Vault 2021 Predictions Forum

[sms18]

In my experience as a KE associate and talking to law school classmates at other comparable firms, I think KE associates and NSPs (what other firms would call 7th year and up associates) on the whole bill a meaningfully higher number of hours than most of their peers at similar firms. KE also commands top-end rates from clients. Those two facts just by themselves lead to KE having astronomical PPP.

Most of my colleagues are aware that they could work less at other peer firms; many of them don’t care (most of those have partner aspirations) and most of the rest are happy with the above market bonuses, even though the bonus delta is really not worth the extra time.

Based on my experience, this is accurate. High RPL can be explained by either higher prices (rates) or higher quantity (hours billed). In-house counsel are not dumb, and they wouldn't pay partner rates for a 6th-year NSP at K&E and associate rates for a 6th-year associate at another V10. The quality of work is not going to be meaningfully different. K&E's advantage might be charging New York rates across all offices, even as "market" rates in say, Houston, are lower. As I understand it, Kirkland's RPL is comparable to the V10 New York firms. I doubt Kirkland charges higher rates than Cravath or Davis Polk.

Sure in house counsel are "not dumb," but i dont think they typically look at each attorney's bill, look up their law school grad year to determine what year they are, whether they are an NSP or an equity partner, etc. Clients look at the bill in aggregate, and even if a K&E NSP commands a higher price compared to equivalent senior associates at other firms, this might not be so apparent to someone reviewing the actual bill. At least based on my personal interactions with K&E attorneys, the NSPs act as if they were the actual partners on the matter (e.g., without involving the more senior/equity partners, who do not participate at all in the negotiations).

[Anonymous User]

As someone who works at Weil (so biased), I don't get why people keep thinking, and some hoping, that it drops. It's a good firm.

I think GULC is a good, national law school, and the T14 should stay as is. Others have been trying to forcememe T13.

As an incoming associate at Weil, I find this very hilarious and am laughing to death

For real - not sure why weil people are so sensitive to not being in the v10 anymore. It is still oddly overranked, particularly now that kirkland is so far ahead of it in bankruptcy. Should be around v15 at highest

“So far ahead” is a bit of a stretch. Sure KE RX is having a strong start to the year, but Weil continues to take on some of the largest cases year in and year out

[lawlo]

Why is Kirkland the only firm that spurs this type of discussion?

[Anonymous User]

In my experience as a KE associate and talking to law school classmates at other comparable firms, I think KE associates and NSPs (what other firms would call 7th year and up associates) on the whole bill a meaningfully higher number of hours than most of their peers at similar firms. KE also commands top-end rates from clients. Those two facts just by themselves lead to KE having astronomical PPP.

Most of my colleagues are aware that they could work less at other peer firms; many of them don’t care (most of those have partner aspirations) and most of the rest are happy with the above market bonuses, even though the bonus delta is really not worth the extra time.

Based on my experience, this is accurate. High RPL can be explained by either higher prices (rates) or higher quantity (hours billed). In-house counsel are not dumb, and they wouldn't pay partner rates for a 6th-year NSP at K&E and associate rates for a 6th-year associate at another V10. The quality of work is not going to be meaningfully different. K&E's advantage might be charging New York rates across all offices, even as "market" rates in say, Houston, are lower. As I understand it, Kirkland's RPL is comparable to the V10 New York firms. I doubt Kirkland charges higher rates than Cravath or Davis Polk.

Sure in house counsel are "not dumb," but i dont think they typically look at each attorney's bill, look up their law school grad year to determine what year they are, whether they are an NSP or an equity partner, etc. Clients look at the bill in aggregate, and even if a K&E NSP commands a higher price compared to equivalent senior associates at other firms, this might not be so apparent to someone reviewing the actual bill. At least based on my personal interactions with K&E attorneys, the NSPs act as if they were the actual partners on the matter (e.g., without involving the more senior/equity partners, who do not participate at all in the negotiations).

Okay. That hasn't been my experience with K&E. But so I understand: basically what you're saying is, a year six K&E NSP is going to be a lot more equity partner-like than a year six associate at Davis Polk or whatever? That might be an argument for retaining K&E and attracting associates, but not necessarily an argument for paying more. K&E's RPL is $1.59 million, Davis Polk's is $1.48 million. So K&E's rates advantage, even assuming that the hours billed is exactly the same, is only about 7%. That's not a big difference.

