If you could go to any Houston transactional firm, which one would you go to? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure if I want to shoot for partner or if I want in-house down the road, and I'm looking to do M&A. I'm also a little older, and while I want to make friends/be somewhere where people hang out outside the office, I'm not much for partying.

Assuming I could go to any firm in town, which one should I pick and why?

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure if I want to shoot for partner or if I want in-house down the road, and I'm looking to do M&A. I'm also a little older, and while I want to make friends/be somewhere where people hang out outside the office, I'm not much for partying.

Assuming I could go to any firm in town, which one should I pick and why?

K&E has exploded from zero to 200+ lawyers in five years, mostly transactional. They demolished deal count metrics in the first half of 2019, doing more deals than almost the next three busiest firms combined (63 vs. 27, 20, 20). It's also hedged against recession/oil pricing due to a strong bankruptcy/restructuring practice. The last time oil crashed, it was their best year ever. It's the most profitable office of the most profitable big firm in the world. Despite all the hate from competing firms, the hours are on par with industry standards (no hard minimum, soft minimum around 1800, 2000 average, 2100-2300 for some who are extra busy). Bonuses are minimum Cravath +5% and Cravath +20-30% is common. Free market work assignments. Zero facetime requirements (possible exception for specific partners). Social/extroverted vibe but lacking the sharp elbows other firms will gossip about.

V&E is probably your next best bet. They are #2 to K&E for deal count, but their deal value in dollars was nearly double K&E ($22B vs. $12B). This is because they tend to have way more mega institutional clients and old Texas staying power. Most people would call it the "best firm in Texas."

Latham is also a great option. It's basically K&E, but less so. After that, Baker Botts is basically V&E, but less so.

There are plenty of smaller players that are good choices, but that's the top few.

[Anonymous User]

Interested in responses to this as well. Between V&E, Gibson, KE and Latham.

General idea I've heard from most is that V&E is the most fratty of the four. Great if you want to stay in Texas but somewhat weak if you don't. Positive is that it has great institutional clients and outgoing culture. Drawback is if you're thinking of leaving Texas/don't want to have to drink and socialize with partners for work, probably not the right place for you.

KE: Almost everyone has mentioned how they're top of the market for Houston transactional right now. Several people have mentioned how poaching Sean Wheeler from Latham was a big get as well since one complaint about their work was that it was too private equity focused and this might help change that. The thing that worries me is basically every person I've spoken to in Houston Biglaw that wasn't at Kirkland has told me horrific things about the office and the culture. Everyone at KE seems to love it though so who knows.

Latham: Seems like it does pretty good transactional work. I enjoyed the office vibe the most out of my callbacks. Terrified about being Latham'd.

Gibson: New but promising? Idk

TLDR: I'm a clueless law school student and I need any and all advice. Should I just go wherever I connect most with the people?

[BrainsyK]

Happy to chat re: Houston transactional via PM for anyone choosing between top shops.

[RaceJudicata]

The cult-like atmosphere at Kirkland Houston continues to be odd.

[Anonymous User]

The thing that worries me is basically every person I've spoken to in Houston Biglaw that wasn't at Kirkland has told me horrific things about the office and the culture. Everyone at KE seems to love it though so who knows.

I was worried by similar talk coming into my summer there, and was pleasantly surprised at how pleasant it was. I have two theories. First, other firms in the market are in an uncomfortable position: they can't compete with K&E on compensation, growth, financials, training, or even the shininess of the office. And K&E is gobbling up summers, laterals, and clients. So their only route to keeping their prospects away from K&E is to talk trash about culture. Most of them probably are probably just repeating the same rumors they themselves were told, rather than actively making things up. Your ideal source would be to find an EX-Kirkland lateral who can give you a firsthand opinion without running any risk of bias. Don't think many of those exist yet though.

