Chicago firm hierarchy Forum

[Buglaw]

Where does barack ferrazzano fit into this scheme?

BFKN is a bit weird. They're more selective than any of the traditional biglaw firms in town (yes, Kirkland, Sidley, Latham, and Skadden included), but they also don't do top of the market work in the traditionally prestigious practices (lit + M&A). They have an excellent reputation with real estate work and might be the top shop in the city. They also do a lot of middle-market bank mergers and represent a fair number of luxury/fashion brands. I'm not sure how up to date Vault is, but they supposedly have an 1850 hours target with 100 countable pro bono hours. I know compensation compresses after 3rd year, so it makes sense. They have Waco and Minneapolis offices, technically, but the vibe I get is that they have a few partners who wanted to stay with the firm but wanted to move back to those areas. Don't think they're actually trying to compete in those markets.

This thread on BFKN is helpful: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=297338

My understanding is that it's kind of very-high-end midlaw, plus an exceptional real estate practice, and pretty attractive due to its casual dress code/culture, hours, substantive work, etc. It also has extremely low leverage. And yeah at my school it was just as selective as Kirkland.

I interviewed there a few years ago. The firm, as mentioned above, is super selective. Outside of the employment group, I think every associate was from a t13, many with honors.

When I interviewed, a recruiter I worked with sent me the average pay after 3 years (not sure how they got that), but the compression wasn’t that bad. I think it was still within $10-15k in each class year.

I wouldn’t be able to rank it against a traditional firm because they do completely different work. It’s all very high end, but non-traditional work.

Edit.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about Ropes & Gray as well. I admittedly did not know they even had an office in Chi, but apparently they do, and apparently with 80+ attorneys?

It's a newer office, I think it was founded in 2010. Most of the founding partners came from K&E and Mayer Brown.

Their reputation in Chicago essentially follows their other non-Boston/satellite offices, maybe with the exception of M&A which I'll talk about below. Their litigation is respectable, and the associates I know who work there get to put their hands on the firm's big cases run by Boston and New York partners. The lit partners in Chicago have a solid book of business as well, I think most of the partners in the Chicago office focus on corporate litigation and investigations.

The corporate group is probably bigger in number at this point, probably a 65/35 corporate majority. Most of the corporate revenue comes from middle market PE M&A and I'd say they are probably third in Chicago behind K&E and Latham. They bring a ton of M&A business. Also have a number of specialist partners who have moved over from K&E, DLA, Skadden over the past few years. Sizeable healthcare transactions practice, too. R&G Chicago also has respectable private funds, derivatives and regulated funds groups that surpass K&E's funds groups (not that that's saying much, but if you're interested in non-M&A corporate work or funds work, I'd recommend giving R&G a close look if you're not considering Latham or Skadden). As far as I know all the corporate associates (whether in funds or in M&A) do plenty of work with the NY/Boston/SF offices, too.

[Sackboy]

Don't know enough about Funds, as it's not my wheelhouse, but I thought K&E had a very strong funds group, so I'm a bit surprised to hear R&G has a stronger one, especially at such a small office. Will endorse that R&G's M&A practice is very strong and that they've brought over some great lateral partners.

[Law Sauce]

Agree with the list that has the *gap* notation. The previous list with T1 being Kirkland/Latham/Skadden and Sidley below is just pure flame, and the poster should be ashamed for basically copy/pasting Vault onto a Chicago list.

Ok bud. How long have you worked at these firms? Chicago is a national market. Also, overthought internet lists are overthought. These are all top firms and if you are an associate (or even a potential associate) you should not really care that much between tiers. If anything, you may last longer a little longer at a non "Tier 1" firm. Or you may not as there are just too many factors for you to forecast at that stage.

[Sackboy]

Agree with the list that has the *gap* notation. The previous list with T1 being Kirkland/Latham/Skadden and Sidley below is just pure flame, and the poster should be ashamed for basically copy/pasting Vault onto a Chicago list.

Ok bud. How long have you worked at these firms? Chicago is a national market. Also, overthought internet lists are overthought. These are all top firms and if you are an associate (or even a potential associate) you should not really care that much between tiers. If anything, you may last longer a little longer at a non "Tier 1" firm. Or you may not as there are just too many factors for you to forecast at that stage.

No clue why you're getting worked up about me trashing a bad tier list. Chicago being a national market doesn't change the fact that, for example, Willkie Chicago is not the same as Willkie New York. I also don't disagree with any of your other points (i.e. you might last longer at a lower tier firm and that there are other things for juniors to worry about). I'm here to be a preffffftige snob on an internet law school fora (aka what this thread is dedicated to), not to give any level of practical advice.

[Anonymous User]

Don't know enough about Funds, as it's not my wheelhouse, but I thought K&E had a very strong funds group, so I'm a bit surprised to hear R&G has a stronger one, especially at such a small office. Will endorse that R&G's M&A practice is very strong and that they've brought over some great lateral partners.