[2013]

An NSP at Kirkland posted on the forum a few weeks ago and said that the average associate bills like 1950 hours, which probably isn’t demonstrably higher than most peer firms.

Kirkland probably is better at collecting on the high(er) amounts it bill out to clients, which leads to its extremely high RPL.

My friends who work at Kirkland mention how well the firm is run. Unlike most law firms, I’ve heard that it runs like a corporation. That probably also helps with its success.

Maybe it’ll be a V3 in a few years.

[Sackboy]

Why is Kirkland the only firm that spurs this type of discussion?

There are a lot of reasons for this.

First, it's broken into the coveted V10 and might see itself in the V5 soon enough. For prestige folks, that's a big deal.

Second, Kirkland is based out of Chicago, and many hold snobbish views toward non-NY based firms. Latham gets flak for this too.

Third, Kirkland ascended on the back of PE and not strategic public M&A, which is the typical V10 bread and butter.

Fourth, Kirkland doesn't have the white shoe "history," institutional its been serving for 200 years, and ties to the banking industry that move of the major firms historically have.

Fifth, it has a non-share partner tier that begins after year six. Most people here hate the idea of non-equity partners, but they seem to hate the idea of how easy it is to become one at Kirkland even more. Kirkland gets a lot of flack for its "fake" partners, but it's equity tier relative to the number of associates at the firm is no different from its rivals. People also think they charge their 7th and 8th year NSPs at partner rates, but an equity Kirkland partner came on here a couple of weeks ago and dispelled that myth.

Sixth, Kirkland poaches from V5 firms, including the big two at the top that most of the prestige-oriented folk are obsessed with and venerate. No other top firm has been as successful as Kirkland as grabbing key Cravath partners (and even a Wachtell partner). I think this has miffed some folks, because Kirkland was a rather good but mediocre among great strategic M&A firms until recently. Due to its aggressive acquisitions, it now sits in the top tier of strategic M&A firms with some truly massive transactions.

Seventh, Kirkland has not only poached talent but it has done so with "guaranteed" compensation, sometimes in the $10M-$15M a year range. That draws attention, especially when it seems like nobody else is doing it, at least at that level.

TL;DR - People talk about Kirkland so much because it's sitting at the big kids table while the big kids (and their fanboys) don't think it belongs, because it earned its spot at the table differently than all the other big kids.

[sms18]

In my experience as a KE associate and talking to law school classmates at other comparable firms, I think KE associates and NSPs (what other firms would call 7th year and up associates) on the whole bill a meaningfully higher number of hours than most of their peers at similar firms. KE also commands top-end rates from clients. Those two facts just by themselves lead to KE having astronomical PPP.

Most of my colleagues are aware that they could work less at other peer firms; many of them don’t care (most of those have partner aspirations) and most of the rest are happy with the above market bonuses, even though the bonus delta is really not worth the extra time.

Based on my experience, this is accurate. High RPL can be explained by either higher prices (rates) or higher quantity (hours billed). In-house counsel are not dumb, and they wouldn't pay partner rates for a 6th-year NSP at K&E and associate rates for a 6th-year associate at another V10. The quality of work is not going to be meaningfully different. K&E's advantage might be charging New York rates across all offices, even as "market" rates in say, Houston, are lower. As I understand it, Kirkland's RPL is comparable to the V10 New York firms. I doubt Kirkland charges higher rates than Cravath or Davis Polk.

Sure in house counsel are "not dumb," but i dont think they typically look at each attorney's bill, look up their law school grad year to determine what year they are, whether they are an NSP or an equity partner, etc. Clients look at the bill in aggregate, and even if a K&E NSP commands a higher price compared to equivalent senior associates at other firms, this might not be so apparent to someone reviewing the actual bill. At least based on my personal interactions with K&E attorneys, the NSPs act as if they were the actual partners on the matter (e.g., without involving the more senior/equity partners, who do not participate at all in the negotiations).

Okay. That hasn't been my experience with K&E. But so I understand: basically what you're saying is, a year six K&E NSP is going to be a lot more equity partner-like than a year six associate at Davis Polk or whatever? That might be an argument for retaining K&E and attracting associates, but not necessarily an argument for paying more. K&E's RPL is $1.59 million, Davis Polk's is $1.48 million. So K&E's rates advantage, even assuming that the hours billed is exactly the same, is only about 7%. That's not a big difference.

