Quinn Emanuel or Kirkland & Ellis? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm choosing between Kirkland and Quinn. What's the current guidance on where is better to land?

[objctnyrhnr]

I work at a peer of both (or maybe a tad lower in rep but close enough), but all intel from Kirkland is that it’s brutal right now. I mean just check out some of the active topics on this forum.

I’m a litigator and reputation-wise, I feel like you can’t go wrong with Quinn. Downside from what I’ve heard is that the support staff/amenities are a little bit weaker and that their litigation style is quite intense...but it seems to work.

Last I heard Quinn’s bonus eligibility started at 2100, which is on the high ends for the industry. On the other hand, at Kirkland I bet you’ll be made to work a ton more than that just to be on the bell curve.

Either way, congrats on two great options. Just be prepared to grind.

[Anonymous User]

Work at KE. It is brutal right now, and at alot of peer firms because of SPACs. KE seems to have been hit extra hard because we are getting a ton of CapM work, but have never had a large CapM group. But the above doesn't seem right about the bonus eligibility. KE doesn't have a minimum hour bonus threshold. People definitely get market bonuses at even 1800 hours. It just scales up higher than most.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn has a bad reputation on TLS but I often wonder whether it’s from people who actually work(ed) there. From everything I’ve seen from the people I know there IRL, it seems like it’s one of the more humane firms amongst its peers, and it’s definitely one of the few where they’re not 100% full of shit about how much they prioritize associate development opportunities (taking depos, etc.). I think it can be a bad fit for people who are looking for more traditional structure/firm environment and people who aren’t very comfortable speaking up about stuff in work situations. Also, the average hours seem to be on the higher end of the spectrum (though not dramatically so).

[Anonymous User]

I'm choosing between Kirkland and Quinn. What's the current guidance on where is better to land?

Between Kirkland and Quinn?

To borrow from Lindsey Graham (on choosing between Trump and Cruz in 2015): "it's like being shot or being poisoned, what does it really matter?"

[Anonymous User]

From everything I’ve seen from the people I know there IRL, it seems like it’s one of the more humane firms amongst its peers...Also, the average hours seem to be on the higher end of the spectrum (though not dramatically so).

So if hours are admittedly worse, what makes it more humane?

I liked the QE people I talked to, but I ended up going with a different firm. One of the (marginal) considerations was the firm's general reputation among other firms and judges, which I understood to be inconsistent at best and negative at worst based on style/tactics/aggressiveness. I could be wrong on that, though.

[Anonymous User]

From everything I’ve seen from the people I know there IRL, it seems like it’s one of the more humane firms amongst its peers...Also, the average hours seem to be on the higher end of the spectrum (though not dramatically so).

So if hours are admittedly worse, what makes it more humane?

I liked the QE people I talked to, but I ended up going with a different firm. One of the (marginal) considerations was the firm's general reputation among other firms and judges, which I understood to be inconsistent at best and negative at worst based on style/tactics/aggressiveness. I could be wrong on that, though.

With some exceptions I’m sure, the people seem to be less terrible to interact with, at least compared to my own firm, and they don’t seem to have the same “you are a cog in the machine and we have zero interest in you and your personal/career development” vibe that seems to be standard (though of course vehemently denied) at a lot of other firms. Personally, I’ve never found the hours to be the thing that makes biglaw so unbearable - it’s the culture/people - but YMMV.

Re: their reputation, yes, agreed that people at other firms often hate how aggressive they are in external situations.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel litigator at KE. The place is not perfect, but I would never in a thousand years consider going to Quinn.

The 2,100 hour cutoff alone is reason to avoid. Lit is the sanest practice at Kirkland (not that anything is super sane) and there may be years where you happily land below 2100 -- and get a market + 5% extra bonus -- when you would get nothing at Quinn. *I* got piles of money last year, and was below 2100. Quinn is also mega cheap in general and I highly doubt they work any less hard than we do on average. Nor do I think they are any better at what they do -- both firms have good, great, and less great lawyers. But I do think you learn at lot at KE if you get with the right people. So, in the end, don't go to Quinn.

[Anonymous User]

Could any K&E people shed light on why I see dozens of posts with virtually identical wording on LinkedIn from incoming summer associates about how excited they are to work with such great and smart and perfect individuals? It genuinely makes me concerned that the culture is rah-rah (or, if you prefer, cult-like). Is it like some of the FAANG companies where people genuinely drink the Kool-Aid?

