Kirkland Megathread Forum

[Joachim2017]

The point isn't that litigators are drawn to conservative causes, it's that they (for better or worse) care about things like preffftige, how much a firm values its litigation practice, brass rings, etc. Throwing away the biggest name in appellate litigation for some random corporate client sends powerful signals to this crowd. Maybe the firm doesn't care about catering to this crowd. That's completely fair. But at the same time, there's no need to humor Kirkland randos who act like they're making a prestige move by working for the Walmart of law firms.

I think this is essentially right. Lots of top litigation/appellate talent coming out of HYS or 2/9/DC/SCOTUS doesn't have *that* much of an interest in a firm's political leanings. What they care about is working on legit appellate cases and getting the chance, however small, of working their way to the top in an environment that consistently has a presence in both the federal appellate courts across the country and SCOTUS. Kirkland has just indicated that it does not value this vertical as much as it values the vertical represented by whatever transaction client(s) demanded that they step away from 2A cases. Top graduates who can pick between, say, K&E or GDC or Susman (and yes, I know firsthand folks who chose in the recent past chose Kirkland over Susman) will now have little to no reason to pick Kirkland.

Especially in juxtaposition to the Cooley/Elon Musk thing, when the firm stood up for itself, this really seems like a cowardly, pathetic move by Kirkland.

But it’s not just catering to corporate clients? It’s also catering to the attorneys and employees at Kirkland, the majority of whom are probably uncomfortable with the the firm taking these very conservative cases that imo make America a worse place to live. I would be pissed if my firm was the one arguing SCOTUS to overturn Roe or Obergefell. Kirkland has a lot of flaws and issues but I don’t fault the firm for making this decision—they’d be vilified either way.

I actually think the majority of Kirkland associates will be more embarrassed by the combination of (a) how their leadership caved in to client demands and kicked Clement out and (b) the loss of their position as a top appellate shop than (c) be uncomfortable with their firm's name on conservative gun cases. The loudest voices don't always represent a majority of people.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has just indicated that it does not value [the prestige appellate] vertical as much as it values the vertical represented by whatever transaction client(s) demanded that they step away from 2A cases. Top graduates who can pick between, say, K&E or GDC or Susman (and yes, I know firsthand folks who chose in the recent past chose Kirkland over Susman) will now have little to no reason to pick Kirkland.

I actually think the majority of Kirkland associates will be more embarrassed by the combination of (a) how their leadership caved in to client demands and kicked Clement out and (b) the loss of their position as a top appellate shop than (c) be uncomfortable with their firm's name on conservative gun cases. The loudest voices don't always represent a majority of people.

Agree with your first point but not your second. I don't think it's at all embarrassing that the firm responded to market pressure (because I agree with that pressure) and I highly doubt they kicked Clement out—rather, the firm and Clement likely each made their decisions, which is kind of the whole point of Kirkland's free-market approach. I am embarrassed by the firm having (had) its name on conservative gun cases, and on Deepwater Horizon.

"Embarrassed" is the wrong word when it comes to "top appellate shop" status, partly because that designation hasn't been all that clear (GDC, anyone?), and partly because what matters is whether Paul Clement would give you work rather than whether Kirkland had Paul Clement (or any other top name). If I end up wanting to specialize in appellate work, being a member of "the majority of K&E associates" was never going to be what got me there.

(Anon b/c early-career K&E employee headed to 2/9/DC.)

[Anonymous User]

.

[jackshunger]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

When are you dropping JUUL?

[Anonymous User]

I'm at KE DC (midlevel in litigation). It's an interesting office: the heavy hitter SPs are basically all conservative former GOP SCOTUS clerk types, but the rank and file have generally been liberal (as is typical for biglaw). When KE announced it was taking on Clement and Bancroft, though, that seemed to serve as a signal to conservative law students that KE DC was a place for them. That announcement was in fall 2016, so the first "We have Paul Clement" OCI cycle was 2017 with C/O 2019 (current 3rd years). There is a noticeable difference at a macro level between the political bent of those three classes and the classes more senior to them, and I expect that will now shift back more toward what it was before. Those three classes also seem to have been somewhat better credentialed - better schools, higher GPAs, and (especially) better clerkships - so I wonder what will happen there.

