K&E (Chi) v. NY V5 - Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

Location agnostic, 100% litigation. Which should I choose and why?

[2013]

How can you be agnostic about location? This is a no brainer for me because I love chicago.

[LBJ's Hair]

do you want to live in CHI? go to K&E. do you want to live in NYC-area long-term? go to NY.

w/e marginal difference there is between the firms is completely outweighed by the (very real) differences between CHI and NYC.

if you are going to continue to exist that you're a preference-less careerist robot (which I don't really understand, everyone has preferences), I would go to NYC because it's the largest biglaw market and would - I guess theoretically - afford you the most professional flexibility in said market

that said, you should pick based on location.

PS - a litigationsnob would say none of these options are amazing and you should clerk and go to a boutique

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland, because you’ll make way more money

[Anonymous User]

Location agnostic, 100% litigation. Which should I choose and why?

Fwiw, you'll pocket tens of thousands more in post-tax dollars at KE Chi, to the extent that impacts your decision. But you really should develop a preference among the two cities, they're very different experiences. I grew up in the Midwest so NY is fun to visit but horrifies me from a daily living perspective, for instance.

[Anonymous User]

By the time you’re a 5th year you would be bringing in over $25k more per year in Chicago just based on the tax savings. Not only this but COL and real estate is dramatically less in Chicago. At the end of the day, the difference in comp between the two is huge, such that if you’re truly agnostic about location then Chicago feels like a no brainer.

[Anonymous User]

Location agnostic, 100% litigation. Which should I choose and why?

As others have said, you should have a hard think about where you'd rather live and work as the location differences are going to be far more substantial. And as others have mentioned, you should treat your Chicago comp as structurally 10% higher given lower taxes+COL. Beyond that, more important than narrow prestige oriented comparisons would be your own fit and prospects for getting good and interesting work at each firm.

But if you persist in being just solely prestige-oriented/careerist about it, then I'd say it depends a lot on which "NY V5" you're talking about. To state the obvious, not all of the NY "V5" firms are equally strong in litigation--either in terms of actual work, or reputation. Skadden has a meh rep in lit at best, and lit work at Latham is fairly hard to get in the NY office afaik. Wacthell will not only pay you significantly more, but also carry a very specific and prestigious connotation--especially within the securities and M&A lit worlds. Cravath still has (somewhat inexplicably) retained circle-jerk cred, so if you're being careerist about it, you'd get some prestige-oriented jump from CSM. S&C has a very solid lit practice but fits somewhere in the middle.

[Anonymous User]

do you want to live in CHI? go to K&E. do you want to live in NYC-area long-term? go to NY.

w/e marginal difference there is between the firms is completely outweighed by the (very real) differences between CHI and NYC.

if you are going to continue to exist that you're a preference-less careerist robot (which I don't really understand, everyone has preferences), I would go to NYC because it's the largest biglaw market and would - I guess theoretically - afford you the most professional flexibility in said market

that said, you should pick based on location.

PS - a litigationsnob would say none of these options are amazing and you should clerk and go to a boutique

"Ohhhhh, you want lit? Retake (fed courts) and reapply (for clerkships+DC). Have fun next cycle!"

[Anonymous User]

do you want to live in CHI? go to K&E. do you want to live in NYC-area long-term? go to NY.

w/e marginal difference there is between the firms is completely outweighed by the (very real) differences between CHI and NYC.

if you are going to continue to exist that you're a preference-less careerist robot (which I don't really understand, everyone has preferences), I would go to NYC because it's the largest biglaw market and would - I guess theoretically - afford you the most professional flexibility in said market

that said, you should pick based on location.

PS - a litigationsnob would say none of these options are amazing and you should clerk and go to a boutique

"Ohhhhh, you want lit? Retake (fed courts) and reapply (for clerkships+DC). Have fun next cycle!"

This hits hard. Litigation elitism is to Biglaw as Law School elitism is to undergrads and normal people. Litigation community can be CRAZY about credentialing.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Hard to believe you’d enjoy Chicago and nyc equally, unless you just lack information about the cities. But if you’re truly indifferent, go to KE Chicago. If you get canned it’ll be harder to lateral in Chicago, but since you’re indifferent you could just lateral to nyc with money in the bank.

[Anonymous User]

Unless that V5 is Wachtell, I’d go with K&E if you want litigation.

[Chrstgtr]

There is already good advice in this thread. No one has addressed the actual substantive differences in work, though.

If you’re dead set on doing financial work then NYC is better overall. Same with white collar. But YMMV depending on the firm and your actual experience

[Anonymous User]

Unless that V5 is Wachtell, I’d go with K&E if you want litigation.

I would not go to Wachtell if you want litigation

[Anonymous User]

OP: Thanks everyone!

I have lived in both NY and Chi and enjoy both.

I have offers from S&C, PW, DPW, Skadden. Can likely get Gibson through EIW.

My two questions are -

1. Would K&E Chi give me better and more substantive general litigation experience early on? I get the sense that the NY firms might give me that, but there will be luck involved.

2. Is it easy to lateral to NY from K&E Chi if I decide to in year 4-6? K&E is top dog in Chi, but their NY rep is less than stellar. I'd figure generic V20-50 firms would be open to it, and Cravath/S&C/DPW/PW would likely be off the table, but what about firms like Latham?

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

OP: Thanks everyone!

I have lived in both NY and Chi and enjoy both.

I have offers from S&C, PW, DPW, Skadden. Can likely get Gibson through EIW.

My two questions are -

1. Would K&E Chi give me better and more substantive general litigation experience early on? I get the sense that the NY firms might give me that, but there will be luck involved.