What I meant is that a NSP at Kirkland seems to be given more responsibility/is subject to less partner oversight compared to midlevel/senior attorneys at my current firm and other firms that I've dealt with. This is not necessarily always a positive or negative thing as it depends on the particular situation - more responsibility means you get to take a more complete ownership over a matter, but less oversight means less opportunity to learn from more senior people and higher chance of malpractice. (Also, i think KE makes NSPs starting at 7th year rather than 6th year? Not important to this discussion but just wanted to note.)

[sms18]

Why is Kirkland the only firm that spurs this type of discussion?

There are a lot of reasons for this.

First, it's broken into the coveted V10 and might see itself in the V5 soon enough. For prestige folks, that's a big deal.

Second, Kirkland is based out of Chicago, and many hold snobbish views toward non-NY based firms. Latham gets flak for this too.

Third, Kirkland ascended on the back of PE and not strategic public M&A, which is the typical V10 bread and butter.

Fourth, Kirkland doesn't have the white shoe "history," institutional its been serving for 200 years, and ties to the banking industry that move of the major firms historically have.

Fifth, it has a non-share partner tier that begins after year six. Most people here hate the idea of non-equity partners, but they seem to hate the idea of how easy it is to become one at Kirkland even more. Kirkland gets a lot of flack for its "fake" partners, but it's equity tier relative to the number of associates at the firm is no different from its rivals. People also think they charge their 7th and 8th year NSPs at partner rates, but an equity Kirkland partner came on here a couple of weeks ago and dispelled that myth.

Sixth, Kirkland poaches from V5 firms, including the big two at the top that most of the prestige-oriented folk are obsessed with and venerate. No other top firm has been as successful as Kirkland as grabbing key Cravath partners (and even a Wachtell partner). I think this has miffed some folks, because Kirkland was a rather good but mediocre among great strategic M&A firms until recently. Due to its aggressive acquisitions, it now sits in the top tier of strategic M&A firms with some truly massive transactions.

Seventh, Kirkland has not only poached talent but it has done so with "guaranteed" compensation, sometimes in the $10M-$15M a year range. That draws attention, especially when it seems like nobody else is doing it, at least at that level.

TL;DR - People talk about Kirkland so much because it's sitting at the big kids table while the big kids (and their fanboys) don't think it belongs, because it earned its spot at the table differently than all the other big kids.

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

[Sackboy]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

[ConfusedNYer]

For what its worth, I remember Skadden also still being heavily discussed as a "new player" of sorts ~fivish years ago, but not to the same degree.

Part of it is frankly that everything is so black box at so many of these firms that talking about any firm you do not work at is kind of tough. Because Kirkland has a lot of laterals, is a big firm which large classes, and has made a bit of a splash the past few years it gets discussed a lot, and once more information is out there it becomes easier for more and more people to discuss it because they feel like they have something to contribute/they know something about the firm (even if they don't really know much...)

[LBJ's Hair]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Do most BigLaw lawyers currently view Kirkland as any less "top tier," or prestigious, or w/e than Skadden? I don't, feel like my peers don't either.

Maybe they're irritated by Kirkland's business model, but that's a different thing. Like, Quinn is pretty unpopular in certain circles. But no one would debate that its litigators are top notch.

[ChairmanKaga]

Why is Kirkland the only firm that spurs this type of discussion?

TL;DR - People talk about Kirkland so much because it's sitting at the big kids table while the big kids (and their fanboys) don't think it belongs, because it earned its spot at the table differently than all the other big kids.

Helpful post, thanks. If I had to guess, I would say the most critical factor has been K&E's massive investment in PE work. Even the New York firms who look down on it wouldn't deny that it's been the leader for that kind of work for a long time. And so, either through strategic genius or luck, K&E have gained access to premium rates over the last 12 years because PE has come to dominate markets in a way that few predicted. If we get out of the current crisis and proceed with ZIRP for another 10 years, it's plausible that trend continues.

[Buglaw]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Do most BigLaw lawyers currently view Kirkland as any less "top tier," or prestigious, or w/e than Skadden? I don't, feel like my peers don't either.

Maybe they're irritated by Kirkland's business model, but that's a different thing. Like, Quinn is pretty unpopular in certain circles. But no one would debate that its litigators are top notch.

