Why the fixation with Kirkland? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I feel like every time K&E is mentioned on here (especially in Houston) this place turns into a snarkfest, with equally hot takes on either side talking about how the firm is either a terrible place to work or the best law firm ever. I get they've been super successful and that probably is going to draw a lot of polarized opinions, but I feel like it's impossible to get an objective take on the firm. How should someone interested in a legal career think about starting at K&E (or lateraling over)?

[lolwutpar]

I don't actually feel all that strongly, but some of the nastiest/douchiest attorneys I've met in my career are Kirkland attorneys. Something in the water.

[wwwcol]

their wool socks and house-brand liquors are dope

[the lsat failure]

It’s like a decade-old game of telephone that gets parroted slightly different year to year. I agree that KE can have abrasive personalities, but just like any other megafirm, it’s ultimately just a group of individual people with their own unique personalities. We’re talking about over 1,000+ people here...

I highly doubt some kind, shy, introverted student who received an offer from KE with little to no comparable options would turn it down? Is this person suddenly some alpha dickhead as soon as they accept their offer? It’s weird that KE gets this fixation but I guess it’s easiest to demonize the top revenue generator. And from my experience, personalities vary a lot from office to office regardless of the firm itself.

[Anonymous User]

I feel like every time K&E is mentioned on here (especially in Houston) this place turns into a snarkfest, with equally hot takes on either side talking about how the firm is either a terrible place to work or the best law firm ever. I get they've been super successful and that probably is going to draw a lot of polarized opinions, but I feel like it's impossible to get an objective take on the firm. How should someone interested in a legal career think about starting at K&E (or lateraling over)?

I think you answered your own question. It is somewhat of an up and comer - compare it now to where it was 15 yrs ago. Some ppl who don't get offered are bitter. Some ppl who did get offered feel they have to prove that K&E is the best firm ever to justify their choices. Some ppl who leave K&E are bitter over being grinded to death. Some ppl who accepted a job at a firm they truly believe is better than K&E are terrified of the thought that K&E might surpass them in rankings and feel the need to shoot it down to justify their choices. Add to it that K&E has (i think) the most attorneys in U.S., it is a perfect storm.

To your second question, just digest as many opinions as you can, add greater weight to the ones that seem more reasoned. My humble take is that K&E is more on the aggressive side, and that the houston office is really really more aggressive, but it is not any worse in terms of lack of work/life balance than comparable firms.

[Anonymous User]

At the end of the day though, the Costco Kirkland will always have the better name recognition...

[Anonymous User]

If you want some truly interesting reading material, search for posts about Kirkland & Ellis's San Francisco office.

[Anonymous User]

I feel like every time K&E is mentioned on here (especially in Houston) this place turns into a snarkfest, with equally hot takes on either side talking about how the firm is either a terrible place to work or the best law firm ever. I get they've been super successful and that probably is going to draw a lot of polarized opinions, but I feel like it's impossible to get an objective take on the firm. How should someone interested in a legal career think about starting at K&E (or lateraling over)?

I think you answered your own question. It is somewhat of an up and comer - compare it now to where it was 15 yrs ago. Some ppl who don't get offered are bitter. Some ppl who did get offered feel they have to prove that K&E is the best firm ever to justify their choices. Some ppl who leave K&E are bitter over being grinded to death. Some ppl who accepted a job at a firm they truly believe is better than K&E are terrified of the thought that K&E might surpass them in rankings and feel the need to shoot it down to justify their choices. Add to it that K&E has (i think) the most attorneys in U.S., it is a perfect storm.

To your second question, just digest as many opinions as you can, add greater weight to the ones that seem more reasoned. My humble take is that K&E is more on the aggressive side, and that the houston office is really really more aggressive, but it is not any worse in terms of lack of work/life balance than comparable firms.

It's 6th most in attorneys (even LW has more).

