2020 Amlaw 100

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by QContinuum » Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:30 pm

LBJ's Hair wrote:The mercenary Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners.
Respectfully disagree. Everyone knows what makes America great is capitalism and the free-market economy. Kirkland is one of a relatively few firms to adopt that approach internally as well.

User avatar
thatlawlkid

Gold
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by thatlawlkid » Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:34 pm

QContinuum wrote:
LBJ's Hair wrote:The mercenary Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners.
Respectfully disagree.

LBJ's Hair

Silver
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by LBJ's Hair » Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:41 pm

thatlawlkid wrote:
QContinuum wrote:
LBJ's Hair wrote:The mercenary Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners.
Respectfully disagree.
Open to being wrong, but curious who you think "paying the top people more and poaching" benefits other than veteran partners with large rolodexes, who can make $12mm instead of $6mm.
Last edited by LBJ's Hair on Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jackshunger

Bronze
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:27 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by jackshunger » Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:42 pm

lifeasa2l wrote:
jackshunger wrote:Those Goldman bucks are really helping S&C partners out hmm. I'd be very interested to see how much this changes next year, seems like there could be drastic changes.
Care to elaborate?

Oh, I have no specific information about S&C, I was just surprised to see them as #2 over like Cravath or Kirkland or something.


The point about the rankings changing is a general point, as it would show which firms are taking a beating from coronavirus and which ones were actually positioned to deal with a market fall.

Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by Ultramar vistas » Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:09 pm

LBJ's Hair wrote:
Sackboy wrote:I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.
The day-long interviews are stupid, as is the firm's (seemingly) sincere belief that they're more elite than everyone except WLRK. Like guys, it's not 1991.

That said, I like the single-office model, focus on developing from within and investing in juniors. The Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners. Like if Ayn Rand ran a law firm.
I’m a Kirkland mid level so I notice when people talk about the firm, and it’s weird how much it’s always your LBJ’s hair, talking shit. Usually completely off base.

Do you work here? If so, who hurt you man? This is a good spot. If you don’t... what do you think you know? Because everything you write about the firm is just wildly incorrect. It’s weird.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


LBJ's Hair

Silver
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by LBJ's Hair » Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:30 pm

Ultramar vistas wrote:
LBJ's Hair wrote:
Sackboy wrote:I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.
The day-long interviews are stupid, as is the firm's (seemingly) sincere belief that they're more elite than everyone except WLRK. Like guys, it's not 1991.

That said, I like the single-office model, focus on developing from within and investing in juniors. The Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners. Like if Ayn Rand ran a law firm.
I’m a Kirkland mid level so I notice when people talk about the firm, and it’s weird how much it’s always your LBJ’s hair, talking shit. Usually completely off base.

Do you work here? If so, who hurt you man? This is a good spot. If you don’t... what do you think you know? Because everything you write about the firm is just wildly incorrect. It’s weird.
Nope, never worked there, have friends who do. It's not personal. I just think eat-what-you-kill, taken to the extreme, is bad for the industry. Atomizes law firm culture, retards associate development, etc.

Throwaway5818

New
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:40 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by Throwaway5818 » Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:36 pm

Throwaway5818 wrote:Do you work here? If so, who hurt you man? This is a good spot. If you don’t... what do you think you know? Because everything you write about the firm is just wildly incorrect. It’s weird.
Throwaway5818 wrote:Nope, don't work there, have friends there. It's not personal. I just think eat-what-you-kill is terrible for most people in the industry.
Because most people in the industry are mediocre and don't deserve the inflated salaries they're paid.
Last edited by Throwaway5818 on Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

LBJ's Hair

Silver
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by LBJ's Hair » Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:38 pm

Throwaway5818 wrote: Because most people in the industry are mediocre and don't deserve the inflated salaries they're paid.
I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about lol.