No. I think a good chunk of it comes from a need to justify not working there. It sucks when you are at a peer firm that charges as much, has basically no real partner prospects, you are constantly across from Kirkland and you keep thinking about how you could net a sweet 50k+ signing bonus plus a bigger year end bonus and then get a partner title at year 6 or so which can open up door. I personally think Kirkland is the best run law firm and is fairest to their associates. If I was starting over I would have gone to Kirkland over the firm I chose.

[SLS_AMG]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Eh. Many people also believe that Skadden isn't really in the same tier as the other top white-shoe NYC firms.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience as a KE associate and talking to law school classmates at other comparable firms, I think KE associates and NSPs (what other firms would call 7th year and up associates) on the whole bill a meaningfully higher number of hours than most of their peers at similar firms. KE also commands top-end rates from clients. Those two facts just by themselves lead to KE having astronomical PPP.

Most of my colleagues are aware that they could work less at other peer firms; many of them don’t care (most of those have partner aspirations) and most of the rest are happy with the above market bonuses, even though the bonus delta is really not worth the extra time.

Based on my experience, this is accurate. High RPL can be explained by either higher prices (rates) or higher quantity (hours billed). In-house counsel are not dumb, and they wouldn't pay partner rates for a 6th-year NSP at K&E and associate rates for a 6th-year associate at another V10. The quality of work is not going to be meaningfully different. K&E's advantage might be charging New York rates across all offices, even as "market" rates in say, Houston, are lower. As I understand it, Kirkland's RPL is comparable to the V10 New York firms. I doubt Kirkland charges higher rates than Cravath or Davis Polk.

I am at another V10 that is one of the traditional "white shoe" firms, and K&E's rates are actually lower. I have long assumed that the "higher quantity" theory mentioned above is what was going on.

[Anonymous User]

An NSP at Kirkland posted on the forum a few weeks ago and said that the average associate bills like 1950 hours, which probably isn’t demonstrably higher than most peer firms.

Kirkland probably is better at collecting on the high(er) amounts it bill out to clients, which leads to its extremely high RPL.

My friends who work at Kirkland mention how well the firm is run. Unlike most law firms, I’ve heard that it runs like a corporation. That probably also helps with its success.

Maybe it’ll be a V3 in a few years.

I’m aware of the internal materials describing average KE hours around 1950, and me and my colleagues are skeptical. The presentations never specify that those are only associate hours, even when other data (diversity data, etc.) is clearly segmented by associate and partner. I believe KE has an incentive in the market not to be known as a firm with meaningfully higher hours expectations and it presents data to obfuscate that.

My knowledge is only anecdotal, but I am convinced. I’m aware of multiple partners (and NSPs, trickling it on down) that have expressed what I’ll call a 2300 hour expectation - 200 a month, minus a vacation and holidays. I know not everyone is hitting 2300 but it’s culturally engrained, at least in my (non-NY) KE office. I still believe that on balance, the average KE associate is gonna bill more hours than someone from V3 on down.

[FedFan123]

As someone who works at Weil (so biased), I don't get why people keep thinking, and some hoping, that it drops. It's a good firm.

I think GULC is a good, national law school, and the T14 should stay as is. Others have been trying to forcememe T13.

As an incoming associate at Weil, I find this very hilarious and am laughing to death

For real - not sure why weil people are so sensitive to not being in the v10 anymore. It is still oddly overranked, particularly now that kirkland is so far ahead of it in bankruptcy. Should be around v15 at highest

“So far ahead” is a bit of a stretch. Sure KE RX is having a strong start to the year, but Weil continues to take on some of the largest cases year in and year out

Before weil filed a couple of new big chapter 11s this weekend, Kirkland had filed something like a dozen new cases this year to 1 (j crew) for weil. And even with a good weekend, they are getting quadrupled. Kirkland is the clear 1 debtor side, weil 2, and then a couple other shops like Latham and Paul Weiss aren’t all that far behind weil

[Anonymous User]

As someone who works at Weil (so biased), I don't get why people keep thinking, and some hoping, that it drops. It's a good firm.

I think GULC is a good, national law school, and the T14 should stay as is. Others have been trying to forcememe T13.