As has been said, Clement rocketed KE's appellate group into the top tier, but I don't really think that the firm was that successful at getting more trial-level work because of Clement (I was on some cases where he would swoop in and provide legal or argument advice, I think largely because the partners thought the client would like it). Clement's addition to the firm forced out the old appellate cohort led by Chris Landau, and since Erin Murphy is leaving too, I expect that the firm will actively try to poach top appellate talent. This is Kirkland & Ellis after all; don't be surprised if they are making a play at Shanmugam or Blatt or something similarly splashy. Maybe they will hire Prelogar in a year.

Finally I think it is... interesting that this issue is the straw that broke the camel's back. Kirkland (and all biglaw firms) represent some pretty reprehensible interests. It's okay to get rich off of Juul or Navient or BP or Boeing when they make planes that kill people, but not these ones?

Lol at the poster who thinks KE associates will be embarrassed though - I think most it's just gossip and it won't affect our day to day really at all. Could have some medium to long term effects for the office, but I'll probably leave before then anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Yea idk. I’m coming off a COA in a year for a good judge, non feeder though. T6. I won’t apply to KE because of this. Was leaning boutique anyway with a mix of biglaw, and KE was on the list. But also I’m a nobody I guess since not a SCOTUS clerk and they likely don’t care about people like me anyway.

[thisismytlsuername]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

Pretty sociopathic that Uvalde was some tipping point and not, you know, the 30k-40k gun deaths every year.

[Joachim2017]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

When are you dropping JUUL?

Or the opioid makers?

[KirklandSignature]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

When are you dropping JUUL?

Or the opioid makers?

Chiming in only to clarify that my user name comes from my profound love for Costco products, especially their mixed nuts. Fun coincidence. Anyhow, what about Jeffrey Epstein? BP in Deepwater Horizon?

[Anonymous User]

I'm at KE DC (midlevel in litigation). It's an interesting office: the heavy hitter SPs are basically all conservative former GOP SCOTUS clerk types, but the rank and file have generally been liberal (as is typical for biglaw). When KE announced it was taking on Clement and Bancroft, though, that seemed to serve as a signal to conservative law students that KE DC was a place for them. That announcement was in fall 2016, so the first "We have Paul Clement" OCI cycle was 2017 with C/O 2019 (current 3rd years). There is a noticeable difference at a macro level between the political bent of those three classes and the classes more senior to them, and I expect that will now shift back more toward what it was before. Those three classes also seem to have been somewhat better credentialed - better schools, higher GPAs, and (especially) better clerkships - so I wonder what will happen there.

As has been said, Clement rocketed KE's appellate group into the top tier, but I don't really think that the firm was that successful at getting more trial-level work because of Clement (I was on some cases where he would swoop in and provide legal or argument advice, I think largely because the partners thought the client would like it). Clement's addition to the firm forced out the old appellate cohort led by Chris Landau, and since Erin Murphy is leaving too, I expect that the firm will actively try to poach top appellate talent. This is Kirkland & Ellis after all; don't be surprised if they are making a play at Shanmugam or Blatt or something similarly splashy. Maybe they will hire Prelogar in a year.

Finally I think it is... interesting that this issue is the straw that broke the camel's back. Kirkland (and all biglaw firms) represent some pretty reprehensible interests. It's okay to get rich off of Juul or Navient or BP or Boeing when they make planes that kill people, but not these ones?

Lol at the poster who thinks KE associates will be embarrassed though - I think most it's just gossip and it won't affect our day to day really at all. Could have some medium to long term effects for the office, but I'll probably leave before then anyway.

delete

[Anonymous User]

Lol at the poster who thinks KE associates will be embarrassed though - I think most it's just gossip and it won't affect our day to day really at all. Could have some medium to long term effects for the office, but I'll probably leave before then anyway.