My second theory is that K&E is the "bad guy" to other firms in the market. Everyone was playing nicely in the Texas sand box, and then BOOM Kirkland drops in 5 years ago and starts taking everyone's talent and clients. They are definitely externally aggressive. People at other firms are only experiencing the external behavior of the firm rather than the internal culture. So outsiders are giving you their impression of being on the other side of the table, while Kirkland people are giving you their opinion on the actual environment inside.

Anyway, take my anonymous thoughts with a grain of salt too, but IMHO the anti-Kirkland rumors are horseshit - just the usual BigLaw gripes - and my friends at other firms have described much worse from the other big players in town.

[Neff]

Kirkland Houston is one of the most controversial topics on TLS. As a non-KE corporate associate in Houston, I have heard all sides and would venture to say that reality (as always) probably lies somewhere in between. KE Houston is not as bad as its worst detractors say and it is not as good as its fanboys claim. I have very reliable first-hand sources testifying that in the first two years of its existence, the office was basically a complete shit-show, with ATL level drama and a near-mutiny of its associates. Then, circa 2016 the office cleaned up its act and shipped out some particularly nasty partners. The culture appears to have improved, and I started hearing more positive reviews, albeit interspersed with other reliable insider sources with complaints, most of which do admittedly fall into the routine biglaw gripes (i.e. long hours and difficult partners, particularly in the funds group). Based on what I am hearing from multiple summers now, it seems that KE has been telling its summers that hardly anyone ever laterals away from the office -- this I should warn is a borderline lie as my own LinkedIn network attests. But I chalk that up to the usual summer puffery. I would advise law students to always take what they (or any biglaw employer for that matter) says with a grain of salt. But if you had a pleasant experience with your group, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. Starting at an office of this caliber opens doors even if things don't work out.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland Houston is one of the most controversial topics on TLS. As a non-KE corporate associate in Houston, I have heard all sides and would venture to say that reality (as always) probably lies somewhere in between. KE Houston is not as bad as its worst detractors say and it is not as good as its fanboys claim. I have very reliable first-hand sources testifying that in the first two years of its existence, the office was basically a complete shit-show, with ATL level drama and a near-mutiny of its associates. Then, circa 2016 the office cleaned up its act and shipped out some particularly nasty partners. The culture appears to have improved, and I started hearing more positive reviews, albeit interspersed with other reliable insider sources with complaints, most of which do admittedly fall into the routine biglaw gripes (i.e. long hours and difficult partners, particularly in the funds group). Based on what I am hearing from multiple summers now, it seems that KE has been telling its summers that hardly anyone ever laterals away from the office -- this I should warn is a borderline lie as my own LinkedIn network attests. But I chalk that up to the usual summer puffery. I would advise law students to always take what they (or any biglaw employer for that matter) says with a grain of salt. But if you had a pleasant experience with your group, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. Starting at an office of this caliber opens doors even if things don't work out.

As a Houston corporate associate, what's your take on LW? I hear good things in general, but also that they've been hit pretty hard by the decline in MLP business.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland, Latham or Gibson. Kirkland sticks to its private equity oil and gas clients, which is a major part of the energy industry. Oil and gas is so capital intensive and tied to commodities that it is a consistently hot industry for private equity capital—where K&E thrives (compare to tech and VC for example, where K&E has much weaker offices).

K&E mass hired, had a hodgepodge culture of random schools and people that wanted to lateral from lesser tiered firms. Eventually they created the new V&E, but with K&E PE clientele, and dominate deal count because of it. Have heard very mixed things about substantive work and development for juniors and mid levels there and can’t comment on it without guessing.

Latham has the strongest CAPM practices along with V&E, but that’s obviously a hurting practice area right now for oil and gas. If you want CAPM, go VE or Latham.

Gibson is quickly becoming a top player with just 20-30 attorneys. Would keep my eye on them.

[Anonymous User]

I’d personally go to V&E if I had my choice of Houston corporate firms.

