Kirkland or Gibson for Houston? Forum

[mountainpianist]

I'm in the position of choosing between the Houston offices of Kirkland Ellis and Gibson Dunn for my 2L summer - and I'm torn, so I'm looking for any insight anyone might have! I've read all the threads on here currently discussing these firms, but GDC Houston seems so new and growing that all the info I found felt outdated.

KE is obviously more established in the Houston market with massive class sizes, whereas GDC is newer and *much* smaller. After interviewing with both and talking to associates at both, I can say I would probably fit in with both just fine. The thing that draws me to KE is the apparent strength of the office in the Houston market, and the marginally better bonus system. GDC is newer, but appears to offer a more diverse type of work due to working heavily with other offices. I'm interested in transactional, but would love to try out more than just PE/M&A, such as tech transactions, tax, etc., and I got the impression from GDC that those were more realistic experiences there than they would be from KE (please tell me if I'm wrong!)

Kirkland's class size is also worrying me, as the intake-to-growth numbers appear to suggest higher attrition rates than other firms, like GDC. On the other hand, GDC Houston takes like 8 people, and I wonder if they have the issue of a lack of people + too much work = overworked associates in too deep.

Does anyone have any insights into either office as far as what opportunities would be available at either, and what impact the different summer class size might have on my experience? Also any other advice!

[Anonymous User]

From Houston with a decent feel for the market. This is kind of a weird decision to be making, because usually in the Houston market people are deciding between smaller Texas firms and huge out-of-town firms. Here you have 2 out-of-town firms, but one already has a much larger presence in Houston than the other.

A lot of out of town firms have come to town in the last 8 years or so, and most have failed to gain any kind of presence. Kirkland and Latham are notable exceptions. GDC's Houston office has like 20 lawyers. There is no guarantee that that office will even be around in five years. Satellites fail all the time. I honestly have no idea what kind of work they do, but IMO if you are practicing in the Houston office, you will be doing energy work. Do not expect to get any substantial exposure to tech transactions at GDC Houston. And if it's possible to do that kind of work at GDC, it's possible at KE (I'm assuming they told you you would be able to take work from other offices; I was told the same thing by KE, and I imagine doing so would be much, much easier at a 200 lawyer office).
Kirkland, on the other hand, is the #1 firm in town for M&A and private equity work. They now have over 200 lawyers in that office; it's not going anywhere. That said, everything people say about KE is true to some extent (but probably exaggerated). Personally, I really liked the people and culture at KE Houston, and I came very close to going there.

In short, Kirkland is the model for all out of town firms opening offices in Houston. KE is what GDC wants to be (in Houston). So I'd just go to Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

I recently faced a similar choice- 1) to the poster above, after BB screwed over its SAs last year the only TX firm at my T6 people were even remotely looking at was V&E, and at my school they don’t do OCI making getting an offer tough 2) IMHO go with what felt better. K&E is not for everyone and while GDC is new to Houston, they have been in TX for 20+ years. Yes, K&E leads on deal tables but that won’t matter if you hate working there. I know I’m being heretical in the above, but you want to find a place where you can get a solid 3-5 years experience and learn from people you get along with.

[Anonymous User]

I recently faced a similar choice- 1) to the poster above, after BB screwed over its SAs last year the only TX firm at my T6 people were even remotely looking at was V&E, and at my school they don’t do OCI making getting an offer tough 2) IMHO go with what felt better. K&E is not for everyone and while GDC is new to Houston, they have been in TX for 20+ years. Yes, K&E leads on deal tables but that won’t matter if you hate working there. I know I’m being heretical in the above, but you want to find a place where you can get a solid 3-5 years experience and learn from people you get along with.

That's all true, but you want to go to a place that actually has work, lol. And fwiw, V&E is head and shoulders above GDC in Houston. There's not a lawyer in the city who would tell you otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

At GDC Houston it is much more realistic for you to pick up work from other offices than K&E Houston, I know this for a fact. K&E Houston will be energy/infrastructure work. K&E will give you a much higher volume of M&A. K&E Houston is a much more brutal place to be a junior, and much better place to be a mid-level senior.

