I met.

Market is CA (don't want to be more specific than that). For Jones Day and Kirkland, I would be joining the litigation practice group. For Latham, I'm interested in taking advantage of the unassigned program and exploring both the environment, land, and resources practice group as well as the litigation group. Does that change any of your opinions?

[Anonymous User]

Based both on their actions during the recession and what I’ve heard anecdotally about how soon and aggressively they push out associates, there seems a clear pattern that Latham cares less about the careers of its associates than the average big firm. I don’t know why people don’t avoid Latham more aggressively.

This. I'm at Latham and it's not the type of place that would let juniors chill in a recession (even less so than other biglaw firms). We push out juniors even when we are busy.

[Yugihoe]

Based both on their actions during the recession and what I’ve heard anecdotally about how soon and aggressively they push out associates, there seems a clear pattern that Latham cares less about the careers of its associates than the average big firm. I don’t know why people don’t avoid Latham more aggressively.

This. I'm at Latham and it's not the type of place that would let juniors chill in a recession (even less so than other biglaw firms). We push out juniors even when we are busy.

What do you mean juniors get pushed out even when you're busy? You mean for poor performance?

[Anonymous User]

Based both on their actions during the recession and what I’ve heard anecdotally about how soon and aggressively they push out associates, there seems a clear pattern that Latham cares less about the careers of its associates than the average big firm. I don’t know why people don’t avoid Latham more aggressively.

This. I'm at Latham and it's not the type of place that would let juniors chill in a recession (even less so than other biglaw firms). We push out juniors even when we are busy.

This is pretty scare to read. Are there other firms who have similar reputations (ideally rooted in facts older associates can attest to)? Should I lean towards a more established V10 than lower in the rankings, or stay away from litigation boutiques, given that there's a recession coming? (Assuming I have that option obviously).

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Based both on their actions during the recession and what I’ve heard anecdotally about how soon and aggressively they push out associates, there seems a clear pattern that Latham cares less about the careers of its associates than the average big firm. I don’t know why people don’t avoid Latham more aggressively.

This. I'm at Latham and it's not the type of place that would let juniors chill in a recession (even less so than other biglaw firms). We push out juniors even when we are busy.

What do you mean juniors get pushed out even when you're busy? You mean for poor performance?

Yeah, what the hell? Like second or third years are getting shitcanned even when they are putting up hours? Why?