[2013]

I feel like every time K&E is mentioned on here (especially in Houston) this place turns into a snarkfest, with equally hot takes on either side talking about how the firm is either a terrible place to work or the best law firm ever. I get they've been super successful and that probably is going to draw a lot of polarized opinions, but I feel like it's impossible to get an objective take on the firm. How should someone interested in a legal career think about starting at K&E (or lateraling over)?

I think you answered your own question. It is somewhat of an up and comer - compare it now to where it was 15 yrs ago. Some ppl who don't get offered are bitter. Some ppl who did get offered feel they have to prove that K&E is the best firm ever to justify their choices. Some ppl who leave K&E are bitter over being grinded to death. Some ppl who accepted a job at a firm they truly believe is better than K&E are terrified of the thought that K&E might surpass them in rankings and feel the need to shoot it down to justify their choices. Add to it that K&E has (i think) the most attorneys in U.S., it is a perfect storm.

To your second question, just digest as many opinions as you can, add greater weight to the ones that seem more reasoned. My humble take is that K&E is more on the aggressive side, and that the houston office is really really more aggressive, but it is not any worse in terms of lack of work/life balance than comparable firms.

It's 6th most in attorneys (even LW has more).

What are the 5 law firms with more US attorneys than Kirkland? According to vault, Kirkland has 2263 US attorneys.

[lolwutpar]

If you want some truly interesting reading material, search for posts about Kirkland & Ellis's San Francisco office.

Funny enough, the office I've had the worst interactions with.

[Anonymous User]

I feel like every time K&E is mentioned on here (especially in Houston) this place turns into a snarkfest, with equally hot takes on either side talking about how the firm is either a terrible place to work or the best law firm ever. I get they've been super successful and that probably is going to draw a lot of polarized opinions, but I feel like it's impossible to get an objective take on the firm. How should someone interested in a legal career think about starting at K&E (or lateraling over)?

I think you answered your own question. It is somewhat of an up and comer - compare it now to where it was 15 yrs ago. Some ppl who don't get offered are bitter. Some ppl who did get offered feel they have to prove that K&E is the best firm ever to justify their choices. Some ppl who leave K&E are bitter over being grinded to death. Some ppl who accepted a job at a firm they truly believe is better than K&E are terrified of the thought that K&E might surpass them in rankings and feel the need to shoot it down to justify their choices. Add to it that K&E has (i think) the most attorneys in U.S., it is a perfect storm.

To your second question, just digest as many opinions as you can, add greater weight to the ones that seem more reasoned. My humble take is that K&E is more on the aggressive side, and that the houston office is really really more aggressive, but it is not any worse in terms of lack of work/life balance than comparable firms.

It's 6th most in attorneys (even LW has more).

What are the 5 law firms with more US attorneys than Kirkland? According to vault, Kirkland has 2263 US attorneys.

Realizing the question is US attorneys. Who knows then. Maybe K&E.

[glitterlily]

1) talk to people that work at the K&E office you are looking at 2) really look at your options- for the most part, if you have multiple V10 offers with K&E being one of them, it is hard to make a wrong choice. K&E has pros and cons, you just need to decide what matters to you 3) talk to people at your law school who were deciding between K&E and other offices 4) talk to laterals

[Wild Card]

I heard that they train their associates to be maximally aggressive and hard-charging, and to take pride in excessive billing.

[Anonymous User]

If you want some truly interesting reading material, search for posts about Kirkland & Ellis's San Francisco office.

Funny enough, the office I've had the worst interactions with.

Curious why this is? I know that a lot of SF attorneys are living in VC land so when they get a deal that is sort of outside their wheelhouse (e.g., investment in mature company) they don't really know how to behave - likewise, if a K&E attorney is involved in a VC deal for some reason, K&E attorney probably won't know how to behave.

As a personal anecdote, I'm not in K&E SF office but helped that office on a deal across from some biglaw VC attorneys who were pushing for the most ridiculous stuff, including a super hard fight over a 10b-5 rep and other off-market things that didn't make sense for this transaction (this was a pref deal in a mature company). We pushed back hard, and it wasn't well received because I think the VC attorneys are used to just bullying their way to get the terms they want, and it was apparent they have never done a non-VC deal in their lives.