[Anonymous User]

Could any K&E people shed light on why I see dozens of posts with virtually identical wording on LinkedIn from incoming summer associates about how excited they are to work with such great and smart and perfect individuals? It genuinely makes me concerned that the culture is rah-rah (or, if you prefer, cult-like). Is it like some of the FAANG companies where people genuinely drink the Kool-Aid?

There’s a thread on this: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=309106

The marketing geniuses at K&E instructed people to post

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel litigator at KE. The place is not perfect, but I would never in a thousand years consider going to Quinn.

The 2,100 hour cutoff alone is reason to avoid. Lit is the sanest practice at Kirkland (not that anything is super sane) and there may be years where you happily land below 2100 -- and get a market + 5% extra bonus -- when you would get nothing at Quinn. *I* got piles of money last year, and was below 2100. Quinn is also mega cheap in general and I highly doubt they work any less hard than we do on average. Nor do I think they are any better at what they do -- both firms have good, great, and less great lawyers. But I do think you learn at lot at KE if you get with the right people. So, in the end, don't go to Quinn.

Which office are you in?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel litigator at KE. The place is not perfect, but I would never in a thousand years consider going to Quinn.

The 2,100 hour cutoff alone is reason to avoid. Lit is the sanest practice at Kirkland (not that anything is super sane) and there may be years where you happily land below 2100 -- and get a market + 5% extra bonus -- when you would get nothing at Quinn. *I* got piles of money last year, and was below 2100. Quinn is also mega cheap in general and I highly doubt they work any less hard than we do on average. Nor do I think they are any better at what they do -- both firms have good, great, and less great lawyers. But I do think you learn at lot at KE if you get with the right people. So, in the end, don't go to Quinn.

Not OP. While we have you here, how many hours have you billed over the years? And how would you assess your career prospects inside and outside the firm as a Kirkland litigator?

[Elston Gunn]

Wait does Quinn really have a 2100 minimum for bonus? Wtf

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel litigator at KE. The place is not perfect, but I would never in a thousand years consider going to Quinn.

The 2,100 hour cutoff alone is reason to avoid. Lit is the sanest practice at Kirkland (not that anything is super sane) and there may be years where you happily land below 2100 -- and get a market + 5% extra bonus -- when you would get nothing at Quinn.

I am also a midlevel in lit at K&E and I agree with all of this. I would never, ever work at Quinn, and litigation is the least Kirkland-y of the Kirkland groups.

I billed less than 1900 hours and got an above market bonus one year. The other years were 2200-2500, so that's certainly not normal, but it's nice to know that you will still be compensated well if you have a slow year

[Anonymous User]

Not OP. While we have you here, how many hours have you billed over the years? And how would you assess your career prospects inside and outside the firm as a Kirkland litigator?

I'm not who you replied to, but I'm the previous reply in this thread right above this one. Like I said, I had one slow year and then probably have averaged 2300 a year otherwise. I would estimate that is right around average for my class - some juniors will bill less, and many of them will leave before they get to my vintage, and meanwhile some of my peers are billing more and are trying to be in position to make a share partner run.

I have no interest in being a share partner, but in terms of career prospects I can't think of a single person who left the firm without landing on their feet. People have been nudged out (like any biglaw firm) with very, very long runways to find other roles. Six months or even longer. They go to other big firms or they go in house (often to Kirkland clients). There are a lot of bad things about Kirkland but they get how the game is played and understand that their "alumni" reflect on them, so they have an incentive to help find a soft landing.

In terms of career prospects to make shares it's very rough but doable. Litigation share partners are being made pretty much every year. If you are one of the superstars of your class, you will have a shot if you're also willing to put in 2500+ hours for a decade and probably multiple years with trials pushing closer to 2800. But you still probably won't make it. That's biglaw.

[Sackboy]

Wait does Quinn really have a 2100 minimum for bonus? Wtf

Yeah, this seems actually insane. If you can pick a good firm without a bonus threshold or one with one, let alone an insane one, you always pick the firm without one.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP. While we have you here, how many hours have you billed over the years? And how would you assess your career prospects inside and outside the firm as a Kirkland litigator?

If you are one of the superstars of your class, you will have a shot.....

bold assumption lol

[Anonymous User]

QE has a terrible reputation within the LA legal market. They're overly aggressive, ethically questionable, and unpleasant to work with. I would much rather litigate against KE any day.

From what my peers have told me, QE/KE seem to have equally terrible work-life balance. But between the two, I'd pick KE over QE any day solely for prestige.

[Anonymous User]

QE has a terrible reputation within the LA legal market. They're overly aggressive, ethically questionable, and unpleasant to work with. I would much rather litigate against KE any day.

