Kirkland vs S&C vs DPW vs Cleary (all NY lit) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Sitting on offers at all four, thoughts:

1) I liked K&E's vibe the most, but I'm suspicious of how good they'd actually be as a junior given their focus on laterals. S&C/Cleary both felt pretty similar in terms of vibe and I liked both. DPW felt the most casual, but not in a bad way.

2) All else being equal, I'd prefer a FiDi office to a midtown one

3) I'm somewhat interested in white collar/internal investigations work, which really shifts the convo to S&C/Cleary/DPW over K&E. I'd like a bit of an international bent, which supports Cleary, but I've heard that international work there can be super competitive so unsure how much I would actually get.

4) I'm unsure how well I would do in a free market system. I'm pretty extroverted but not particularly outgoing and can get somewhat socially anxious (thanks mom and dad) at least until I'm comfortable in an environment. More centralized assignment systems might be better for me I guess?

5) I care somewhat about preftige for lateraling purposes, but I don't see that as being a huge difference between any of these firms. Maybe a slight lean to DPW/S&C on this front. Edit: For USAO exits in particular, maybe S&C/DPW over the other two?

6) I had the sense that lit is more important to S&C/Cleary than DPW/Kirkland

7) WLB-wise, it felt like the DPW/Cleary people were better off than S&C/Kirkland, but not by a whole lot

Office quality seems to favor DPW/Kirkland over S&C/Cleary from what I've heard, but I haven't had the chance to see any of these offices in person

9) I'm fairly academically-oriented. Unsure how that cuts.

Thoughts, TLS? These all seem really similar--like you could take the actual firms, juggle the various names/people, and end up with the same places at the end of the day.

Edit 2: I should note that I have cbs left at OMM SF, K&E SF, MoFo SF, and GDC SF all for lit. I interviewed for both SF and NY, but on reflection I think I prefer NY on the whole--unless one of these is a particular standout that I shouldn't ignore, I'm mostly focused on the group mentioned above.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously all are good options. If investigations are your thing, Kirkland is not as strong as some of these others (I have personal xp with 2 of these firms). K&E is good, but not great in this area. In NY specifically, they have like 1 set of SPs that do this work a lot, and they are popular, which means it can be hard to get work over dedicated mid-levels who come from fancy schools/clerkships and really only want to do this stuff. It's sort of like appellate work in that way.)

And keep in mind that Kirkland litigation in the NYC office is a true *grind.* There are some partners that generate a LOT of business from huge clients, but it's for that same reason a true sweatshop. You gotta be willing to do tedious, mind-numbing, grunt-level work (endless discovery disputes in sprawling class actions, chasing down emails, the minutia of project management, etc.).

The Kirkland NYC office also some partners that are distinctly unpleasant to work for. You can find some of their names on these forums. They are important SPs in that office, so it's hard to avoid their matters as a junior for too long. I know some mid-levels who made an effort to, and most have now left the firm. Other partners aren't as unpleasant, but require you to really spoon-feed them. It can be tedious because you often feel like a personal assistant moreso than a self-standing lawyer of your own. It's the typical Big Law experience, of course, but it's absolutely magnified, or felt at its most extreme, at K&E NYC lit.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously all are good options. If investigations are your thing, Kirkland is not as strong as some of these others (I have personal xp with 2 of these firms). K&E is good, but not great in this area. In NY specifically, they have like 1 set of SPs that do this work a lot, and they are popular, which means it can be hard to get work over dedicated mid-levels who come from fancy schools/clerkships and really only want to do this stuff. It's sort of like appellate work in that way.)

And keep in mind that Kirkland litigation in the NYC office is a true *grind.* There are some partners that generate a LOT of business from huge clients, but it's for that same reason a true sweatshop. You gotta be willing to do tedious, mind-numbing, grunt-level work (endless discovery disputes in sprawling class actions, chasing down emails, the minutia of project management, etc.).

The Kirkland NYC office also some partners that are distinctly unpleasant to work for. You can find some of their names on these forums. They are important SPs in that office, so it's hard to avoid their matters as a junior for too long. I know some mid-levels who made an effort to, and most have now left the firm. Other partners aren't as unpleasant, but require you to really spoon-feed them. It can be tedious because you often feel like a personal assistant moreso than a self-standing lawyer of your own. It's the typical Big Law experience, of course, but it's absolutely magnified, or felt at its most extreme, at K&E NYC lit.

Thank you! Very helpful. K&E is really only in this conversation because (a) a professor of mine I trust is gung-ho for K&E over other firms, (b) I really liked the people I talked to (granted, 70% of which were in a transactional practice), and (c) they seem to be more innovative than other biglaw firms.

I've heard S&C is a similar level of grind to what you're describing with K&E. Do you think that's true or that S&C/Cleary/DPW are relatively similar?