I could see how K&E could look ridiculous in the opposite situation, fighting super hard against 10b-5 reps and other positions that would be common to give in a VC deal.

Very curious your experience.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is a top firm in like every single market it is in (Chicago, New York, DC, Houston, Boston, etc.), so a lot of students, including top students, get rejected by Kirkland. This creates resentment for the firm, and a firm the size of Kirkland will reject a lot of good applicants.

People like me resented Kirkland for a while because it we were upset we got rejected from a law firm that seems to have no hiring requirements other than graduating from a good school.

I think Kirkland is an amazing firm that has found a way to operate like a corporation and reap profits. But I still shit on it because the firm rejected me years ago.

[lolwutpar]

If you want some truly interesting reading material, search for posts about Kirkland & Ellis's San Francisco office.

Funny enough, the office I've had the worst interactions with.

Curious why this is? I know that a lot of SF attorneys are living in VC land so when they get a deal that is sort of outside their wheelhouse (e.g., investment in mature company) they don't really know how to behave - likewise, if a K&E attorney is involved in a VC deal for some reason, K&E attorney probably won't know how to behave.

As a personal anecdote, I'm not in K&E SF office but helped that office on a deal across from some biglaw VC attorneys who were pushing for the most ridiculous stuff, including a super hard fight over a 10b-5 rep and other off-market things that didn't make sense for this transaction (this was a pref deal in a mature company). We pushed back hard, and it wasn't well received because I think the VC attorneys are used to just bullying their way to get the terms they want, and it was apparent they have never done a non-VC deal in their lives.

I could see how K&E could look ridiculous in the opposite situation, fighting super hard against 10b-5 reps and other positions that would be common to give in a VC deal.

Very curious your experience.

It's not usually substantive things, but if you're opposite KE SF their attitude just sucks. Unnecessarily aggressive and nasty at times. I've worked "on the same side" with Veit before he went to PW and it was totally fine, though never worked across from him so maybe he's just a better personality. I've also worked "on the same side" as KE LA and that was also totally fine. But JFC I've heard some rude things. My dislike of KE SF goes back to law school, though, so I was already biased against them when I started practicing. The partners I met during my callback were uniformly mean, smarmy or rude, or some combo of the three. One even took out a red pen to mark up my resume (and it's the same form of resume I was using before law school and still using now, fuck face. Nobody else has ever had a problem with it). But I would say my least favorite offices/firms to work across from are: KE SF, Weil NYC and Sidley Chicago.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is a top firm in like every single market it is in (Chicago, New York, DC, Houston, Boston, etc.), so a lot of students, including top students, get rejected by Kirkland. This creates resentment for the firm, and a firm the size of Kirkland will reject a lot of good applicants.

People like me resented Kirkland for a while because it we were upset we got rejected from a law firm that seems to have no hiring requirements other than graduating from a good school.

I think Kirkland is an amazing firm that has found a way to operate like a corporation and reap profits. But I still shit on it because the firm rejected me years ago.

Can't speak to the other markets but Kirkland Houston is not selective. Top students from UT typically have no desire to work there

[Anonymous User]

I heard that they train their associates to be maximally aggressive and hard-charging, and to take pride in excessive billing.

Seeing as it feels like every other poster on this site is a KE associate (me included), I don’t know how this kind of post is useful at all. Do you have experience with this? Surely many of us can share our own stories which are probably just as bad as you can imagine.

I don’t think I have been trained to be aggressive or “hard charging,” nor to “take pride” in the way too many hours that I bill. It’s not a re-education camp. But there’s no doubt that it attracts “hard charging” personalities, and further attracts the most successful (at any cost) lateral partners who can earn more at KE than at their old lockstep firms.

Ultimately I think Kirkland gets a lot of attention here because they do things differently than “the white shoe biglaw way,” which itself means that almost every big firm is minimally different. Kirkland is only slightly more different than that, but it jumps out because we are used to uniformity in this industry.