All of the above is true and not speculative - use it to make an informed decision.

[Ultramar vistas]

At GDC Houston it is much more realistic for you to pick up work from other offices than K&E Houston, I know this for a fact. K&E Houston will be energy/infrastructure work. K&E will give you a much higher volume of M&A. K&E Houston is a much more brutal place to be a junior, and much better place to be a mid-level senior.

All of the above is true and not speculative - use it to make an informed decision.

Have you worked at both offices? I work at K&E Houston, and it is absolutely false to say all your work will be energy / infra or that cross office staffing is hard.

Cross office staffing is incredibly easy and encouraged, and while the meat and potatoes of every full service firm in Houston in some way ties back to the energy industry, please browse the bios of K&E Houston partners and associates to get a sense of how broad the industry exposure is. It’s very, very broad, and you can check yourself.

[Anonymous User]

At GDC Houston it is much more realistic for you to pick up work from other offices than K&E Houston, I know this for a fact. K&E Houston will be energy/infrastructure work. K&E will give you a much higher volume of M&A. K&E Houston is a much more brutal place to be a junior, and much better place to be a mid-level senior.

All of the above is true and not speculative - use it to make an informed decision.

Have you worked at both offices? I work at K&E Houston, and it is absolutely false to say all your work will be energy / infra or that cross office staffing is hard.

Cross office staffing is incredibly easy and encouraged, and while the meat and potatoes of every full service firm in Houston in some way ties back to the energy industry, please browse the bios of K&E Houston partners and associates to get a sense of how broad the industry exposure is. It’s very, very broad, and you can check yourself.

Anon from above. Work at K&E and know a few ppl well at GDC. It is possible, but it is definitely not encouraged at K&E Houston (at least in M&A). Obviously if you are a specialist cross staffing is a different story. At GDC I understand it happens quite frequently, mostly because there is not enough organic work to keep that office alive - some might say that is a bad thing but some may say it is a good thing if you are more junior.

To be clear, I'm not telling OP what to do, as I think can't go wrong with both choices. Just trying to touch on a few things other ppl have mentioned.

[Ultramar vistas]

At GDC Houston it is much more realistic for you to pick up work from other offices than K&E Houston, I know this for a fact. K&E Houston will be energy/infrastructure work. K&E will give you a much higher volume of M&A. K&E Houston is a much more brutal place to be a junior, and much better place to be a mid-level senior.

All of the above is true and not speculative - use it to make an informed decision.

Have you worked at both offices? I work at K&E Houston, and it is absolutely false to say all your work will be energy / infra or that cross office staffing is hard.

Cross office staffing is incredibly easy and encouraged, and while the meat and potatoes of every full service firm in Houston in some way ties back to the energy industry, please browse the bios of K&E Houston partners and associates to get a sense of how broad the industry exposure is. It’s very, very broad, and you can check yourself.

Anon from above. Work at K&E and know a few ppl well at GDC. It is possible, but it is definitely not encouraged at K&E Houston (at least in M&A). Obviously if you are a specialist cross staffing is a different story. At GDC I understand it happens quite frequently, mostly because there is not enough organic work to keep that office alive - some might say that is a bad thing but some may say it is a good thing if you are more junior.

To be clear, I'm not telling OP what to do, as I think can't go wrong with both choices. Just trying to touch on a few things other ppl have mentioned.

What year are you? I’m sorry, but I just don’t know how you can say it’s not encouraged when they literally encourage us to seek out work from wherever we are interested, and revised the review system specifically to further incentivize people to go get work from partners in other offices. And yes, talking about M&A.

Sure, you would be smart to reserve time for Houston partners and work, and would not encourage trying to be working from the LA office 100% while sitting in Chicago. But I don’t know how they could be any more accommodating or encouraging than the current system.