No, not compared to the offers you have on the table IMO

2. Is it easy to lateral to NY from K&E Chi if I decide to in year 4-6? K&E is top dog in Chi, but their NY rep is less than stellar. I'd figure generic V20-50 firms would be open to it, and Cravath/S&C/DPW/PW would likely be off the table, but what about firms like Latham?

No, just come up a decent reason for wanting to move here. Everyone here knows K&E Chicago is prestigious and is more selective than K&E NY. Cravath rarely takes laterals, but any firm that hires laterals is fair game.

[BLPartner]

Just adding to the choir: You need to learn more about Chicago and NY. They're totally different cities. My brain cannot conceptualize why people choose to live in NY instead of Chicago given the massive financial differences (which if anything are being understated in this thread), but NY people will swear up and down that living in NY is uniquely amazing and worth it. If you're single, NY does have more "pretty/handsome and wealthy" people than Chicago does--banker crowd, etc.--so maybe you care about that (but maybe you'd prefer the more down to earth scene in Chicago).

If you're truly agnostic, as others have said, it's hard to see how one justifies the financial difference. Texas, of course, is the only real answer for financial maximization, but Texas is a whole different creature from Chicago and NY.

You will not have any problem lateraling from KE Chicago to NY biglaw if you have a remotely credible reason to want to relocate to NY. Caveated, of course, by your personal performance, credentials, blah blah blah. But nothing inherent about being at KE Chicago is going to disadvantage you in the NYC biglaw lateral market.

Someone above said KE will not give you more substantive lit experience early on than your other options. That may be true--I think plenty of people would argue that KE does in fact give their junior litigators somewhat better roles earlier, but that's highly dependent on partner, deal, circumstances, and so on--but KE will not be WORSE, either.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

OP: Thanks everyone!

I have lived in both NY and Chi and enjoy both.

I have offers from S&C, PW, DPW, Skadden. Can likely get Gibson through EIW.

My two questions are -

1. Would K&E Chi give me better and more substantive general litigation experience early on? I get the sense that the NY firms might give me that, but there will be luck involved.

No, not compared to the offers you have on the table IMO

2. Is it easy to lateral to NY from K&E Chi if I decide to in year 4-6? K&E is top dog in Chi, but their NY rep is less than stellar. I'd figure generic V20-50 firms would be open to it, and Cravath/S&C/DPW/PW would likely be off the table, but what about firms like Latham?

No, just come up a decent reason for wanting to move here. Everyone here knows K&E Chicago is prestigious and is more selective than K&E NY. Cravath rarely takes laterals, but any firm that hires laterals is fair game.

Second answer should be “yes” — I meant to push back against the idea you’d somehow be limited to V20 to V50 range and that v10 firms you have offers from now wouldn’t hire you later

[Anonymous User]

Unless that V5 is Wachtell, I’d go with K&E if you want litigation.

I would not go to Wachtell if you want litigation

sort of funny you say that https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... d-takeover

[Anonymous User]

Unless that V5 is Wachtell, I’d go with K&E if you want litigation.

I would not go to Wachtell if you want litigation

So you'd suggest OP take half the salary to work on less prestigious matters in the lesser legal market. Makes sense.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Unless that V5 is Wachtell, I’d go with K&E if you want litigation.

I would not go to Wachtell if you want litigation

So you'd suggest OP take half the salary to work on less prestigious matters in the lesser legal market. Makes sense.

OP doesn’t have a Wachtell offer. And there are Chicago homers who would take K&E over WLRK. The hours at WLRK are more brutal, some people hate NYC with a passion, and although WLRK will pay more it’s obvious your dollar doesn’t go nearly as far in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

Unless that V5 is Wachtell, I’d go with K&E if you want litigation.

I would not go to Wachtell if you want litigation

So you'd suggest OP take half the salary to work on less prestigious matters in the lesser legal market. Makes sense.

OP doesn’t have a Wachtell offer. And there are Chicago homers who would take K&E over WLRK. The hours at WLRK are more brutal, some people hate NYC with a passion, and although WLRK will pay more it’s obvious your dollar doesn’t go nearly as far in NYC.

i was the poster who linked Twitter (not the other one). was just rolling my eyes at the person casting aspersions on WLRK lit. if you want to live in CHI you should live in CHI.

[Anonymous User]

OP should take a week and spend 3/4 days in Chicago and the same in NYC and decide based on that.

[Anonymous User]

I genuinely don’t feel safe in Chicago outside of the area immediately surrounding my office in the Loop, during the day. I personally wouldn’t choose to live here, but then again, NYC is ridiculously expensive so pick your poison I guess.

[Anonymous User]

I genuinely don’t feel safe in Chicago outside of the area immediately surrounding my office in the Loop, during the day. I personally wouldn’t choose to live here, but then again, NYC is ridiculously expensive so pick your poison I guess.

I live in Chicago and this doesn't make much sense to me. Not doubting your feelings but neighborhoods you'd likely live in, and the suburbs you'd end up in eventually, are all safe. It's not like NYC doesn't have areas to avoid.

[Anonymous User]

I genuinely don’t feel safe in Chicago outside of the area immediately surrounding my office in the Loop, during the day. I personally wouldn’t choose to live here, but then again, NYC is ridiculously expensive so pick your poison I guess.

I live in Chicago and this doesn't make much sense to me. Not doubting your feelings but neighborhoods you'd likely live in, and the suburbs you'd end up in eventually, are all safe. It's not like NYC doesn't have areas to avoid.

OP there - no doubt, the burbs and neighborhoods further north are pretty solid. It’s just unfortunate that River North/the Loop can be dicey