From what my peers have told me, QE/KE seem to have equally terrible work-life balance. But between the two, I'd pick KE over QE any day solely for prestige.

but isn’t that kind of a point for QE? You wouldn’t want to litigate against them... from a strategic standpoint that seems good for them and their clients? I will come off a clerkship eventually so genuinely curious because QE seems a little appealing for being more core lit than KE. The idea of being at a firm that only does lit.

[Anonymous User]

QE has a terrible reputation within the LA legal market. They're overly aggressive, ethically questionable, and unpleasant to work with. I would much rather litigate against KE any day.

From what my peers have told me, QE/KE seem to have equally terrible work-life balance. But between the two, I'd pick KE over QE any day solely for prestige.

but isn’t that kind of a point for QE? You wouldn’t want to litigate against them... from a strategic standpoint that seems good for them and their clients? I will come off a clerkship eventually so genuinely curious because QE seems a little appealing for being more core lit than KE. The idea of being at a firm that only does lit.

This is a common misconception for law students and young lawyers: “The firm that is most hated by opposing counsel must be the one that is most zealously advancing its clients’ interests.” That’s wrong.

Over time, you will come to see that the best lawyers - the ones you would want to hire if you went in house at a Fortune 100 company - are often actually the ones that you don’t mind working against. They grant reasonable extension requests. They don’t fight you on inane discovery disputes. They don’t grab on to one thing you inartfully said on a meet and confer and shove it out of context into a motion. The best lawyers understand that they can give great representation to their clients without being assholes. The ones who aren’t so good often see “make the other side’s lawyers miserable” as a litigation strategy - often in place of actually good legal substance.

[Anonymous User]

QE has a terrible reputation within the LA legal market. They're overly aggressive, ethically questionable, and unpleasant to work with. I would much rather litigate against KE any day.

From what my peers have told me, QE/KE seem to have equally terrible work-life balance. But between the two, I'd pick KE over QE any day solely for prestige.

but isn’t that kind of a point for QE? You wouldn’t want to litigate against them... from a strategic standpoint that seems good for them and their clients? I will come off a clerkship eventually so genuinely curious because QE seems a little appealing for being more core lit than KE. The idea of being at a firm that only does lit.

This is a common misconception for law students and young lawyers: “The firm that is most hated by opposing counsel must be the one that is most zealously advancing its clients’ interests.” That’s wrong.

Over time, you will come to see that the best lawyers - the ones you would want to hire if you went in house at a Fortune 100 company - are often actually the ones that you don’t mind working against. They grant reasonable extension requests. They don’t fight you on inane discovery disputes. They don’t grab on to one thing you inartfully said on a meet and confer and shove it out of context into a motion. The best lawyers understand that they can give great representation to their clients without being assholes. The ones who aren’t so good often see “make the other side’s lawyers miserable” as a litigation strategy - often in place of actually good legal substance.

This. I dislike QE not because they have better command of the legal issues (though to be fair, they have some brilliant attorneys). But they do shit like serve you summary judgements the Friday before a holiday weekend, or refuse to grant you an extension so you're forced to file a motion with the court, or they move to strike duplicative affirmative defenses that have no practical impact on the litigation etc. In one litigation, they opposed a motion to seal the financial information of a disinterested third party. Like??

It's as if they want to poison the litigation, sow animosity, manufacture pointless motion practice, and drive up legal fees. Ooh wait...

[Anonymous User]

QE has a terrible reputation within the LA legal market. They're overly aggressive, ethically questionable, and unpleasant to work with. I would much rather litigate against KE any day.

From what my peers have told me, QE/KE seem to have equally terrible work-life balance. But between the two, I'd pick KE over QE any day solely for prestige.

but isn’t that kind of a point for QE? You wouldn’t want to litigate against them... from a strategic standpoint that seems good for them and their clients? I will come off a clerkship eventually so genuinely curious because QE seems a little appealing for being more core lit than KE. The idea of being at a firm that only does lit.

This is a common misconception for law students and young lawyers: “The firm that is most hated by opposing counsel must be the one that is most zealously advancing its clients’ interests.” That’s wrong.

Over time, you will come to see that the best lawyers - the ones you would want to hire if you went in house at a Fortune 100 company - are often actually the ones that you don’t mind working against. They grant reasonable extension requests. They don’t fight you on inane discovery disputes. They don’t grab on to one thing you inartfully said on a meet and confer and shove it out of context into a motion. The best lawyers understand that they can give great representation to their clients without being assholes. The ones who aren’t so good often see “make the other side’s lawyers miserable” as a litigation strategy - often in place of actually good legal substance.