But to the other poster -- nothing against you, guy/gal. I don't think I've ever dragged any non-partners who work there, but if so my bad.
Last edited by LBJ's Hair on Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Throwaway5818

New
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:40 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by Throwaway5818 » Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:40 pm

LBJ's Hair wrote:
Throwaway5818 wrote: Because most people in the industry are mediocre and don't deserve the inflated salaries they're paid.
Thank you, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
The strong should not be constrained by the weak.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Ultramar vistas

Bronze
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:55 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by Ultramar vistas » Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:50 pm

LBJ's Hair wrote:
Ultramar vistas wrote:
LBJ's Hair wrote:
Sackboy wrote:I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.
The day-long interviews are stupid, as is the firm's (seemingly) sincere belief that they're more elite than everyone except WLRK. Like guys, it's not 1991.

That said, I like the single-office model, focus on developing from within and investing in juniors. The Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners. Like if Ayn Rand ran a law firm.
I’m a Kirkland mid level so I notice when people talk about the firm, and it’s weird how much it’s always your LBJ’s hair, talking shit. Usually completely off base.

Do you work here? If so, who hurt you man? This is a good spot. If you don’t... what do you think you know? Because everything you write about the firm is just wildly incorrect. It’s weird.
Nope, never worked there, have friends who do. It's not personal. I just think eat-what-you-kill, taken to the extreme, is bad for the industry. Atomizes law firm culture, retards associate development, etc.
I’m just going to disagree strongly that K&E has an atomized culture or poor associate development compared to any other law firm. I’ve seen enough laterals come through the door and have enough friends in peer firms to know that no one out there has a secret sauce for associate development. It’s about reps and feedback, and that is personal to individual Practice groups and even partners within firms.

Anyway, thinking K&E is emblematic of eat what you kill is about 15 years out of date. Whether or not they advertise it, all but a few firms have a model that tries to replicate K&E or at least give them the flexibility to respond to partner defections. You can be mad that lockstep is dying (why?) but taking it out one firm seems like misplaced anger.

Sackboy

Bronze
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by Sackboy » Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:56 pm

LBJ's Hair wrote:
Throwaway5818 wrote: Because most people in the industry are mediocre and don't deserve the inflated salaries they're paid.
I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about lol.

But to the other poster -- nothing against you, guy/gal. I don't think I've ever dragged on juniors who work there, but if so my bad.
Somehow my initial comment about Cravath triggered a page of Kirkland hate (whoops).

I am curious, though. If most people in the industry aren't worth their inflated salaries, isn't eat what you kill the ideal model? Those not worth it will starve.

As someone familiar with both Cravath and Kirkland on a pretty intimate level, I can't say that either trains/develops their associates better or worse than the other. I also don't think Kirkland's model is that different than any other V10. Kirkland's equity track is 11 years. Skadden is normally around 11-13 years. Cravath normally does around 10 years. Etc. If you'd get equity at Skadden or Cravath, you're probably going to get it at Kirkland. Big book people are going to get equity everywhere. If anything, Kirkland's model helps specialists get equity, because they just get paid the minimum share, which I think is $1.7M-$1.9M these days. At a lockstep partnership, letting a specialist get equity means you're eventually going to be paying them out at the top of the equity scale if they stick around. The only other real difference at Kirkland is that you get the partner tag at year 6 and are then billed at partner rates, making the firm more profitable. I'd imagine that getting the partner tag so easily probably gives their associates some better lateral opportunities, both to grab the partner tag elsewhere or to grab a GC-level role.

User avatar
LHand1993

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:50 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by LHand1993 » Wed Apr 22, 2020 6:54 pm

LBJ's Hair wrote:
Sackboy wrote:I enjoy the "Super Rich" list solely because it puts Cravath in its place. I've been a preacher for a long time that Cravath just isn't special anymore. Their day-long interviews and straight out of law school hiring are gimmicks more than anything else. At my T13, half of the firms above it (and even a few below it) on the "Super Rich" list were far more selective at OCI. There are now 13 firms with a higher PPP with the 4 or so ranked after it at essentially the same PPP, and quite a few firms that have RPL above, at, or only slighly below Cravath's level.
The day-long interviews are stupid, as is the firm's (seemingly) sincere belief that they're more elite than everyone except WLRK. Like guys, it's not 1991.

