Firms/attorneys you loathe being up against? Forum

[shermfudl]

Had a conversation with a friend how opposing counsel is ridiculously petty and making her life hell -- she mentioned she worked against others at this firm previously and they were the same. Any firms/attorneys that always tend to drive you up the wall?

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland attorneys consistently take off-market positions, and are generally more aggressive / more combative than other firms we work across from.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland attorneys consistently take off-market positions, and are generally more aggressive / more combative than other firms we work across from.

Hah, was just (peripherally) involved with a financing for which Kirkland represented the borrower. The Kirkland lead associate was oddly aggressive / combative for the entire process. There were points at which it maybe helped his client, but at other points it seemed entirely unnecessary. At one point, I think he made work for his client, since he refused to compromise on a point his client didn't care about and forced the business teams to discuss it. I came to the conclusion that that was just his personality.

[Anonymous User]

I liked most attorneys at W&C whom I've worked across from, but I gotta say, Tom Lauria and his restructuring teams have def caused me a ton of headaches

[lolwutpar]

Kirkland attorneys consistently take off-market positions, and are generally more aggressive / more combative than other firms we work across from.

Had a K&E partner cite himself as the market once. Not sure how that works dude.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland attorneys consistently take off-market positions, and are generally more aggressive / more combative than other firms we work across from.

+1.

Working across from WLRK wasn't a treat, either.

[nealric]

Kirkland attorneys consistently take off-market positions, and are generally more aggressive / more combative than other firms we work across from.

Had a K&E partner cite himself as the market once. Not sure how that works dude.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

In my opinion the worst is usually some super unethical LA lawyer that's at a firm started by his aging family member. In the last year I've had that 5 times and every time it's been exceedingly difficult.

[replevin123]

These discussions interest me. I get the difference between being a jerk and being a respected adversary or “sporting” or however you characterize it. But the line can be fine depending on perspective and I’m not sure the distinction is always acknowledged. At some level always doing “market” is not really adding value beyond what other firms offer (legal zoom!). You have to move the market or improve it for your client or for the law. So the “trailblazers” <pick your favorite buzzword> might tend to be seen as being overly difficult to work with/across from because they are rocking the boat and challenging things you thought were uncontroversial or didn’t even think about. Obviously that can be handled in a tough, yet respectful way or in a jerklike manner.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland attorneys consistently take off-market positions, and are generally more aggressive / more combative than other firms we work across from.

Had a K&E partner cite himself as the market once. Not sure how that works dude.

Ugh, same. Although the one I dealt with told me he did hundreds of [____] a year and what he was asking for was definitely market, even if not technically required by the law, despite the fact that we also handle a ton of {_____] and don't consider it market....

[Anonymous User]

Came here to say K&E as well. Unpleasant for no reason.

[Anonymous User]

In my opinion the worst is usually some super unethical LA lawyer that's at a firm started by his aging family member. In the last year I've had that 5 times and every time it's been exceedingly difficult.

At least for litigation this is the correct answer. Every top-tier biglaw attorney I've litigated against is, at worst, an asshole. But at least they play the game by the rules. Whatever. I can deal with assholes.

Solo attorneys or attorneys at no-name local firms, on the other hand, can be lying, thieving, unprofessional shit-bags who act irrationally, completely disregard the law, and put their own interests ahead of their clients. No big law attorney that I've dealt with comes close to that level of behavior.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

At least for litigation this is the correct answer. Every top-tier biglaw attorney I've litigated against is, at worst, an asshole. But at least they play the game by the rules. Whatever. I can deal with assholes.

Solo attorneys or attorneys at no-name local firms, on the other hand, can be lying, thieving, unprofessional shit-bags who act irrationally, completely disregard the law, and put their own interests ahead of their clients. No big law attorney that I've dealt with comes close to that level of behavior.

Imagine a K&E lawyer doing this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... menancing/

[Anonymous User]

From the perspective of a plaintiff's side attorney: any firm I don't recognize. It's very few and far between, but the cases against defense counsel that are smaller and/or less well known generally are shadier, less professional, and don't know "how" to litigate complex matters.

[Anonymous User]

In my opinion the worst is usually some super unethical LA lawyer that's at a firm started by his aging family member. In the last year I've had that 5 times and every time it's been exceedingly difficult.

At least for litigation this is the correct answer. Every top-tier biglaw attorney I've litigated against is, at worst, an asshole. But at least they play the game by the rules. Whatever. I can deal with assholes.