I have talked to K&E associates who literally used the word "embarrassed" to describe the feeling. But ok, yeah, your experience = every K&E associate's experience.

[Anonymous User]

Lol at the poster who thinks KE associates will be embarrassed though - I think most it's just gossip and it won't affect our day to day really at all. Could have some medium to long term effects for the office, but I'll probably leave before then anyway.

I have talked to K&E associates who literally used the word "embarrassed" to describe the feeling. But ok, yeah, your experience = every K&E associate's experience.

I'm the quoted and, OK, that's not my experience at all in talking to the many colleagues that I talk to daily. Not just referring to my own feelings here. If a colleague told me they were "embarrassed" by this, then I would either think "lol" or laugh at them depending on our relationship.

[LBJ's Hair]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

this is total bullshit lol.

Clement had been doing 2A representations forever. mass shootings aren't new. Kirkland exec knew Clement's politics + issue interests when they hired him - this is the guy who quit K&S so he could defend DOMA.

they didn't tell him to stop doing 2A after after Parkland, or any other mass shooting in the past 6 years. they didn't tell him to stop doing 2A 8 months ago when he was doing oral argument for Bruen.

it's pretty obvious to anyone with an above-room-temperature IQ that Kirkland doesn't actually give a fuck about gun control.

so what's the more plausible explanation? $$$ - a few Kirkland clients got mad about Clement's representations told some transactional partners as much, and your exec decided that Clement wasn't worth nastygram emails.

that is...also what the WSJ has reported:

After recent mass shootings, other Kirkland clients began expressing reservations over the firm’s work for the gun movement, a person familiar with the matter said. Kirkland “started getting a lot of pressure post-Uvalde, hearing from several big-dollar clients that they were uncomfortable,” this person said. “Several partners agreed that they should drop that representation.”

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/winning-la ... 1656026132

I get that you can't put that in public communications, but this is an anonymous message board. you don't have to shill this 'actually we care about mass shootings now' nonsense.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

When are you dropping JUUL?

Former KE Associate here - arguably never. JUUL is going to be pivoted to the restructuring group where they'll probably set up some sort of mass tort chapter 11 trust type-thing (not my expertise) and throw an army of Juniors at it via claims workstreams who will spend the first few years of their legal careers being yelled at by parents whose children got cancer from JUUL products.

Slightly off-topic I guess but, man, going to be a rough time to be an Rx junior.

[Anonymous User]

K&E partner here. Share partner, fwiw.

We didn't fire Clement. We told Clement that he should not take on any more 2A representations going forward. I'm not aware of any particular client(s) demanding that the firm step away from these, but there are many of us here who believe the tragedy in Uvalde is a tipping point and we cannot in good faith as a firm continue to advocate for clients that contribute to this shit always happening in our country.

Clement decided (as is his right) that he didn't want the firm telling him which clients, no matter how unpopular they or their goals might be, he could represent. He is a great lawyer and we aren't happy to see him go. But telling him that he couldn't do one specific type of representation is not "constructive firing", as much as K&E haters like "Kirkland Signature" would have you believe.

Leadership in this firm still leans right. But this "Wal-mart of law firms" with no principles other than just making money has a collective belief that kids should not get gunned down in schools. There are many on the right who believe sensible gun control is the right thing to do, and as a firm we have decided we are not going to represent the 2A zealots who fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of it.

When are you dropping JUUL?

Former KE Associate here - arguably never. JUUL is going to be pivoted to the restructuring group where they'll probably set up some sort of mass tort chapter 11 trust type-thing (not my expertise) and throw an army of Juniors at it via claims workstreams who will spend the first few years of their legal careers being yelled at by parents whose children got cancer from JUUL products.

Slightly off-topic I guess but, man, going to be a rough time to be an Rx junior.

Hi share partner, after Jan 6., kirkalnd decided to stop representing Fox News too right? The reasoning is pretty similar, you were disturbed that your client was actively involved in the latest coup attempt since the civil war?