That said, I like the single-office model, focus on developing from within and investing in juniors. The Kirkland approach is terrible for everyone except rainmaker partners. Like if Ayn Rand ran a law firm.
Anecdotal evidence of course, but last year at my T5's OCI, I knew a relatively high number of students with a Cravath offer, and none of them took it. The reputation as a sweatshop really seems to have been embedded in everyone's mind. Moreover, their practice is somewhat limited (especially on the transactional side) compared to other firms in the v10, which I think also played a factor. People would rather go to Skadden to work for a specific group than deal with all the bullshit that comes with working through the Cravath rotation system. I personally don't believe this to be true, but many students also think there's working in BigLaw and then there's working at Cravath (in terms of the amount of work)--and most people I know were fine with giving up the "prestige" of a Cravath lawyer to work in another v10 that they believed would be less grueling.

User avatar
LHand1993

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:50 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by LHand1993 » Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:01 pm

AmLaw 100 Based on PPP:

1 Wachtell
2 Kirkland
3 Paul Weiss
4 Sullivan & Cromwell
5 Quinn Emanuel
6 Davis Polk
7 Simpson Thacher
8 Cravath
9 Weil
10 Skadden
11 Milbank
12 Cahill
13 Fried Frank
14 Latham
15 Gibson Dunn
16 Debevoise
17 Paul Hastings
18 Boies Schiller
19 Willkie
20 Cleary Gottlieb
21 Schulte Roth
22 Cadwalader
23 Dechert
24 King & Spalding
25 Sidley
26 Ropes & Gray
27 Vinson & Elkins
28 Proskauer
29 Goodwin Procter
30 Akin Gump
31 White & Case
32 Cooley
33 Shearman & Sterling
34 Wilson Sonsini
35 Fragomen
36 O’Melveny
37 Winston & Strawn
38 Wilmer
39 Orrick
40 Alston & Bird
41 Fenwick
42 Kramer Levin
43 Morrison & Foerster
44 Fish
45 McDermott
44 Fish
45 McDermott
46 DLA Piper*
47 Katten
48 Mayer Brown
49 Greenberg Traurig
49 Covington
49 Sheppard Mullin
52 Baker Botts
53 Jenner & Block
54 Holland & Knight
55 Pillsbury
56 Hogan Lovells
57 McGuireWoods
58 Morgan Lewis
59 Baker McKenzie*
60 Nixon Peabody
61 Foley & Lardner
62 Mintz Levin
63 Perkins Coie
64 Reed Smith
65 Baker & Hostetler
66 Seyfarth
67 Kilpatrick Townsend
68 Arnold & Porter
69 Hunton Andrews
70 Steptoe
70 Venable
72 Troutman Sanders
73 Nelson Mullins
74 Jones Day
75 Crowell & Moring
76 Squire Patton*
77 Duane Morris
78 Haynes and Boone
79 Blank Rome
80 Barnes & Thornburg
81 Gordon Rees
82 Polsinelli
83 Locke Lord
84 Lewis Brisbois
85 Norton Rose*
86 Cozen O’Connor
87 Faegre Baker
88 Bryan Cave
89 Davis Wright
88 Bryan Cave
89 Davis Wright
90 Drinker Biddle
91 Ogletree Deakins
92 Dorsey
93 Fox Rothschild
94 K&L Gates
95 Akerman
96 Husch Blackwell
97 Jackson Lewis
98 Ballard Spahr
99 Womble Bond
100 Littler

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 357873
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:03 pm

As another data point about Cravath, multiple people I know from school turned down Cravath specifically because of the rotational system. The benefits just don't outweigh the negatives when you have comparable options. (Cravath might respond that they only want people who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid, but there's only so often that you can insist on that when the demographic shifts are not in your favor.)

jackshunger

Bronze
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:27 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by jackshunger » Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:As another data point about Cravath, multiple people I know from school turned down Cravath specifically because of the rotational system. The benefits just don't outweigh the negatives when you have comparable options. (Cravath might respond that they only want people who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid, but there's only so often that you can insist on that when the demographic shifts are not in your favor.)