[Anonymous User]

Obviously all are good options. If investigations are your thing, Kirkland is not as strong as some of these others (I have personal xp with 2 of these firms). K&E is good, but not great in this area. In NY specifically, they have like 1 set of SPs that do this work a lot, and they are popular, which means it can be hard to get work over dedicated mid-levels who come from fancy schools/clerkships and really only want to do this stuff. It's sort of like appellate work in that way.)

And keep in mind that Kirkland litigation in the NYC office is a true *grind.* There are some partners that generate a LOT of business from huge clients, but it's for that same reason a true sweatshop. You gotta be willing to do tedious, mind-numbing, grunt-level work (endless discovery disputes in sprawling class actions, chasing down emails, the minutia of project management, etc.).

The Kirkland NYC office also some partners that are distinctly unpleasant to work for. You can find some of their names on these forums. They are important SPs in that office, so it's hard to avoid their matters as a junior for too long. I know some mid-levels who made an effort to, and most have now left the firm. Other partners aren't as unpleasant, but require you to really spoon-feed them. It can be tedious because you often feel like a personal assistant moreso than a self-standing lawyer of your own. It's the typical Big Law experience, of course, but it's absolutely magnified, or felt at its most extreme, at K&E NYC lit.

Thank you! Very helpful. K&E is really only in this conversation because (a) a professor of mine I trust is gung-ho for K&E over other firms, (b) I really liked the people I talked to (granted, 70% of which were in a transactional practice), and (c) they seem to be more innovative than other biglaw firms.

I've heard S&C is a similar level of grind to what you're describing with K&E. Do you think that's true or that S&C/Cleary/DPW are relatively similar?

All of the firms you mentioned will be grindy to an extent, esp. coming in as a junior. It's NYC Big Law. But my point is that K&E will be meaningfully more grindy and sweatshop-like than the others, given the types of cases and partners at the NYC office. Not sure how "innovative" they will be from a day-in day-out POV of a junior associate. That might be a criterion if you're coming in as a lateral partner or senior associate or totally committed to staying there 7+ years and making partner the long way....

[Anonymous User]

Obviously all are good options. If investigations are your thing, Kirkland is not as strong as some of these others (I have personal xp with 2 of these firms). K&E is good, but not great in this area. In NY specifically, they have like 1 set of SPs that do this work a lot, and they are popular, which means it can be hard to get work over dedicated mid-levels who come from fancy schools/clerkships and really only want to do this stuff. It's sort of like appellate work in that way.)

And keep in mind that Kirkland litigation in the NYC office is a true *grind.* There are some partners that generate a LOT of business from huge clients, but it's for that same reason a true sweatshop. You gotta be willing to do tedious, mind-numbing, grunt-level work (endless discovery disputes in sprawling class actions, chasing down emails, the minutia of project management, etc.).

The Kirkland NYC office also some partners that are distinctly unpleasant to work for. You can find some of their names on these forums. They are important SPs in that office, so it's hard to avoid their matters as a junior for too long. I know some mid-levels who made an effort to, and most have now left the firm. Other partners aren't as unpleasant, but require you to really spoon-feed them. It can be tedious because you often feel like a personal assistant moreso than a self-standing lawyer of your own. It's the typical Big Law experience, of course, but it's absolutely magnified, or felt at its most extreme, at K&E NYC lit.

Thank you! Very helpful. K&E is really only in this conversation because (a) a professor of mine I trust is gung-ho for K&E over other firms, (b) I really liked the people I talked to (granted, 70% of which were in a transactional practice), and (c) they seem to be more innovative than other biglaw firms.

I've heard S&C is a similar level of grind to what you're describing with K&E. Do you think that's true or that S&C/Cleary/DPW are relatively similar?

All of the firms you mentioned will be grindy to an extent, esp. coming in as a junior. It's NYC Big Law. But my point is that K&E will be meaningfully more grindy and sweatshop-like than the others, given the types of cases and partners at the NYC office. Not sure how "innovative" they will be from a day-in day-out POV of a junior associate. That might be a criterion if you're coming in as a lateral partner or senior associate or totally committed to staying there 7+ years and making partner the long way....

Fair enough. I don't expect to be at whatever firm I pick more than a few years at most so probably not a reasonable consideration.

[Anonymous User]

To the people voting DPW, why? I thought these firms were all very similar so I'm confused by why it's jumped out so aggressively in the lead. If there's a clear reason I'm missing I'd love to hear it!

[Anonymous User]

To the people voting DPW, why? I thought these firms were all very similar so I'm confused by why it's jumped out so aggressively in the lead. If there's a clear reason I'm missing I'd love to hear it!

N = 25 bruh...

[Anonymous User]

To the people voting DPW, why? I thought these firms were all very similar so I'm confused by why it's jumped out so aggressively in the lead. If there's a clear reason I'm missing I'd love to hear it!

N = 25 bruh...

I probably commented slightly too soon, but there was a point early on where it was 7 DPW to 1 Cleary and 0s for the rest which seemed really weird. It looks to be leveling out now tho.