[Anonymous User]

At GDC Houston it is much more realistic for you to pick up work from other offices than K&E Houston, I know this for a fact. K&E Houston will be energy/infrastructure work. K&E will give you a much higher volume of M&A. K&E Houston is a much more brutal place to be a junior, and much better place to be a mid-level senior.

All of the above is true and not speculative - use it to make an informed decision.

Have you worked at both offices? I work at K&E Houston, and it is absolutely false to say all your work will be energy / infra or that cross office staffing is hard.

Cross office staffing is incredibly easy and encouraged, and while the meat and potatoes of every full service firm in Houston in some way ties back to the energy industry, please browse the bios of K&E Houston partners and associates to get a sense of how broad the industry exposure is. It’s very, very broad, and you can check yourself.

Anon from above. Work at K&E and know a few ppl well at GDC. It is possible, but it is definitely not encouraged at K&E Houston (at least in M&A). Obviously if you are a specialist cross staffing is a different story. At GDC I understand it happens quite frequently, mostly because there is not enough organic work to keep that office alive - some might say that is a bad thing but some may say it is a good thing if you are more junior.

To be clear, I'm not telling OP what to do, as I think can't go wrong with both choices. Just trying to touch on a few things other ppl have mentioned.

What year are you? I’m sorry, but I just don’t know how you can say it’s not encouraged when they literally encourage us to seek out work from wherever we are interested, and revised the review system specifically to further incentivize people to go get work from partners in other offices. And yes, talking about M&A.

Sure, you would be smart to reserve time for Houston partners and work, and would not encourage trying to be working from the LA office 100% while sitting in Chicago. But I don’t know how they could be any more accommodating or encouraging than the current system.

The rating system wasn't revised to "encourage" you to get work from other partners, it was set up because easier for person out of office with whom you have likely not worked to act as an ombudsman.

I suppose there is not really any way to resolve our anecdotal experiences, other than to say I know from my experience that it is not "encouraged" (no matter what policies they pay lip service to) and would even go as far as to say it has hurt the careers of ppl who try to do so, and you apparently have had the opposite experience, which I find very interesting, or maybe you are just going off the "policy". Guess if getting non-energy work is important to OP, OP will just need to weigh our different anecdotal experiences and maybe reach out to a few mid-level to senior associates to get their take as well. If it is a non-issue to OP, then this is a moot point.

[mountainpianist]

OP here - thanks for all the info everybody! Super helpful - and interesting given the divide! Does anyone have any thoughts on the staying power of GDC in Houston? What their prospects for growth similar to LW/KE are?

[Anonymous User]

I think GDC is a great firm nationally and it’s hard to be too bearish on a V10. However, I strongly doubt that it or any other satellite office will achieve the growth of LW or especially Kirkland, unless something dramatic happens. Kirkland is a special animal with both (a) seemingly endless resources and more importantly (b) the desire to use them aggressively. They opened in 2014 and are now over 200 lawyers and counting with no signs of stopping soon. There are firms that are almost as rich as Kirkland (including LW), but few that are ALSO as ambitious.

I think Latham’s trajectory is more doable, but they have still been unusually successful in growing compared to other outside firms. The Houston office opened in 2010 and is now over 100 lawyers. It’s not out of the question for GDC (or Skadden, or whoever) to do the same over 11 years but it’s not guaranteed.

Much more importantly though, you have to remember that KE and Latham are already IN the market and have no reason to leave or give up ground. They have been poaching business from the native Texas firms, but those native firms are still holding on to certain business and talent that allows them to stay relevant and profitable. But ask yourself, if you’re GDC trying to break into the market in 2021 (instead of 2010 or 2014) who are you going to displace? Are you going to do a better job of biting pieces from Baker Botts than KE and LW have done already, especially considering that both are still actively trying to grab more? Are you going to somehow take business/talent directly from KE or LW? How exactly would you out-compete them? Of course, I’m sure they can do it to some degree, but the chances that they can enjoy massive growth are vastly smaller with LW and KE (and V&E, and BB, and all the other satellites, and the many smaller Texas firms) already taking so much oxygen.