I have no axe to grind against K&E. As others have said, I think the actual culture falls somewhere in between the horror stories and the fanboy puffery. But, anecdotally, the cult-like hype is bizarre. Everyone I know that summered there talks about it like a college freshman that just joined a fraternity/sorority and won’t shut up about their amazing brotherhood/sisterhood. It’s off-putting.

[Anonymous User]

I have very reliable first-hand sources testifying that in the first two years of its existence, the office was basically a complete shit-show, with ATL level drama and a near-mutiny of its associates. Then, circa 2016 the office cleaned up its act and shipped out some particularly nasty partners. The culture appears to have improved, and I started hearing more positive reviews, albeit interspersed with other reliable insider sources with complaints, most of which do admittedly fall into the routine biglaw gripes (i.e. long hours and difficult partners, particularly in the funds group).

Former K&E Houston summer here. I heard plenty of negative stories about the funds group from people within the firm as well. There does seem to be something unpleasant going on with that team, but it's a big office and honestly the rest of the groups seem pretty chill. I would strongly encourage people to go to the firm generally, but be wary of going to funds specifically. We heard crazy stories from the first couple years too - I chalk that up to growing pains and winnowing out bad apples, which takes time. Apparently hours have gone down a bit too, as hiring has finally caught up with the volume of work.

[10b5-1]

I’d personally go to V&E if I had my choice of Houston corporate firms.

I have no axe to grind against K&E. As others have said, I think the actual culture falls somewhere in between the horror stories and the fanboy puffery. But, anecdotally, the cult-like hype is bizarre. Everyone I know that summered there talks about it like a college freshman that just joined a fraternity/sorority and won’t shut up about their amazing brotherhood/sisterhood. It’s off-putting.

TLS posters: Consistently post about how sad and lonely biglaw is, how they hate the coldness of partners and the fake friendships.

TLS posters: Also get weirdly resentful about the idea of a very young firm having a lot of fun at work and feeling like a family.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure if I want to shoot for partner or if I want in-house down the road, and I'm looking to do M&A. I'm also a little older, and while I want to make friends/be somewhere where people hang out outside the office, I'm not much for partying.

Assuming I could go to any firm in town, which one should I pick and why?

K&E has exploded from zero to 200+ lawyers in five years, mostly transactional. They demolished deal count metrics in the first half of 2019, doing more deals than almost the next three busiest firms combined (63 vs. 27, 20, 20). It's also hedged against recession/oil pricing due to a strong bankruptcy/restructuring practice. The last time oil crashed, it was their best year ever. It's the most profitable office of the most profitable big firm in the world. Despite all the hate from competing firms, the hours are on par with industry standards (no hard minimum, soft minimum around 1800, 2000 average, 2100-2300 for some who are extra busy). Bonuses are minimum Cravath +5% and Cravath +20-30% is common. Free market work assignments. Zero facetime requirements (possible exception for specific partners). Social/extroverted vibe but lacking the sharp elbows other firms will gossip about.

V&E is probably your next best bet. They are #2 to K&E for deal count, but their deal value in dollars was nearly double K&E ($22B vs. $12B). This is because they tend to have way more mega institutional clients and old Texas staying power. Most people would call it the "best firm in Texas."

Latham is also a great option. It's basically K&E, but less so. After that, Baker Botts is basically V&E, but less so.

There are plenty of smaller players that are good choices, but that's the top few.

I generally agree but I think you should provide some context around those deal counts. Note that the deal counts mentioned above are based only on M&A with Texas-based companies. The one annoying thing about that metric (I've been searching for a better one) is that while most of V&E's clients are Texas based, and therefore that number is fairly accurate for how busy V&Es offices were this year, that number is not so accurate for several firms, including pretty far off from my current firm. Many of the partners in my office brought in a lot of work this year, but from non Texas companies, so our deal count is currently in the 20s but closer to the upper 40s. This may mean that K&E's deal count is a lot higher too, but given that it is so oil and gas-centric (and main clients are NYC/TX PE buying a Texas O&G company), I doubt it is that far off. Several firms that aren't K&E and V&E have a lot of work that isn't necessarily from a Texas-based company. Just wanted to clarify those numbers, but in general they're decent proxies for the top firms.