At my T6, Cravath gets about 50-60% of people they offer, which also happens to match up pretty strongly with the number of people that get Wachtell, W&C, Boies, Susman, etc. I think their brand is fine for the most part, sure they aren't getting the top, top students anymore, but they still have better conversation rates than S&C, DPW, Skadden, and the like.

lawdude31

New
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:21 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by lawdude31 » Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:09 pm

jackshunger wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As another data point about Cravath, multiple people I know from school turned down Cravath specifically because of the rotational system. The benefits just don't outweigh the negatives when you have comparable options. (Cravath might respond that they only want people who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid, but there's only so often that you can insist on that when the demographic shifts are not in your favor.)

At my T6, Cravath gets about 50-60% of people they offer, which also happens to match up pretty strongly with the number of people that get Wachtell, W&C, Boies, Susman, etc. I think their brand is fine for the most part, sure they aren't getting the top, top students anymore, but they still have better conversation rates than S&C, DPW, Skadden, and the like.
But they also don't seem to necessarily be in consideration for all top students the same way S&C and the other top firms do. And they also are less grade selective, focusing more on students who fit their mold, and therefore are more likely to accept the offer.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by UVA2B » Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:45 pm

Can we rename either Williams & Connolly or White & Case so "W&C" becomes less context dependent? I like White & Base, but Billiams & Connolly would work too.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


BrainsyK

Bronze
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:37 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by BrainsyK » Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:55 pm

UVA2B wrote:Can we rename either Williams & Connolly or White & Case so "W&C" becomes less context dependent? I like White & Base, but Billiams & Connolly would work too.
It's easy to not confuse the two. The cream doesn't go to Williams & Connolly.

Sackboy

Bronze
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by Sackboy » Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:00 pm

UVA2B wrote:Can we rename either Williams & Connolly or White & Case so "W&C" becomes less context dependent? I like White & Base, but Billiams & Connolly would work too.
I also want to cast a vote for either Baker McKenzie or Baker Botts to rename. Someone once told me "I work at Baker," and I just didn't know how to respond. I think it would have helped if I at least knew what firm they were talking about.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by UVA2B » Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:03 pm

Sackboy wrote:
UVA2B wrote:Can we rename either Williams & Connolly or White & Case so "W&C" becomes less context dependent? I like White & Base, but Billiams & Connolly would work too.
I also want to cast a vote for either Baker McKenzie or Baker Botts to rename. Someone once told me "I work at Baker," and I just didn't know how to respond. I think it would have helped if I at least knew what firm they were talking about.
When you find out they work at Baker Donelson, you have no idea what to do.

BrainsyK

Bronze
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:37 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by BrainsyK » Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:10 pm

Sackboy wrote:I also want to cast a vote for either Baker McKenzie or Baker Botts to rename. Someone once told me "I work at Baker," and I just didn't know how to respond. I think it would have helped if I at least knew what firm they were talking about.
UVA2B wrote:When you find out they work at Baker Donelson, you have no idea what to do.
Y'all sleeping on Baker Hostetler.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by UVA2B » Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:29 pm

BrainsyK wrote:
Sackboy wrote:I also want to cast a vote for either Baker McKenzie or Baker Botts to rename. Someone once told me "I work at Baker," and I just didn't know how to respond. I think it would have helped if I at least knew what firm they were talking about.
UVA2B wrote:When you find out they work at Baker Donelson, you have no idea what to do.
Y'all sleeping on Baker Hostetler.
Merge all of them, create a new Dentons.

BrainsyK

Bronze
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:37 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by BrainsyK » Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:30 pm

UVA2B wrote:Merge all of them, create a new Dentons.
Baker LLP.

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by QContinuum » Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:34 pm

BrainsyK wrote:
UVA2B wrote:Merge all of them, create a new Dentons.
Baker LLP.
Baker Baidu (can't forget the "Dachung" arm that made Dentons the biggest megafirm in the world!).

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1348
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: 2020 Amlaw 100

Post by objctnyrhnr » Thu Apr 23, 2020 8:15 am

Anybody want to explain this Kirkland setup that everybody’s talking about?

I’m in the dark on that.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”