[Anonymous User]

A rainmaker kirkland partner (in a KE office outside of Chicago) was banned from ever returning to my school's OCI because he kept making inappropriate comments to female students

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland is a top firm in like every single market it is in (Chicago, New York, DC, Houston, Boston, etc.), so a lot of students, including top students, get rejected by Kirkland. This creates resentment for the firm, and a firm the size of Kirkland will reject a lot of good applicants.

People like me resented Kirkland for a while because it we were upset we got rejected from a law firm that seems to have no hiring requirements other than graduating from a good school.

I think Kirkland is an amazing firm that has found a way to operate like a corporation and reap profits. But I still shit on it because the firm rejected me years ago.

Can't speak to the other markets but Kirkland Houston is not selective. Top students from UT typically have no desire to work there

Although the anon you quotes is clearly a poorly disguised kirkland shill, your statement re KE Houston is not true either.

A rainmaker kirkland partner (in a KE office outside of Chicago) was banned from ever returning to my school's OCI because he kept making inappropriate comments to female students

lol. I'll bet money this same partner fancies himself "a champion of women's rights" and takes every public speaking opportunity to brag about it.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like this thread turned into a shit on K&E thread.

As a K&E associate (hence anon), I think it's the large # of attorneys (and therefor more exposure), people pissed that K&E is doing just as prestigious of deals as they are at Davis Poke despite taking students a notch lower on the GPA spectrum, folks who are envious that the firm's the go-to PE counsel, people envious that the firm is growing extremely quickly and PPP continues to soar as their white shoe firms just kind of stagnate, above market bonuses, etc. TL;DR - Seems to be mostly footprint and envy.

I'm always bewildered by folks who think we're hard chargers. Yes, we definitely attract harder charging folks, but I've never once been instructed to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive. I will say, though, that the most aggressive lawyer I've ever worked with was a K&E lawyer on the call with me, but the partner is pretty much known to just be a neurotic tyrant. I'd say people like that partner are pretty rare. On average, I don't think we're any much more reasonable than Ropes or whoever we're working across.

Personally, I enjoy it here (to the degree one can enjoy biglaw), and I really appreciate the fact that my practice group is very friendly and lets me do the type of work I want to do vs getting assigned whatever comes down the chute.

[2013]

Seems like this thread turned into a shit on K&E thread.

As a K&E associate (hence anon), I think it's the large # of attorneys (and therefor more exposure), people pissed that K&E is doing just as prestigious of deals as they are at Davis Poke despite taking students a notch lower on the GPA spectrum, folks who are envious that the firm's the go-to PE counsel, people envious that the firm is growing extremely quickly and PPP continues to soar as their white shoe firms just kind of stagnate, above market bonuses, etc. TL;DR - Seems to be mostly footprint and envy.

I'm always bewildered by folks who think we're hard chargers. Yes, we definitely attract harder charging folks, but I've never once been instructed to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive. I will say, though, that the most aggressive lawyer I've ever worked with was a K&E lawyer on the call with me, but the partner is pretty much known to just be a neurotic tyrant. I'd say people like that partner are pretty rare. On average, I don't think we're any much more reasonable than Ropes or whoever we're working across.

Personally, I enjoy it here (to the degree one can enjoy biglaw), and I really appreciate the fact that my practice group is very friendly and lets me do the type of work I want to do vs getting assigned whatever comes down the chute.

The whole envy thing sounds like the thing the Cravath associate wrote on another thread.

I do agree that part of it probably has to do with Kirkland doing just as, if not more, impressive work as other V10 firms with “less impressive” associates. But I don’t know if I would call it envy. Any of those associates could probably get a job at Kirkland right now.

They’re just annoyed that they work at the “better,” “more prestigious, “elite,” etc. firm, but their dumb classmates who went to Kirkland get paid in cash instead of prestige.

Also, a lot of this has to do with Kirkland v. V10 firms. None of the bashing happens outside of those associates.

[Anonymous User]

If you want some truly interesting reading material, search for posts about Kirkland & Ellis's San Francisco office.

Funny enough, the office I've had the worst interactions with.