[Anonymous User]

Where does STB rank amongst the top corporate firms

[Anonymous User]

I’d put KE, LW, VE, GDC, BB, JD, Sidley, ahead of STB. I’m sure I’m missing others, not sure it STB is considered top ten.

[Anonymous User]

Why is it important to go to one of the top firms in the market? Is it because they have better exit opportunities? I would think some of the smaller but still successful firms in town might give you a better shot at making partner/getting substantive work earlier in your career.

[ghostoftraynor]

Why is it important to go to one of the top firms in the market? Is it because they have better exit opportunities? I would think some of the smaller but still successful firms in town might give you a better shot at making partner/getting substantive work earlier in your career.

There are obviously a lot of considerations going into which firm someone should pick, but there are several (at least perceived benefits) of going to a top firm. Most notably, I think it gives you better exits, including just by extending your biglaw shelf-life (e.g., much easier to lateral from a v10 to a v100 than the other way around). Other prime benefits would be getting to work on more complex matters and generally not having to worry about having matters to work on. For the most part, top firms haven't had nearly the same pressure from gcs on their fees. For make or break the company deals or lit, company's are going to be less concerned about the costs. I guess you could throw in prestige here but literally nobody outside of law firms or law schools cares what firm you work at (or knows the difference between firms).

I'd also add I don't know how much "better shot at making partner" at lower ranked firms is true. If a sixth year at Cravath laterals to DLA, all else being held equal, I'd think their chances of making partner are better than the home grown talent, but I'm just assuming this. No idea if there is any data out there on this point.

[LHS17]

Kirkland, Latham or Gibson. Kirkland sticks to its private equity oil and gas clients, which is a major part of the energy industry. Oil and gas is so capital intensive and tied to commodities that it is a consistently hot industry for private equity capital—where K&E thrives (compare to tech and VC for example, where K&E has much weaker offices).

K&E mass hired, had a hodgepodge culture of random schools and people that wanted to lateral from lesser tiered firms. Eventually they created the new V&E, but with K&E PE clientele, and dominate deal count because of it. Have heard very mixed things about substantive work and development for juniors and mid levels there and can’t comment on it without guessing.

Latham has the strongest CAPM practices along with V&E, but that’s obviously a hurting practice area right now for oil and gas. If you want CAPM, go VE or Latham.

Gibson is quickly becoming a top player with just 20-30 attorneys. Would keep my eye on them.

"Capital intensive"

"Tied to commodities"

"Private equity oil and gas clients"

Can you clarify? These are red flags for private equity. I can see your point holding for oilfield services and midstream / pipeline assets, but it kind of looks like you are referring to upstream / E&P, which PE avoids.

Also don't understand your point about tech and VC. Are you saying that Kirkland is only strong in control investments? VC is just a subset of PE, same for growth equity which you also see regularly in the tech space.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a mid-level associate at one of the firms mentioned in this thread. Here are my thoughts:

There are generally two types of firms in Houston, borne out of historical relevance. The first group is the legacy Texas firms -- the strongest being V&E, followed by BB, NRF, Bracewell, TK, Hunton AK, Hayboo, Locke Lord, Winstead etc., in no particular order. These firms have been raided by each other and raided by the "national" firms that have entered the market. All of these legacy Texas firms have generally lost market share of varying degrees. For example, Gibson Dunn had taken a group of some of the strongest lawyers from BB in 2017, and in turn, BB had raided NRF. I view V&E as having withstood the systemic changes over the last 10 years or so the best of all the legacy Texas firms. However, they've definitely lost great lawyers to LW, KE, Sidley and other firms over the last ten years, as has most of the other aforementioned firms (and each of these other firms have raided each other over time -- e.g., Sean Wheeler from LW to KE). I've seen NRF, TK and Hunton AK from time to time, but for whatever reason I haven't worked across from BB much.