[jsnow212]

The only thing everyone can agree on, regardless of politics, is the absolute hilarity in a KE share partner unironically invoking morality in any decision related to their job.

[Anonymous User]

So with the school prayer case (Kennedy v. Bremerton) just decided, Clement is now 2/2 at the Supreme Court this term. Curious if Kirkland will ignore this victory in its Friday "victories" email like it did the other SCOTUS case Clement won. Are they going to include it in their stats for their appellate prowess at all? One SCOTUS win is a big deal for most firms; 2 or 3 is awesome. 2/2 in a single term is fabulous, put-it-on-your-website type stuff.

Kirkland may not be sheepish about kicking him out, but it is pretty funny overall.

[Anonymous User]

All of these hating posts are clearly written by 0Ls or juniors with no idea what they are talking about. As share partner poster said above, this was the firm's decision. It wasn't "caving" or some "pathetic move," it was just a law firm deciding what cases it takes on, just as lawyers everywhere decide what cases they'll take on every day. That's it. I wish Paul would have stayed, as he was an asset to the firm, but it was his choice to walk, not the firm's.

Comparing guns to various corporate clients is silly. For one, the popular press rarely publishes the full story of why X company did Y thing, and frequently it's way more complicated than how the NYT makes it appear. For two, looking back at some controversy and having to litigate over how much liability gets assigned for it (backwards-looking litigation) is very different than litigating over a right to do something (carry guns/allow other people to have tons of guns) in the future. And for three, the firm can do whatever it wants. Don't ding people for honestly deciding to draw a given line just because you wish they'd draw other ones.

[Joachim2017]

All of these hating posts are clearly written by 0Ls or juniors with no idea what they are talking about. As share partner poster said above, this was the firm's decision. It wasn't "caving" or some "pathetic move," it was just a law firm deciding what cases it takes on, just as lawyers everywhere decide what cases they'll take on every day. That's it. I wish Paul would have stayed, as he was an asset to the firm, but it was his choice to walk, not the firm's.

Comparing guns to various corporate clients is silly. For one, the popular press rarely publishes the full story of why X company did Y thing, and frequently it's way more complicated than how the NYT makes it appear. For two, looking back at some controversy and having to litigate over how much liability gets assigned for it (backwards-looking litigation) is very different than litigating over a right to do something (carry guns/allow other people to have tons of guns) in the future. And for three, the firm can do whatever it wants. Don't ding people for honestly deciding to draw a given line just because you wish they'd draw other ones.

This is a dumb take. Lots of reasons why, but let me just point out a few.

First, of course it was both the firm's choice and Clement's choice whether he walked. The firm chose based on its priority list, just as he did. This isn't some "either/or" oversimplification. (As, presumably, a wise, hardened non-0L, non-junior, I'd have thought this brave anonymous poster would appreciate the fact of nuance in the real world...)

Second, no one disagrees that firms can choose which cases to take on, or "do whatever it wants." Characterizing it this way is to straw-man anyone who disagrees with your take on the issues actually being discussed, in your attempt to make it appear to be a clear-cut "that's all there is to it" situation, just because you say it is.

Third, the distinction between forwards-looking rights cases and backwards-looking liability cases seems a little ad hoc. When Kirkland defends opioid makers in FTC actions, or antitrust matters, its representation directly affects whether, how much, or in what ways its clients can market opioids going forward. (As, again, a seasoned non-0L, non-junior veteran, I'd have thought you'd appreciate this reality...)

Don't give a lazy, hack defense of a firm just because you wish other people had different opinions on how it should prioritize its values.

[legalpotato]

All of these hating posts are clearly written by 0Ls or juniors with no idea what they are talking about. As share partner poster said above, this was the firm's decision. It wasn't "caving" or some "pathetic move," it was just a law firm deciding what cases it takes on, just as lawyers everywhere decide what cases they'll take on every day. That's it. I wish Paul would have stayed, as he was an asset to the firm, but it was his choice to walk, not the firm's.