This. I dislike QE not because they have better command of the legal issues (though to be fair, they have some brilliant attorneys). But they do shit like serve you summary judgements the Friday before a holiday weekend, or refuse to grant you an extension so you're forced to file a motion with the court, or they move to strike duplicative affirmative defenses that have no practical impact on the litigation etc. In one litigation, they opposed a motion to seal the financial information of a disinterested third party. Like??

It's as if they want to poison the litigation, sow animosity, manufacture pointless motion practice, and drive up legal fees. Ooh wait...

I understand why people dislike QE for these reasons. And I understand why in-house hiring might not like them either. Neither of these really address my point though (for someone who wants to stay litigating at a firm, not go in house). From an internal point of view, if QE is making more $$$ and getting more business and winning, then I'm not sure I see how that is bad. I don't care for sports analogies, but it's like a team complaining about how hard another team hits and how they just toe the line to a frustrating degree to escape penalties/fouls. That seems like good strategy? It may not be "noble" or conform to certain norms (see that KE LinkedIn posts thread lol), but isn't this solely about results?

If you said things like "you don't get good training there," "it will be hard to ever lateral anywhere," or "QE actually loses a lot," "the hours are not worth it," etc. then I get it.

[Elston Gunn]

Seems straightforward why someone wouldn’t want to work for/with a bunch of assholes, in a culture that encourages you to act like an asshole.

[Anonymous User]

I used to work at Quinn. This thread is a little too exhausting for me to really want to dive in to defending the firm or whatever, but basically I have no idea which firm is better since I only worked at one of them.

The 2100 hours cap does suck. For the record, you get half the bonus if you're below it, not no bonus. QE partners would explain that because they don't require you to do much of anything (like networking or sitting on 'committees' etc) then it's not really different from other firms with a cap of 1900 or 200. But I disagree and wish there weren't a cap.

My experience happened to be pretty good. Not everyone is an asshole, and not everyone litigates the way people in this thread say they do. The basis of that is Quinn's approach to marketing and their notion (probably accurate) is that if you claim to be all about trial and fighting really hard, then you'll get better settlement outcomes.

I personally never was part of a team that was unethical or tried to fuck over opposing counsel in an underhanded way, but I know on big matters (like two fortune 500s litigating against each other) that "scorched earth" approach definitely happened (filing all the motions you can etc). But I personally think that's probably a good strategy in those cases.

My personal experience was that the people I interviewed with at Kirkland were weirdos and the people at Quinn were more normal and likable to work with. There are also shitty partners, but I got lucky and worked for good ones. It all depends.

[Anonymous User]

I used to work at Quinn. This thread is a little too exhausting for me to really want to dive in to defending the firm or whatever, but basically I have no idea which firm is better since I only worked at one of them.

The 2100 hours cap does suck. For the record, you get half the bonus if you're below it, not no bonus. QE partners would explain that because they don't require you to do much of anything (like networking or sitting on 'committees' etc) then it's not really different from other firms with a cap of 1900 or 200. But I disagree and wish there weren't a cap.

My experience happened to be pretty good. Not everyone is an asshole, and not everyone litigates the way people in this thread say they do. The basis of that is Quinn's approach to marketing and their notion (probably accurate) is that if you claim to be all about trial and fighting really hard, then you'll get better settlement outcomes.

I personally never was part of a team that was unethical or tried to fuck over opposing counsel in an underhanded way, but I know on big matters (like two fortune 500s litigating against each other) that "scorched earth" approach definitely happened (filing all the motions you can etc). But I personally think that's probably a good strategy in those cases.

My personal experience was that the people I interviewed with at Kirkland were weirdos and the people at Quinn were more normal and likable to work with. There are also shitty partners, but I got lucky and worked for good ones. It all depends.

Another former QE associate here. I generally agree with the quoted comments, and would just note as a QE associate, I certainly received/observed from opposing counsel inconsiderate filings, unethical behavior, and absurd insistence upon having the court resolve minor disputes. I also worked opposite QE as a summer, and found them to be by far the most reasonable of the three big law firms on the other side. All huge litigation shops have assholes, but I think at most firms, most lawyers are okay.

I interviewed with Kirkland, and it, along with QE, is the only litigation group I interviewed with where I liked everybody I met. The firms are similar, though I think Kirkland is a more refined version of the same personality. If I were picking, I'd go with Kirkland for the simple reason that QE's plaintiff practice can create a lot of conflicts that can make it difficult to move in your career, and it's very hard as a QE junior to avoid taking on plaintiff work.