Vinson and Elkins vs KE - Houston Forum

[Anonymous User]

Choosing between these two firms in Houston. Long-term goals are partner (which is a long shot, but a goal nonetheless) or in-house if the former is not possible/realistic. Interested in transactional work for the most part but want to know if anyone has insight into the culture and the ability to progress at these firms. VE has a solid record and being a native TX firm will probably have its advantages in terms of going in-house in Houston (based on clients at least) but I'm assuming the KE name does just as well. I'd love some input on these firms or which would be better in the long run. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

[Anonymous User]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

The main goal is partnership prospects and the fallback being in-house if the former isn't possible or just not going to happen for whatever reason. So the best place to realistically achieve partnership but keeping in mind that in-house is going to be a very real possibility. I know that one is more likely than the other so I'm wondering if either firm gives enough partnership prospects to overlook better exit options.

[Sackboy]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

You act like these questions get you to different answers. K&E has both better exit options and a very short track to non-equity partner (aka non-share partners in K&E lingo).

If you're talking about equity long-term, I doubt V&E is much better of a place to be than K&E. Based on some basic math, if the profit per partner at K&E is $5.2 million, their profit margin is 60%, and they are adding $400 million in revenue a year, that comes out to an additional partner profit of $240 million. Lets say profit per partner grows 5% to $5.46 million. To get the 450 existing equity partners to that number, they'd have to suck $117 million from the pool. With the $123 million left over, you could make 22 new equity partners at an average PPP of $5.46 million. V&E grew their revenue by $45 million last year. Let's do the same exercise with them. With a 44% profit margin, that leaves the firm with $19.8 million in additional profit. To bring up their profit per equity partner of $2.8 million up 5%, we'd land at $2.94 million, so each existing partner needs another $140,000 from our pool. To get there, the 125 V&E equity partners would suck $17.5 million from the pool, leaving us with $2.44 million, which wouldn't even let us make a single new equity partner.

[Anonymous User]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

You act like these questions get you to different answers. K&E has both better exit options and a very short track to non-equity partner (aka non-share partners in K&E lingo).

If you're talking about equity long-term, I doubt V&E is much better of a place to be than K&E. Based on some basic math, if the profit per partner at K&E is $5.2 million, their profit margin is 60%, and they are adding $400 million in revenue a year, that comes out to an additional partner profit of $240 million. Lets say profit per partner grows 5% to $5.46 million. To get the 450 existing equity partners to that number, they'd have to suck $117 million from the pool. With the $123 million left over, you could make 22 new equity partners at an average PPP of $5.46 million. V&E grew their revenue by $45 million last year. Let's do the same exercise with them. With a 44% profit margin, that leaves the firm with $19.8 million in additional profit. To bring up their profit per equity partner of $2.8 million up 5%, we'd land at $2.94 million, so each existing partner needs another $140,000 from our pool. To get there, the 125 V&E equity partners would suck $17.5 million from the pool, leaving us with $2.44 million, which wouldn't even let us make a single new equity partner.

Regardless of the math checking out though, there has to be some other factor in determining the path to partnership. It isn't a calculus based entirely on economic feasibility. I'd assume attrition and path to equity partnership play a role. Even if KE has the money to make partners, that doesn't answer if those partners are coming internally or from poaching other partners at top firms by giving them more money (see KE coming into Houston and taking partners from wherever it could and possibly attempting the same in Austin). From the outside looking in, it seems like KE works their juniors to the bone expecting attrition whereas VE feels a bit more focused on cultivating that home grown talent.

Also, does the path to equity partnership in the KE Houston office look different than that of an office in IL or NY?

[Anonymous User]

VE deferred incoming associates to Jan while KE didn’t. VE doesn’t give stipends either, just advances. Those would be enough for me. And while that may be behind us, it shows where you stand on the firm’s priorities.

[Anonymous User]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

You act like these questions get you to different answers. K&E has both better exit options and a very short track to non-equity partner (aka non-share partners in K&E lingo).

If you're talking about equity long-term, I doubt V&E is much better of a place to be than K&E. Based on some basic math, if the profit per partner at K&E is $5.2 million, their profit margin is 60%, and they are adding $400 million in revenue a year, that comes out to an additional partner profit of $240 million. Lets say profit per partner grows 5% to $5.46 million. To get the 450 existing equity partners to that number, they'd have to suck $117 million from the pool. With the $123 million left over, you could make 22 new equity partners at an average PPP of $5.46 million. V&E grew their revenue by $45 million last year. Let's do the same exercise with them. With a 44% profit margin, that leaves the firm with $19.8 million in additional profit. To bring up their profit per equity partner of $2.8 million up 5%, we'd land at $2.94 million, so each existing partner needs another $140,000 from our pool. To get there, the 125 V&E equity partners would suck $17.5 million from the pool, leaving us with $2.44 million, which wouldn't even let us make a single new equity partner.