As an incoming associate at Weil, I find this very hilarious and am laughing to death

For real - not sure why weil people are so sensitive to not being in the v10 anymore. It is still oddly overranked, particularly now that kirkland is so far ahead of it in bankruptcy. Should be around v15 at highest

“So far ahead” is a bit of a stretch. Sure KE RX is having a strong start to the year, but Weil continues to take on some of the largest cases year in and year out

Before weil filed a couple of new big chapter 11s this weekend, Kirkland had filed something like a dozen new cases this year to 1 (j crew) for weil. And even with a good weekend, they are getting quadrupled. Kirkland is the clear 1 debtor side, weil 2, and then a couple other shops like Latham and Paul Weiss aren’t all that far behind weil

But you're missing the point. Weil has less than half the bankruptcy attorneys as Kirkland. Kirkland churns bankruptcies. Weil takes the big ones. They don't churn through a bunch at a time. They get a few big ones and do a great job at restructuring. Until they more than double their attorneys, it would be impossible to handle the case load that Kirkland handles. The partners and practice group are very very well respected, and often considered the best. Kirkland has a lot of bankruptcy partners grabbing clients, and they're great too, but different from Weil in key respects. You can't judge them by # of bankruptcies that pass through. FYI - I know and work with lots of Weil bankruptcy attorneys and Kirkland bankruptcy attorneys. They both have a ton of respect for one another, and are both very well regarded. Right now Weil is considered #1. Next year they might be #2, but it won't last long. I wouldn't be surprised if Weil snatches the largest bankruptcy in the coming 12 months.

[lawlo]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Eh. Many people also believe that Skadden isn't really in the same tier as the other top white-shoe NYC firms.

Who are these people and what exactly are you even saying? I stood back in perspective from this whole argument for a second and I'm dumbfounded. I thought the law school tier bullshit was bad.

[SLS_AMG]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Eh. Many people also believe that Skadden isn't really in the same tier as the other top white-shoe NYC firms.

Who are these people and what exactly are you even saying? I stood back in perspective from this whole argument for a second and I'm dumbfounded. I thought the law school tier bullshit was bad.

I'm just saying I have heard (on multiple occasions) lawyers from Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB indicate that they do not think Skadden is a "peer" firm. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but frankly this shouldn't come as a shock to someone familiar with the legal industry.

[Anonymous User]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Eh. Many people also believe that Skadden isn't really in the same tier as the other top white-shoe NYC firms.

Who are these people and what exactly are you even saying? I stood back in perspective from this whole argument for a second and I'm dumbfounded. I thought the law school tier bullshit was bad.

I'm just saying I have heard (on multiple occasions) lawyers from Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB indicate that they do not think Skadden is a "peer" firm. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but frankly this shouldn't come as a shock to someone familiar with the legal industry.

Hilarious reading these threads as someone that broke into the V10 via lateraling after graduating with below median grades. Lawyers are so miserable they argue about the prestige of their employers that are all ridiculously prestigious. Do people actually have conversions at firms like this? I was so miserable at my V10 that all i wanted was sleep and for someone to pay off my loans. Anyone arguing about K&E is out of their depth. I can't stand working with them and have heard horror stories about hours to the point that I turned down a pretty big signing bonus after getting an offer there. But they are definitely the future of big law. They run that place like a Fortune 500 company, their financials seem unbelievably solid, and their PE practice is the best in the world.

If anything, their foresight to understand that low interest rates and recovering economies means PE boom shows they are far better business minds than many other top firm partners. I don't get the hate about them despite never wanting to work there.

[kovdak02]

As someone who works at Weil (so biased), I don't get why people keep thinking, and some hoping, that it drops. It's a good firm.

I think GULC is a good, national law school, and the T14 should stay as is. Others have been trying to forcememe T13.

As an incoming associate at Weil, I find this very hilarious and am laughing to death

For real - not sure why weil people are so sensitive to not being in the v10 anymore. It is still oddly overranked, particularly now that kirkland is so far ahead of it in bankruptcy. Should be around v15 at highest

“So far ahead” is a bit of a stretch. Sure KE RX is having a strong start to the year, but Weil continues to take on some of the largest cases year in and year out

Before weil filed a couple of new big chapter 11s this weekend, Kirkland had filed something like a dozen new cases this year to 1 (j crew) for weil. And even with a good weekend, they are getting quadrupled. Kirkland is the clear 1 debtor side, weil 2, and then a couple other shops like Latham and Paul Weiss aren’t all that far behind weil