Solo attorneys or attorneys at no-name local firms, on the other hand, can be lying, thieving, unprofessional shit-bags who act irrationally, completely disregard the law, and put their own interests ahead of their clients. No big law attorney that I've dealt with comes close to that level of behavior.

+1. Dealing with a repeat player who consistently blows off page limits, meet and confer requirements, and even throws highly personal jabs against us as defense attorneys. Amazingly, he never gets more than a slap on the wrist or a side comment by the court.

[Anonymous User]

Came here to say K&E as well. Unpleasant for no reason.

In defense of K&E, I think they do the most private M&A in the USA, so they kind of have a better pulse for what's "market" IMO. I think the problem with K&E is that you have some true all stars, and then you have some shit-tier senior associates who become non-share partners by default and now they find themselves running deals with little to no supervision and no real clue what they were doing because before making NSP they were only trusted enough to run due diligence. If you are on the other side of the deal, you never know if you are getting the K&E A team or the B, C or D team.

Also, the idea of "market" is somewhat subjective, since there is not a perfect temperature for market and you may be up against some midwest firm that, when they find themselves in deeper water, just flails around and insists that 10b-5 reps are normal because it was in the last 80% of deals they did. And to be clear, I am referring to Dorsey and Whitney - terrible experience.

[Anonymous User]

For lit, Quinn is pretty brutal to work across from. Especially out of the LA office.

And it isn't just because they are good lawyers, they are often needlessly difficult and combative. They do things that comparable firms like Susman, Irell, and MTO never do.

[Anonymous User]

For lit, Quinn is pretty brutal to work across from. Especially out of the LA office.

And it isn't just because they are good lawyers, they are often needlessly difficult and combative. They do things that comparable firms like Susman, Irell, and MTO never do.

This is also true working with Quinn as co-counsel. They needlessly pick fights over nothing as co-counsel and can be so frustrating to work with. They certainly have a very specific view of litigation that is akin to salting Carthage, even when you are working with them.

[Anonymous User]

Came here to say K&E as well. Unpleasant for no reason.

In defense of K&E, I think they do the most private M&A in the USA, so they kind of have a better pulse for what's "market" IMO. I think the problem with K&E is that you have some true all stars, and then you have some shit-tier senior associates who become non-share partners by default and now they find themselves running deals with little to no supervision and no real clue what they were doing because before making NSP they were only trusted enough to run due diligence. If you are on the other side of the deal, you never know if you are getting the K&E A team or the B, C or D team.

Also, the idea of "market" is somewhat subjective, since there is not a perfect temperature for market and you may be up against some midwest firm that, when they find themselves in deeper water, just flails around and insists that 10b-5 reps are normal because it was in the last 80% of deals they did. And to be clear, I am referring to Dorsey and Whitney - terrible experience.

The K&E “D team” is a real thing. I could tell some really great stories of utter malfunction from some Kirkland teams - including one in which a NSP partner started reaming out his own junior associate for incompetence on an all hands call. I wonder what happened to those guys.

I don’t know why middle market PE firms hire K&E. They get a bunch of low performing associates with a partner with a great resume who gives 25% of his attention (max) to the deal at any given time. Sure, KKR is going to get their top teams. But Marlin isn’t.

[Anonymous User]

Came here to say K&E as well. Unpleasant for no reason.

In defense of K&E, I think they do the most private M&A in the USA, so they kind of have a better pulse for what's "market" IMO. I think the problem with K&E is that you have some true all stars, and then you have some shit-tier senior associates who become non-share partners by default and now they find themselves running deals with little to no supervision and no real clue what they were doing because before making NSP they were only trusted enough to run due diligence. If you are on the other side of the deal, you never know if you are getting the K&E A team or the B, C or D team.

Also, the idea of "market" is somewhat subjective, since there is not a perfect temperature for market and you may be up against some midwest firm that, when they find themselves in deeper water, just flails around and insists that 10b-5 reps are normal because it was in the last 80% of deals they did. And to be clear, I am referring to Dorsey and Whitney - terrible experience.

The K&E “D team” is a real thing. I could tell some really great stories of utter malfunction from some Kirkland teams - including one in which a NSP partner started reaming out his own junior associate for incompetence on an all hands call. I wonder what happened to those guys.