You act like they don’t. First off I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody say “I’m shooting for non-equity partnership.” Then while you can play with numbers all you want, making partner at Kirkland is best done by lateraling in as partner...

[Anonymous User]

Are you aware of the cultural differences between the two firms?

KE Houston is a frat house vibe with little respect for personal boundaries. If that’s your thing, its not a problem, and the firm’s financials obviously speak for themselves.

VE is has a more professional vibe, much less in-your-face culture, more understanding as to family obligations, etc. We’ve had a bunch of refugees come over from KE Houston—I’ve never heard of one going the other way.

Maybe try and split your summer between the two?

[Anonymous User]

Are you aware of the cultural differences between the two firms?

KE Houston is a frat house vibe with little respect for personal boundaries. If that’s your thing, its not a problem, and the firm’s financials obviously speak for themselves.

VE is has a more professional vibe, much less in-your-face culture, more understanding as to family obligations, etc. We’ve had a bunch of refugees come over from KE Houston—I’ve never heard of one going the other way.

Maybe try and split your summer between the two?

Not even going to bite on the culture war comments that are based on the first couple of years of the office opening, rather than the 200-person office that Kirkland is now. Sincerely doubt the V&E experience is markedly different than K&E or L&W - I know, because (a) I work across from y’all 4 times a year or more and y’all are pulling the exact same timelines as us, and (b) we all know a lot of each other in real life and I’ve seen just as many missed events, early departures and laptop-out-dinners from the V&E guys as I do anyone else. You’re not working at Jackson Walker, you know?

As to ‘refugees’ I’m not going to name names on a public forum but I can think of only two associates from K&E that have gone to V&E in the last few years, so I’m probably missing one or two more. On the other hand, I can also think off the top of my head of at least two V&E associates that came here and are still here.

So feel free to put b.s. out there but ultimately these kids have to work at your office - I’m sure there’s plenty of stuff that’s positive about V&E without smearing other firms in town; why don’t you try that?

[Anonymous User]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

You act like these questions get you to different answers. K&E has both better exit options and a very short track to non-equity partner (aka non-share partners in K&E lingo).

OP said the exit option they were considering (after partner) was in-house in Houston. V&E has better in-house exit options in Texas than K&E. That may change in the future, but it will take more time for a firm that entered Texas 7 years ago to develop the kind of in-house network and good old boys club that V&E currently has in Texas.

[Anonymous User]

My 2 cents:

In terms of exits, prestige, etc., there is no difference between K&E and V&E in TX. If you have aspirations outside of TX, no one cares about V&E outside of TX (other than Apollo for some weird reason).

If you are looking for the title "partner", you have a very real chance of making non-share partner at K&E if you can just stick it out for 6 years and not seriously mess up (like burn the building down or commit fraud).

If you are looking to make equity partner, your odds are better at V&E, both in terms of how much room they make at the top and realistic ability to stick it out.

As for culture, V&E is a bit kinder. But I wouldn't say it is "easy" in comparison to K&E.

[Anonymous User]

The cultural differences are that at Kirkland you’ll get a midnight email saying “I need this by 9 AM,” whereas at V&E you’ll get a midnight email saying “Sorry to do this, but can you get this to me by 9 AM? Thanks.”

“Frat house vibe” is a new one to me.

[Anonymous User]

Made a similar decision this year.

I came out of the analysis thinking that the best way to make equity partner in TX was to go make equity partner at a small firm in the market and hope you get poached in a decade by a bigger player looking to expand. I don't feel like choosing between these two firms based on likelihood of making equity partner makes much sense as the odds are pretty much nonexistent at both. Focusing on your exit options is of more realistic concern I think. I would pick KE for this, but if you're set to live in Houston forever I don't think you can make a bad choice.

[Anonymous User]

Made a similar decision this year.

