Top Law Schools

People who have experience at post KE and another firm, how does it compare? Are you working harder than before? Feel any difference in the culture?

I joined their New York office in the past 12 months from another large law firm. Pros are better perks, better office, more social events and dinners, nicer and more energetic attorneys, higher quality and more interesting matters, more meritocratic, more responsibility earlier, work closely with very smart partners, can say no to work. Cons are even fewer people seem to have a life outside the office and are able to set healthy boundaries, faster pace, higher expectations, don’t know many other associates and NSPs, many firms have caught up on compensation, personally haven’t figured out when to say no to work and how best to take vacations

I've worked at a boutique, V50, and KE. Overall, boutique > V50 > KE. I had zero work life balance at KE, and my requests to turn down work were frequently ignored.

I’d be particularly curious to hear from people who came from other V10s (rather than firms of a very different size/profile). Don’t get wrong, I’m interested in the opinions of people from boutiques and V50s too, but I wonder how much any differences (good or bad) are about changing the type of firm rather than KE specifically. A lateral from Latham, Skadden, S&C etc in the same market could comment on KE things distinct from the normal V10 experience.

Of course, it would also be great if people could specify their market, since I know all firms differ wildly between offices (including KE). And the market they came from, if different.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:56 pm

I’d be particularly curious to hear from people who came from other V10s (rather than firms of a very different size/profile). Don’t get wrong, I’m interested in the opinions of people from boutiques and V50s too, but I wonder how much any differences (good or bad) are about changing the type of firm rather than KE specifically. A lateral from Latham, Skadden, S&C etc in the same market could comment on KE things distinct from the normal V10 experience.

Of course, it would also be great if people could specify their market, since I know all firms differ wildly between offices (including KE). And the market they came from, if different.

You are placing way too much significance on "v10." Lumping firms together by Vault ranking is, in general, an uninformed and not very useful exercise. For instance, S&C probably has more in common with Deb and Milbank than it does Kirkland or Latham. Similarly, GDC is more comparable to firms like Covington and Wilmer than it is any other "v10." And this all presupposes that you can actually make firm-to-firm comparisons in this way in the first place, when you really can't, since each individual's experience is so dependent on the small subset of people you actually work with.

Also, isn't it f10 now?

ExpOriental wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:56 pm

I’d be particularly curious to hear from people who came from other V10s (rather than firms of a very different size/profile). Don’t get wrong, I’m interested in the opinions of people from boutiques and V50s too, but I wonder how much any differences (good or bad) are about changing the type of firm rather than KE specifically. A lateral from Latham, Skadden, S&C etc in the same market could comment on KE things distinct from the normal V10 experience.

Of course, it would also be great if people could specify their market, since I know all firms differ wildly between offices (including KE). And the market they came from, if different.

You are placing way too much significance on "v10." Lumping firms together by Vault ranking is, in general, an uninformed and not very useful exercise. For instance, S&C probably has more in common with Deb and Milbank than it does Kirkland or Latham. Similarly, GDC is more comparable to firms like Covington and Wilmer than it is any other "v10." And this all presupposes that you can actually make firm-to-firm comparisons in this way in the first place, when you really can't, since each individual's experience is so dependent on the small subset of people you actually work with.

Also, isn't it f10 now?

?????????

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:28 pm

ExpOriental wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:26 pm

You are placing way too much significance on "v10." Lumping firms together by Vault ranking is, in general, an uninformed and not very useful exercise. For instance, S&C probably has more in common with Deb and Milbank than it does Kirkland or Latham. Similarly, GDC is more comparable to firms like Covington and Wilmer than it is any other "v10." And this all presupposes that you can actually make firm-to-firm comparisons in this way in the first place, when you really can't, since each individual's experience is so dependent on the small subset of people you actually work with.

Also, isn't it f10 now?

?????????

I'm not OP but also don't think this warrants a slew of question marks. Deb and Milbank are largely NYC-centered firms that take a great deal of cultural pride in being NYC shops. Latham and Kirkland are are HQed in LA/Chicago increasingly in name only and are relentlessly chasing nationwide growth and expansion in any market and with any client that can sustain their rates.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:28 pm

ExpOriental wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:56 pm

I’d be particularly curious to hear from people who came from other V10s (rather than firms of a very different size/profile). Don’t get wrong, I’m interested in the opinions of people from boutiques and V50s too, but I wonder how much any differences (good or bad) are about changing the type of firm rather than KE specifically. A lateral from Latham, Skadden, S&C etc in the same market could comment on KE things distinct from the normal V10 experience.

Of course, it would also be great if people could specify their market, since I know all firms differ wildly between offices (including KE). And the market they came from, if different.

You are placing way too much significance on "v10." Lumping firms together by Vault ranking is, in general, an uninformed and not very useful exercise. For instance, S&C probably has more in common with Deb and Milbank than it does Kirkland or Latham. Similarly, GDC is more comparable to firms like Covington and Wilmer than it is any other "v10." And this all presupposes that you can actually make firm-to-firm comparisons in this way in the first place, when you really can't, since each individual's experience is so dependent on the small subset of people you actually work with.