GDC Dallas has 63 lawyers after being open since the 1980s. Which hey, that’s great and not a bad office. But if that’s the growth they’ve had in Texas after all these decades (especially being so much earlier to the party than other national firms), what is there to suggest that the Houston office would be different?

[Anonymous User]

1) Agree with other KE attorney, cross-staffing is incredibly easy, M&A or otherwise.

2) GDC isn't going to replicate the growth of KE. KE grew by $400, $600, and $500 million in each of the past three years, respectively. GDC grew by $200, $170, and $36 million in each of the past three years, respectively. This explains why KE has massive classes. KE is literally adding 40-60% of the revenue of a firm like Debevoise a year. Not surprisingly, you need to bring in a lot of attorneys to do that.

If you want to do corporate work, KE seems like a no-brainer. It's much stronger than GDC in most, if not all, of the groups you mentioned. Either way, you'll be fine. Worst case scenario is that GDC Texas folds/mergers and you end up at some other great firm. You did the hard part by getting two V10 offers. You'll be fine.

[glitterlily]

K&E is the exception to law firm growth patterns- most of the satellite offices I’ve talked to plan to at most be 70 people. However, all those offices are still profitable, and I think that fits GDC’s model pretty well. Another possible issue is lateraling- I’ve heard anecdotally that many HTX firms are skittish about K&E folks lateraling in, while the reverse is not true. Take with a grain of salt-I know people at both offices who are very happy with their choices.

[Anonymous User]

GDC Dallas has 63 lawyers after being open since the 1980s. Which hey, that’s great and not a bad office. But if that’s the growth they’ve had in Texas after all these decades (especially being so much earlier to the party than other national firms), what is there to suggest that the Houston office would be different?

Don't disagree with the rest of this post. Weird analogy though, between radically different offices and markets. GDC Dallas is a litigation-heavy office that positions itself more like a boutique (majority litigation associates are fed clerks, more than half are COA clerks, multiple SCOTUS clerks in the office). The co-head of GDC's sterling appellate practice sits in Dallas. Sorry, just a Dallas lawyer crashing the Houston party. Anon for obvious reasons.

Anyway, what Kirkland has pulled off in Houston corporate seems nothing short of remarkable to say the least.

[Anonymous User]

For those familiar with the Houston market: do y'all think KE & Latham will eventually do to V&E what they've done to Baker Botts? V&E seems to be holding its own, but the trends are worrisome. What should someone look at when debating between KE and V&E?

[Anonymous User]

For those familiar with the Houston market: do y'all think KE & Latham will eventually do to V&E what they've done to Baker Botts? V&E seems to be holding its own, but the trends are worrisome. What should someone look at when debating between KE and V&E?

current Houston market associate. Doesn't look good that V&E deferred incoming associates to January when KE and Latham didn't, and V&E only gave advances instead of stipends. As a law student, that would've been enough to sway me. Tens of thousands of dollars and months of experience difference.

[Anonymous User]

For those familiar with the Houston market: do y'all think KE & Latham will eventually do to V&E what they've done to Baker Botts? V&E seems to be holding its own, but the trends are worrisome. What should someone look at when debating between KE and V&E?

Anon KE associate from above who says cross-office staffing not so easy. V&E will be fine. The main things I would think about are:

1. Unless you are from TX and intend to stay in TX, K&E is a stronger name nationally and will open more opportunities for you if you leave TX.