I came out of the analysis thinking that the best way to make equity partner in TX was to go make equity partner at a small firm in the market and hope you get poached in a decade by a bigger player looking to expand. I don't feel like choosing between these two firms based on likelihood of making equity partner makes much sense as the odds are pretty much nonexistent at both. Focusing on your exit options is of more realistic concern I think. I would pick KE for this, but if you're set to live in Houston forever I don't think you can make a bad choice.

Where did you end up going, if you don't mind me asking?

[Sackboy]

You act like they don’t. First off I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody say “I’m shooting for non-equity partnership.” Then while you can play with numbers all you want, making partner at Kirkland is best done by lateraling in as partner...

Of course nobody is gunning for non-equity partner as the end game. Partner is a great title to have at year 6 in terms of hustling for great in-house jobs and even lateraling to equity partnership elsewhere. The very low barrier to entry is great if you're trying to play the long-game. There is a realistic possibility you don't make even non-equity elsewhere, as some firms have real standards for it.

I'm not really playing with the numbers, unless using last year's revenue growth and a pretty modest increase in PPP is "playing." Kirkland is growing extraordinarily fast and is bringing on tons of new equity partners. Of course, it's always easy to come in as a lateral equity partner. That's true literally everywhere. Still doesn't get around the fact that Kirkland also has a ton of home grown partners.

[Anonymous User]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

You act like these questions get you to different answers. K&E has both better exit options and a very short track to non-equity partner (aka non-share partners in K&E lingo).

If you're talking about equity long-term, I doubt V&E is much better of a place to be than K&E. Based on some basic math, if the profit per partner at K&E is $5.2 million, their profit margin is 60%, and they are adding $400 million in revenue a year, that comes out to an additional partner profit of $240 million. Lets say profit per partner grows 5% to $5.46 million. To get the 450 existing equity partners to that number, they'd have to suck $117 million from the pool. With the $123 million left over, you could make 22 new equity partners at an average PPP of $5.46 million. V&E grew their revenue by $45 million last year. Let's do the same exercise with them. With a 44% profit margin, that leaves the firm with $19.8 million in additional profit. To bring up their profit per equity partner of $2.8 million up 5%, we'd land at $2.94 million, so each existing partner needs another $140,000 from our pool. To get there, the 125 V&E equity partners would suck $17.5 million from the pool, leaving us with $2.44 million, which wouldn't even let us make a single new equity partner.

Regardless of the math checking out though, there has to be some other factor in determining the path to partnership. It isn't a calculus based entirely on economic feasibility. I'd assume attrition and path to equity partnership play a role. Even if KE has the money to make partners, that doesn't answer if those partners are coming internally or from poaching other partners at top firms by giving them more money (see KE coming into Houston and taking partners from wherever it could and possibly attempting the same in Austin). From the outside looking in, it seems like KE works their juniors to the bone expecting attrition whereas VE feels a bit more focused on cultivating that home grown talent.

Also, does the path to equity partnership in the KE Houston office look different than that of an office in IL or NY?

Fwiw the only people I know promoted to partner at V&E were laterals from other firms (including K&E) while the homegrown V&E people I know are all super associates/counsels. That's to say, perception and anecdote are absolutely meaningless.

[Sackboy]

Didn't mean to cause a shit show here. Honestly, you can't go wrong with either firm. They're both incredibly strong. I'd personally tie myself to the firm growing at an insane rate for job stability reasons, but that's just me being overly cautious.

[Anonymous User]

What matters more to you partnership prospects or exit options?

You act like these questions get you to different answers. K&E has both better exit options and a very short track to non-equity partner (aka non-share partners in K&E lingo).

If you're talking about equity long-term, I doubt V&E is much better of a place to be than K&E. Based on some basic math, if the profit per partner at K&E is $5.2 million, their profit margin is 60%, and they are adding $400 million in revenue a year, that comes out to an additional partner profit of $240 million. Lets say profit per partner grows 5% to $5.46 million. To get the 450 existing equity partners to that number, they'd have to suck $117 million from the pool. With the $123 million left over, you could make 22 new equity partners at an average PPP of $5.46 million. V&E grew their revenue by $45 million last year. Let's do the same exercise with them. With a 44% profit margin, that leaves the firm with $19.8 million in additional profit. To bring up their profit per equity partner of $2.8 million up 5%, we'd land at $2.94 million, so each existing partner needs another $140,000 from our pool. To get there, the 125 V&E equity partners would suck $17.5 million from the pool, leaving us with $2.44 million, which wouldn't even let us make a single new equity partner.