The second group includes the new "national" firms that have entered the market. LW was the first to arrive and was the first to break into the market in any substantial way -- recall that Skadden, Jones Day and Cadwalader had tried to break into the Houston market before but weren't able to (and is still not able to) be relevant in the Houston market in any material way. Each of the top Chicago firms -- KE and Sidley -- had followed LW shortly thereafter. Recently, Gibson has become somewhat of a presence after they had taken the aforementioned corporate group from BB. And we've seen Shearman, Willkie, STB, Orrick and W&C as well. KE has grown the quickest based mostly on their O&G PE practice (which breaks down into their funds, M&A and debt practices); they have ~160 lawyers, which I imagine will balloon to more than 200 lawyers soon after their new incoming class starts. LW and Sidley each have just under 100 lawyers. Each of Gibson and STB are substantially smaller -- each around 25 lawyers or so, and the other firms are even smaller. Gibson is trying to make a push to be the new LW or Sidley, but it's unclear if they will be able to do so given their relatively late arrival to the market. Personally, if I were a junior associate, I'd join one of the more established firms in town.

Here are additional thoughts:
1. KE has disproportionately large incoming classes -- they had over 50 for their past summer class. Given that their latest summer class is essentially a third of the size of their office size, I'd be wary as junior associate as to (i) attrition relative to other firms and (ii) attention on you from mid-levels to NSP to equity partners. Personally, I think it makes more sense to lateral to KE as a midlevel than to start as a junior associate, as you'd be the beneficiary of any large signing bonuses that they have, and you wouldn't have to compete against your incoming class for hours and attention. However, they're clearly the big PE shop in town. If you interview there and are a good fit, and you love PE work, then go for it -- just make sure you know what you're entering into, as well as the demands of their PE clients. Many of the incoming KE associates go in-house at funds as well if there is a strong interest in that.

2. I would view VE as clearly the best of the legacy TX bunch, and they may also be the best at putting their associates in-house of all the firms in Houston. They also have a clear path to partnership as well. Some candidates may not be a good fit culturally at VE (given their legacy TX background), which is important to them (and will be relevant both for promotion as associates and to partnership). With your callback with them, consider if you feel comfortable.

3. This is a hot take, but I think BB is losing relevance in the market. I'd go to VE, LW, Sidley, maybe GDC over BB given the recent trends. You want to go to a firm that will be strong 10 years from now. I'd also do your diligence with respect to the other legacy TX firms and they've bled to varying degrees. AK is a shell of its former shell by way of example.

4. I have to mention Akin Gump (which has more project finance deals and also has some M&A work) and K&S (which has more construction deals) here. I think they're fine places to start your career so long as you're OK with the core competencies of their offices, but I wouldn't place them in the top tier of Houston transactional practices.

5. From a junior associate's perspective, I'd put LW, then Sidley as the two top transactional firms in the "national" group. GDC may be good, but I'm always wary of joining a start-up. You tend to have poor junior associate support, and it's unclear if partnership is more viable at a start-up as compared to a more established firm. Why go to GDC if you can join a LW (especially if a firm like LW is what GDC aspires to be).

6. Finally, cultural fit and training is very important -- I'd ask each of these firms that you are interviewing with as to how they train their lawyers, and I'd also see if you click with the lawyers that you are interviewing with. You'll be working long hours with folks, and it's crucial that you like the people who you'll be working with and will be training you. All things being equal, choose an office with 50+ lawyers over a smaller office, as you'll be more likely to click with a group (and they would have varying practices as well).

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland, Latham or Gibson. Kirkland sticks to its private equity oil and gas clients, which is a major part of the energy industry. Oil and gas is so capital intensive and tied to commodities that it is a consistently hot industry for private equity capital—where K&E thrives (compare to tech and VC for example, where K&E has much weaker offices).