2. V&E trains their associates better and are a bit kinder to their associates (sorry to the K&E 2nd years in this thread, these are just the facts)

3. If you want to do M&A, K&E is the best

[Anonymous User]

OP for what it's worth, I recently had the option to take any of these firms (K&E, Latham, V&E, BB, GDC, others) and I chose K&E (transactional). Not a brag, just context (it's anon anyway). Who knows maybe I'll regret that decision eventually, but given the exact same information you have and spending a bunch of time trying to talk to people at the firms and figure out the best path, that's what I landed on.

I think they're in a strong market position and have a clear upward trajectory, the people seemed nice enough, and it's obviously a firm with lots of opportunity and cache in TX and nationally. And they pay above market bonuses. If it turns out to be a mistake, I don't think lateraling will be particularly hard (especially if you were getting offers at multiple V10s + V&E).

I did strongly consider Latham instead. They seemed chill and similar to K&E in a lot of ways. I think it's hard to go wrong with either of them. I have no plans to lateral, but if I do, Latham seems like the most likely place. For V&E and BB I worry about the pressure they're under from KE/LW and everyone else trying to invade the market, plus the V&E people honestly struck me as more intense/negative than K&E/LW despite the reputation being the opposite. I really really loved the people at BB but as a firm they seem to be trending down. GDC I put in the same category as all the other small satellite offices and basically decided "good firm, nice people, office too small, not sure how much room they have to grow but if they do maybe I'll lateral someday."

[Anonymous User]

K&E is the exception to law firm growth patterns- most of the satellite offices I’ve talked to plan to at most be 70 people. However, all those offices are still profitable, and I think that fits GDC’s model pretty well. Another possible issue is lateraling- I’ve heard anecdotally that many HTX firms are skittish about K&E folks lateraling in, while the reverse is not true. Take with a grain of salt-I know people at both offices who are very happy with their choices.

Can someone actually weigh in on this? This makes no sense for a number of reasons yet gets spread around each time HOU shops are compared.

[Anonymous User]

K&E is the exception to law firm growth patterns- most of the satellite offices I’ve talked to plan to at most be 70 people. However, all those offices are still profitable, and I think that fits GDC’s model pretty well. Another possible issue is lateraling- I’ve heard anecdotally that many HTX firms are skittish about K&E folks lateraling in, while the reverse is not true. Take with a grain of salt-I know people at both offices who are very happy with their choices.

Can someone actually weigh in on this? This makes no sense for a number of reasons yet gets spread around each time HOU shops are compared.

I have heard this anecdotally as well, but have no idea if true. The rationale for this rumor is that the training/experience at K&E is uneven, which is true.

[Anonymous User]

K&E is the exception to law firm growth patterns- most of the satellite offices I’ve talked to plan to at most be 70 people. However, all those offices are still profitable, and I think that fits GDC’s model pretty well. Another possible issue is lateraling- I’ve heard anecdotally that many HTX firms are skittish about K&E folks lateraling in, while the reverse is not true. Take with a grain of salt-I know people at both offices who are very happy with their choices.

Can someone actually weigh in on this? This makes no sense for a number of reasons yet gets spread around each time HOU shops are compared.

I have heard this anecdotally as well, but have no idea if true. The rationale for this rumor is that the training/experience at K&E is uneven, which is true.

I recently made a choice between firms at the top of the Houston market as well. Because KE made my final 2, I asked at least 15 folks about this perception, folks who are at KE and who are at other leading firms in the market. The answers I got were almost uniformly not concerned with the ability of the hypothetical KE lateral associate. Instead I felt like there was some push back to KE's aggressive tactics in the market and that there's some perception of resentment among the other firms that's playing out. I have no idea if this is actually true, but it's a consistent theme that's been relayed when I ask people I trust outside of official functions.

[Anonymous User]

GDC Dallas has 63 lawyers after being open since the 1980s. Which hey, that’s great and not a bad office. But if that’s the growth they’ve had in Texas after all these decades (especially being so much earlier to the party than other national firms), what is there to suggest that the Houston office would be different?