Curious why this is? I know that a lot of SF attorneys are living in VC land so when they get a deal that is sort of outside their wheelhouse (e.g., investment in mature company) they don't really know how to behave - likewise, if a K&E attorney is involved in a VC deal for some reason, K&E attorney probably won't know how to behave.

As a personal anecdote, I'm not in K&E SF office but helped that office on a deal across from some biglaw VC attorneys who were pushing for the most ridiculous stuff, including a super hard fight over a 10b-5 rep and other off-market things that didn't make sense for this transaction (this was a pref deal in a mature company). We pushed back hard, and it wasn't well received because I think the VC attorneys are used to just bullying their way to get the terms they want, and it was apparent they have never done a non-VC deal in their lives.

I could see how K&E could look ridiculous in the opposite situation, fighting super hard against 10b-5 reps and other positions that would be common to give in a VC deal.

Very curious your experience.

It's not usually substantive things, but if you're opposite KE SF their attitude just sucks. Unnecessarily aggressive and nasty at times. I've worked "on the same side" with Veit before he went to PW and it was totally fine, though never worked across from him so maybe he's just a better personality. I've also worked "on the same side" as KE LA and that was also totally fine. But JFC I've heard some rude things. My dislike of KE SF goes back to law school, though, so I was already biased against them when I started practicing. The partners I met during my callback were uniformly mean, smarmy or rude, or some combo of the three. One even took out a red pen to mark up my resume (and it's the same form of resume I was using before law school and still using now, fuck face. Nobody else has ever had a problem with it). But I would say my least favorite offices/firms to work across from are: KE SF, Weil NYC and Sidley Chicago.

What's wrong with Weil NYC? Would you care to elaborate a bit? Thanks

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I enjoy it here (to the degree one can enjoy biglaw), and I really appreciate the fact that my practice group is very friendly and lets me do the type of work I want to do vs getting assigned whatever comes down the chute.

The whole envy thing sounds like the thing the Cravath associate wrote on another thread.

I do agree that part of it probably has to do with Kirkland doing just as, if not more, impressive work as other V10 firms with “less impressive” associates. But I don’t know if I would call it envy. Any of those associates could probably get a job at Kirkland right now.

They’re just annoyed that they work at the “better,” “more prestigious, “elite,” etc. firm, but their dumb classmates who went to Kirkland get paid in cash instead of prestige.

Also, a lot of this has to do with Kirkland v. V10 firms. None of the bashing happens outside of those associates.
[/quote]

Same KE anon. Maybe envoy was a poor choice of words. I think you've captured the essence of what I'm getting at. It's 8 of the other V10 being salty as hell over there being any other way to do things other than the traditional NY preffffftige track. Some are also probably salty that they have to get soaked in NYC taxes and COL while firms like Kirkland and Latham give realistic options to not be in an office that feels 2nd rate compared to the HQ while enjoying far better COL/taxes/QoL. I just looked up Davis Polk. The firm has 717 of its 1,000 or so attorneys in NYC (let's call it 72% since I rounded up the total number), and it has no Chicago, Texas, or SoCal offices. Meanwhile, K&E and Latham have like 25% of their attorneys in NYC, which means it's doing a lot of other equivalent work all across the country.

[Anonymous User]

It's 8 of the other V10 being salty as hell over there being any other way to do things other than the traditional NY preffffftige track. Some are also probably salty that they have to get soaked in NYC taxes and COL while firms like Kirkland and Latham give realistic options to not be in an office that feels 2nd rate compared to the HQ while enjoying far better COL/taxes/QoL.

I have a hard time believing this is anything other than projection. At my NY CCN almost no one could even distinguish between KE and the other firms in any meaningful way or even knows about KE's departure from whatever the BL standard is. Then again, almost everyone is purposefully gunning for NY. Houston people tend to favor KE, but it hardly is a particularly noteworthy firm for my classmates in any other sought-after market. This is not to disparage KE or other firms; on the contrary, they all seem to just blend together. In other words, the fixation on both sides is weird.