K&E mass hired, had a hodgepodge culture of random schools and people that wanted to lateral from lesser tiered firms. Eventually they created the new V&E, but with K&E PE clientele, and dominate deal count because of it. Have heard very mixed things about substantive work and development for juniors and mid levels there and can’t comment on it without guessing.

Latham has the strongest CAPM practices along with V&E, but that’s obviously a hurting practice area right now for oil and gas. If you want CAPM, go VE or Latham.

Gibson is quickly becoming a top player with just 20-30 attorneys. Would keep my eye on them.

"Capital intensive"

"Tied to commodities"

"Private equity oil and gas clients"

Can you clarify? These are red flags for private equity. I can see your point holding for oilfield services and midstream / pipeline assets, but it kind of looks like you are referring to upstream / E&P, which PE avoids.

Also don't understand your point about tech and VC. Are you saying that Kirkland is only strong in control investments? VC is just a subset of PE, same for growth equity which you also see regularly in the tech space.

I don't think I understand your question. I worked at one of the aforementioned "top Houston firms" for several years and many of our M&A transactions involved the oil and gas/energy divisions of our PE clients exiting or entering into E&P plays. Are you saying that that isn't the case?

On my VC point, I was just saying that, from what i've seen, K&E's large PE clients don't appear as active in the EGC space compared to more traditional VCs. In my experience, I don't think anyone would argue that K&E's west coast offices are as strong as their east coast and Houston offices (or as strong, relatively, to other West coast firms that have a strong VC-base). This isn't to say that large PE firms never make growth investments in EGCs or early stage companies or to draw a murky line in the sand, I'm just reiterating my own experience as a data point for anyone deciding on Houston firms.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like the consensus is that V&E, Kirkland, and Latham are the top firms in the market. Of those, Latham would probably be the hardest to get to as a lateral down the road, just by virtue of its smaller size. So if you're not sold on PE and are up for doing some CapM when the market recovers, that might be the best place to start as a junior.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like the consensus is that V&E, Kirkland, and Latham are the top firms in the market. Of those, Latham would probably be the hardest to get to as a lateral down the road, just by virtue of its smaller size. So if you're not sold on PE and are up for doing some CapM when the market recovers, that might be the best place to start as a junior.

I don't think this is an appropriate way of picking firms (and I don't think most associates should approach picking a firm in this way). You should want to pick a firm that you will want to stay at a long time, and the likelihood of you laterally elsewhere should be a marginal reason at best for why you would want to start your career somewhere. You shouldn't join a firm with an eye to lateral -- the relationships you build with partners, other associates and clients have value, and you lose some of that value by lateralling elsewhere.

Considering whether you're in the environmental group vs. the MACM group at VE may be a bigger consideration. Whether or not you want to do capital markets or not, or PE work or not, and potential exit options should be a bigger consideration. Whether you like the people that you met at those firms or at other top firms should be a bigger consideration. Whether or not you will get good training, or how much the firm is invested in you, should also be a bigger consideration.

[Anonymous User]

Which of these firms is best situated to handle a hit in oil prices? Seems like PE activity in the O&G space is already slowing down, and I worry that some of these firms have less capacity to pivot to restructuring than they claim.

[Anonymous User]

Which of these firms is best situated to handle a hit in oil prices? Seems like PE activity in the O&G space is already slowing down, and I worry that some of these firms have less capacity to pivot to restructuring than they claim.

Weird attack on Kirkland here with your reference to restructuring pivots.

But let’s use common sense - KE and LW will both have an easier time weathering an oil prices hit than VE will.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously intentionally anon.

I don’t want to be too specific, but want to give others the same warnings I wish I had received. Choosing Kirkland over my other “safe” options might end up being the worst decision of my life so far, and I am basically on damage control mode hoping to salvage it. As others have said, it’s a good place to lateral as a mid to senior associate, but a bad place to be a junior. To give intentionally vague reasons: low hours and treated with contempt. No my experience is not unique.