Comparing guns to various corporate clients is silly. For one, the popular press rarely publishes the full story of why X company did Y thing, and frequently it's way more complicated than how the NYT makes it appear. For two, looking back at some controversy and having to litigate over how much liability gets assigned for it (backwards-looking litigation) is very different than litigating over a right to do something (carry guns/allow other people to have tons of guns) in the future. And for three, the firm can do whatever it wants. Don't ding people for honestly deciding to draw a given line just because you wish they'd draw other ones.

This is a dumb take. Lots of reasons why, but let me just point out a few.

First, of course it was both the firm's choice and Clement's choice whether he walked. The firm chose based on its priority list, just as he did. This isn't some "either/or" oversimplification. (As, presumably, a wise, hardened non-0L, non-junior, I'd have thought this brave anonymous poster would appreciate the fact of nuance in the real world...)

Second, no one disagrees that firms can choose which cases to take on, or "do whatever it wants." Characterizing it this way is to straw-man anyone who disagrees with your take on the issues actually being discussed, in your attempt to make it appear to be a clear-cut "that's all there is to it" situation, just because you say it is.

Third, the distinction between forwards-looking rights cases and backwards-looking liability cases seems a little ad hoc. When Kirkland defends opioid makers in FTC actions, or antitrust matters, its representation directly affects whether, how much, or in what ways its clients can market opioids going forward. (As, again, a seasoned non-0L, non-junior veteran, I'd have thought you'd appreciate this reality...)

Don't give a lazy, hack defense of a firm just because you wish other people had different opinions on how it should prioritize its values.

Also, would say that the anon sort of mischaracterized the posters here. The consensus here appears to be that this move was ultimately driven by $$$. Not "caving to the woke crowd" or anything like that.

Ironic to accuse ppl in this thread of being OLs and then proceeding with an emotional defensive post.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a summer at K&E and I have to say -- some of you seem so insufferable and difficult to like based on your internet personas. But must mask it quite well in person because every associate I have come across so far seems lovely.

Yea I know; I'm a summer and they're curating the experience summers have and no one is mean to us as they have no reason to be/we don't communicate with them in the context of work. Even so, in observing associates* interact with each other or trying to pick up on small things... y'all freaks hide it well.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a summer at K&E and I have to say -- some of you seem so insufferable and difficult to like based on your internet personas. But must mask it quite well in person because every associate I have come across so far seems lovely.

Yea I know; I'm a summer and they're curating the experience summers have and no one is mean to us as they have no reason to be/we don't communicate with them in the context of work. Even so, in observing summers interact with each other or trying to pick up on small things... y'all freaks hide it well.

Have you noticed some people around your office who you don't recognize from any summer lunches/events who are in their office all day with their doors closed? Some are very busy, but you're also meeting plenty of them (from your own firm and others) on these boards.

Great advice to be had here on TLS - I've browsed off and on from before 1L to now, multiple years into my Biglaw stint. That said, there are some genuinely miserable and vicious/cynical people here. Take it in stride and keep your mind on the objective - getting good advice/input.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a summer at K&E and I have to say -- some of you seem so insufferable and difficult to like based on your internet personas. But must mask it quite well in person because every associate I have come across so far seems lovely.

Yea I know; I'm a summer and they're curating the experience summers have and no one is mean to us as they have no reason to be/we don't communicate with them in the context of work. Even so, in observing associates* interact with each other or trying to pick up on small things... y'all freaks hide it well.

Is K&E Houston still taking summers shooting?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a summer at K&E and I have to say -- some of you seem so insufferable and difficult to like based on your internet personas. But must mask it quite well in person because every associate I have come across so far seems lovely.

Yea I know; I'm a summer and they're curating the experience summers have and no one is mean to us as they have no reason to be/we don't communicate with them in the context of work. Even so, in observing associates* interact with each other or trying to pick up on small things... y'all freaks hide it well.

Is K&E Houston still taking summers shooting?

Yes, there was (or is?) a skeet shooting event this summer. Not sure if it has happened or is coming.