Because it's flame, and weak flame at that. He's conflating general funds work with regulated funds and derivatives, because most PE shops aren't too big into it (not profitable work and not much opportunity for growth), so touting derivatives/reg. work against general funds is nonsensical. The profitable work is GP-side formation and that's dominated by STB/Deb/K&E. R&G is a big firm in that space but they're not on par with the other 3 and certainly not stronger.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about Ropes & Gray as well. I admittedly did not know they even had an office in Chi, but apparently they do, and apparently with 80+ attorneys?

It's a newer office, I think it was founded in 2010. Most of the founding partners came from K&E and Mayer Brown.

Their reputation in Chicago essentially follows their other non-Boston/satellite offices, maybe with the exception of M&A which I'll talk about below. Their litigation is respectable, and the associates I know who work there get to put their hands on the firm's big cases run by Boston and New York partners. The lit partners in Chicago have a solid book of business as well, I think most of the partners in the Chicago office focus on corporate litigation and investigations.

The corporate group is probably bigger in number at this point, probably a 65/35 corporate majority. Most of the corporate revenue comes from middle market PE M&A and I'd say they are probably third in Chicago behind K&E and Latham. They bring a ton of M&A business. Also have a number of specialist partners who have moved over from K&E, DLA, Skadden over the past few years. Sizeable healthcare transactions practice, too. R&G Chicago also has respectable private funds, derivatives and regulated funds groups that surpass K&E's funds groups (not that that's saying much, but if you're interested in non-M&A corporate work or funds work, I'd recommend giving R&G a close look if you're not considering Latham or Skadden). As far as I know all the corporate associates (whether in funds or in M&A) do plenty of work with the NY/Boston/SF offices, too.

Because it's flame, and weak flame at that. He's conflating general funds work with regulated funds and derivatives, because most PE shops aren't too big into it (not profitable work and not much opportunity for growth), so touting derivatives/reg. work against general funds is nonsensical. The profitable work is GP-side formation and that's dominated by STB/Deb/K&E. R&G is a big firm in that space but they're not on par with the other 3 and certainly not stronger.

OP of the question -- thanks, these are very helpful.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the list that has the *gap* notation. The previous list with T1 being Kirkland/Latham/Skadden and Sidley below is just pure flame, and the poster should be ashamed for basically copy/pasting Vault onto a Chicago list.

Ok bud. How long have you worked at these firms? Chicago is a national market. Also, overthought internet lists are overthought. These are all top firms and if you are an associate (or even a potential associate) you should not really care that much between tiers. If anything, you may last longer a little longer at a non "Tier 1" firm. Or you may not as there are just too many factors for you to forecast at that stage.

No clue why you're getting worked up about me trashing a bad tier list. Chicago being a national market doesn't change the fact that, for example, Willkie Chicago is not the same as Willkie New York. I also don't disagree with any of your other points (i.e. you might last longer at a lower tier firm and that there are other things for juniors to worry about). I'm here to be a preffffftige snob on an internet law school fora (aka what this thread is dedicated to), not to give any level of practical advice.

[PLEASE DELETE]

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the list that has the *gap* notation. The previous list with T1 being Kirkland/Latham/Skadden and Sidley below is just pure flame, and the poster should be ashamed for basically copy/pasting Vault onto a Chicago list.

Ok bud. How long have you worked at these firms? Chicago is a national market. Also, overthought internet lists are overthought. These are all top firms and if you are an associate (or even a potential associate) you should not really care that much between tiers. If anything, you may last longer a little longer at a non "Tier 1" firm. Or you may not as there are just too many factors for you to forecast at that stage.

No clue why you're getting worked up about me trashing a bad tier list. Chicago being a national market doesn't change the fact that, for example, Willkie Chicago is not the same as Willkie New York. I also don't disagree with any of your other points (i.e. you might last longer at a lower tier firm and that there are other things for juniors to worry about). I'm here to be a preffffftige snob on an internet law school fora (aka what this thread is dedicated to), not to give any level of practical advice.

Got it. All good. Cheers.

[Anonymous User]

1. Kirkland & Ellis, Bartlitt Beck
2. Sidley Austin, Latham & Watkins, Skadden
3. Mayer Brown, Jenner & Block, Winston & Strawn, McDermott Will & Emery, Jones Day
4. Katten Muchin Rosenman, Baker McKenzie, Ropes & Gray, DLA Piper, Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig
5. Schiff Hardin, Vedder Price, Chapman & Cutler

There are some other local firms/national firms with sizable offices (like Seyfarth Shaw or Dentons) that could arguably go into tiers 4 and 5, but I think tiers 1-3 are pretty set.