Don't disagree with the rest of this post. Weird analogy though, between radically different offices and markets. GDC Dallas is a litigation-heavy office that positions itself more like a boutique (majority litigation associates are fed clerks, more than half are COA clerks, multiple SCOTUS clerks in the office). The co-head of GDC's sterling appellate practice sits in Dallas. Sorry, just a Dallas lawyer crashing the Houston party. Anon for obvious reasons.

Anyway, what Kirkland has pulled off in Houston corporate seems nothing short of remarkable to say the least.

Not a TX lawyer but yeah students at my law school definitely treated GDC Dallas as a highly selective litigation boutique even though the firm is technically full-service, similar in a way to Jenner DC

[Anonymous User]

GDC Dallas has 63 lawyers after being open since the 1980s. Which hey, that’s great and not a bad office. But if that’s the growth they’ve had in Texas after all these decades (especially being so much earlier to the party than other national firms), what is there to suggest that the Houston office would be different?

Don't disagree with the rest of this post. Weird analogy though, between radically different offices and markets. GDC Dallas is a litigation-heavy office that positions itself more like a boutique (majority litigation associates are fed clerks, more than half are COA clerks, multiple SCOTUS clerks in the office). The co-head of GDC's sterling appellate practice sits in Dallas. Sorry, just a Dallas lawyer crashing the Houston party. Anon for obvious reasons.

Anyway, what Kirkland has pulled off in Houston corporate seems nothing short of remarkable to say the least.

Not a TX lawyer but yeah students at my law school definitely treated GDC Dallas as a highly selective litigation boutique even though the firm is technically full-service, similar in a way to Jenner DC

Yeah, it's an interesting office with an interesting history. When V&E made the decision to prioritize transactions back in 2010 or so, the top litigation partners moved over to GDC and started building what eventually became GDC Dallas today. Now, it's probably the only Dallas litigation office that can go toe-to-toe with the tippy-top Houston boutiques talent wise. The office has produced at least two recently-elevated COA judges and two Texas Solicitors General (including the current incumbent). Anon because inside information.

[Anonymous User]

K&E is the exception to law firm growth patterns- most of the satellite offices I’ve talked to plan to at most be 70 people. However, all those offices are still profitable, and I think that fits GDC’s model pretty well. Another possible issue is lateraling- I’ve heard anecdotally that many HTX firms are skittish about K&E folks lateraling in, while the reverse is not true. Take with a grain of salt-I know people at both offices who are very happy with their choices.

Can someone actually weigh in on this? This makes no sense for a number of reasons yet gets spread around each time HOU shops are compared.

I have heard this anecdotally as well, but have no idea if true. The rationale for this rumor is that the training/experience at K&E is uneven, which is true.

I recently made a choice between firms at the top of the Houston market as well. Because KE made my final 2, I asked at least 15 folks about this perception, folks who are at KE and who are at other leading firms in the market. The answers I got were almost uniformly not concerned with the ability of the hypothetical KE lateral associate. Instead I felt like there was some push back to KE's aggressive tactics in the market and that there's some perception of resentment among the other firms that's playing out. I have no idea if this is actually true, but it's a consistent theme that's been relayed when I ask people I trust outside of official functions.

Recently-chose-K&E anon above. I did the exact same thing, because I'd heard lots of negative chatter. Talked to lots and lots of people both at the firm and outsiders that I trust. I also did lots of similar investigation into the other firms I was considering (including a few laterals who came to K&E from other firms - probably your best source of info). My conclusion was that both the scare tactics about lateraling and the messaging about negative culture or being a "sweatshop" were inaccurate. More specifically, there ARE some negative things about K&E, but they are just the standard downsides of BigLaw generally and conditions at their peer firms are the same or worse. This includes informally surveying associate hours for numerous associates between K&E, V&E, and LW which seemed to be in the same general range. Check back with me in a few years to see if I've been bamboozled, but I did pretty damn thorough job at trying to figure it out.