But you're missing the point. Weil has less than half the bankruptcy attorneys as Kirkland. Kirkland churns bankruptcies. Weil takes the big ones. They don't churn through a bunch at a time. They get a few big ones and do a great job at restructuring. Until they more than double their attorneys, it would be impossible to handle the case load that Kirkland handles. The partners and practice group are very very well respected, and often considered the best. Kirkland has a lot of bankruptcy partners grabbing clients, and they're great too, but different from Weil in key respects. You can't judge them by # of bankruptcies that pass through. FYI - I know and work with lots of Weil bankruptcy attorneys and Kirkland bankruptcy attorneys. They both have a ton of respect for one another, and are both very well regarded. Right now Weil is considered #1. Next year they might be #2, but it won't last long. I wouldn't be surprised if Weil snatches the largest bankruptcy in the coming 12 months.

I don’t think this take holds up well to 2020 reality:

Kirkland has been on 11 of the 24 largest BKs this year,

Kirkland recent clients include J.C. Penney, Neiman Marcus, Pier 1 Imports, Stage Stores, and Toys-r-Us (not exactly small time churn and burn),

“There were 12 large, public companies with more than $100 million in assets that filed bankruptcy in May, according to a UCLA database. That was the most filings in any month since March 2009. Kirkland advised on seven of the filings in May.”

Maybe the sticky-prestige white-shoe legal culture sees Weil ahead of Kirkland in BK, but paying clients do not.

Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... g-pandemic

[malibustacy]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Eh. Many people also believe that Skadden isn't really in the same tier as the other top white-shoe NYC firms.

Who are these people and what exactly are you even saying? I stood back in perspective from this whole argument for a second and I'm dumbfounded. I thought the law school tier bullshit was bad.

I'm just saying I have heard (on multiple occasions) lawyers from Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB indicate that they do not think Skadden is a "peer" firm. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but frankly this shouldn't come as a shock to someone familiar with the legal industry.

Why though? Just because they've been around the block longer (one of those you named defended the wrong side on Brown v. Board of Education), used to be lily WASP, and some of them are marginally more selective during OCI? By what objective metric is Skadden not a peer firm to the other 4?

[Joachim2017]

K&E's rise to the top is not dissimilar to some of the other firms that were underdogs in their day, like Skadden and Wachtell (which are no longer seen as underdogs for sure). Skadden and Wachtell also rode the coattail of hostile M&A frenzy of the 80's (beginning of the massive junk bond-backed leveraged buyouts) and rose to the top with unique business models (for instance, Wachtell's defense advisory practice and attorney fee rate that's based on the deal size), similar to how K&E rode the coattail of modern private equity with an aggressive business model.

Exactly. Nobody likes the "new" kid on the block. If Kirkland keeps up what they're doing, they will just be like Skadden and Wachtell on here in five years: nobody will question them "belonging" as a top firm.

Eh. Many people also believe that Skadden isn't really in the same tier as the other top white-shoe NYC firms.

Who are these people and what exactly are you even saying? I stood back in perspective from this whole argument for a second and I'm dumbfounded. I thought the law school tier bullshit was bad.

I'm just saying I have heard (on multiple occasions) lawyers from Cravath/S&C/DPW/STB indicate that they do not think Skadden is a "peer" firm. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but frankly this shouldn't come as a shock to someone familiar with the legal industry.

Hilarious reading these threads as someone that broke into the V10 via lateraling after graduating with below median grades. Lawyers are so miserable they argue about the prestige of their employers that are all ridiculously prestigious. Do people actually have conversions at firms like this? I was so miserable at my V10 that all i wanted was sleep and for someone to pay off my loans.

Uh, good for you, I guess? I don't understand the whole hating on people who are having a conversation on (an online message board, of all places) is. Obviously there's some mutual interest or at least curiosity among people in having the conversation. If you think it's a stupid conversation, don't partake in it?

Also, +1 from firsthand experience re some people within the legal community thinking Skadden's not in the same class as Cravath, S&C, DPW, etc. I think reputations are sticky, as are appearances and history. AGAIN, this isn't a report about what's justified, it's a report about what some people -- a large enough amount that it's out there, and known -- happen to believe.

[Anonymous User]

Why are firms like Cahill, Willkie, and Fried Frank so underrated by Vault? All three have very good corporate practices and are well regarded firms, particularly in New York. Is it the lack of national presence?