Also, isn't it f10 now?

?????????

In terms of the ephemeral notion of "culture" that are nominally the subject of these threads, yes. Are you disputing my central point? The idea that a comparison between Kirkland and GDC is more useful than a comparison between Kirkland and Ropes makes no sense whatsoever.

These firmwide comparisons are not useful. You can already see it in this very thread: two posters have apparently had near-opposite experiences at Kirkland. Thinking that there's a "normal v10 experience" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of this concept. There are people getting ground to dust at like, Katten or whatever, and there are people chilling and billing to around 2,000 hours every year at every v10 (with the probable exception of Wachtell).

ExpOriental wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:56 pm

Also, isn't it f10 now?

?????????

Honestly first thought they were just questioning the f10 vs v10. Which, for anyone curious, is because Vault merged with "Firsthand" and is confusingly phasing out the identifiable Vault brand.

V50 lit lateral.

It's basically the same work wise--people are demanding when the client/work is demanding and otherwise fine. There are some people I like and some I don't. It's a group with like a 1000 members and all biglaw firms serve the same type of clients/work

Perks are nicer--they don't try to nickel and dime you like other firms (e.g., we were given $1000 "to take a vacation" in August)

Socially, I am not a fan. There is zero sense of camaraderie. Coming from a smaller group to this massive group I feel like there are so many people that I don't know down the hall and I don't work with anyone on my floor so no one is poking their head in for a 2 minute chat, which really helps break up the monotony of the day.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:41 pm

Socially, I am not a fan. There is zero sense of camaraderie. Coming from a smaller group to this massive group I feel like there are so many people that I don't know down the hall and I don't work with anyone on my floor so no one is poking their head in for a 2 minute chat, which really helps break up the monotony of the day.

This is very different post-pandemic in my experience. I am also a lit mid
level and have been only at KE. Up until March 2020 I had great relationships with my colleagues. Then they waned and now that we have returned to office there is a very different social vibe. I imagine it’s really tough for recent laterals to get to know people in this environment.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:03 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:41 pm

Socially, I am not a fan. There is zero sense of camaraderie. Coming from a smaller group to this massive group I feel like there are so many people that I don't know down the hall and I don't work with anyone on my floor so no one is poking their head in for a 2 minute chat, which really helps break up the monotony of the day.

This is very different post-pandemic in my experience. I am also a lit mid
level and have been only at KE. Up until March 2020 I had great relationships with my colleagues. Then they waned and now that we have returned to office there is a very different social vibe. I imagine it’s really tough for recent laterals to get to know people in this environment.

This + training of juniors is really the reason that permanent WFH is not the no-brainer that people make it out to be.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:15 pm

I joined their New York office in the past 12 months from another large law firm. Pros are better perks, better office, more social events and dinners, nicer and more energetic attorneys, higher quality and more interesting matters, more meritocratic, more responsibility earlier, work closely with very smart partners, can say no to work. Cons are even fewer people seem to have a life outside the office and are able to set healthy boundaries, faster pace, higher expectations, don’t know many other associates and NSPs, many firms have caught up on compensation, personally haven’t figured out when to say no to work and how best to take vacations

I appreciate the input, but I do think it is a bit funny.
"Pros: More work and more interesting work and more social events!
Cons: Less time outside of work and the work is hard."

Aka "I get to eat a lot of cake, but it sucks there is no cake after."

I think it's one of the issues people have in law and in the working world. We all want the interesting work, smart and hard working colleagues, responsibility that makes us feel validated, deliver high quality work product, etc. But simultaneously when we get it we wonder why we don't have time outside of work. Sometimes you have to choose what you want to be. Not saying the person who posted this has that issue (think they are actually intent on making a career in biglaw and want to put in the time and effort), but I see it all the time where people work themselves to death and when you quiz them on why they are doing it, you find out they actually just want to relax. I see the opposite too of course (people who want all the responsibility in the world, but not do the work to get there).

Sad248 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:42 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:15 pm

I joined their New York office in the past 12 months from another large law firm. Pros are better perks, better office, more social events and dinners, nicer and more energetic attorneys, higher quality and more interesting matters, more meritocratic, more responsibility earlier, work closely with very smart partners, can say no to work. Cons are even fewer people seem to have a life outside the office and are able to set healthy boundaries, faster pace, higher expectations, don’t know many other associates and NSPs, many firms have caught up on compensation, personally haven’t figured out when to say no to work and how best to take vacations

I appreciate the input, but I do think it is a bit funny.
"Pros: More work and more interesting work and more social events!
Cons: Less time outside of work and the work is hard."

Aka "I get to eat a lot of cake, but it sucks there is no cake after."

I think it's one of the issues people have in law and in the working world. We all want the interesting work, smart and hard working colleagues, responsibility that makes us feel validated, deliver high quality work product, etc. But simultaneously when we get it we wonder why we don't have time outside of work. Sometimes you have to choose what you want to be. Not saying the person who posted this has that issue (think they are actually intent on making a career in biglaw and want to put in the time and effort), but I see it all the time where people work themselves to death and when you quiz them on why they are doing it, you find out they actually just want to relax. I see the opposite too of course (people who want all the responsibility in the world, but not do the work to get there).