The thing is, there is a crapload of negative recruiting against K&E (and to a lesser degree against outsider firms in general, but mostly targeted at K&E). It's easy to understand why. Imagine you're a competitor firm. You hate K&E anyway because they're stealing all of your best talent and your best clients. Your position in the market is getting more tenuous and it's their fault.

Now it's recruiting season. How are you going to compete against them for talent? You can't compete on compensation, because K&E pays above market bonuses that you can't match. You can't compete on the firm's financials, because K&E is the richest firm in the world and getting richer. You can't compete on growth because K&E is growing faster than you, both in Houston and nationally. You can't compete on the quality or type of deals because K&E is already working on the same type of deals or better. You can't compete on volume of deals because they do literally over twice as many as the second busiest firm in Texas (LW). You can't compete on perks because K&E spends ludicrous money on perks that you can't match. Etc. etc.

So what's your only real option? Talk shit about K&E's culture, and try to scaremonger about lateraling. It's basically the only card you have left to play. Maybe a true lifestyle firm could instead do the positive version of that, and talk up how warm and fuzzy their culture is and how good the work-life balance is, rather than say bad things about competitors (and I talked to a few native firms that did this). But V&E/LW/BB/other peers can't even do that, because everyone knows that their hours and culture are going to be similar to K&E anyway.

[Anonymous User]

GDC Dallas has 63 lawyers after being open since the 1980s. Which hey, that’s great and not a bad office. But if that’s the growth they’ve had in Texas after all these decades (especially being so much earlier to the party than other national firms), what is there to suggest that the Houston office would be different?

Don't disagree with the rest of this post. Weird analogy though, between radically different offices and markets. GDC Dallas is a litigation-heavy office that positions itself more like a boutique (majority litigation associates are fed clerks, more than half are COA clerks, multiple SCOTUS clerks in the office). The co-head of GDC's sterling appellate practice sits in Dallas. Sorry, just a Dallas lawyer crashing the Houston party. Anon for obvious reasons.

Anyway, what Kirkland has pulled off in Houston corporate seems nothing short of remarkable to say the least.

Not a TX lawyer but yeah students at my law school definitely treated GDC Dallas as a highly selective litigation boutique even though the firm is technically full-service, similar in a way to Jenner DC

Yeah, it's an interesting office with an interesting history. When V&E made the decision to prioritize transactions back in 2010 or so, the top litigation partners moved over to GDC and started building what eventually became GDC Dallas today. Now, it's probably the only Dallas litigation office that can go toe-to-toe with the tippy-top Houston boutiques talent wise. The office has produced at least two recently-elevated COA judges and two Texas Solicitors General (including the current incumbent). Anon because inside information.

Since people are chiming in about lit and other markets, thought I'd chime in with some thoughts on Houston litigation. Kirkland's strategy has been wildly successful for corporate in Houston, but they've struggled for lit. They tried to do the same "throw money around strategy" and brought in a partner from Yetter Coleman and some associates from AZA and other more obscure places like Diamond McCarthy. A few years have passed and Kirkland Houston's lit roster is pretty underwhelming to say the least. The heavyweight lit partner, Patrick King, jumped ship. Bottom line is if you want to do lit in Houston and you have the credentials, you go to the boutiques, not Biglaw. The Houston market is pretty unique in that respect, no other city has such a high concentration of high quality boutiques. I'm not just talking about the creme de la creme like Susman or Gibbs. Just compare the roster at Smyser or Reynolds to Kirkland's.

If you're gunning for Houston corporate, you have to think about Kirkland. The problem is that every time the Texas market comes up in discussion, the Kirkland corporate conversation drowns everything else out. Because of this, everybody assumes they need to consider Kirkland, even if they're lit or they're thinking about other markets in Texas. If you're in this bucket, make sure you do your due diligence. Kirkland lit is fine, especially if you're interesting in bankruptcy litigation in Houston, but it's nothing like their transactions group.