I don’t know why middle market PE firms hire K&E. They get a bunch of low performing associates with a partner with a great resume who gives 25% of his attention (max) to the deal at any given time. Sure, KKR is going to get their top teams. But Marlin isn’t.

25%? lmao try 2.5%

[12YrsAnAssociate]

For lit, Quinn is pretty brutal to work across from. Especially out of the LA office.

And it isn't just because they are good lawyers, they are often needlessly difficult and combative. They do things that comparable firms like Susman, Irell, and MTO never do.

This is also true working with Quinn as co-counsel. They needlessly pick fights over nothing as co-counsel and can be so frustrating to work with. They certainly have a very specific view of litigation that is akin to salting Carthage, even when you are working with them.

I was across from Quinn and I was surprised at the relatively low quality of their work and how often they resorted to personal insults in their papers. The work was fine, but really nothing better than you'd expect from any random midlaw firm. The insults acted like they were the embodiment of litigation, and our side was a bunch of goof balls.

I googled the Quinn associate that would send middle of the night emails on the case just now and it looks like he left Quinn a few months ago and isn't working anywhere now. Hope he's okay. I bet being a Quinn junior is rough.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Came here to say K&E as well. Unpleasant for no reason.

In defense of K&E, I think they do the most private M&A in the USA, so they kind of have a better pulse for what's "market" IMO. I think the problem with K&E is that you have some true all stars, and then you have some shit-tier senior associates who become non-share partners by default and now they find themselves running deals with little to no supervision and no real clue what they were doing because before making NSP they were only trusted enough to run due diligence. If you are on the other side of the deal, you never know if you are getting the K&E A team or the B, C or D team.

Also, the idea of "market" is somewhat subjective, since there is not a perfect temperature for market and you may be up against some midwest firm that, when they find themselves in deeper water, just flails around and insists that 10b-5 reps are normal because it was in the last 80% of deals they did. And to be clear, I am referring to Dorsey and Whitney - terrible experience.

The K&E “D team” is a real thing. I could tell some really great stories of utter malfunction from some Kirkland teams - including one in which a NSP partner started reaming out his own junior associate for incompetence on an all hands call. I wonder what happened to those guys.

I don’t know why middle market PE firms hire K&E. They get a bunch of low performing associates with a partner with a great resume who gives 25% of his attention (max) to the deal at any given time. Sure, KKR is going to get their top teams. But Marlin isn’t.

I know of at least a few not very good seniors/midlevels that lateraled to K&E as NSPs. I almost feel bad for the clients - they'll be running the deals with minimum oversight and they really shouldn't be.

[Anonymous User]

Came here to say K&E as well. Unpleasant for no reason.

In defense of K&E, I think they do the most private M&A in the USA, so they kind of have a better pulse for what's "market" IMO. I think the problem with K&E is that you have some true all stars, and then you have some shit-tier senior associates who become non-share partners by default and now they find themselves running deals with little to no supervision and no real clue what they were doing because before making NSP they were only trusted enough to run due diligence. If you are on the other side of the deal, you never know if you are getting the K&E A team or the B, C or D team.

Also, the idea of "market" is somewhat subjective, since there is not a perfect temperature for market and you may be up against some midwest firm that, when they find themselves in deeper water, just flails around and insists that 10b-5 reps are normal because it was in the last 80% of deals they did. And to be clear, I am referring to Dorsey and Whitney - terrible experience.

I actually had a good experience with the Salt Lake City office of Dorsey and Whitney on a deal in December, which was a pleasant surprise given the complexity and timeline of that transaction. No 10b-5 issues on that one, but I hear you.

[Anonymous User]

Came here to echo the K&E sentiment. It's not necessarily the combative tone or the aggressive pushing of off-market positions that bothers me so much, since maybe a lot of that can be justified as singleminded pursuit of clients' interest. But that general attitude made me less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in a couple of instances where changes would be agreed to, only to suddenly be back-tracked on in the form of last-second attempted printer proof edits funneled through junior associates at 4:00 a.m. a few hours before launch, or agreed-to changes being quietly reverted back to their original position in redline-less markups, only to eventually be pulled as "mistakes," which was par for the course for those deal experiences generally.

I wouldn't categorically judge the whole firm based on a couple of bad experiences, and to be fair I've had plenty of normal or good experiences working with them (in particular with California K&E teams) but they immediately come to mind when I think of deal interactions that were needlessly annoying and I'd roll my eyes if I had to work with those particular teams again.