I think that in BigLaw, as with most jobs, there is a self-perpetuating system in place that pushes operations and individual work streams in certain directions without direct human input. It’s in the nature of large organizations reacting to incentives. In most corporations this is a constant drive toward profit-maximization, although you can find other systems such as an insurmountable inertia against change, a self-cannibalizing drive for sales commissions, etc.

In BigLaw, this tends to manifest in an uncapped push toward maximizing revenue via hours. In some firms this is also coupled with the relentless cutting of costs (the other half of the profit equation), which luckily Kirkland doesn’t have. There also tends to be staffing inertia, so those who do well are staffed more and more until they burn out, and those who do poorly or are forgotten get staffed on less and less (this is explicit at a free market firm like Kirkland, but similar forces exist at centralized staffing firms too).

So, to your point, I think that most people who come into BigLaw aren’t aware of these trends and forces, and even if they are, don’t realize that they have some power to push back against them. They expect that the system can and should correct itself, that it should guide their path, or that the way things are is the way that things must be. Given the prevalence of KJDs who never had a professional job before and are used to academic environments, this makes sense.

All of that is a very long-winded way of saying: if you’re a good performer and are being rewarded with an increasingly crushing workload, don’t expect the firm to protect you from it. You are swept up in the relentless drive to increase billable hours that is larger than any individual lawyer and will never stop on its own. YOU need to learn how to say no, how to push back (diplomatically), how to manage your own work streams when they don’t suit you, and if the organization doesn’t let you take that action, how to leave for a better environment. Conversely, if you’re always slow and can’t get the work, or are getting the WRONG work, then YOU need to take action to switch groups, express interest in the work you want, etc. Nobody will do those things for you.

It’s entirely possible to be a strong performer with a solid work stream of deals that you like, without being totally crushed, but there is basically no fucking way it’ll happen naturally without you pruning your work environment to your desired outcome like a banzai tree.

To get back to the original question, I didn't find Kirkland to be *that* different than my other biglaw experiences (both V10 and V100), but I would say it was worse, all things considered. I worked more 300 hour months in 3 years at Kirkland than in 6 years at other places. I canceled more plans and definitely had more adverse health effects (including almost completely losing my sex drive for a couple years -- no one tells you it can be a side effect of stress!). Kirkland is terrible for personal lives.

But on the other hand, I arguably got a better exit than I would have from those other places. And I definitely made more money at Kirkland than I would have at the other places (although this gap is apparently closing). I dealt with about the same amount of passive-aggressive bullshit. The holiday parties / events were better, to the extent that matters at all.

So it's basically the trade-off people expect -- a worse life for marginally more money. Whether that's worth it to you is an intensely personal decision.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:50 am

a worse life for marginally more money. Whether that's It's not worth it to you is an intensely personal decision.

Just a few nits.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:50 am

To get back to the original question, I didn't find Kirkland to be *that* different than my other biglaw experiences (both V10 and V100), but I would say it was worse, all things considered. I worked more 300 hour months in 3 years at Kirkland than in 6 years at other places. I canceled more plans and definitely had more adverse health effects (including almost completely losing my sex drive for a couple years -- no one tells you it can be a side effect of stress!). Kirkland is terrible for personal lives.

But on the other hand, I arguably got a better exit than I would have from those other places. And I definitely made more money at Kirkland than I would have at the other places (although this gap is apparently closing). I dealt with about the same amount of passive-aggressive bullshit. The holiday parties / events were better, to the extent that matters at all.

So it's basically the trade-off people expect -- a worse life for marginally more money. Whether that's worth it to you is an intensely personal decision.

I lol'd on the lack of sex drive - it is true. When I do get some time off it is hilarious (and a little frustrating to my partner) how quickly it comes back tryna make up for lost time.

Sackboy wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:50 am

a worse life for marginally more money. Whether that's It's not worth it to you is an intensely personal decision.

Just a few nits.

Obviously it's worth it to hundreds of associates who choose to come to Kirkland over similar firms all the time. Choosing biglaw over, like, government (as a litigator, I have no clue what corp people do) is already electing a worse life for more money. The money delta is shrinking though, except for laterals who can get a big fat signing bonus. I am actively exploring the market to see if I can take a small money hit to get closer to a true 2000 expectation. I've been pitched and pressured to take on more work when I've been cruising toward 21/2200 before and the only way biglaw will work for me personally for 2 or 3 more years is if I can do that comfortably. Kirkland is not the place for that. But some Dechert associate will jump at the chance to get a high five figures signing bonus and take my place. And the world keeps spinning.

Coming in next year after tours at DPW and PW. Don’t expect it to be any better or worse but will circle back and share thoughts after a few months

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:27 pm

Coming in next year after tours at DPW and PW. Don’t expect it to be any better or worse but will circle back and share thoughts after a few months

Please send an incremental redline of your thoughts--thanks! Please let me know if you have any questions.