Regardless of the math checking out though, there has to be some other factor in determining the path to partnership. It isn't a calculus based entirely on economic feasibility. I'd assume attrition and path to equity partnership play a role. Even if KE has the money to make partners, that doesn't answer if those partners are coming internally or from poaching other partners at top firms by giving them more money (see KE coming into Houston and taking partners from wherever it could and possibly attempting the same in Austin). From the outside looking in, it seems like KE works their juniors to the bone expecting attrition whereas VE feels a bit more focused on cultivating that home grown talent.

Also, does the path to equity partnership in the KE Houston office look different than that of an office in IL or NY?

Fwiw the only people I know promoted to partner at V&E were laterals from other firms (including K&E) while the homegrown V&E people I know are all super associates/counsels. That's to say, perception and anecdote are absolutely meaningless.

OP here. I agree. Perception is largely meaningless which is why I hoped people like you would be able to chime in and give their experience with the firms. Does the same hold true for making equity partner at KE? nonequity partner at KE seems straightforward given the clear path but I'd like to be at whichever place long term and hopefully make it to equity partner, even if the odds are against me.

[Anonymous User]

The correct response is VE and then lateral to KE. You're welcome OP.

[sophocles]

The correct response is VE and then lateral to KE. You're welcome OP.

Could you elaborate?

[Anonymous User]

The correct response is VE and then lateral to KE. You're welcome OP.

Could you elaborate?

Not the previous poster. But TITCR. Kirkland and V&E training are virtually similar but Kirkland is brutal to its juniors. Enjoy the same level of sophisticated work and enjoy a marginally more humane treatment in V&E when you're a junior with no ability to control your life. Then as a mid level where you have more autonomy to control your workflows go to K&E where you'll get the brand name and the ability to get NSP so you can get some cooler exit ops.

[Anonymous User]

Made a similar decision this year.

I came out of the analysis thinking that the best way to make equity partner in TX was to go make equity partner at a small firm in the market and hope you get poached in a decade by a bigger player looking to expand. I don't feel like choosing between these two firms based on likelihood of making equity partner makes much sense as the odds are pretty much nonexistent at both. Focusing on your exit options is of more realistic concern I think. I would pick KE for this, but if you're set to live in Houston forever I don't think you can make a bad choice.

Where did you end up going, if you don't mind me asking?

LW

[Anonymous User]

The correct response is VE and then lateral to KE. You're welcome OP.

Could you elaborate?

Not the previous poster. But TITCR. Kirkland and V&E training are virtually similar but Kirkland is brutal to its juniors. Enjoy the same level of sophisticated work and enjoy a marginally more humane treatment in V&E when you're a junior with no ability to control your life. Then as a mid level where you have more autonomy to control your workflows go to K&E where you'll get the brand name and the ability to get NSP so you can get some cooler exit ops.

I mean, the lateral bonus is a thing too. I think KE is giving out like 100k? Anon because don't want to be tied to my firm.

[Anonymous User]

The correct response is VE and then lateral to KE. You're welcome OP.

Could you elaborate?

Not the previous poster. But TITCR. Kirkland and V&E training are virtually similar but Kirkland is brutal to its juniors. Enjoy the same level of sophisticated work and enjoy a marginally more humane treatment in V&E when you're a junior with no ability to control your life. Then as a mid level where you have more autonomy to control your workflows go to K&E where you'll get the brand name and the ability to get NSP so you can get some cooler exit ops.

I mean, the lateral bonus is a thing too. I think KE is giving out like 100k? Anon because don't want to be tied to my firm.

They're probably just making a comp point about starting at KE - if someone comes in as a lateral year 3 or even year 4 as a lateral and gets 100k, being told you are getting market shattering bonuses in exchange for billing more than most people you know at other firms doesn't hit the same way.

[Anonymous User]

I used to think making partner at V&E was difficult but doable. V&E has only one class of partnership, so every partner is equity. But they have now figured out that they can get away with not promoting attorneys to equity partner (or at least delaying their promotion to equity partner by a year or longer) by naming them "counsel," which is the V&E equivalent of income partner. See the trend below.

• 2017: 8 partners, 4 counsel

• 2018: 11 partners, 8 counsel

• 2019: 8 partners, 14 counsel

• 2020: 8 partners, 16 counsel

• 2021: 5 partners, 13 counsel

V&E is focused on strategic hires right now, so definitely easier to make partner as a lateral from another firm. I'd start your career at V&E, get poached by K&E for that sweet signing bonus and make income partner there, then lateral back to V&E as a partner.