[Anonymous User]

1. Kirkland & Ellis, Bartlitt Beck
2. Sidley Austin, Latham & Watkins, Skadden
3. Mayer Brown, Jenner & Block, Winston & Strawn, McDermott Will & Emery, Jones Day
4. Katten Muchin Rosenman, Baker McKenzie, Ropes & Gray, DLA Piper, Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig
5. Schiff Hardin, Vedder Price, Chapman & Cutler

There are some other local firms/national firms with sizable offices (like Seyfarth Shaw or Dentons) that could arguably go into tiers 4 and 5, but I think tiers 1-3 are pretty set.

Can people add insights on where Keller Lenkner falls in the hierarchy?

[ZVBXRPL]

Cooley is opening a 75 person office in Chicago.

[AntipodeanPhil]

Cooley is opening a 75 person office in Chicago.

Do they actually have 75 people signed up, or is the claim that they will have a 75 person office? If the former, that's impressive. If the latter, I would point out that White & Case opened an office in Chicago in 2018 with plans for 100+ lawyers, currently has 39 and seems to be going backwards.

[ZVBXRPL]

Cooley is opening a 75 person office in Chicago.

Do they actually have 75 people signed up, or is the claim that they will have a 75 person office? If the former, that's impressive. If the latter, I would point out that White & Case opened an office in Chicago in 2018 with plans for 100+ lawyers, currently has 39 and seems to be going backwards.

Not sure, but stole a few people from Winston and are "actively recruiting." Great point though!

[Sackboy]

Cooley is opening a 75 person office in Chicago.

Do they actually have 75 people signed up, or is the claim that they will have a 75 person office? If the former, that's impressive. If the latter, I would point out that White & Case opened an office in Chicago in 2018 with plans for 100+ lawyers, currently has 39 and seems to be going backwards.

Pretty sure they're launching with like a dozen attorneys.

[trebekismyhero]

Cooley is opening a 75 person office in Chicago.

Do they actually have 75 people signed up, or is the claim that they will have a 75 person office? If the former, that's impressive. If the latter, I would point out that White & Case opened an office in Chicago in 2018 with plans for 100+ lawyers, currently has 39 and seems to be going backwards.

Pretty sure they're launching with like a dozen attorneys.

Yeah, they took like 6 people each from DLA and Winston and it is all corporate. With White & Case, Wilkie, and now Cooley, I don't see all 3 meeting their targets. King & Spaulding also opened up a Chicago office a few years ago, but I am pretty sure that is still a very small office. Chicago can support more law firms, but it seems like the big clients are sticking with the established firms in the city. I do think Cooley and the VC space makes them more interesting though

[Anonymous User]

Can people add insights on where Keller Lenkner falls in the hierarchy?

Keller Lenkner is a plaintiff-side firm, so it's not directly comparable. It's a bit like asking how Lieff Cabraser or Robbins Geller compare to Latham or Kirkland. On the one hand, the firm regularly goes up against Kirkland, Winston, and others in Chicago (and it has partners and associates that were federal clerks from top law schools), but on the other, it's fairly small and doesn't hire many (any?) students directly from law school.

Plaintiff-side work can be great, but it's not easy to place into a prestige hierarchy.

[law1Lneedsjob]

reviving this thread to ask what the starting salary looks like at these firms in chicago...do most of them match NY market (now 202.5/205?)...?

[Anonymous User]

Sheppard, Cooley, and Wilkie all newer names to the city. Sheppard has been hiring a good amount of Winston guns. Wilkie slowly but steadily building their office. Word is Fenwick is also coming to town.

[Anonymous User]

Sheppard, Cooley, and Wilkie all newer names to the city. Sheppard has been hiring a good amount of Winston guns. Wilkie slowly but steadily building their office. Word is Fenwick is also coming to town.

thoughts on whether becoming a summer at a new place in Chicago like Wilkie is a good thing or bad thing? Any pros/cons to joining a newer branch of the firm?

[Anonymous User]

Sheppard, Cooley, and Wilkie all newer names to the city. Sheppard has been hiring a good amount of Winston guns. Wilkie slowly but steadily building their office. Word is Fenwick is also coming to town.

thoughts on whether becoming a summer at a new place in Chicago like Wilkie is a good thing or bad thing? Any pros/cons to joining a newer branch of the firm?

Pros:
1. If the office does well and grows, you would likely stand a better chance of making partner than at one of the many stagnant firms in Chicago.

Cons:
1. If the groups are small, it means that you have to gel with that small group or else you're screwed. At established firms, if you don't gel with partner / senior associate X, you can work with partner / senior associate Y instead. Might not be possible at a new firm.
2. If the office fails or does badly, you might be looking for a new job.
3. The firm will be less well known in the city, which might make it harder for you to lateral / look for in house work locally.

[Anonymous User]

anyone have any insight into the reputation of Latham Chicago? specifically litigation?

[Chrstgtr]

anyone have any insight into the reputation of Latham Chicago? specifically litigation?

Obviously, good. But not KE, Sidley, or Bartlit Beck.

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on Perkins Chicago? Paul Hastings?

[Anonymous User]

Anybody have any insight on boutiques that focus on white collar?